Evidence and Clear Examples of Factual errors & historical inaccuracies in the Quran.

[Dan Zebiri]

Yes, the Quran is not a historical record and is historically an UNSOUND and unreliable source for actual historical events!

All the incidents I posted here - to which no one gave a sensible answer is proof of this.

Why should I accept the account of the Quran and its suras on all the characters I pointed out here already?? - David, Aaron, Lot, Abraham, Jesus Christ Etc

Especially NOT when the quranic accounts are based on UNPROVEN AND UNSOUND muslim theological biases, presumptions and preferences - LIKE ISMAT/ MA'ASUM (so-called 'infallibility) etc. And not on facts and reality.

So, the different versions in those stories about those characters named above in the quran are the result of one such false bias - 'impeccability / infallibility'!

The quran would for instance, dare to fabricate that the Golden Calf was made NOT BY Aaron the brother of Moses ('nabi Harun), BUT by another sinister person it calls 'as-samirii'- which is an UNPROVEN IDEA factually, and mitigates againts the quran's reliability.

Dan.

[Dan Zebiri]

Any moslem can try to give an excuse for ma'asum - provided it can be proven to be a sound excuse!...:-)

[Dan Zebiri]

Another example of the quran's factual error and / or inconsistency is found in the quran's version about the Israelite Captivity in Egypt and what led to their ultimate and permanent deliverance and escape out from the bondage of the Egyptian Pharoah.

This is another really interesting expose about the fabrication and fasification within the Quran!

Dan.

[smaneck]

Dan,

If you are going to say that the Qur'an is wrong about this or that the least you can do is cite the sura and verse. Or have you not actually read the Qur'an?

Susan

[Dan Zebiri]

Sue,

Don't worry, I read the quran actually more than you read the Bible!

Does not your religion teach you that patience is supposedly a virtue? Time for you to go practice some of that...

Dan.

Dan,

If you are going to say that the Qur'an is wrong about this or that the least you can do is cite the sura and verse. Or have you not actually read the Qur'an?

Susan

[smaneck]

Sue,

Don't worry, I read the quran actually more than you read the Bible!

I'd be willing to lay odds you don't.

[]Does not your religion teach you that patience is supposedly a virtue? Time for you to go practice some of that...

Dan.

It does indeed. It also says;

Warn, O Salman, the beloved of the one true God, not to view with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men. Let them rather approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and loving sympathy. Those men, however, who, in this Day, have been led to assail, in their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of God, are to be treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the All-Powerful, the Almighty. He that wisheth to promote the Cause of the one true God, let him promote it through his pen and tongue, rather than have recourse to sword or violence. We have, on a previous occasion, revealed this injunction, and We now confirm it, if ye be of them that comprehend. By the righteousness of Him Who, in this Day, crieth within the inmost heart of all created things: "God, there is none other God besides Me!"

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 329)

[Dan Zebiri]

Hellooo there, barney...pls.dont try to go hiding again and again, behind your 'personal attack' tirade...And then avoid dealing with those ACTUAL ISSUES THAT MITIGATE AGAINST THE QURAN!

I have already shown many points that do not favor the validity of the quran at all, which you just try ignoring, but by doing so, shows & further reinforces the fact that there really is no rational and intelligent basis for the authenticity of the quran, and therefore, much less reasons to believe in it!

Other than by blind faith, of course.

I am absolutely NOT INTERESTED in personal attacks on you...!

I am VERY interested only in THE TRUTH.

Dan

[Dan Zebiri]

The quran's version of the Egyptian captivity and Exodus leaves many questions unanswered and much room for doubt on its rationality and authenticty

sura 17/101:

And verily We gave unto Moses nine tokens, clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty). Do but ask the Children of Israel how he came unto them, then Pharaoh said unto him: Lo! I deem thee one bewitched, O Moses.

sura 7/133:

So We sent against them the (plagues of) flood and the locusts and the vermin and the frogs and the blood - a succession of clear signs. But they were arrogant and became a guilty folk.

In sura 17, it says 'NINE signs', Yusuf Ali calls them 'plagues' which is a correct rendering.

Then, we we go looking for what these plagues really were: we find only five of them!

In sura 7/133 the quran lists:

1) flood and

2) the locusts and

3) the vermin and

4) the frogs and lastly

5) the blood !

ONLY Five plagues listed here. Where are the other balance of FOUR (4), making up the total of N INE??!

Some muslims sensing this problem, have tried to get around the problem , by hinting that the other 'signs' also have to be taken into consideration, like : Moses' hand becoming leprous, Moses staff changing into a snake and eating the other smaller snakes of the magicians etc.make up for TWO from the Short-fall!

That still leaves us with SEVEN - A DEFICIT OF 2..But we cannot REALLY consider the last 2 'SIGNS' - Moses' Leprous hand and Moses staff turning into a snake, AS PLAGUES! Technically THEY ARE NOT!

So, they quran states there, '9 plagues' but it can furnish us with only
FIVE, or at BEST, SEVEN!!

WHERE ARE THE OTHER FOUR PLAGUES?? YOU CANNOT FIND THEM IN THE QURAN, it is really incomplete!

To get at the truthful, real and complete answer, Muslims and everyone else must refer to the BIBLE for the real thing!

And in EXODUS chapters 7-12, we get to find the WHOLE LIST of the Plagues, including those which the Quran missed out :

1) The Plague of Blood

2) The Plague of Frogs

3) The Plague of Gnats

4) The Plague of Flies

5) The Plague on Livestock

6) the Plague of Boils,

7) the Plague of Hail,

8) plague of Locusts

9) plague of Darkness , and

10) the PLAGUE OF DEATH of every first-born male chld - infant or otherwise! That is NOT PROTECTED BY THE PASSOVER LAMB.

So, actually, the Exodus event comprises NOT of merely 5 plagues, which the quran lists for us (Instead of just 5 which it identified) BUT in reality, the original story preserves ALL TEN of them.

So, the Quran gets it wrong again, because in the history of the Jews, the event of the Exodus from Egypt consists of TEN - and NOT nine Plagues wrongly stated by the quran!

The quran has dropped out the LAST PLAGUE - which incidentally is the MOST IMPORTANT PLAGUE of all those plagues of the Exodus.

WHY? Because it was the FINAL 10TH PLAGUE that caused the way to be opened for the ultimate departure and exodus of the Jews OUT OF EGYPT and from the bondage to Pharoah's tyranny.

It is really a great tragic error for the Quran to omit such an important event as the PASSOVER - as recorded in full in Exodus chapters 11 and 12. And to leave a false impression that it took only 9 plagues to secure the release of the Israelites out of Egypt!

Dan.

[barnasha]

I have already shown many points that do not favor the validity of the quran at all, which you just try ignoring, but by doing so, shows & further reinforces the fact that there really is no rational and intelligent basis for the authenticity of the quran, and therefore, much less reasons to believe in it!

Other than by blind faith, of course.

I am absolutely NOT INTERESTED in personal attacks on you...!

I am VERY interested only in THE TRUTH.

Dan

You mean like when you made the argument that inconsistencies between biblical and quranic accounts cast doubt on the later of the two sources?

And when we showed that the bible's works have the same issue, you ignored that?

Or was there another point which was a bit less hypocritical or more convincing?

[Dan Zebiri]

Barnasha,

What is really hypocritical here is, Muhammad your prophet, using these Old Testament stories to recount back to the Jews in Madina trying to get them to convert to islam.

Even getting his muslim followers there to make their qiblah the same as the Jewish one - Jerusalem, for 16-18 months, before claiming another 'revelation' to make him change that back to Makkah..read that in sura 2/143-150.

BUT when the Jews REFUSED to recognize him as a 'prophet'. He changed the qiblah to face the kaaba / black stone in Makkah, instead.

WHEN that kaaba was still filled with 360-plus IDOLS of pagan worship.

How hypocritical is that? Muslims can bow their knees to the 360 pagan idols in that pagan temple, yet uncleansed, in their worship ritual, when it suited Muhamad and his Allah! With so-called 'divine sanction' everything is possible..(remember that Aishah also said that to Muhd!)

So it is quite true to say that Muhamad and his muslims were actually idol-worshippers still at that particular point in time.

Dan.

[smaneck]

Barnasha,

What is really hypocritical here is, Muhammad your prophet, using these Old Testament stories to recount back to the Jews in Madina trying to get them to convert to islam.

Muhammad was relating those stories for the benefit of Arabs, not Jews. I don't think he really expected the Jews to convert. What he expected, I think, is that the Jews would support His mission to the Arabs. Instead the chose to mock him, and spy on behalf of the pagans of Mecca.

<polemics snipped>

[barnasha]

Barnasha,

What is really hypocritical here is, Muhammad your prophet,

what do you mean, "my prophet"?


because I don't seethe hatred and whisper rumors from the anti-Islam gutter about the man, he's "my prophet"?

Dan is a campaigner for anti-Islam, while I am a campaigner for good and truth, no matter what religion it may be found in....

I guess some truths really are inconvenient, when you have an ulterior motive (casting another religion in a bad light to make your own feel superior)

[Dan Zebiri]

Barnasha,

Dont try and deceive us further,ok...you claim that I am 'a campaigner for anti-islam' - NOW THATS a personal attack - which you love to keep doing on me when you are unable to rebut other people's posts intelligently.

You yourself a a campaigner for islam...shamlelessly admit it like an honest man.

Dan.

[Dan Zebiri]

More red herrings, again,Sue.

WHY would Muhamad not be focusing his mission and message to the Jews at the Madina of his time? Especially when he turned to face 'the qibla' of the Jews - ie.at Jerusalem, FOR 16-18 MONTHS, so confirm the Biographers of Muhamad.

He did that very thing to win over the hearts and minds of these Jews-who were the recipients of all the Prophets.

IF these same Jews did receive Muhd as their prophet, he would be the first ARAB - ie.GENTILE (non-jewish) prophet to be endorsed by then Chosen People (ie.the Jews) .

JUST IMAGINE WHAT that would do to his reputation and 'prophetic career'? It would be propelled much further since he finally received the endorsement of the "people of the prophets" (ie.the Jews).

Unfortunately, the Jews never accepted that, because they knew far better and much better!

Rgds, Dan.

[smaneck]

More red herrings, again,Sue.

Dan,

You need to look up "red herring.' You obviously don't know the meaning of the term.

[WHY would Muhamad not be focusing his mission and message to the Jews at the Madina of his time?

Because the purpose of His Mission was to convey God's message to the Arabs.

[Especially when he turned to face 'the qibla' of the Jews - ie.at Jerusalem, FOR 16-18 MONTHS, so confirm the Biographers of Muhamad.

Christians used to pray towards Jerusalem in those days as well. In so doing, Muhammad was simply following what the pattern of the other Abrahamic religions of which it was the latest.

He did that very thing to win over the hearts and minds of these Jews-who were the recipients of all the Prophets.

And you kow this how?

IF these same Jews did receive Muhd as their prophet, he would be the first ARAB - ie.GENTILE (non-jewish) prophet to be endorsed by then Chosen People (ie.the Jews) .

JUST IMAGINE WHAT that would do to his reputation and 'prophetic career'? It would be propelled much further since he finally received the endorsement of the "people of the prophets" (ie.the Jews).

You assume the Arabs cared. If Muhammad wanted the Jews to follow Him, He would have insisted that they convert before He accepted the governorship of Medina as He did with the Arabs.

Susan