Errors in the Koran

[AmericanFirst]

Yes, the koran does contain many errors.

The Bible, however, contains none. And yes, I have read it many times.

What about Lev 11:6 "and the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hare's don't chew cud.

Matthew 13:31-32 "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."

There are actually a lot of smaller seed, like the seeds from an Orchid. Also, Mustard plant's don't grow into trees.

Now the list of contradictions in the Bible is HUGE.

Maybe in the region where Jesus lived and walked it was? Maybe taking the Bible in hisorical context will help your ignorance.

 

[McPuff]

What about Lev 11:6 "and the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hare's don't chew cud.

As this page explains, this is not an error in the Bible.

Matthew 13:31-32 "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."

There are actually a lot of smaller seed, like the seeds from an Orchid. Also, Mustard plant's don't grow into trees.

This is also an invalid criticism, as explained here.

Now the list of contradictions in the Bible is HUGE.

The Bible contains no errors or contradictions. You may be misinterpreting a passage, which could give the appearance of a contradiction. When properly understood, there are no contradictions in the Bible.

in your case it is neither sinfulness nor gods fault. you need help.

Quite a convincing argument you have there.

I suppose all this evidence is just a figment of my imagination.

 

[Kalam]

CREATION IN 6 DAYS (an error the koran and bible share)

according to these verses in the koran: Sura 7 : 54 (also 10:3; 11:7, and 25:59) 2:29; 23:17; 65:12; 67:3; 71:15

"Indeed your lord is Allah who created the heavens and the earth in 6 days…"

however in Suras 41 : 9 - 12... we learn that,

“Say Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in TWO Days

He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it,
and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein all things
to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR Days


So He completed them as seven firmaments in TWO Days,

now 4 + 2 +2 = 8 DAYS not 6 days.

gods math seems to fail him again....

قُلْ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَكْفُرُونَ بِٱلَّذِى خَلَقَ ٱلْأَرْضَ فِى ۞
يَوْمَيْنِ وَتَجْعَلُونَ لَهُۥٓ أَندَادًۭا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ رَبُّ ٱلْعَٰلَمِي

وَجَعَلَ فِيهَا رَوَٰسِىَ مِن فَوْقِهَا وَبَٰرَكَ فِيهَا وَقَدَّرَ فِيهَآ
أَقْوَٰتَهَا فِىٓ أَرْبَعَةِ أَيَّامٍۢ سَوَآءًۭ لِّلسَّآئِلِي

Do you indeed disbelieve in the One who created the earth/land (al-ard) in two periods and set up with Him rivals? That [is] the Lord of the Two Worlds. - 41:9

And he placed therein firm-standing mountains, [rising] above it, and he bestowed blessing therein, and measure therein -- its sustenance in four periods equal -- for those who seek/ask. - 41:10​

Since "creating the land" obviously involves the formation of mountains, the ninth ayah clearly represents half of the process described in the tenth. The two periods in ayah 9 are understood to be part of the four described in ayah 10. We understand the bestowal of blessing and measure to refer to the development of the earth's flora (27:60, 79:31, etc.)

ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰٓ إِلَى ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَهِىَ دُخَانٌۭ فَقَالَ لَهَا وَلِلْأَرْضِ
ٱئْتِيَا طَوْعًا أَوْ كَرْهًۭا قَالَتَآ أَتَيْنَا طَآئِعِي

فَقَضَىٰهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَٰوَاتٍۢ فِى يَوْمَيْنِ وَأَوْحَىٰ فِى كُلِّ سَمَآءٍ
أَمْرَهَا ۚ وَزَيَّنَّا ٱلسَّمَآءَ ٱلدُّنْيَا بِمَصَٰبِيحَ وَحِفْظًۭا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ
تَقْدِيرُ ٱلْعَزِيزِ ٱلْعَلِي

Then He directed toward the firmament/heaven (as-samaa) while it [was as] smoke, and he said to it and to the earth/land, "Come you both, willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly." - 41:11

Then He completed them, seven ("many") firmaments in two periods, and He revealed in each firmament its affair. And We adorned the lower firmament/"the firmament of this world" with lamps ("stars") and guard. That is the decree of the Omnipotent, the Omniscient. - 41:12​

The creation of the firmaments took an additional two periods. So we have the creation of the land (9, 10) and its development (10) taking place over four days and this additional two-day process, which brings us back to a total of six. It should be noted that "yawm" refers to a length of time much longer than what we would normally call a day (22:47, 32:5, 70:4.)

Muslims have always understood these ayat as descriptions of the same six-period expanse of time described elsewhere in the Qur'an. Refer to the relevant portions of the tafaseer of Ibn Kathir, the Two Jalals, etc.

Inheritance

Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Qur'anic inheritance law.

"When a man dies, and is leaving behind three daughters, his two parents and his wife, they will receive the respective shares

of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together,

1/3 for the parents together [both according to verse 4:11]

This is incorrect. The parents together only receive a share of 1/3 if the deceased leaves behind one child. The portion doesn't apply in this scenario because the man had three children:

وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَٰحِدٍۢ مِّنْهُمَا ٱلسُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ إِن كَانَ لَهُۥ وَلَدٌۭ

...wa li-abawayhi li-kulli wahidin min-humaa as-sudusu mimmaa taraka in kana lahu waladun...

...and to his parents, to each one of them a sixth of what is left, if he had a [single] child... (4:11)​

A second example:

A man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters,
then they receive

1/3 [mother, 4:11],

1/4 [wife, 4:12]

and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176],

which again adds up to 15/12 of the available property.

This is also incorrect. 4:176 refers to the property of a man with no living heirs or ancestors (the term used is kalaalah.) The mother wouldn't receive a share because she'd be dead, leaving you with 12/12 of the estate allotted.

should we buy allah an electronic calculator?

Perhaps you should ask Him for an Arabic dictionary.

 

[Kalam]

While I agree with you the Quran is junk and their prophet Mohammed was either deceived or twisted, I don't agree with you about the Bible.

You reject out of ignorance a revelation that confirms the basic validity of your own religion. As for errors in the Bible, do you subscribe to the Nicene doctrine of Trinity which states that Jesus (AS) and God are the same supreme being?

 

[Ropey]

You reject out of ignorance a revelation that confirms the basic validity of your own religion. As for errors in the Bible, do you subscribe to the Nicene doctrine of Trinity which states that Jesus (AS) and God are the same supreme being?

From Torah - Genesis

Genesis 1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

1:8
And God called the firmament Heaven And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

1:13
And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

1:19
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

1:23
And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

1:31
And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Holy Torah: Genesis (Bereshith): Chapter 1

All three books are designed by G-d in order to fight the Devil on all fronts. No book created to fight the devil can be considered evil.

Human acts are one thing, but human interpretation of those acts are another thing entirely. Now the books are all obscure in literal meanings which is why 'Oral Interpretations" are necessary.

And this is where the dis-convergence between Islam, Judaism and Christianity comes. From the cultural interpretations in the oral readings. Judaism and Christianity have modernized their interpretations.

Islam? Not so much. We must remember that the culture of the Arabian and Persian Muslim Middle East predates Islam and the dis-convergences come from the culture, not the book.

This is why even though Mohammad advised Muslims to not marry in the near (first and second cousins) and rather marry in the far (outside of tribal affiliations) the Arabs and Persian Muslims chose to continue this practice, and to this day there are Muslim countries where consanguinity reaches ~70%.

Cousin marriage normally results in a reduced bride price. Patai states that bride price to a cousin is usually about half as high as to a non-relative. Due to the poverty of many families this outlay often requires exceptional effort, and especially because the decision traditionally is in the hands of the groom's father, these considerations may weigh heavily on the outcome. The bride's family moreover is expected to spend much of the bride price on the bride herself, so there is a reduced incentive to gain a higher price by avoiding cousin marriage.

This is a cultural interpretation of Sharia family law. If Mohammad advised against the practice, clearly the Muslims were not too concerned on this point, but on others...

So, I see that human interpretation is the issue, not the books. Of any of the three books.

But Islam is far behind and has no desire to move ahead and from this comes the dis-convergence.

 

[Kalam]

All three books are designed by G-d in order to fight the Devil on all fronts. No book created to fight the devil can be considered evil.

Human acts are one thing, but human interpretation of those acts are another thing entirely. Now the books are all obscure in literal meanings which is why 'Oral Interpretations" are necessary.

And this is where the dis-convergence between Islam, Judaism and Christianity comes. From the cultural interpretations in the oral readings. Judaism and Christianity have modernized their interpretations.

Describing something as 'modernized' assumes the existence of a universal standard of modernity -- what is it? Most uses of this adjective make it seem to me as if it's interchangeable with "Western" or more accurately, "consistent with the moral and political values of the post-Enlightenment West."

If this is the criterion you use to assess Islam's modernity, it is meaningless to me. If not, what standard do you use?

Islam? Not so much. We must remember that the culture of the Arabian and Persian Muslim Middle East predates Islam and the dis-convergences come from the culture, not the book.

This is true.

This is why even though Mohammad advised Muslims to not marry in the near (first and second cousins) and rather marry in the far (outside of tribal affiliations) the Arabs and Persian Muslims chose to continue this practice, and to this day there are Muslim countries where consanguinity reaches ~70%.

You point out that Muhammad (SAWS) encouraged at least one Sahabiyy to marry outside of his tribe. It's also worth noting that cousin marriage falls under the expansive legal category of actions which are permissible merely because they aren't described as prohibited. There is absolutely no religious incentive to marry your cousin and this practice seems to stem from financial conditions which shouldn't even exist -- the amount a husband gives his wife in mahr should not be affected at all by their degree of kinship.

Cousin marriage normally results in a reduced bride price. Patai states that bride price to a cousin is usually about half as high as to a non-relative. Due to the poverty of many families this outlay often requires exceptional effort, and especially because the decision traditionally is in the hands of the groom's father, these considerations may weigh heavily on the outcome. The bride's family moreover is expected to spend much of the bride price on the bride herself, so there is a reduced incentive to gain a higher price by avoiding cousin marriage.

This is a cultural interpretation of Sharia family law. If Mohammad advised against the practice, clearly the Muslims were not too concerned on this point, but on others...

I don't view this as having any basis in Shari'ah. The entire concept of a "bride price" is a relic of pre-Islamic jahiliyyah. It is an affront to a woman's dignity because it treats her as a commodity owned and traded by her family for material benefit when she's actually a person who has the right to accept or reject suitors' offers herself. It also implies that the mahr is paid to the bride's family -- it's her property with which she can do as she wills. Additionally, the practice of demanding large sums of money from suitors is patently un-Islamic: "The best woman is the one whose mahr is the easiest to pay."

This problem wouldn't exist if people actually adhered to the principles of their religion and chose to be reasonable in their demands.

So, I see that human interpretation is the issue, not the books. Of any of the three books.

But Islam is far behind and has no desire to move ahead and from this comes the dis-convergence.

We have no desire to be led down the same path of secularization as Christianity and Judaism. That seems to be the difference.

 

[Wingsofwind]

The bible contains no errors?
Noa fit 2 of every animal on earth in his ark?

It has proven that it was possible.

Though thare are a lot of sites showing it is possible, here is only one of them...Was Noah's Ark BIG ENOUGH to hold ALL the animals?

 

[Ropey]

All three books are designed by G-d in order to fight the Devil on all fronts. No book created to fight the devil can be considered evil.

Human acts are one thing, but human interpretation of those acts are another thing entirely. Now the books are all obscure in literal meanings which is why 'Oral Interpretations" are necessary.

And this is where the dis-convergence between Islam, Judaism and Christianity comes. From the cultural interpretations in the oral readings. Judaism and Christianity have modernized their interpretations.

Describing something as 'modernized' assumes the existence of a universal standard of modernity -- what is it? Most uses of this adjective make it seem to me as if it's interchangeable with "Western" or more accurately, "consistent with the moral and political values of the post-Enlightenment West."

If this is the criterion you use to assess Islam's modernity, it is meaningless to me. If not, what standard do you use?

Islam? Not so much. We must remember that the culture of the Arabian and Persian Muslim Middle East predates Islam and the dis-convergences come from the culture, not the book.

This is true.


You point out that Muhammad (SAWS) encouraged at least one Sahabiyy to marry outside of his tribe. It's also worth noting that cousin marriage falls under the expansive legal category of actions which are permissible merely because they aren't described as prohibited. There is absolutely no religious incentive to marry your cousin and this practice seems to stem from financial conditions which shouldn't even exist -- the amount a husband gives his wife in mahr should not be affected at all by their degree of kinship.

This is a cultural interpretation of Sharia family law. If Mohammad advised against the practice, clearly the Muslims were not too concerned on this point, but on others...

I don't view this as having any basis in Shari'ah. The entire concept of a "bride price" is a relic of pre-Islamic jahiliyyah. It is an affront to a woman's dignity because it treats her as a commodity owned and traded by her family for material benefit when she's actually a person who has the right to accept or reject suitors' offers herself. It also implies that the mahr is paid to the bride's family -- it's her property with which she can do as she wills. Additionally, the practice of demanding large sums of money from suitors is patently un-Islamic: "The best woman is the one whose mahr is the easiest to pay."

This problem wouldn't exist if people actually adhered to the principles of their religion and chose to be reasonable in their demands.

So, I see that human interpretation is the issue, not the books. Of any of the three books.

But Islam is far behind and has no desire to move ahead and from this comes the dis-convergence.

We have no desire to be led down the same path of secularization as Christianity and Judaism. That seems to be the difference.

The difference is seen all over the world Kalam. In China where they are not concerned with religion. In Russia, where once again, they are not nearly as concerned about religion. There as well, your "We" are fighting border wars. Oh, I know, it's complicated and that land originally belonged to Islam or Muslims. All over the world Kalam. 20 border wars worldwide Kalam.

By the works of Muslims shall Muslims be known. The difference is what is being done in the name of Islam on the ground. All over the world there are Muslims involved in warring.

All these Muslims fighting border wars Kalam? All separate? Nothing connecting them?

In the UN where 57 Muslim countries who vote as a Muslim block in the United Nations against Israel and many other Western resolutions? These are works Kalam.

Who pushed through an U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution which is only addressing Islam for blasphemy? Another work.

By their works.

Secular? No.

Jihad? Yes.

 

[konradv]

If God created everything including our brains, why does it appear that earth took millions of years to form and new species appear in the fossil record more than a billion years apart? Would God create a brain so imperfect that we could be fooled so easily? I think not. Genesis, for example, is mostly allegory and shouldn't be taken as history.

When examined accurately, the earth does not appear to have taken millions of years to form. The fossil record, when examined honestly, also supports the Biblical account.

As for people being fooled easily, we have our own sinfulness to blame for that, not God.

Do you have a cite for this "accurate examination"? I'm afraid your mere say-so isn't good enough, given the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The fossil record IN NO WAY supports the Biblical account. We find new species all the time seperated by millions of years. I'm afraid you're the one being dishonest. As a matter of fact, I accuse you of claiming God lies to us!!!

 

[konradv]

The bible contains no errors?
Noa fit 2 of every animal on earth in his ark?

It has proven that it was possible.

Though thare are a lot of sites showing it is possible, here is only one of them...Was Noah's Ark BIG ENOUGH to hold ALL the animals?

Funny, to get your desired result, you have to rely on evolution to fill out all the species we see today!!! Sounds like double-talk to me.

 

[McPuff]

Do you have a cite for this "accurate examination"? I'm afraid your mere say-so isn't good enough, given the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The fossil record IN NO WAY supports the Biblical account. We find new species all the time seperated by millions of years. I'm afraid you're the one being dishonest. As a matter of fact, I accuse you of claiming God lies to us!!!

I have already linked a site that contains this information. This site explains why the earth does not appear to be millions of years old, but around 6,000-10,000. It also explains how evolutionist scientists misinterpret (or purposely distort) the fossil record to support the theory of millions of years. In reality, the evidence in the fossil record supports the Biblical account.

Your accusation has no foundation.

 

[konradv]

Do you have a cite for this "accurate examination"? I'm afraid your mere say-so isn't good enough, given the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The fossil record IN NO WAY supports the Biblical account. We find new species all the time seperated by millions of years. I'm afraid you're the one being dishonest. As a matter of fact, I accuse you of claiming God lies to us!!!

I have already linked a site that contains this information. This site explains why the earth does not appear to be millions of years old, but around 6,000-10,000. It also explains how evolutionist scientists misinterpret (or purposely distort) the fossil record to support the theory of millions of years. In reality, the evidence in the fossil record supports the Biblical account.

Your accusation has no foundation.

LOL!!! There is absolutely no scientific foundation for a 6-10,000 year old earth. The only purposeful distortions are made by the creationists and you're falling for it, hook, line and sinker!

 

[McPuff]

LOL!!! There is absolutely no scientific foundation for a 6-10,000 year old earth. The only purposeful distortions are made by the creationists and you're falling for it, hook, line and sinker!

If the presented evidence is merely distortions, you should have no trouble proving it wrong.

 

[Jroc]

We as Jews study the Torah and argue amongst ourselves the interpretations of the text. To my knowledge 6 days has been interpreted as 6 stages, also the Adam and Eve story has been interpreted as the start of civilization, the ability of man to choose between right and wrong. This is my view anyway.

 

[Wingsofwind]

The bible contains no errors?
Noa fit 2 of every animal on earth in his ark?

It has proven that it was possible.

Though thare are a lot of sites showing it is possible, here is only one of them...Was Noah's Ark BIG ENOUGH to hold ALL the animals?

Funny, to get your desired result, you have to rely on evolution to fill out all the species we see today!!! Sounds like double-talk to me.

I for one believe in a kind of evolution. Some species have to evolve in order to survive, they adapt to their surroundings. This has been proven. However, I do not believe in the theory that we as humans evolved from apes. There has been no evidence to prove it. And the evidence some try to use has been disproved many times.

 

[konradv]

It has proven that it was possible.

Though thare are a lot of sites showing it is possible, here is only one of them...Was Noah's Ark BIG ENOUGH to hold ALL the animals?

Funny, to get your desired result, you have to rely on evolution to fill out all the species we see today!!! Sounds like double-talk to me.

I for one believe in a kind of evolution. Some species have to evolve in order to survive, they adapt to their surroundings. This has been proven. However, I do not believe in the theory that we as humans evolved from apes. There has been no evidence to prove it. And the evidence some try to use has been disproved many times.

How about a cite to this evidence? I'm afraid your mere say so isn't good enough. Please cite specific pages. I don't have time to sift through an entire site.

 

[u2scram]

in fact all three abrahamic faiths have much in common.

how could they not? they are all based upon the same primitive, tribal superstitions.

 

[konradv]

LOL!!! There is absolutely no scientific foundation for a 6-10,000 year old earth. The only purposeful distortions are made by the creationists and you're falling for it, hook, line and sinker!

If the presented evidence is merely distortions, you should have no trouble proving it wrong.

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[McPuff]

LOL!!! There is absolutely no scientific foundation for a 6-10,000 year old earth. The only purposeful distortions are made by the creationists and you're falling for it, hook, line and sinker!

If the presented evidence is merely distortions, you should have no trouble proving it wrong.

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The site I linked debunks everything here. If you had read it you would know this.

 

[u2scram]

all three abrahamic faiths are based upon the same primitive, tribal superstitions.

judaism is just as objectionable as islam, equally nasty and ignorant.

xtianity has killed by far more people over the course of history than any other religion.

and xtian countries are still in the forefront in this respect.

UK: Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful: Soldiers face prosecution over fatal civilian shootings after 12-year inquiry publishes findings...

Intensified Israeli attacks on Gaza kill child footballers: Olmert's cabinet split on tactics as rocket strikes by militants bring ferocious response...

Apartheid in the Holy Land: Desmond Tutu: In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people....

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

I would suggest that many people are not even remotely bothered by the killing done in the name of god; if its by zionists or the west.