Errors in the Qur'an

[Niblo]

The Catholic Encyclopaedia – in an entry entitled ‘The age of the Fathers’ – declares: ‘The existence of the obscure sect of the Collyridians, whom St Epiphanius (d. 403) denounces for their sacrificial offering of cakes to Mary, may fairly be held to prove that even before the Council of Ephesus there was a popular veneration for the Virgin Mother which threatened to run extravagant lengths. Hence Epiphanius laid down the rule: “Let Mary be held in honour. Let the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be adored, but let no one adore Mary” (ten Marian medeis prosknueito).’ There’s that trust again.

The following also appear to trust Epiphanius, since they affirm the existence of the Collyridians, without qualm: W. Montgomery Watt in his ‘Muhammad at Mecca’; Philip Schaff in his ‘History of the Christian church; Volume 4; , Chapter 3); and William Cook Taylor in his ‘Readings in Biography: A Selection of the Lives of Eminent Men of All Nations’.

I see no reason to doubt the professional integrity; the honesty; and the desire for truth of those I have quoted. Why would you?

I opine that the balance of probability favours belief in the existence of the Collyridians, exactly as described by the Saint.

Even if the Collyridians did not exist, there is still the matter of the pagan Arabs (and of the Mariamites, which I may need to return to, in šāʾ Allāh).

The whole of sūrah Al-Ma’ida was revealed after the city of Mecca had been taken by the Muslims.

Among the Ka’ba’s three hundred and sixty (or so) idols was a statue (or perhaps an icon) of Mary and her son; placed there by a Christian visitor to the city (in the days before Islam). Every year thereafter, for at least twenty-three years, these idols were made accessible for public worship. During the pilgrimage season people from all over Arabia (and beyond) would flock to the Ka’ba to pay homage to their gods.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that – over time – Mary and her son came to be regarded by the polytheistic Arabs as gods, alongside their Ka’ba companions. It is not unreasonable to conclude (as I do) that the sūrah is addressing these same Arabs; is correcting their false belief. Most certainly – as I’ve said before – it is not addressing Christians.

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) knows best!

 

[Salibi]

But Muslims claim it was super important as in international trade route .

I’m not sure whether Muslims claim it was as important as you say they do, but they do (rightly) consider it to have been an vital trading zone.

 

[Kaninchen]

Qur’an claims that Haman was pharaoh’s prime minister

Does the passage place him in Egypt or is it just the use of the (Greek) word (nobody said “Morning Pharaoh” to Ramesses the Great) to imply a great ruler?

 

[historyfan81]

Yes he is placed in Egypt he even dies when the red Sea Is closed in the quran

 

[Kaninchen]

How curious, it’s an awful long time since I read the Qur’an so I’m left wondering what message they see in it. Esther’s in the literature, poetry, wisdom sayings etc section of the Tanakh (inspiration rather than core stuff), perhaps a Muslim can tell us more.

 

[De_Maria]

Hmmm. The Bible s accurate. The Koran contradicts the Bible. Therefore the Koran is inaccurate and not God-given. Hmmm. Harry Potter is accurate. Harry Potter contradicts the Bible. Therefore the Bible is inaccurate.

Muslims hold that same argument, in reverse, don’t they. It’s been a long time since I debated a Muslim, but I seem to remember that he said that the Christian Bible is filled with error. The true Bible is, so he said, embedded in the Koran.

So, I guess, for the 600 years prior to the advent of Islam, Christians didn’t know what they were talking about.

There are many reasons why I don’t believe that the Koran is God given.
a. Mohammed never completed the Koran. According to Islamic history, he left a shambles, written on leaves and pieces of bark, and he never organized them in one book.

b. Uthman had them collected and discovered that many of the writings were contradictory.

c. Uthman had most of them destroyed but kept his own version and presented it as the true Koran. Much to the dismay of the secretaries of Mohammed, who did not recognize Uthman’s version.

furthermore:

No one ever witnessed the conversations between Mohammed and the purported angel Mohammed would go into a trance or have a fit and then announce that he had had a vision. He would then dictate what the purported angel had purportedly said.

What that means, is that the so-called witnesses of Mohammed, witnessed nothing but his claims. If I were to say, “An angel appeared to me.” No one would believe me without proof. Mohammed could provide no proof.

There are many other reasons, but it would take a long time to list them all.

 

[Niblo]

Muslims hold that same argument, in reverse, don’t they.

The correct stance is this: Where the two Books agree, there is no problem. Where they disagree, the Qur’an takes precedence. Where there is neither agreement nor disagreement, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) knows best!

Any mention, in this thread, of Biblical errors would be off-topic; as, indeed, would any discussion on how the Qur’an was compiled (your account is faulty, by the way)

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Any mention, in this thread, of Biblical errors would be off-topic; as, indeed, would any discussion on how the Qur’an was compiled (your account is faulty, by the way)

The Bible doesn’t contain any error because it is divinely inspired. The Qur’an is not divinely inspired at all, it is the work of a false prophet and its errors are glaringly obvious.

 

[De_Maria]

The correct stance is this: Where the two Books agree, there is no problem. Where they disagree, the Qur’an takes precedence.

Perhaps that is the correct stance, for you. But as for me, the Quran is false, period.

Where there is neither agreement nor disagreement, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) knows best!

God, of course, is above all.

Any mention, in this thread, of Biblical errors would be off-topic;

Perhaps. But I didn’t bring them up.

as, indeed, would any discussion on how the Qur’an was compiled

I was having a sub discussion with someone else. A former Muslim, I believe.

(your account is faulty, by the way)

Neh. It is Islamic history.

Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before. So Uthman sent amessage to Hafsa, saying, Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

You should really look into Muslim history.

 

[mhmtas63]

No one ever witnessed the conversations between Mohammed and the purported angel Mohammed would go into a trance or have a fit and then announce that he had had a vision. He would then dictate what the purported angel had purportedly said.

There are many case people were witness of revelation. But you will not believe!

 

[mhmtas63]

But Muslims claim it was super important as in international trade route .

It was important for region. During pilgrimage the exhibitions were established in Mecca.

Trade route? Not so impportant. But Mecca was near routes and centers so people in Mecca made caravan trades.

 

[mhmtas63]

The Bible doesn’t contain any error because it is divinely inspired. The Qur’an is not divinely inspired at all, it is the work of a false prophet and its errors are glaringly obvious.

Where is the “divine inspired” part of Bible. We just have some books(gospels) which was writed later! (By the way I believe in Bible were revealed because Qur’an say.)

 

[Chistian-ity]

Something tells me that all of these have been answered. Like how every centimeter of the Bible has been interpreted to Venus and back.

 

[Niblo]

Something tells me that all of these have been answered. Like how every centimeter of the Bible has been interpreted to Venus and back.

Some would say a lot further than Venus

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

No one ever witnessed the conversations between Mohammed and the purported angel Mohammed would go into a trance or have a fit and then announce that he had had a vision. He would then dictate what the purported angel had purportedly said.

There are many case people were witness of revelation. But you will not believe!

Who? Please provide the sura or hadith or other document.

 

[Niblo]

Neh. It is Islamic history…

The IDP Research Division reminds us that: ‘There is no doubt that the Qur’an was not only transmitted orally by many Muslims who had learned parts or the whole of it, but that it was also written down during the lifetime of the Prophet. The well-known report about 'Umar’s conversion shows that large passages of the revelation had already been written down even at a very early time, in Makka, long before the hijra, when the Prophet was still in the house of Arqam.’ (‘Understanding the Qur’an – Its History and Compilation’).

There is an expression: ‘jam’ al-qur’an’. It’s general meaning is to ‘bring together the Qur’an’.

Even though the Qur’an was written down – in its entirety – during the life of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), it had not been brought together in a single book. Abū Bakr (the first Caliph) assigned this task to Zaid bin Thabit; a young man in his early twenties, one of the Prophet’s most notable scribes. Zaid was a ḥāfiẓ (a ‘guardian’ or ‘memorizer’ of the Qur’an; someone who knew the Qur’an by heart).

M.M. Al-Azami informs us that: ‘Zaid would accept only those materials which, according to the sworn testimony of two others, had been written in the Prophet’s very presence. Ibn Hajar’s statement affirms this view, that "Zaid was unwilling to accept any written material for consideration unless two Companions bore witness that the man received his dictation from the Prophet himself.” His contribution, we can summarise, was to collect all first-hand Qur’anic fragments, then scattered about Madinah, and arrange for their transcription into a master volume.’

‘In serving the Qur’an Abū Bakr acquitted himself most admirably, heeding its mandate of two witnesses for establishing authenticity, and applying this rule to the Qur’an’s own compilation. The result, though written on rudimentary parchments of varying size, constituted as sincere an effort as possible to preserve the Words of Allāh.’ (‘The History of the Qur’anic Text).

Once complete, the compiled Qur’an was placed under the custodianship of Abū Bakr.

You make no mention of this (apart from stating – correctly – that the Qur’an had not been brought together in one book during the Prophet’s lifetime).

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

You make no mention of ‘ qira’at ’ (meaning ‘styles of recitation’). The qira’at are a way of pronouncing the Qur’anic text; and there are seven authoritative schools of qira’at. An example of the differences between two qira’at can be seen in the sūrah ‘Al-Fatiha’ (‘The Opening’):

‘In the name of God, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy! Praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy, Master ( māliki ) of the Day of Judgement. It is You we worship; it is You we ask for help. Guide us to the straight path ( l-ṣirāṭa ): the path of those You have blessed, those who incur no anger and who have not gone astray.’

Some qira’at recite ‘ māliki ’ with a long ‘a’ (as in the planet ‘Mars’); while others say ‘ maliki ’, with a short ‘a’ (as in ‘cat’). In every case, the meaning (‘Master’) is the same.

The word ‘ l-ṣirāṭa’ can also be rendered ‘as-sirata’. Again, both pronunciations have the same meaning of ‘path’ or ‘way’.

You make no mention of the fact that in the time of 'Uthman the order of sūrahs (and of the verses within each sūrah) had been fixed, but that differences in ‘ qira’at ’ had become a problem. There were disputes about the correct manner of recitation. Certain tribes boasted that their method of recitation was better than others!

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

'Uthman’s solution was to borrow the Qur’an of Abū Bakr (then in the possession of Hafṣah bint ʿUmar; a wife of the Prophet, and ‘Mother of the Believers’). He then ordered four Companions – among them Zaid bin Thabit – to reproduce the entire script in perfect copies. This they did.

You make no mention of this. However, you do claim that the ‘secretaries of Mohammed……did not recognize Uthman’s version.’ Really…….in spite of the fact that the Hafṣah script was reproduced under the leadership and direction of the very scribe who had brought together that script in the first place: Zaid bin Thabit?

Let me remind you that Zaid was a ḥāfiẓ (see above).

According to some reports Kufa, Basra and Syria each received a finished copy of the Qur’an; with one being sent to Madinah. Other reports add Mecca, Yemen and Bahrain. It is also said that 'Uthman retained a copy for himself. It must be noted that no copy was sent without a q ā ri (a ‘reciter’), whose task it was to recite the Qur’an in the manner he had learned through authenticated, multiple channels going back to the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam); ‘insofar as these channels lay in complete agreement with each other and (conformed with) the Qur’an’s consonantal skeleton’ (Al-Azami: ‘The History of the Qur’anic Text).

You fail to mention this.

Perhaps now you understand why I called your original post ‘faulty’. By the way, I wonder why you did not include Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479 (or even an accurate summary) in that post.

 

[De_Maria]

'Uthman’s solution was to borrow the Qur’an of Abū Bakr (then in the possession of Hafṣah bint ʿUmar; a wife of the Prophet, and ‘Mother of the Believers’). He then ordered four Companions – among them Zaid bin Thabit – to reproduce the entire script in perfect copies. This they did…

The question that immediately comes to my mind, is this. Mohammed had one job. Create a reproduction of the Divine Quran. Yet, he did not, did he? Please answer yes or no.

You accuse me of failing to mention, many things. But the discussion has just started. Now, here’s one thing I mentioned which you’ve seemingly dropped. The secretaries of Mohamed did not see the angel. Do you deny it?

That means that they are really passing on, hearsay.

Please answer those two questions.

 

[Niblo]

…

You ask:

‘The question that immediately comes to my mind, is this. Mohammed had one job. Create a reproduction of the Divine Quran. Yet, he did not, did he? Please answer yes or no.’

I don’t understand the highlighted part of this question. Please clarify.

You claim that the ‘secretaries of Mohamed did not see the angel.’ I assume you mean that they never saw an angel, not in any of the revelations over a span of twenty-three years.

The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. Please provide your proof.

By the way, it is not the best use of your time to insist on mere ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. This bunny will always say that which – in his opinion – needs to be said!

Peace.