Errors in the Qur'an

[Magnanimity]

That’s very kind of you to say, @Niblo. Although I am not in your religious “fold,” I am happy to stand beside you, as it were, in solidarity against attacks of the sacred writings of “Muslims who,” in the words of Vatican Council 2, “professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” Lumen gentium 16.

Peace be with you.

 

[Niblo]

That’s very kind of you to say, @Niblo. Although I am not in your religious “fold,” I am happy to stand beside you, as it were, in solidarity against attacks of the sacred writings of “Muslims who,” in the words of Vatican Council 2, “professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” Lumen gentium 16.

Peace be with you.

And also with you, brother. Thank you.

May the Exalted bless you, and your family: and may He continue to fill your hearts with love, and with a deep regard for fairness and honesty in your dealings with others…especially for those who do not always see Him quite as you do, but who love and serve Him just as much.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Jews asked Muslims that verse during prophet Muahammad. Prophet said: Do Jews not use their ancestor names? Prophet Muhammad interpret that verse in that way. Mary’s brother name could be Aaron, could not?

There is absolutely no evidence that Mary had a brother named Aaron. The Qur’an says the Virgin Mary’s father is Amram and her brother is Aaron. It’s obvious that the Qur’an is confusing Mary with Miriam. Later Muslims who encountered this fabricated the hadith saying. Hadiths cannot be trusted, they didn’t even begin to be written down until a century and a half after your prophet’s death.

Qur’an is a book but Qur’an was not revealed as a whole book. It was revealed gradually which last about 23 years. So the revelation which was revealed to Jesus is called “Injil”. Jesus preached that revelation(Jesus always said he talked from what Father taught) and some people wrote some part of that revelation as Gospels with Jesus life story. Don’t you know that?

According to Islamic belief the 114 surahs (and other ones that were lost) were revealed to Muhammad over a 22 year period which is the Qur’an. According to traditional Islamic belief, the Qur’an existed with Allah before the creation of the world and then was gradually revealed to Muhammad. Islamic belief seems to believe something similar about the gospel even though Christians don’t believe in this at all. There is no hint that Jesus received a book from Allah called the Injil. The Qur’an simply misunderstood what Christians believe about the four gospels which are nothing like the Qur’an. This is probably due to the fact that in the time of Muhammad the four gospels were often combined into a single work known as the Diatesseron. Muhammad simply misunderstood what Christians believed about this.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

As you can see, Al-Ma’ida 116 does not name any particular group. I opine that it is not Christians who are being condemned for taking Mary as a god; it is the Collyridians, and possibly the Mariamites.

There is no evidence the Collrydians existed in 7th century Arabia. There is only one source that ever mentions their existence and it’s from St. Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century which has led many scholars to question if this sect really ever existed at all.

 

[mhmtas63]

Islam is so close it’s frustrating. I don’t know what to make of it. But truth cannot contradict truth, and St. Paul wrote, “though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we preached to you, a curse upon him!” (Galatians 1:8) 530 years before Muhammad was born. The Qur’an claims that the Injil we have received from the Apostles is not the true Injil, and that the Angel Jibreel communicated this.

The Qur’an is not powerless, there is terrible power in it. I am just concerned about the source of that power. The worst lies are almost entirely true — almost . Consider that if our Islamic cousins were Christians, the world would have nearly 5 billion of us now. The Enemy probably foresaw that and was desperate to sow division.

Could not Satan had done something with Paul! He was not a prophet!

 

[YHWH_Christ]

The apostles of Jesus accepted Paul and interestingly enough so did the early scholars of your own religion. It wasn’t until later when they found contradictions between the Bible and Qur’an when your scholars started slandering St. Paul and also Ezra.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

“If Islamic sacred writings are merely the product of a mentally ill person with many errors within, how could there be almost 2,000,000,000 adherents?”

Argumentum ad populum. This is an illogical argument that doesnt further debate toward any truth.
Perhaps there are other reasons they have so many adherents… conversion by force or threat… perhaps their persuasion was couched in Argumentum ad baculum.
Convert or die, convert or pay a burdonsome tax, and then forbid leaving their false system on pain of death.
History has proven this can be a very persuasive argument for proselytizers.

…“I think that a reasonable person would think that there must be a substantial amount of truth and goodness within the sacred writings of Muslims and within the moral tradition that they advocate.”

No, I am a reasonable person. I dont agree. I have read the koran and many of the hadiths.

“Since forever, though not as you’ve phrased it. You’ve made it very specific—“proof as to its truth.” I’ve not used this language.”

As we can see above, you have used that language, by connecting the number of members with the presence of truth in the system. Thats one of the big problems with using illogical arguments as you have been doing. Its difficult to keep track of what is being said when it leads the listener away from the truth.

“It’s all well and good to attack a religion no longer in existence, I suppose (Greek mythological deities), but attacking an extant religion of enormous influence and importance?!”

According to you, we can only question systems of thought when they have no aderents… and we should all be silent for fear of upsetting people who dont want their systems challenged with vigour.
What a scary proposition, because this it the type of politically correct garbage that feeds extremism and error and supresses truth. I am glad Jesus did not take similar advice.

“We all do and with regularity.”

No, we dont. That is utter nonsense. And by saying “we all do”, you try to prove argumentum ad populum is valid by saying “we all do [it]”. You do see what you just did there? … I hope.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

“Moreover, it is valid to argue toward an atheist, for example, that greater than 95% of all humans throughout history have had the tug toward the transcendent (the spiritual/religious impulse).
So, the overwhelming majority of all of humanity has been spiritual/religious. This doesn’t necessitate the truth of religions, but it does put the atheist in the tiny-minority predicament.”

Thats absolutely not valid, and i think atheists would laugh at you if you tried to put that forth as a valid argument for the existence of God. Atheists are just as interested in truth as theists. If it doesnt “necessitate” the truth as you say, then what was said was a waste of time. Being a tiny minority is not predicament because truth is truth even if nobody assents to it.

“But who can be more expert regarding the religious impulse than the one who experiences it?”

This is a meaningless argument. Private experience is not admissable as evidence for public debate because it resides in the inaccessible private sphere. Debates cannot be had if we are going to claim evidence nobody else has access to. Its not compelling, and its not evidence.

 

[Sursumcorda1]

If the Islamic sacred writings are riddled with errors and falsehoods, then again, how do you account for its success?

“Bandwagon” logical fallacy:
Popularity alone does not validate the religion.

 

[Magnanimity]

Thats absolutely not valid, and i think atheists would laugh at you if you tried to put that forth as a valid argument for the existence of God.

Which I didn’t do. But since you seem to like informal logical fallacies, guess which one this supposed laughing atheist would be engaging in. (Drum roll, please…) it’s the “horse laugh” fallacy! Honestly one of my absolute favorite names for a fallacy.

If it doesnt “necessitate” the truth as you say, then what was said was a waste of time.

The reality of God’s existence comes to us through a variety of avenues, right? I’ve studied the existence of God arguments for a long time, and I have yet to come across the one that (either logically or actually) necessarily entails that God exists. I’m sure that if St Thomas knew of the one-and-only argument that makes the existence of God logically or actually undeniable, he would have provided it to us. Rather, he gave us five ways. But as I say, God is known to us via many variant avenues.

This is a meaningless argument. Private experience is not admissable as evidence for public debate because it resides in the inaccessible private sphere.

Guess what makes it publicly accessible when 95% of everyone tells the public that they experience this spiritual/religious internal tug—testimony. When I tell you about myself, I give you access to my internal state, right? It’s called a “testimonially-grounded belief,” and these types of beliefs happen to account for the overwhelming majority of all beliefs that you or anyone holds to—whether from history, religion, the news, the sciences, etc etc.

How do you know that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived? Someone told you so!

How do you know that your neighbor believes in God? She tells you so!

How do you know how your spouse’s work day went? She tells you so!

Testimonially-grounded beliefs—get to know this subject. It’ll serve you well.

 

[Magnanimity]

Popularity alone does not validate the religion.

not sure what “popularity” has to do with success or anything else I’ve mentioned.

 

[historyfan81]

Qur’an claims that Haman was pharaoh’s prime minister
When I read this I was like … what?
Since Haman lived in Babylon one thousand years later

Muslims argue that the book of ester is not right even so the name it self Haman has a Persian Origen not an Egyptian one.

Also that the kana was built Abraham not really an error but no evidence and no sense

A Muslim clima that is an error is that Mecca was super important as a trade center when it was not

 

[Salibi]

Mecca was super important as a trade center when it was not

No, it really was.

Mecca was a site of pilgrimage even for pre-Islamic Arabs. It’s likely that Islam’s high regard for the city and the Hajj are a continuation of this. The ancient Arabs had a law banning warfare and weaponry in and around Mecca, which made it a particularly attractive spot for traders, especially during the pilgrimage season.

 

[GiftofMercy]

A good post dispelling some common misconceptions of Catholics and The Blessed Virgin.

 

[historyfan81]

It’s was forma some tribes and some Arabian polythiest
But Muslims claim it was super important as in international trade route .

But it was not not only do we have no sources of it until after the arbian expansion .

But If it was it would have been invaded by the Romans , Axumites or Persians

Since all of them tried or conquered Yemen Wich was a big international trade

In fact the Persians took a big chunk out of arbia but never showed interest in the area of Mecca .

The Romans conquered a part of mordern day north arbia and sent an invasion force against Yemen

But never aginast the area of Mecca .

The only one who “did” where the axumites in 570 and even then that most likely is false .

For a really big trade center the superpowers of the time really ignored it .

But I do believe the Romans knew of Mecca or heard about it since writings do come that say the Arabs worship stones

 

[Magnanimity]

As we can see above, you have used that language, by connecting the number of members with the presence of truth in the system.

The presence of substantial truth, goodness and beauty within a religion (and this would be the case within all major world religions today) has nothing whatsoever to do with your expression of “proof as to its truth.” Even the phrasing you have used is confusing—what would be a real-world example be of “proof” as to something’s “truth?” In what sense are you using the word “proof?” I didn’t use that word. You introduced it. So what are you talking about, and how does “proof” connect to anything I’ve asserted?

“We all do and with regularity.”

Utter nonsense, huh? I gave you real-world examples of the fact that you absolutely engage in argumentum ad populum and do so regularly. This fact is inescapable. Every scientific belief you currently hold, you do so on the basis of the consensus of the majority (ad populum) of scientists. Care to actually undermine my argument, or is a simple denial all you need to feel satisfied? And I sent you the link that discusses the informal fallacy ad populum because I thought it did a good job of explaining that what makes an argumentum ad populum fallacious—it is when one appeals to the authority of a non-expert.

But in matters of religion (which are deeply personal) who can stand over against the believer and act as judge of that believer’s own internal state? Who is more “expert” of another’s internal state of spirituality than that individual herself? No one can be. No other human has more or better access to my own consciousness than me. There is nothing beyond the believer you can appeal to for confirmation of the believer’s internal state to which she self-attests.

 

[historyfan81]

Correction science is not based on that

While true the nore scientist agree the better the theory or hypothesis becomes universal do to overwhelming evidence for it .
Unless a new hypothesis comes to challenge it .

And if it’s proven then it’s a fact .

And scientist only agree if there is overwhelming evidence.

In science there is no such thing as it’s true because it’s popular( it was in the past )

Example the miasma theory was popular but it was wrong as heck .

With religion the argument makes less sense.

Just because something is popular does not mean it’s true .

In all fields I think that should be applied

And your rigth on Who is more “expert” of another’s internal state of spirituality than that individual herself? No one can be

Your rigth on that but you didn’t have to be .

Since in the Case of muslim since the quran is the literal word of God it can’t have mistakes or contadictions if it does the religion is false .

So you didn’t have to be a spiritual superior being to understand that the quran is not true

 

[Magnanimity]

Correction science is not based on that

While true the nore scientist agree the better the theory or hypothesis becomes universal do to overwhelming evidence for it .
Unless a new hypothesis comes to challenge it .

And if it’s proven then it’s a fact .

Scientific “truths” by their very natures, are provisional—always open to further revision or alteration or even (as in the case of Copernicus) to fundamental revolution. This must be the case, according to the scientific method itself. “Falsifiability” is an inherent quality of any hypothesis. But how can a “proven fact” be falsified? As Karl Popper wrote,

“The empirical basis of objective science has thus nothing ‘absolute’ about it. Science does not rest upon rock-bottom. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural ‘given’ base; and when we cease our attempts to drive our piles into a deeper layer, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that they are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.” The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books, 1959), p.81.

The rules of the scientific method “must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification.“ Popper, p.54.

In science there is no such thing as it’s true because it’s popular

Sure, but I haven’t used the wording of “popular” in any of my posts above. I’ve said “successful.”

Since in the Case of muslim since the quran is the literal word of God it can’t have mistakes or contadictions if it does the religion is false .

So you didn’t have to be a spiritual superior being to understand that the quran is not true

Ok, I think this is a good point. But, I would only suggest to my Islamic fellow-wanderers here on Earth that what you say here is reason to abandon a fundamentalist view of the Qur’an. In my opinion, all fundamentalist approaches to sacred writings (no matter what religion) are problematic because they ascribe to the sacred writings certain attributes that cannot apply to words on paper (e.g., infallibility) or impossible concepts to the writings themselves (e.g., inerrancy). Of course, we all can rightly say that these attributes can apply to God, but attributing inerrancy to sacred writings will always lead the believer into trouble, whether that believer is Catholic or Sunni. It’s an enormous exercise in missing the point. The point of all of life is the encounter with the Divine—to return to the Source and End of our very selves. As the early church fathers used to say, the sacred writings are the revealing of Who has been revealed (the revelation of the Revelation). To go beyond this expression will lead one to splashing around in the very muddy waters of inerrancy. Adventures in missing the point!

 

[Niblo]

There is no evidence the Collrydians existed in 7th century Arabia. There is only one source that ever mentions their existence and it’s from St. Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century which has led many scholars to question if this sect really ever existed at all.

Regrettably, you fail to name any of these ‘many scholars’; nor do you reference their works.

I know of only three: the German preacher Karl Gerok, who is said to have doubted that the Collyridians
could have endured for as long as Epiphanius claims, simply because they were women (no denial of their existence); the American missionary Samuel Marinus Zwemer, who points out – correctly – that the only source of information about this sect comes from St. Epiphanius (both Gerok and Zwemer are cited in Corrie Blocks’ ‘The Qu’ran in Christian-Muslim Dialogue: Historical and Modern Interpretations). Finally, we have the historian Averil Cameron. She agrees with Zwemer that Epiphanius is the sole source of information about the sect (cf: ‘The Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity: Religious Development and Myth-Making’). Please note, Zwemer and Cameron council caution; even scepticism.

It is wise to exercise caution where there is only a single source for an (alleged) historical event. In this case, we have to ask ourselves, just how trustworthy is Epiphanius…is he a liar…is he a gullible fool…can he be trusted…can the authors who quote his words without criticism be trusted?

I first read of the Collyridians in the late seventies. Having expressed a desire to enter a Catholic religious community, I was gifted several books, including a copy of Dr Ludwig Ott’s ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ (I have it still). On page 216 of that book – in the chapter headed ‘The Veneration of Mary – he writes: ‘St Epiphanius teaches in opposition to the sect of the Collyridians who members paid an idolatrous veneration to Mary (he then quotes from the Saint’s ‘Panarion’).’ It would seem that Dr Ott trusted Epiphanius.

Geoffrey Parrinder writes: ‘In Arabia there were in the early centuries some (called Antidicomarianites) who protested against the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there were cults, some semi-pagan, which exalted Mary in unseemly fashion. The Collyridians, an Arabian female sect of the fourth century, offered to Mary cakes of bread (collyrida), as they had done to the great earth mother in pagan times. Epiphanius, who opposed this heresy, said that the Trinity must be worshipped, but Mary must not be worshipped. The Qur’ān may well be directed against this heresy. It gives its support against Mariolatry, while at the same time it recognizes the importance of Mary as the vessel chosen by God for the birth of his Christ.’ (‘Jesus in the Qur’an - Makers of the Muslim World’). It would seem that Parrinder trusted Epiphanius.

(Continued).

 

[Niblo]

Patrick Madrid has an article in ‘Catholic Answers’, in which he writes: ‘Collyridianism stood alone as a heresy that sought to deify the Blessed Virgin Mary. Little is known about the movement’s theology. Not even the names of the group’s leaders are mentioned by writers of the time. This sect’s excessive Marian devotion developed into the idolatry of Mary worship. This aberration grew out of the Church’s rightful veneration of Mary as ever-virgin, Mother of God, and powerful heavenly intercessor, but crossed the line of orthodoxy when certain Christians began to worship Mary as divine. Details about the Collyridians are scanty, but one of the few specifics we know of them is that at their liturgical service bread was offered as a sacrifice to Mary.’ It would seem that Patrick trusts Epiphanius.

The ’Cathedral of the Soul’ has published (on-line) an article affirming the existence of the sect. It would seem that they, too, trust Epiphanius; as do the folk at the International Marian Research Institute, who quote his words. By the way, the Institute also inform us that the Collyridians were known to, and mentioned by, St John Damascene.

The site ‘CatholicBridge.com’ carries an article entitled: Do Catholics worship a pagan goddess in the disguise of Mary? They write: ‘Some may point to a group called the Collyridians, a small fourth-century sect in Arabia, mainly composed of women, who evidently worshipped the Blessed Virgin, offering cakes to her during a religious ceremony. They claim this is an early example of former pagans worshipping Mary as a “goddess.”

‘The Collyridians were not Catholic. They were a syncretistic cult which, like the Gnostics and other such groups of that time, blended practices from various religious traditions. They were a heresy. They took the figure of Mary from Catholicism and offered her sacrifices reminiscent of those offered to certain pagan goddesses (see Jeremiah 44:18-19). This was an odd blending of contradictory faiths, but it was never sanctioned by the Catholic Church. In fact, the only reason why we know about this small sect is because Saint Epiphanius, one of the Church Fathers, condemned them in his work called the Panarion.’ Lots of trust here!

(Continued)