[Logic]

Here's the challenge:

1. Find something wrong in the Quran.

2. Find contradictions in the Quran.


One rule: keep it civil or don't post.


Discuss™

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
Here's the challenge:

1. Find something wrong in the Quran.

2. Find contradictions in the Quran.


One rule: keep it civil or don't post.


Discuss™

Request for clarification:

Are those steps, or either-or ?

What would 'wrong' be? I mean, if we accept the totality of the Quran as a text, how could anything within it be 'wrong'? Modern folks who come from the secular humanist school would find all sorts of things 'wrong' but if we're simply looking at it in it's own light, there's no right or wrong, it is simply what it is. Surely, the Pork Council would find wrong, feminsts might, but they wouldn't be considering it in it's totality, they'd be considering it in light of their own concerns and beliefs.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Request for clarification:

Are those steps, or either-or ?

What would 'wrong' be? I mean, if we accept the totality of the Quran as a text, how could anything within it be 'wrong'? Modern folks who come from the secular humanist school would find all sorts of things 'wrong' but if we're simply looking at it in it's own light, there's no right or wrong, it is simply what it is. Surely, the Pork Council would find wrong, feminsts might, but they wouldn't be considering it in it's totality, they'd be considering it in light of their own concerns and beliefs

Just either - or Or steps. Just whatever you want.

Factual errors would be most interesting. The Quran talks about the formation and development of the human embryo and the formation of the universe etc. Not things that we find morally wrong. And lets try to discuss it both from a religious POV and a atheist POV. Meaning if it is the word of God and if it is the words of Muhammad only.

edited to add vmarks edit.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
Here's the challenge:

1. Find something wrong in the Quran.

2. Find contradictions in the Quran.


One rule: keep it civil or don't post.


Discuss™

This is pretty easy. I can find many scientific errors but why should we confine this to Islam? Let's go the whole hog and include Tanakh, New Testament, the Hindu texts, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc

Otherwise we're being a partisan and discriminating.

[Logic]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
This is pretty easy. I can find many scientific errors but why should we confine this to Islam? Let's go the whole hog and include Tanakh, New Testament, the Hindu texts, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc

Otherwise we're being a partisan and discriminating.

True, but I wanted to start with islam because that is the religion currently under heavy fire in the world. So, point me to some scientific errors you've found

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
True, but I wanted to start with islam because that is the religion currently under heavy fire in the world. So, point me to some scientific errors you've found

I'm sorry but all religious fanaticism is under fire. Maybe the media in the west concentrates on Islam at the moment but the media is one thing and populations are another.

If we're going to do this we have to work chronologically because many of the stories and observations of nature in the Koran derive from earlier myths and observations from Judaism, Christianity, Ancient Egypt, Greece, India, Mesopotamia, etc. I don't mind doing this as it used to be a hobby of mine years ago - comparitive religion, archaeology and mythology. And even though it was a hobby I took it so seriously I was praised by several academics for my findings (I used to call them up and stalk them hehe ).

[Logic]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
I'm sorry but all religious fanaticism is under fire. Maybe the media in the west concentrates on Islam at the moment but the media is one thing and populations are another.

If we're going to do this we have to work chronologically because many of the stories and observations of nature in the Koran derive from earlier myths and observations from Judaism, Christianity, Ancient Egypt, Greece, India, Mesopotamia, etc. I don't mind doing this as it used to be a hobby of mine years ago - comparitive religion, archaeology and mythology. And even though it was a hobby I took it so seriously I was praised by several academics for my findings (I used to call them up and stalk them hehe ).

Don't be shy. Share it with us.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
Don't be shy. Share it with us.

Where shall we start? We could start in the palaeolithic with man's first observations of the heavens or we could start from roughly 3200BCE when regularly recorded history began. Any particular questions on your mind, such as the things you already mentioned (the foetus, etc)?

[Logic]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Where shall we start? We could start in the palaeolithic with man's first observations of the heavens or we could start from roughly 3200BCE when regularly recorded history began. Any particular questions on your mind, such as the things you already mentioned (the foetus, etc)?

Just anything. Don't be shy. Start with one example.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
Just anything. Don't be shy. Start with one example.

I'm not being shy. It's a complex process, it will be a long debate and I want to be sure I'm not wasting thousands of words on someone who doesn't care. That's why I'd prefer you to start if you genuinely are searching for answers. If you are then you'll have questions on your mind already. Just ask them. Or, for example, start with something like 'The Quran says X and Y. Is this scientifically correct and if so how did they know?' and so on. An examination or experiment begins with a hypothesis which is then examined and contested until a conclusion is reached.

[Logic]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
I'm not being shy. It's a complex process, it will be a long debate and I want to be sure I'm not wasting thousands of words on someone who doesn't care. That's why I'd prefer you to start if you genuinely are searching for answers. If you are then you'll have questions on your mind already. Just ask them. Or, for example, start with something like 'The Quran says X and Y. Is this scientifically correct and if so how did they know?' and so on. An examination or experiment begins with a hypothesis which is then examined and contested until a conclusion is reached.

OK, lets start with the Quran and embryology. Is what the Quran says correct and if it is correct how could that be known at that time.

Good enough?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
OK, lets start with the Quran and embryology. Is what the Quran says correct and if it is correct how could that be known at that time.

Good enough?

This one is far simpler and doesn't require me to write a long article. Just a few simple points:

-Women have been having miscarriages forever. All mammals do. But humans have been able to observe, record and talk about it for thousands of years.

-Abortions had been carried out long before the Quran was written.

-There was a huge amount of infant deaths and the death of pregnant women in pre-industrial times. Autopsies are not a new thing. The Egyptians, Greeks and Indians performed them all the time. Arabs shared knowledge with them.

-The first calendars ever made where inscribed along bones and were based on the female menstrual cycle. This dates back to 25,000 years. That's a very long time. Mankind (and womankind) has been observing the female reproductive system for eons.

That being said, let's look at a particularly strong error in the Quran with regards to the reproductive system, this time the male reproductive system. The Quran states that sperm is made in the kidneys, between the backbone and ribs. A mistake derived from poor Greek science:

http://www.secularislam.org/guide/embryology.htm

In the Quranic translation by Maulana Fazlur Rahman Munshi, the Ayat (86:6-7) were translated as:_ semen are produced from the back of a man and from the breasts (mammary glands) of an woman.

Sura 86:6-7 : is interesting since it claims that during the act of sexual intercourse before which a man is created, the "gushing fluid" or semen issues from between the loins and ribs. Semen is apparently coming out of the area around the kidneys and back, which is a real scientific mistake for we know that the testicles are the sites of sperm production (although the ancient Greeks were not so convinced. Aristotle for example amusingly believed that they functioned as weights to keep the seminal passages open during sexual intercourse.

The Greek physician Hippocrates and his followers taught in the fifth century BC that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis. Clearly according to this view sperm originates from the region of the kidneys, and although there is serious scientific error_ to this teaching today, it was well-known in the 7th century period, and shows how the Qur'an could contain such an erroneous statement._ So this is_ an example of an incorrect ancient Greek idea re-emerging in the Qur'an.

[Developer]

I own a Quran but never really read in it (neither did I read the bible), so I don't know any parts that are "wrong with it" off hand. I looked into the index what nasty things it has to say about Christians, and this is the first mention of them:

"Look those, who believe, and the Jews and the ones from Nazareth and Sabas - whoever believes in god and the jugdment day, those have their wage at their lord, and fear will not overcome them, and they won't be sag."

At first sight this looks like a call for peaceful coexistence of all three religions.

But what this really means is that all three religions are used to suppress the working class. "Work, pray, shut the up, and be happy!" is the motto here.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Logic:
Here's the challenge:

1. Find something wrong in the Quran.

2. Find contradictions in the Quran.


One rule: keep it civil or don't post.


Discuss™

This question is flawed. In order to read the Quran properly, one has to read it in its original language.

This is itself a major flaw: To assume that God (Allah) is only capable of relating his instructions in a single language. Of course, God is probably fluent in a good few languages (maybe even Welsh), so this doctrine of "Arabic-only if you want it properly" leads to the conclusion that the Quran wasn't inspired by God and is, in fact, simply a code of laws. If God were involved, there'd be no weakening of the message upon translation.

[RooneyX]

A bit more:

Man is Created From Clotted blood?


·________ Quran-23:14: Then fashioned We the drop (semen) a CLOT OF CONGEALED BLOOD then fashioned We the clot a little lump (fetus), fashioned We the little lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators.


(Bengali translations of the Quran read: “Zamaa’t Raokto theeke Manoosh banieesi” And this Ayat has been repeated again and again throughout the Quran)


·________ Quran-75:38: Then he becomes a CLOT; then (Allah) shaped and fashioned…


·________ Quran-96:2: Created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood


There are serious scientific problems here:


A blood clot can not grow into anything._ This idea came from the Greeks._ Aristotle erroneously believed that humans are originated from the action of male semen upon female menstrual blood, which is absolutely an incorrect assumption. The Quran’s assertion on the clot (alaqa) is completely wrong about human development, since there is absolutely no stage during which the embryo consists of a clot. The only situation in which an embryo might appear like a clot is during a miscarriage, in which case the clotted blood which is seen to emerge (much of which comes from the mother) is solidified and by definition no longer alive. Therefore, if ever an embryo appeared to look like a clot it would never develop any further into a human; it would be a dead mass of bloody miscarriage. Since Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had some thirteen wives it is entirely possible that he would be very familiar with miscarriages.


Modern science tells us that the formation of human embryo is a seamless continuation from conception to birth, hence there are no hard-and-fast boundaries of stages as the Quran described._ The Quran described 4 stages which matches exactly with Galenic description of the development of the human embryo (which was proved wrong by modern science).


_Creation of bones and clothing of bones with flesh: According to modern embryologists including Prof. ___Moore of Canada____, the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle (flesh) develops. Thus bone and muscles begin to develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially (as the Quran tells us). Moreover, most of the muscle tissue that we human have is laid down before birth, but bones continue to develop and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into one’s teenage years.__ So it would be more accurate if the Quran had said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only scientifically completely wrong/false, but was directly copied from the ancient Greek doctor Galen’s hypothesis.


Also, the idea of saying: “made into bones and clothed the bones with muscle” came from the technique of making animal statues (Moorthy) out of rod and cement or mud. People usually make the skeleton (out of rod or stick) first and, then cover it up with cement or mud. This is scarcely a scientific description of embryonic development. It is rather a description of a layman.

[Logic]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Women have been having miscarriages forever. All mammals do. But humans have been able to observe, record and talk about it for thousands of years.
Abortions had been carried out long before the Quran was written.

-There was a huge amount of infant deaths and the death of pregnant women in pre-industrial times. Autopsies are not a new thing. The Egyptians, Greeks and Indians performed them all the time. Arabs shared knowledge with them.

-The first calendars ever made where inscribed along bones and were based on the female menstrual cycle. This dates back to 25,000 years. That's a very long time. Mankind (and womankind) has been observing the female reproductive system for eons.

How does any of this relate to the embryology part?. We are talking about the verses that talk about the human embryo before it could be seen by the human eye. There were no microscopes 1600 years ago.

Then your link. I'll start with the origin of man. The article questions from where the Quran states that the man origins. Is it a blood clot, water, clay, dust, nothing, earth, a drop of thickened fluid? If you ask a couple of physicists what bread is made of and one says atoms and another one molecules are they wrong? Remember that the Quran was made so everyone would be able to read it so it wouldn't use "scientific terms" if they were available at that time. We all know that humans are made mostly of water so there is no need to explain that. But then we have the dust comment. All living material are made of biological material that when it has been dead for a while creates dust. Then we have the clay comment. Isn't clay just water and dust? the nothing part. Everything is made from the big bang. Current theories can't explain what was before so that might be the nothing. For more about this you should read up on Prof. Keith Moore and what he found out after studying the verses regarding this after working on it for 3 years.

Here is one article by him on this subject.

A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an



Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
The Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada.
Address all correspondence to:
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D, F.I.A.C., Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M55 IAB, Canada

Statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur'an. It is only recently that the scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully. The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of awareness of scientific knowledge.

Interest in explanations of the verses of the Qur'an is not new. People used to ask the prophet Muhammad all sorts of questions about the meaning of verses referring to human reproduction. The Apostle's answers form the basis of the Hadith literature.

The translations(*) of the verses from the Qur'an which are interpreted in this paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, a Professor of Islamic Studies in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
"He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."

This statement is from Sura 39:6. We do not know when it was realized that human beings underwent development in the uterus (womb), but the first known illustration of a fetus in the uterus was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. In the 2nd century A.D., Galen described the placenta and fetal membranes in his book "On The Formation of the Foetus." Consequently, doctors in the 7th century A.D. likely knew that the human embryo developed in the uterus. It is unlikely that they knew that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B.C. The realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed and illustrated until the 15th century.

After the microscope was discovered in the 17th century by Leeuwenhoek descriptions were made of the early stages of the chick embryo. The staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century. Streeter (1941) developed the first system of staging which has now been replaced by a more accurate system proposed by O'Rahilly (1972).

"The three veils of darkness" may refer to: (l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane (Fig. 1). Although there are other interpretations of this statement, the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological point of view.

_
"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."
This statement is from Sura 23:13. The drop or nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This interpretation is supported by another verse in the Qur'an which states that "a human being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop").
"Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure."
This statement is from Sura 23:14. The word "alaqah" refers to a leech or bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24 days resembles a leech (Fig. 2). As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it is smaller than a kernel of wheat.

_
"Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump."
This statement is also from Sura 23:14. The Arabic word "mudghah" means "chewed substance or chewed lump." Toward the end of the fourth week, the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh (Fig. 3). The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the vertebrae.
"Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh."
_
This continuation of Sura 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.
"Then We developed out of it another creature."
This next part of Sura 23:14 implies that the bones and muscles result in the formation of another creature. This may refer to the human-like embryo that forms by the end of the eighth week. At this stage it has distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all the internal and external organs and parts. After the eighth week, the human embryo is called a fetus. This may be the new creature to which the verse refers.
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."
This part of Sura 32:9 indicates that the special senses of hearing, seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.
"Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly unformed."
This part of Sura 22:5 seems to indicate that the embryo is composed of both differentiated and undifferentiated tissues. For example, when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. It later differentiates into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones.
"And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term."
This next part of Sura 22:5 seems to imply that God determines which embryos will remain in the uterus until full term. It is well known that many embryos abort during the first month of development, and that only about 30% of zygotes that form, develop into fetuses that survive until birth. This verse has also been interpreted to mean that God determines whether the embryo will develop into a boy or girl.
_
The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science of modern Embryology affords us new understanding. Undoubtedly there are other verses in the Qur'an related to human development that will be understood in the future as our knowledge increases.

[Logic]

Other scientists that have been contacted to verify these verses are these and this is what they have had to say about it.

1) Dr. E. Marshall Johnson, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, and the Director of the Daniel Baugh Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA. Author of over 200 publications. Former President of the Teratology Society among other accomplishments. After studying the verses of the Qur'an he came to the following conclusion:_

"The Qur'an describes not only the development of external form but emphasizes also the internal stages - the stages inside the embryo of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science... If I was to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I do today and describing things, I could not describe the things that were described... I see no evidence to refute the concept that this individual Muhammad had to be developing this information from some place... so I see nothing in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved..."


2) Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson. Professor and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Baylor Collage of Medicine, Houston, Texas. He is the President of the American Fertility Society, and has served in many other professional, national, and international organizations. He has received numerous awards including Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology Public Recognition Award in 1992. He has published more than 400 chapters and articles in journals and books. He says:_

"... these Hadeeths (sayings of Muhammad) could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of the writer'... It follows that not only is there no conflict between genetics and religion (Islam) but in fact religion (Islam) may guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches... There exist statements in the Qur'an shown centuries later to be valid which support knowledge in the Qur'an having been derived from God."_


3) Dr. T.V.N. Persaud. Professor and Head of the Department of Anatomy, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, and Associate Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. He is the author and editor of 25 books, has contributed 31 chapters to publications, and has published over 180 scientific papers. In 1991 he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists. He says:_

"Muhammad was a very ordinary man, he couldn't read, didn't know how to write, in fact he was an illiterate... were talking about 1400 years ago, you have some illiterate person making profound statements that are amazingly accurate, of a scientific nature... I personally can't see how this could be mere chance, there are too many accuracies and like Dr. Moore, I have no difficulty in my mind reconciling that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which lead him to these statements."


4) After a study which lasted ten years, the famous French physician Dr. Maurice Bucaille addressed the French Academy of Medicine in 1976 and expressed the complete agreement of the Qur'an and established findings of modern science. He presented his study on the existence in the Qur'an of certain statements concerning physiology and reproduction. His reason for doing that was that_

"our knowledge of these disciplines is such, that it is impossible to explain how a text produced at the time of the Qur'an could have contained ideas that have only been discovered in modern times."

Based upon his extensive study of these issues over many years, Dr. Bucaille later converted to Islam.


5) Dr. Tejatet Tejasen, Head of the Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chiang Mai, Thailand. After his study on the Qur'an passages dealing with embryology:_

"From my studies and what I have learnt at this conference I believe that everything that has been recorded in the Qur'an 1400 years ago must be true. That can be proved the scientific way."


6) Dr. Arther J. Alison. head of the Department of Electronical and Electronics Engineering in a British University after researching the field of Parapsychology and spiritual treatment of man in the light of the Qur'an and current scientific knowledge was so completely amazed at the scientific accuracy of the statements he found in the Qur'an in this regard that he converted to Islam and is now named Abdullah Alison. He urges all Western scientists to get acquainted with Islam which "addresses both intellect and sentiments at the same time." Dr. Alison worked for six years as the chairman of the British Parapsychology and Spiritual Studies Society. This position, led him to deeply study different religions and philosophies, including Islam. Dr. Alison placed special emphasis in his study on the relationship between death and sleep, and the conformance of scientific data to the claims he later found in the Qur'an were the reason for his final conversion. Dr. Alison exclaimed "my joy knew no bounds as the results of my study were so convincing and, thus I discovered Islam." he added. He regretted that the West is totally ignorant about the scientific approach of Islam. "During our discussion at this conference (in Cairo) , we have arrived at conclusive evidence that Islam does not contradict science, and plan to do further research on parapsychology in the light of the Qur'an."_

OK, now on to Surah 86:6-7.

Three tafseers were found to find out an accurate translation of this verse, Tafseer At-Tabari, Ibn Katheer, and As-Saabooni. It is important to remember that most of the Quranic translations are by people who arabic wasn't their native tounge. It appears that what Bucaille has said on this matter is correct. It is important to note that 'sulb' which is in the arabic version of the Quran is in singular. The translation to backbone is only if we take the plural form of sulb. The singular word means hardening.

All three tafseers say that 'sulb' belong to the man. The hardening of the man is obvious in what it means, since that verse is about the act of ...... you know what. The term taraa'ib is described as the erogenous zones of humans. So on this I suggest you read some of Bucailles work.

I'll let this do for now on this and ask you to read Bucailles later work on this and Prof. Moore as well.

[RooneyX]

I read those passages a long time ago. An Egyptian friend of mine, who still considers himself Muslim in the liberal sense despite his investigations, found that nearly all those names mentioned in Islamic propaganda leaflets were fictional. The so-called 'experts' don't exist in many cases. Other amazing claims in Islamic propaganda material were such things as 'Armstrong heard the Islamic prayer call on the moon and upon returning to earth he converted to Islam'. When Neil Armstrong heard his name being used like this he made a strong public refutal.

What's even more disturbing in the 'expert' testimonies you've posted is that they make not one single reference to the flawed Greek sciences passed on to the Arabs andmuch of the world at the time.

The argument that one cannot interpret Arabic text translated into another language doesn't work either. It's a scapegoat tactic. Though a single Arabic word could be translated several ways in English or other language, a whole sentence or paragraph cannot be totally mistranslated. And when dozens of Arabs themselves have made those translations then the errors in the Quran cannot be ignored. Put them down to the way people thought and what they thought was right over a 1000 years ago. Just because religious texts are flawed doesn't mean you can't believe in a God or that you aren't allowed to pray.

Belief and prayer can exist in the absence of religion.

[Developer]

It's from the other thread, but I put it here, because I think it's more on topic in this one.

Oiginally posted by RooneyX:
·________ Quran-9:29: Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the polltax (jiziya) with the hand of humility.

to which Logic replied:

Originally posted by Logic:
First of all, you should at least show the respect to quote the whole verses.

Then just one word. Context.

So I looked into the Quran for the context and the next verse is:

9:30: "And the Jews say: 'Uzair is the son of god.' And the Christians say: 'The Messiah is the son of god.' Such is the word of their mouth. They talk like the infidels mentioned before. God, beat them to death! They are out of their mind!"

So, in which context is that "not wrong"? And how does this fit to 2:59 I quoted above?

[voodoo]

OK

one very important fact.

I (voodoo) am not Logic. Mmmmkay Developer?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Developer:
It's from the other thread, but I put it here, because I think it's more on topic in this one.

to which Voodoo replied:

So I looked into the Quran for the context and the next verse is:

9:30: "And the Jews say: 'Uzair is the son of god.' And the Christians say: 'The Messiah is the son of god.' Such is the word of their mouth. They talk like the infidels mentioned before. God, beat them to death! They are out of their mind!"

So, in which context is that "not wrong"? And how does this fit to 2:59 I quoted above?

It was actually me that replied the above

I don't know what translation you have but this is the verse in my Quran, translated by Yusuf Ali who is considered have gotten the spiritual feeling of the Quran the best.

30. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah.s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

I'll look better into it tomorrow though. And again, context is very important.

[RooneyX]

Of course. All religions have been mistranslated from their original language, all of their mistakes are out of context too. Therefore all religions are right. That throws up a dilema.

But I'll be phoning those universities on Monday to ask about those scholars. The last time I did this years ago I couldn't find any of the ones at Cambridge or Liverpool Uni that were mentioned in British Islamic leaflets. Now I'm in the US I can do it again here.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Logic:
I don't know what translation you have but this is the verse in my Quran, translated by Yusuf Ali who is considered have gotten the spiritual feeling of the Quran the best.

I have a German translation by Max Henning (which I don't know how good it is considered). It definitely says "Allah, beat them to death! They are out of their mind!" ("Allah schlag sie tot! Sie sind verstandeslos!")

You're welcome to provide context on why this is "right" (or not contradicting with 2:59).

ps:
sorry for confusing you two.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Developer:
I have a German translation by Max Henning (which I don't know how good it is considered). It definitely says "Allah, beat them to death! They are out of their mind!" ("Allah schlag sie tot! Sie sind verstandeslos!")

You're welcome to provide context on why this is "right".

You can find all the texts translated by Arab scholars on many Islamic sites an easy Google step away.

But I've had this debate so many times and it's always like banging one's head against a wall of faith and false evidence.

[DeathToWindows]

to deviate a bit: I'm a reform Jew and as such I choose what to believe from the Torah...

yes, in light of modern science, much of what is stated as biblical fact is a little problematic to say the least, therefore I bridge faith and science by intermingling them.

I want proof... but I have a hard time accepting that the universe does not have some external rationality to it (i.e. a G-D figure)

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Logic:
How does any of this relate to the embryology part?. We are talking about the verses that talk about the human embryo before it could be seen by the human eye. There were no microscopes 1600 years ago.

Eh? Why would God/Allah need a microscope to divinely inspire an author to write the truth if He were really involved in the process?

Sorry, but if God is really omnipotent, omniscient, and all that jazz, lack of instrumentation does not fly as an excuse for His Divine Text getting it wrong.

BlackGriffen

[Logic]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Eh? Why would God/Allah need a microscope to divinely inspire an author to write the truth if He were really involved in the process?

Sorry, but if God is really omnipotent, omniscient, and all that jazz, lack of instrumentation does not fly as an excuse for His Divine Text getting it wrong.

BlackGriffen

His text didn't get it wrong. That is the point. My point was that if it was only Muhammad that wrote that he would have been very lucky to get all those things correct since he couldn't see it.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
His text didn't get it wrong. That is the point. My point was that if it was only Muhammad that wrote that he would have been very lucky to get all those things correct since he couldn't see it.

But they're not correct at all. Why do you talk about context yet snip everything about Greek knowledge passing on to the Arabs out of the reply? It's this religious hypocrisy the world has been laughing at for some time now.

Do you know about the fragments of early copies of the Koran found in Yemen that clearly showed several drafts of the Koran being written and rewritten by several authors?

You're probably not even aware that the whole 'book from God' story didn't even come about until the 4th century. Yes, it doesn't go back to Moses. It was a story invented long, long after and the Arabs simply came up with their own. The Torah itself says nothing about giving a book to Moses (there were no 'books' in those days). Yet the Koran continues to believe what was a post-diaspora story.

God is not a book writer. If he was his words would be so powerful it would convince every soul on earth without human help.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Logic:
His text didn't get it wrong. That is the point. My point was that if it was only Muhammad that wrote that he would have been very lucky to get all those things correct since he couldn't see it.

Eh? It seems that Rooney has you pegged on the "source of the sperm" question. And you don't need a microscope to see how the plumbing is put together (various tubes and such).

It also doesn't take a microscope to tell that one's balls have something to do with it. Not to mention that it isn't very hard to "discern" that the prostate plays a role as well.

That said, tough luck. Either Muhammad got it wrong because he wasn't God's boy, or God wasn't dishing out Pure Truth that day (this is the "metaphorical" dodge that the sane Christians use).

Also, if the book is His Devine Text, and He is Perfect, then there had better not even be one bloody punctuation mistake. If there is, it's a sign that the human author was not really plugged into the Infallible Divine, but just talking out of his @ss. After all, how could a Perfect God make so elementary a mistake as misplacing a period.

Let alone where sperm comes from.

Re: embriology - that's nice, but not enough to bat 1000. How could Almighty Allah bat less than 1000?

BlackGriffen

[Logic]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Eh? It seems that Rooney has you pegged on the "source of the sperm" question. And you don't need a microscope to see how the plumbing is put together (various tubes and such).

It also doesn't take a microscope to tell that one's balls have something to do with it. Not to mention that it isn't very hard to "discern" that the prostate plays a role as well.

How does he have me pegged down on the source of the sperm issue? I've already explained that to him above:

OK, now on to Surah 86:6-7.

Three tafseers were found to find out an accurate translation of this verse, Tafseer At-Tabari, Ibn Katheer, and As-Saabooni. It is important to remember that most of the Quranic translations are by people who arabic wasn't their native tounge. It appears that what Bucaille has said on this matter is correct. It is important to note that 'sulb' which is in the arabic version of the Quran is in singular. The translation to backbone is only if we take the plural form of sulb. The singular word means hardening.

All three tafseers say that 'sulb' belong to the man. The hardening of the man is obvious in what it means, since that verse is about the act of ...... you know what. The term taraa'ib is described as the erogenous zones of humans. So on this I suggest you read some of Bucailles work.

And the verse he used isn't even remotely correct. Here is the Yusuf Ali translation of those two:

5. Now let man but think from what he is created!

6. He is created from a drop emitted-

7. Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:


So there is one word there that is incorrectly translated, but if you take a look at what I had already posted this will all make sense to you.

That said, tough luck. Either Muhammad got it wrong because he wasn't God's boy, or God wasn't dishing out Pure Truth that day (this is the "metaphorical" dodge that the sane Christians use).

Also, if the book is His Devine Text, and He is Perfect, then there had better not even be one bloody punctuation mistake. If there is, it's a sign that the human author was not really plugged into the Infallible Divine, but just talking out of his @ss. After all, how could a Perfect God make so elementary a mistake as misplacing a period.

Let alone where sperm comes from.

Re: embriology - that's nice, but not enough to bat 1000. How could Almighty Allah bat less than 1000?

BlackGriffen

I will hopefully be able to be more precise tomorrow since it's late/early here at the moment. But I've got to ask you to read what I have already posted and especially the article By Prof. Moore.

Rooney, I'll get back to you tomorrow.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:


Rooney, I'll get back to you tomorrow. [/B]

Tomorrow is no good. First you play the 'Don't be shy' game, then you play the 'out of context' game while snipping my replies. It's a waste of time. If you think you'll find converts here forget it. It's just silliness thinking a book fell from the sky.

'I'm invaded your house and will kill your unbeliever family unless you convert or pay me a tax...'

I'm not saying what comes after that. Full context not necassary.

[Logic]

Here is another explanation of the verse in question:

Ayah 86:6-7

Rooney, you seem to have forgotten the one rule I wanted you to respect. The clock is 03:55 and I have to be in school tomorrow. Sorry for not staying up all night elaborating on my point

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
The clock is 03:55 and I have to be in school tomorrow.

Ah.

All this time a rationalist adult screenwriter/director was arguing with a Islamic literalist schoolboy from Iceland. I feel like a total idiot (really am blushing).

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Ah.

All this time a rationalist adult screenwriter/director was arguing with a Islamic literalist schoolboy from Iceland. I feel like a total idiot (really am blushing).

Perhaps now you know how I feel when dealing with the infidel.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
Perhaps now you know how I feel when dealing with the infidel.

By calling them infidel you're doing the same thing as those you criticise. 'Infidel' means 'unfaithful' and implies you also have a fanatical vision of a faith.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
By calling them infidel you're doing the same thing as those you criticise. 'Infidel' means 'unfaithful' and implies you also have a fanatical vision of a faith.

hmmm. Perhaps you're taking this moniker seriously. When I toss around terms like apostate or infidel, I use them only to parody the Islamic extremists and crazies that spew this hate and set up oppressive theocracies (e.g., Iran, Taliban). I have no vision of faith, except in my desire to see mankind living a Star Trek future.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Ah.

All this time a rationalist adult screenwriter/director was arguing with a Islamic literalist schoolboy from Iceland. I feel like a total idiot (really am blushing).

not quite schoolboy.

and stop being an asshole. this thread was an experiment, and you're failing badly, however correct you may be.

-s*

[Logic]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Ah.

All this time a rationalist adult screenwriter/director was arguing with a Islamic literalist schoolboy from Iceland. I feel like a total idiot (really am blushing).

I thought screenwriters had to learn to read:

One rule: keep it civil or don't post.

And this schoolboy is finishing his B.Sc. in Molecular Biology at the same time as he is preparing his Ph.D. in immunology.

But I see that there is little to gain from trying to talk with you on this......

But I don't want to give up on this thread just yet, so keep 'em coming guys.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Ah.

All this time a rationalist adult screenwriter/director was arguing with a Islamic literalist schoolboy from Iceland. I feel like a total idiot (really am blushing).

So... made any ah good movies

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
The argument that one cannot interpret Arabic text translated into another language doesn't work either. It's a scapegoat tactic...

No it's not actually. It is a very legitimate point. It's not particularly easy to translate the Qu'ran. Some words do not translate properly and their meaning is lost. Just look at all the online 'translations' available. They all differ! indeed some sites deliberately miss-translate passages to suit their own agenda.

If you really want to understand the Qur'an you must read it in the language it was revealed as - Arabic. You are standing on shaky ground by relying on translations. At least if you have read it in Arabic you are much more likely to be able to recognise which translations are more accurate.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
No it's not actually. It is a very legitimate point. It's not particularly easy to translate the Qu'ran. Some words do not translate properly and their meaning is lost.

The same rule applies then to Sanskrit, Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts. Therefore the Arabs have been translating the texts of other religions wrong prior to Islam and taking everything out of context. In this light Muslims will have to admit that all other religions are also correct, scientific and from God.

It seems you want these rules of mistranslations and context to apply to Islam alone. Let's apply it to all religions. Therefore all religions are right and any criticism they have of each other is down to bad translations, After all, how many copies of the Tanakh, New Testament and the Bhagavad Gita exist in Arabic?

Sanskrit is a far harder language to translate into English than Arabic (which is hardly a world apart from Aramaic, Hebrew and Akkadian - all translated fine) due to how words are joined together in strings and the consonantal system of writing, and yet we don't find such hideous remarks in the Upanishads or the Dhamapada exhorting people to slaughter unbelievers, in or out of context. What's more, Carl Sagan, a real and not fictional scientist everyone knows well, said that out of all the religions the Vedic texts were the only ones close to resembling anything scientific. Even then it's not like he was going to join any religion.

[gadster]

OK here's a good one from the Bible. The Bible, my fave cookbook.

See, Adam And Eve flee from god's orchard thingy because there be snakes about. Then THEY WANDER OFF AND GET PARTNERS. God didn't consider these other peeps worthy of nary a mention, they must have come from the, well pythons, hardly snakes. Democrat side of the family??

Anyway, after many begats, here we are living in a cesspool of hatred. Nice.

Stinky, but nice. Peaceful and unusual. Noice.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
No it's not actually. It is a very legitimate point. It's not particularly easy to translate the Qu'ran. Some words do not translate properly and their meaning is lost. Just look at all the online 'translations' available. They all differ! indeed some sites deliberately miss-translate passages to suit their own agenda.

If you really want to understand the Qur'an you must read it in the language it was revealed as - Arabic. You are standing on shaky ground by relying on translations. At least if you have read it in Arabic you are much more likely to be able to recognise which translations are more accurate.

I can only assume from this that:

• God had no part in the writing of the Quran (because like I mentioned, God can probably even speak Welsh - He'd know what can and can't be easily translated to other languages). or...

• God intended the message of the Quran only for the Arabic speaking people of the World.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by Logic:
[B]I thought screenwriters had to learn to read:

One rule: keep it civil or don't post.
B]

You have the nerve to quote that rule? hahahah!

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Sherwin:

• God intended the message of the Quran only for the Arabic speaking people of the World.

All cultures, even individuals, define God in their own terms and create his personality after their own. The rule should be to keep your God to yourselves.

[Logic]

I found this article for you guys regarding why the Quran was revealed in arabic. And please keep an open mind, I'm not trying to convert anyone just wanted some good discussion about this. And one more thing, if you can't keep it civil then don't post.

Language of the Quran





edited because the article was way too long to post it here.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
I found this article for you guys regarding why the Quran was revealed in arabic.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Logic:
I'll look better into it tomorrow though. And again, context is very important.

All right, it's tomorrow. I think we made the challenge.

1.) Find a contradiction:

2:62 - Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

-> All 3 religions are sort of equal.

9:30 - The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

-> Jews and Christians suck.

A contradiction, qed.

2.) Find something wrong :

I think 9:30 already qualifies as "something wrong". It's not nice to wish that god may curse someone (in my Quran's translation wish death to Jews and Christians).

There's also

8:12 - Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Wishing death and mutilation to others is definitely wrong, qed.

[RooneyX]

8:12 - Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

God must be running that Ogrish website and helping the Chechens, Afghans and Pakistanis with their mutilation videos.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Logic:
Here is another explanation of the verse in question:

Ayah 86:6-7

OK, his argumentation is that the Quran is wrong here, because it is intentionally wrong (to relate to existing knowledge of the time).

Of course with this argumentation - if it's wrong, it's intentionally wrong - everything in the Quran is right by definition. That is called a dogma. Impossible to argue against that.

And neither this guy, nor his "physician friends" ever heard of the prostate, so I have difficulties taking him serious.