Is the Quran error free?

[mmahomed]

Dear Brothers and Sisters.

I am a Christian and hope some-one will share more light on my question below:

“DUAL OR PLURAL”

Quran trans. A.Y. Ali
Surah 20:123 “He said: GET YE down, both of you, all together…” Surah 2:38 “We said: GET YE down all from here…”

Commentary # 2646 “THE LITTLE VARIATION between this passage: “ihbita (get ye down) is in the dual number and ii.38 ihbitu is in the plural number.”

Is Allah responsible for this little variation: “IHBITA” or “IHBITU”?

[Solly]

Hello mmahomed, welcome to TWeb.

You have us at a disadvantage, since most of us do not have a copy of the Koran to hand, esp in the arabic.

Can you enlarge on the matter, and perhaps quote fuller extracts from the Suras in question?

slly5

[mmahomed]

Refer to Solly's request for larger extracts: Both Surah 2:38 and 20:123 refers to the same incident.

That is: Some time ago Adam and Eve disobeyed God by deliberately obeying Satan as illustrated in the Quran.

God put them out of the "paradise" and sent them to earth by saying: "Get ye down".

So, if this episode only happened once, IT BEGS THE QUESTION,

did God say: ihbitA [Get ye down = dual with reference to Adam and Eve] or ihbitU [Get ye down = plural with reference to Adam, Eve and their offspring or Satan]?

Amazingly, A.Y. Ali admits of a little variation = more strongly put "a contradition"

Both accounts can't be true [in fact, this is where my question comes in] Is there some-one out there with more knowledge?

[Dr T]

The www.answering-islam.org site has a list of many of the contradictions within the Koran. Don't know if this one is their lists.

[Andy Bannister]

The other contradiction that I have recently come across concerns Sura 3:42 and Sura 19:17 where we have two accounts of the annunciation to Mary. The contradiction concerns the question of who appeared to Mary:

Behold! The angels said: "Oh Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations."
Q. 3:42

She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her our Spirit, and he appeared as a man in all respects."
Q. 19:17

The translation in both cases comes from Yusuf Ali, with one exception --- in 19:17 he renders the word "Spirit" as "angel" in order to try to solve the problem of the contradiction with 3:42. Yet the Arabic is quite clear:

Q. 19:17 = Arabic "ruha" = "spirit" (singular)
Q. 3:42 = Arabic "mala'ikatu" = "angels" (plural)

So, not only do we have a major contradiction, but a clear example of a Muslim translator twisting his English translation to cover it. Muslims I have spoken to about this go down one of three routes:

- They panic and say they can't answer but that it cannot be a contradiction because the Qur'an does not contain contradictions. This is simply a circular argument and shows they need to do some hard thinking.

- They claim that the annunciation happened twice. This seems to be desperate and ignores the fact that (a) the story in Q. 3 and Q. 19 appears at the same point in the overall narrative, e.g. before the birth of Jesus and after the announcement of John to Zacharia; (b) it makes Mary look rather stupid as she doubts the message twice for exactly the same reason and with almost exactly the same words (3:47; 19:20)

- They claim that the Spirit = Gabriel = one of the angels. There are two problems here. The first is it fails to account for the singular/plural problem and leaves the reader asking "how many angels?" Secondly, the Qur'an nowhere says that the Spirit = Gabriel. In short, this is an exegetical invention designed to get the Qur'an off the hook. The Spirit and Gabriel are quite different entities in the Qur'an.

In short, this is a particularly sticky contradiction.

Regards to all,

Andy
http://www.geocities.com/questforthelostjesus/

[menj]

As it so happens, this so-called "error" proposed by Andy Bannister has already been answered in the past:

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Quran/Sources/multiple.htm


we propose another which conforms to and seems to be indicated by the original text. If we were to read the verses in question, both Sura' Aal-Imran (3):45 and Sura' Maryam (19):17 never stated that the incident is the one and the same. What could prevent both of the statements to be said at two different periods of time? If we read Sura' 3:45, the angels (plural)foretold Mary the good news about the coming of Jesus(P) but did not give the specific time of that event, which was left for Gabriel in a future presentation to Mary, as seen in Sura' 19:17. Note that in Sura' 19:17, we are told of the specific time of the conception of Jesus(P) inside Mary's womb. After reading these verses it becomes evident that the assumed contradiction is a direct result of "The Dajjal's" poor understanding of the Qur'ân.
"The Dajjal", after reading my response above, responded with the comment as follows (http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/menj.html#contra):

[...]we still feel that MENJ's explanation is weak. If these were two separate events, one would get the impression that poor Maryam suffered from memory loss. MENJ implies that the discussion discussed in Soorat Aal-Imraan took place first, while the one in Soorat Maryam came afterwards. In both cases Maryam was told of the coming of a son; what was her response in both cases?

The Critic then proceeds to show Sura' 3:47 and Sura' 19:20 as the same response and hence tries to conclude that both events refer to the same incident, and therefore, the whole story in Sura' Aal-Imran and Sura' Maryam to be the one and the same. Firstly, we agree with the Critic that the aforementioned responses of Mary refers to the same incident. However, we accuse the Critic of confusing the chronology of events prior to the exclamation of Mary. Here are the chronology of the events leading to the announcement of the birth of Jesus(P) to his mother, Mary along with the relevant verses:


The angels announces to Mary that she will have a child named Jesus(P). Mary is not told when or how Jesus(P) shall be conceived (Sura' 3:45-46)
Gabriel appeared personally before Mary and informs her that she is going to have the boy child (Sura' 19:19)
Mary is surprised and exclaims on how she could have the child, when no man has ever touched her (Sura' 3:47; Sura' 19:20)
Gabriel replies by explaining that it is the Will of God that will make it happen (Sura' 3:20; Sura' 19:21). Note that the angel is referred to in the singular in both cited verses.
This is further elucidated when we see that in Sura' Aal Imran, the angels (plural) have used the word "yubashiroke", i.e. God gives you the good news of giving birth to a boy child. We know that the words "glad tidings" or "good news" may or may not relate to an immediate happening. Thus, Mary could have perceived the "good news" to relate to an event that would take place at some future date, after her marriage. On the other hand, in Surah Maryam, the Spirit uses the word "le ahaba lake'", which means "to deliver you with" or "to present you with". These words, under the circumstances, imply that the referred gift was being presented at that particular instance, and this is what surprised MaryHave a nice day :wink:

- MENJ
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org

[Andy Bannister]

Since we are dealing with angelic annunciations to Mary, reading Menj's reply called to mind the phrase "rushing in where angels fear to tread". Whilst I would happily give him 7/10 for enthusiasm, his actual response is somewhat lacking. Let me make a few brief points:

(1) Menj shifts too easily into the assumption that ruh = Gabriel. Nowhere does the Qur'an tell us this, rather it is an exegetical assumption arising from the a priori assumption that the Qur'an is contradiction free. Menj is, of course, entirely entitled to his own particular epistemological foundationalism --- but he is wrong to assume that he can argue on its basis with others who do not share that framework. I for one would prefer to deal with what the text says, rather than what I can make it say. In short, rather than "Allah knows best" I think what we see here is a mindset that says "Menj knows best". Ironically, this means I am closer to the Qur'anic meaning than he is. Some supplementary points:

(i) Given that Qur’anic Arabic contains a proper name which can be used to denote Gabriel (jabril, e.g. Q. 2:97), Menj needs to produce good evidence to show that it is valid to say that ruh = Gabriel in Q.19:17. The opinions of the later exegetes are not valid here, as they were writing hundreds of years later. An example from the Qur'an itself is needed; alas, there are none.

(ii) If Menj wishes to say that Allah’s ruh = Gabriel, then presumably he also needs to apply this in other verses; for example Q. 15:29 says “when I (Allah) have fashioned him and breathed into him (man) my spirit (ruh)”. Does Menj want to insert Gabriel here and argue that man is animated by an angel?

In short, Menj is guilty of semantic sneakiness at this point. The ruh is not Gabriel and to try to claim so not only twists the Qur’an but produces a whole set of other theological and anthropological problems.

(2) Menj’s attempt to turn surahs 3 and 19 into two separate but interlocking incidents also leads to narrative problems; this is because both surahs 3 and 19 are complete in and of themselves. In short, both follow this pattern:

- A divine messenger or messengers appears to Mary (3:42; 19:17)
- The birth of Jesus is announced (3:45; 19:19)
- Mary asks how this can be (3:47; 19:20)
- The reply is given that it is possible for Allah (3:47; 19:21)
- Jesus is then born (3:49 implied by the switch to first-person; 19:22-23)

The two accounts can only be made into two separate incidents in the way that Menj is doing by chopping each account into small pieces. Basically he is proposing the following order of events ...

3:42 - 19:17 - 3:45 - 3:47 - 19:19 - 19:20-21 - 3:49 - 19:22-23

This is the kind of cutting and pasting that Richard Bell would be proud of (students of Islamics will spot the reference). But we are still faced with a problem; one of the charges was that this kind of approach results in Mary looking foolish for raising the same objection twice. Menj wants to claim "Mary certainly did not suffer from memory loss" --- yet we still find her asking the same question based on the same objection to two divine messengers. It is here that Menj's scheme really falls apart. I note his point (3):

3. Mary is surprised and exclaims on how she could have the child, when no man has ever touched her (Sura' 3:47; Sura' 19:20
Menj seems to be implying to say that 3:47 and 19:20 are one objection; yet once you create two annunciations you have two objections.

In short, if you read the text as it is written, you have two reports of one incident --- a doublet. This is not surprising, for if the Sitz im Leben of the Qur'an is an oral storytelling milieu, presumably multiple versions of the same story could indeed be told. There are also a whole number of other problems with these two pericopes that could also be addressed:

- Is Mary a prophet? Since Allah speaks to her, miracles are performed through/for her (the virgin birth, the feeding in the temple etc.), she is told the future etc --- this would appear to make her a female prophet. This question sent the classical exegetes into a spin and many good trees died providing the pages and pages devoted to the question.

- Where has the birth of Jesus gone in Q. 3:49? We switch from the third-person-singular (an angel or Allah speaking) to the first-person-singular (Jesus speaking). Did Zaid ibn Thabit miss a few verses when he was collecting the Qur'an?

- How can Mary address an angel as "my Lord" (= rabb) in Q. 3:47? Is this not an address reserved for God alone? So is Allah actually the one speaking by this point? Again, the commentators vent much hot air trying to sort out this one.

- What are we to make of the apparent intertextual connections between Q. 3, Q. 19 and the Christian apocryphal tradition?

And so on. In short, many of the problems in these passages disappear if you consider them to be a doublet; e.g. two variant stories of one event. But that of course sets of alarm bells ringing if you believe the earthly Qur'an is a copy of the eternal Qur'an that has always existed alongside Allah. And that, of course, is another theological debate entirely ...

Warm regards,

Andy

[menj]

Greetings to all.

Andy Bannister has done it again. He resorts to the usual missionary tactic of "overwhelming your "foe" with tons of multiferous strawman" (in the hopes of diverting the topic altogether).

Why, oh, why did the issue of the Qur'anic textual collection come into the picture? All I have discussed was the so-called "error" proposed by Bannister, which immediately "disappears" if one is familiar with the Qur'anic exegesical rule of "al-Qur'an yufassiru ba'duhu ba'dan" (different parts of the Qur'an explain one another), and I have done exactly THAT, as brief as it may be.

But let us now waste our time and others by examining this post of Bannister's:



Since we are dealing with angelic annunciations to Mary, reading Menj's reply called to mind the phrase "rushing in where angels fear to tread". Whilst I would happily give him 7/10 for enthusiasm, his actual response is somewhat lacking.
Let's just say I'm pretty used to Bannister's methodology of "rating" his opponents and then back-stab them later. Remembering the Song of Songs debacle where he failed to address the arguments of the erudite Bro. Shibli Zaman, I can easily attest to that.

But let us not waste any more time and demolish his arguments in these few, simple points:

1. The Angel Gabriel is known by many appelations, of which "Ruh ul-Quddus" is one of them. I do not know what Bannister is trying to achieve by arguing "against" this well-established fact. He should really try educating himself by opening an authoritative work on tafsir (exegesis) of the Qur'an, and not some dumb missionary like Morey and the likes.

2. Bannister may argue until his face turns purple, but the fact is the above verse DOES refer to Angel as "Ruh" and this has got NOTHING to do with the reference to man as in Qur'an 15:29 where it talks about man. The point is that you need to refer to CONTEXT, not just semantical meanings alone. Will Bannister accuse the Qur'an of "demoting" the "Ruh al-Quddus" (Gabriel) to the position of the "ruh" (man)? This is thus a clear indication that Bannister has no idea about what he is talking about and confusing two different concepts and mixing them in the same bowl.

As for where the "first-person singular to third-person plural" is concerned, it is consistent with the overall style of Qur'anic Arabic and at this juncture it is irrelevant to discuss it now. We shall simply say that the language of the Qur'an is nothing like the barbarous, un-eloquent style of the KOINE Greek language of the NT.

To accuse me of "semantic sneakiness" is one thing, but proving it is quite another.

As for where the issue of Zayd ibn Thabit is concerned, as well as the concept of the Qur'an being written on a Tablet in the Heavens, that is a topic not related to this thread and simply indicates the bankruptness of the missionary Bannister, the same way he goes bankrupt when he goes againt my beloved Brother in Islam (and indirectly, my "mentor"), Shibli Zaman.

Have a nice day.

- MENJ

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/)

[dizzle]

I am not finding anything Andy says or you for that matter a waste of time. Could you possibly not demean your opponent but simply answer him? I don't know either of you yet to have any negative or positive opinions, but I do know that suggesting that points brought up on a debate board are a waste of time simply because they are brought up is usually an attempt to silence someone, not answer them. Just my two cents.... not trying to fight or antyhing.

[markporter]

The www.answering-islam.org site has a list of many of the contradictions within the Koran. Don't know if this one is their lists.
Dunno, but I like the way they go about it giving muslim responses as well as the actual contradictions, it seems much fairer way of doing things.

[Andy Bannister]

Hi all,

Let me try and give a full and fair response to the various points through which Menj has ambled.


Let's just say I'm pretty used to Bannister's methodology of "rating" his opponents and then back-stab them later.

Ad hominem attacks will, I am afraid, get you precisely nowhere and simply reflect an inability to address the points under consideration. I would also point out that I ‘rated’ your enthusiasm, not your arguments. I rated the former and dissected the latter.


Remembering the Song of Songs debacle where he failed to address the arguments of the erudite Bro. Shibli Zaman, I can easily attest to that.

An issue unknown to the current audience. Let me simply make the points:

(i) Many folk think that Shibli came off worse in that ‘debacle’, not least because of his inability to decide how to transliterate one Hebrew word (he offered, I recall, at least six contradictory renderings). When one’s opponent is not clear in his own mind as to how to express his argument and terminology, it makes proceeding somewhat tricky.

(ii) Shibli has also gone rather quiet since he was publicly exposed for writing ‘the creation of images and/or statues is haram (i.e. forbidden according to Islamic law) if they are in replication of animate creatures (i.e. humans and/or animals)’ on a newsgroup and then plastering the front of his website with pictures of Jesus and ‘animate creatures’. I am reminded of Douglas Adams’ Electric Monk Plus, able to ‘hold up to sixteen entirely different and contradictory ideas in memory simultaneously without generating any irritating system errors’.

Anyway, as you well know, Shibli was not the issue here. So having driven through that smokescreen, we come to the pertinent issue.


1. The Angel Gabriel is known by many appellations [sic] of which "Ruh ul-Quddus" is one of them. I do not know what Bannister is trying to achieve by arguing "against" this well-established fact. He should really try educating himself by opening an authoritative work on tafsir (exegesis) of the Qur'an, and not some dumb missionary like Morey and the likes.

Oh dear. The issue was, as I recall, about the meaning of the word ruh in Q. 19:17. Appealing to the much later tafsir (exegetical) literature will not do. Rather what we need to do is to establish the meaning of the word in the Qur’an. The exegetes were trying to resolve the same dilemma Menj has found himself in, i.e. resolving the apparent contradictions between these two passages. What Menj needs to do is to show us from the Qur’an how one can justify saying ruh = angel. For those who are not up to speed with the problems with tafsir, let me offer a brief précis ...

(a) The vast body of extant tafsir literature only began to emerge in the second Islamic century; e.g. over 100 years after Muhammad’s death. Appealing to this literature to understand the meaning of a word in the Qur’an is thus highly anachronistic.

(b) The tafsir tradition is deeply contradictory; simply consider the huge number of problems that Crone was able to show in a test case study on Surah 106. In short, the later exegetes knew no better than Muslims today the contexts or explanations of allusive words and passages in the Qur’an (Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade, esp. 205-209).

(c) In their attempt to explain the Qur’an, Muslim exegetes often drew on the work of storytellers (qussas) and this body of storytelling tradition grew bigger and bigger with every generation. This phenomenon can be seen simply by comparing the relative sizes of the biographies by Ibn Ishaq (d.767) and Waqidi (d.823). Waqidi is considerably larger, despite only covering Muhammad’s time at Medina. As Crone puts it (p224): ‘[Waqidi] will always give precise dates, locations, names, where Ibn Ishaq has none, accounts of what triggered the expedition, miscellaneous information to lend colour to the event … given that all this information was unknown to Ibn Ishaq, its value is doubtful in the extreme.’ Stylistic study of Waqidi has shown that he reflects qussas style very closer (J. M. B. Jones, ‘Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi: The Dream of ‘Atika and the Raid to Nakhla in Relation to the Charge of Plagiarism’ in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 22 (1959) 41-51.)

In short, one cannot simplistically appeal to the exegetical literature. That literature was generated by the very problems in the Qur’an that Menj wants to solve. In short, you are arguing in a methodological circle; to borrow an illustration from N. T. Wright, this is like Winnie the Pooh following his own footprints around and around the tree in search of a woozle. Either demonstrate from the Qur’an that ruh = Gabriel, or move on. That Menj leaps forward by 100-200 years to appeal to a later body of literature says it all.


2. Bannister may argue until his face turns purple, but the fact is the above verse DOES refer to Angel as "Ruh" and this has got NOTHING to do with the reference to man as in Qur'an 15:29 where it talks about man. The point is that you need to refer to CONTEXT, not just semantical [sic] meanings alone. Will Bannister accuse the Qur'an of "demoting" the "Ruh al-Quddus" (Gabriel) to the position of the "ruh" (man)? This is thus a clear indication that Bannister has no idea about what he is talking about and confusing two different concepts and mixing them in the same bowl.

We have already seen that Menj cannot show that angel = ruh in Q. 19:17; this is a later exegetical invention designed to resolve just this kind of contradiction. If Menj can show us this connection from the Qur’an itself, then the problem will of course go away. Let us now come to Q. 15:29 and my reference to other usages of ruh in the Qur’an. This is entirely relevant, despite Menj’s jumping up and down, because we need to define the semantic field for the Qur’anic use of the lexeme. That will help us see whether ruh could denote the angel Gabriel. And this is where an interesting point arises. Here is Q. 15:29 in full from Yusuf Ali’s English translation:

When I have fashioned him [man] (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him.

Menj gets into difficulties because if he wants to read ruh = Gabriel in Q. 19:17 then one could potentially read it here, too. Menj above recognizes the problems in this view and he says that it demotes Gabriel to a man. Now aside from the point that Qur’anic theology places man above the angels and that this would not be a demotion (e.g. Q. 2:34 and parallels), it is Menj’s own attempt to split the semantic domain for ruh that generates this problem.

On the other hand, my reading is more faithful to the Qur’anic text. If we have two variants of one story in the annunciations in Q. 3 and Q. 19, then ruh in Q. 19:17 is indeed the Spirit of God. That would then be the same Spirit of God involved in animating man here in Q. 15:29. In other words, if you follow my reading of the Qur’an, you maintain one, coherent semantic field. Menj, on the other hand, by trying to make ruh = angel, simply introduces confusion left, right and centre. Why not simply admit you have two accounts of one story and be done with it?


As for where the "first-person singular to third-person plural" is concerned, it is consistent with the overall style of Qur'anic Arabic and at this juncture it is irrelevant to discuss it now. We shall simply say that the language of the Qur'an is nothing like the barbarous, un-eloquent style of the KOINE Greek language of the NT.

The first-person / third-person argument that Menj appeals to here suffers from numerous problems. Firstly, many scholars have argued that the claim that this is to do with the Qur’an’s incredible style is, alas, a circular one. If you trace the history of this claim within the tafsir literature you will discover it is incredibly late. In other words, this claim arose in order to explain the phenomenon within the Qur’an itself. Thus it is circular. Secondly, Menj has missed the point here — you need to read surah 3 narrativally. When you do so, it becomes perfectly obvious that Allah/an angel is speaking in 3:48 and Jesus in 3:49. You may appeal to whatever you like, but the fact of the matter is that the actual birth of Jesus has gone awol from sura 3.

(6) The claim about Koine Greek being ‘barbarous’ is, alas, irrelevant and shows no grasp at all of linguistics. Ever since at least the days of Saussure, the old idea that one language is superior to another in terms of style has been entirely debunked. Not least, this idea died because it is wholly subjective. Menj thinks Arabic is superior. As one learning Arabic, I think it sounds unpleasant and guttural. But these are just opinions, for all languages are human constructs. I would however add at this point that Koine Greek and Classical Arabic share a point with Sanskrit, in that they are all now dead languages, used only for the study of their particular religious texts. Again to speak of the tafsir literature, I am sure Menj is only too aware of the struggles the early exegetes display in trying to understand much of the vocabulary of the Qur’an.


To accuse me of "semantic sneakiness" is one thing, but proving it is quite another.

I think we have already proven it above. To be fair, I ought to qualify ‘semantic sneakiness’ and say that it may simply be that you have read too much tafsir literature without asking the necessary methodological questions. The question is what ruh means in the Qur’an (and in literature from the same historical context); it is not about what it meant to exegetes writing over 100 years later.


As for where the issue of Zayd ibn Thabit is concerned, as well as the concept of the Qur'an being written on a Tablet in the Heavens, that is a topic not related to this thread

The issues are entirely connected and I am puzzled why your epistemological framework seems to be modeled on the Titanic, e.g. you attempt to construct watertight self-contained compartments. Let me connect the two issues for you. In the case of Zaid:

(i) Surah 3 has a break between v48 and v49, indicated by the shift in person and the fact that one moment Jesus is being announced, the next he is speaking. (I notice you do not deny that Jesus is speaking in vv49-51).

(ii) Islamic tradition (admittedly much later) contains two (admittedly contradictory) accounts of the collection of the Qur’an. In both cases, Zaid ibn Thabit (Muhammad’s secretary) is involved. In the first account, it is he who supposedly trotted around collecting bits of the Qur’an.

(iii) That being the case, it seems perfectly reasonable to ponder whether Zaid missed a few pieces between Q. 3:48 and Q. 3:49. That would explain the jump.

And in the case of the Qur’an’s eternal nature:

(i) Unless you hold to some kind of Mut’azilite understanding, you believe the earthly Qur’an to be a copy of an eternal, heavenly Qur’an.

(ii) But if Q. 3 and Q. 19 are doublets, that would suggest oral composition by an oral storyteller, and that would contradict the eternal tablet idea.

(iii) Hence it is on the basis of (i) that you have set out to try to resolve the tensions between Q. 3 and Q. 19.

Thus the two issues are connected. If I had tried to start a discussion on how Allah who is an absolute monod can coexist alongside a pre-existent, eternal Qur’an, that would have been a tangent. So we can leave that metaphysical dichotomy for now.


… and simply indicates the bankruptness of the missionary Bannister, the same way he goes bankrupt when he goes againt [sic] my beloved Brother in Islam (and indirectly, my "mentor"), Shibli Zaman.

What a shame, you had been doing so well and writing so nicely. I am not, alas a ‘missionary’ and this is an odd insult, not least since all orthodox Muslims would I presume consider themselves missionaries with an obligation to engage in dawah. I also note that you heaved into this discussion with me and that this is a Christian theology board. You are very welcome here, but your ‘missionary’ comment is both odd and inaccurate. In terms of Shibli, I am glad to hear that he is your mentor as that does shed light on several matters. Perhaps you could ask him whether those pictures on his website are still haram (forbidden by Islamic law).

May God bless you and guide you to His truth,

Andy

[Dan Zebiri]

Hello all and Andy too!

You have quite intelligently outlined your case on the evident anomalies of the Quran and how people like Menj is in vain trying to hold up a wet thread in the wind, really, as is so evident in his strained and strenous re-interpretations of some of the texts above.

Errors in the Quran ? Sure they are there - and quite numerous AND widespread as well, as Muslim scholars and theologians, well at least the more honest ones-admit to-like Ali Dashti and the classical scholar ibn Khaldun. :blush:

In the words of the late Iranian Scholar Ali Dashti:

"The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Qor'an’s eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds of devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was probably one of the causes of disagreement over readings."

(Ali Dashti, Twenty-Three Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, Allen and Unwin, London, 1985, pp. 48-49)

"To sum up, more than one hundred Qor’anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted. Needless to say, the commentators strove to find explanations and justifications of these irregularities. Among them was the great commentator and philologist Mahmud oz-Zamakhshari (467/1075-538/1144), of whom a Moorish author wrote: ‘This grammar-obsessed pedant has committed a shocking error. Our task is not to make the readings conform to Arabic grammar, but to take the whole of the Qor’an as it is and make Arabic grammar conform to the Qor’an.’" (Ibid., p. 50)

Not just Ali Dashti is correct in his assessment of the quran, even BEFORE his time, we have the admissions of Muslim scholars like Ibn Khaldun on the Quran's many clear inconsistencies. So, Dashti is not the only scholar alone in his honest and objective conclusions on the Quran's inconsistencies!

One classical Muslim scholar, Ibn Khaldun :ahem: confirms that the Quran had indeed been corrupted due to mistakes made by scribes :

"Arabic writing at the beginning of Islam was, therefore, not of the best quality nor of the greatest accuracy and excellence. It was not (even) of medium quality, because the Arabs possessed the savage desert attitude and were not familiar with crafts. One may compare what happened to the orthography of the Qur'an on account of this situation. The men around Muhammad wrote the Qur'an in their own script which was not of a firmly established, good quality. MOST OF THE LETTERS WERE IN CONTRADICTION TO THE ORTHOGRAPHY REQUIRED BY PERSONS VERSED IN THE CRAFT OF WRITING ... Consequently, the Qur'anic orthography of the men around Muhammad was followed and became established, and the scholars acquainted with it have called attention to passages where (this is noticeable).

Ibn Khaldun cautions against taking the defensive statements of the fundamentalist detractors seriously when he says:

No attention should be paid in this connection with those incompetent (scholars) that (the men around Muhammad) knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la 'adhbahannahU ' I shall indeed slaughter him' as indication that the slaughtering did not take place ( lA 'adhbahannahU ). The addition of the ya in bi-ayydin 'with hands (power),' they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect.

There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. They think that good writing is perfection. Thus, they do not admit the fact that the men around Muhammad were deficient in writing."

(The Muqaddima, Ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p. 382)

The preceding citations clearly demonstrate that the scholars themselves are aware that the Quran contains hundreds, if not thousands, of erroneous and variant readings.

Muslim propogandists and fundamentalists like menj will do really well :wink: to first go and study, and examine studiously the works of these muslim scholars above, before impassionedly trying to make more embarassing statements, that ultimately does not reflect positively on Islam on TWeb.

Rgds, Dan Zebiri.