Is there a contradiction in the Qur'an?

[R00tKiT]

The system of 19 proves that the Qur'an is the word of God.

Muhammad took the Quran as a revelation by God and wrote it himself on the paper.

Pen Surah 1: Nun, the pen, and what they write. 

Muhammad PBUH, in spite of his obvious eloquence, couldn't read or write, he was illiterate, according to the Qur'an itself ;

Say, “O people, I am the Messenger of God to you all—He to whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He. He gives life and causes death.” So believe in God and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believes in God and His words. And follow him, that you may be guided. (7/158).

So, one way his contemporaries could've directly discredited him was to spot him actually write something or get knowledge from books. This would invalidate the above mentioned verse of the Qur'an, and a fortiori his prophecy claim;

[The Grand Nudger]

Right on cue, the last guy who whipped his dick out and stepped on it waddles right on in, lol.

As it so happens, they did. There's another criteria that you've offered which doesn't, never would have, and never even could have informed your beliefs.

You get props for being explicit, though. You're trying and failing, whereas I don't think that our other new friend really has a plan.

(I know, I know, you're going to argue that the people who did exactly what you offered up were simply wrong - which is fine, but pointless.)

[KuranMumini19]

The system of 19 proves that the Qur'an is the word of God.

Muhammad took the Quran as a revelation by God and wrote it himself on the paper.

Pen Surah 1: Nun, the pen, and what they write. 

Muhammad PBUH, in spite of his obvious eloquence, couldn't read or write, he was illiterate, according to the Qur'an itself ;

Say, “O people, I am the Messenger of God to you all—He to whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He. He gives life and causes death.” So believe in God and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believes in God and His words. And follow him, that you may be guided. (7/158).

So, one way his contemporaries could've directly discredited him was to spot him actually write something or get knowledge from books. This would invalidate the above mentioned verse of the Qur'an, and a fortiori his prophecy claim;

The meaning of the word" Ummi " has been shifted and it has been claimed that our prophet is illiterate. See verses 3:20 and 2:78 for the true meaning of the word" Ummi".

The meaning of the word" Ummi " was falsified and the lie that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate was fabricated. See 2:78; 7: 157. The word Ummi is used for those who are not the people of the book, and it also means the Capital City (2:92), referring to the capital Mecca, which is defined as Ummul-Kura (mother of cities). In both senses, historically, they coincide with each other, because the Meccans were not generally people of the book.

[R00tKiT]

Right on cue, the last guy who whipped his dick out and stepped on it waddles right on in, lol.

As it so happens, they did. There's another criteria that you've offered which doesn't, never would have, and never even could have informed your beliefs.  

You get props for being explicit, though.  You're trying and failing, whereas I don't think that our other new friend really has a plan.

(I know, I know, you're going to argue that the people who did exactly what you offered up were simply wrong - which is fine, but pointless.)

I am not really getting what you're saying here. I already asked members here, repeatedly, to actually come up with a clear mistake in the Qur'an, all of them failed so far, you included. It's not that we're good at justifying any verse, there really isn't.

I said before myself I would be greatly relieved if someone convinces me, decisively, that Muhammad made it all up to sound divine. I don't want, nor does any Muslim, to pray fives times a day to a delusion at all.

That said, of course a book with no mistake doesn't mean it's true, but it would be progress if atheists admit that in the case of the Qur'an, and start looking for more serious objections.

[Succubus#2]

I prove that the Quran is the word of Allah.

Presenter: You have a new theory about the brontosaurus.

Miss Elk: Can I just say Chris for one moment that I have a new theory about
the brontosaurus.

Exactly. What is it?

Where?

No, no your new theory.

Oh, what is my theory?

Yes.

Oh what is my theory that it is. Well Chris you may well ask me what is my theory.

I am asking.

Good for you. My word yes. Well Chris, what is it that it is - this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is - my theory that I have, that is to
say, which is mine, is mine.

Yes, I know it's yours, what is it?

Oh, what is my theory? This is it. My theory that belongs to me is as follows. This is how it goes. The next thing I'm going to say is my theory.
Ready?

Yes.

My theory by A. Elk. Brackets Miss, brackets. This theory goes as
follows and begins now. All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, much
thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory,
it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.

That's it, is it?

Spot on, Chris.

Well, er, this theory of yours appears to have hit the nail on the head.

And it's mine.

Yes, thank you very much for coming along to the studio. Thank you.

My pleasure, Chris...

Next week Britain's newest wasp farm...

[R00tKiT]

The meaning of the word" Ummi " has been shifted and it has been claimed that our prophet is illiterate. See verses 3:20 and 2:78 for the true meaning of the word" Ummi".

The meaning of the word" Ummi " was falsified and the lie that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate was fabricated. See 2:78; 7: 157. The word Ummi is used for those who are not the people of the book, and it also means the Capital City (2:92), referring to the capital Mecca, which is defined as Ummul-Kura (mother of cities). In both senses, historically, they coincide with each other, because the Meccans were not generally people of the book.

3:20 :   If they argue with you, say, “I have surrendered myself to God, and those who follow me.” And say to those who were given the Scripture, and to the unlearned, “Have you surrendered?” If they have surrendered, then they are guided; but if they turn away, then your duty is to convey. God is Seeing of the servants.

It's true the word Ummi' here has the meaning you said, but you have to have gotten this meaning from a known tafseer' book -may I know which one?, the same tafseer book will say to you that Ummi' in the verse 7:158 actually means illiterate. 

Regarding the capital Mecca, I think you're confusing the word umm', that is, a mother, and ummi', illiterate. They are entirely different things, I guess you're not a native Arabic speaker.. ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Right on cue, the last guy who whipped his dick out and stepped on it waddles right on in, lol.

As it so happens, they did. There's another criteria that you've offered which doesn't, never would have, and never even could have informed your beliefs.  

You get props for being explicit, though.  You're trying and failing, whereas I don't think that our other new friend really has a plan.

(I know, I know, you're going to argue that the people who did exactly what you offered up were simply wrong - which is fine, but pointless.)

I am not really getting what you're saying here. I already asked members here, repeatedly, to actually come up with a clear mistake in the Qur'an, all of them failed so far, you included. It's not that we're good at justifying any verse, there really isn't.

I said before myself I would be greatly relieved if someone convinces me, decisively, that Muhammad made it all up to sound divine. I don't want, nor does any Muslim, to pray fives times a day to a delusion at all.

That said, of course a book with no mistake doesn't mean it's true, but it would be progress if atheists admit that in the case of the Qur'an, and start looking for more serious objections.

You were presented with piles of them - you simply believe that the mistakes are not mistakes.  This is also what I expect from the OP.  

It's a pointless argument and it is an argument in bad faith...particularly when a person demonstrates, as you did in that thread and now in this one, that their own self selected criteria are uninformative.

You were no more willing to rethink your position on the grounds you offered than you would be on anything that anyone else offered.  

If you're still not getting it, I could rattle off a handful of neutral examples.

I'll add one just to get the ball rolling. If the asserted perfection of a magic book indicates that there is a god, then the factual imperfection of said book would be expected to have the reverse effect. Neither you nor our other friend believes this, however. You would both insist that the christian magic book is full of errors, but neither of you think that the christian magic book..being full of errors, means that your allegedly shared god does not exist. There are christians who are also inerrant literalists who make the same claim (and even poiintlessly argue that mistakes are not mistakes) - but you would no more accept that claim or those excuses than I would accept you or our new friends own.

In mere reality, the issue of whether or not a magic book is gods word and whether or not it contains internal or external errors are entirely separate questions.

If we live in a world where some silly god exists and there are errors in magic book..the silly god still exists.

If we live in a world where a magic book contains no errors and no silly gods exists....magic book still contains no errors.

There is no state of affairs between these separate propositions which could, in any way, demonstrate the other. In this.....you should be eternally grateful - because it means that magic books don't have to be magic for your silly god to exist, and it also means that if magic books were false cover to cover, some silly god might still exist.

[Ranjr]

Among others, I would also argue that Paul Theroux's The Mosquito Coast is a perfect book.  And don't get me started on Under the Volcano or A Bend in the River.  I don't doubt the OP's book is also pretty good, but I lack the cultural bias to suspend disbelief.

[Abaddon_ire]

Can we get Drich in here?

[R00tKiT]

You were presented with piles of them - you simply believe that the mistakes are not mistakes.  This is also what I expect from the OP. 

I recall responding to you for each one of these supposed mistakes, and I didn't get a reply after that. It's not just because you say this verse is a mistake that I should take your word for it. Even if we are biased to our holy book, if someone actually finds a mistake, he should be able to back us into a corner.

I'll add one just to get the ball rolling.  If the asserted perfection of a magic book indicates that there is a god, then the factual imperfection of said book would be expected to have the reverse effect.  Neither you nor our other friend believes this, however.  You would both insist that the christian magic book is full of errors, but neither of you think that the christian magic book..being full of errors, means that your allegedly shared god does not exist.  There are christians who are also inerrant literalists who make the same claim (and even poiintlessly argue that mistakes are not mistakes) - but you would no more accept that claim or those excuses than I would accept you or our new friends own.

What exactly do you mean by factual imperfection..? Where is it located specifically in the Qur'an..? The gospel accounts were selected out of hundreds other anonymous writings back in the First council of Nicaea.... I don't see how this is even comparable to the Qur'an, which started literally as a pure "audio" book, not written anywhere. It was recorded mouth to ear from hundreds of companions of Muhammad. 

I think I already said all holy books presuppose god. In any case, this is very true in the Qur'an, no verse attempts to provide a case for god. And the Qur'an responds literally to every claim Meccan pagans made, and every accusation they threw at the prophet back then. None of these has anything to do with god.

In mere reality, the issue of whether or not a magic book is gods word and whether or not it contains internal or external errors are entirely separate questions.  

I agree. But again, it would be progress in this kind of discussions if non Muslims just drop this baseless charge of mistakes existing somewhere.