1o1 Biblical Contradictions

Assalamu alaika David 4848.

Your query: Like a computer do you say �it is not allowed to translate the holy Qur'an in a manner not translated by Muhammad � ?!! �Does not compute�!
Reply: There is that part of the holy Qur'an dealing entirely and specifically with the activities of Muhammad and his companions. Translation stops at that but one can expand where expansion is not contrary to the original meaning and intent of the context. I am sure you will not accept the translation that the grandchildren of the holy Apostle are superior to other Muslims regarding obedience to Allah and Muhammad. Secondly, you will never agree that Muhammad ruled on the basis of monarchy and dictatorship, nor used sword to compel the Levi tribes to follow the Torah.
Your query: Is the Arabic language and the life of Mohamad the only way to communicate Truth. Is not Truth bigger than that !
Answer: Arabic language is unique in that it is the richest language in expression. One has to be extremely patient in translating Arabic into other languages due its convolutions. One has to understand Arabic before he can grasp the full meaning of a sentence. Moreover one has to go back to history that is the moment of the incidents or events that took place when that verse was revealed.  One has to again refer to the OT and NT to have a complete understanding. With Muhammad we know the details about 90% For example, I am looking in the OT the years Saul ruled and his age when he died. In the OT Jonah was sent to 140000 people, in the Qur'an it was 100000 and above that. I am not saying that 140000 is not correct and I must stick to 100000. I am not saying that Saul did not disobey Allah as given in the OT, but according to the Qur'an Saul disobeyed Allah as a lesson that even if prophets disobey Allah they will be punished by Him. The teaching of Muhammad is to speak good of people and not to to make them look mischief makers.
Your post:Are we not allowed to use our God given brain and intellect.
Response: Yes indeed. But this is only possible when one learns the Qur'an. For example if you use your brain and intellect and follow the argument of Allah in the Qur'an, you will see why Jesus the son of virgin Mary cannot be the son of Allah.
Your argument: Does everything need to be accepted without questioning?! This is the basis of ignorance, indoctrination and brain washing. We can do better than that!
Response: This is the cardinal teaching of Islam. No priesthood is allowed. We are equal. The reference point is the Qur'an.
Your response: I�m sorry but this does not help me. Can you try to answer the contradictions please, or if not, at least tell me if you are prepared to ask God to reveal Truth to you even at the risk it does not fit with your traditions and learning ??
Response: I hope I have helped you now. Merry Christmas to you and your family!

Hi BMZ
Thanks, no rush. Bearing in mind � while I am not a scholar of the Arabic language � people who are also state there are grammatical errors in the Arabic. For Muslims to believe that the Qur'an is a literary miracle and that it is unmatched among any other literature that is a problem. If it is not a human masterpiece but a divine miracle, where every letter and dot was revealed from heaven, with no difference between what was revealed and what we have in our hands then this is a problem.

The First Error
In 5:69
"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness - no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." (Arberry)
"Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaaraa man 'aamana bilaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."
There is a grammatical error in the above verse. The word Saabi'uuna has been declined wrongly.
In two other verses, the same word, in exactly the same grammatical setting was declined correctly.
2:62 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaaraa was-Saabi'iina ..."
22:17 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina wan-Nasaaraa ..."
You notice that the word was written Saabi'uuna in 5:69 and was written Saabi'iina in 2:62 and 22:17. In the last two verses the word was declined correctly because the word inna in the beginning of the sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" (as in cases of accusative or subjunctive) and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna in 5:69 was given the 'uu, waw which is the sign of "raf'a" (as in cases of nominative or indicative). This then is an obvious grammatical error.

The Second Error
In 4:162
"But those of them that are firmly rooted in knowledge, and the believers believing in what has been sent down to thee, and what was sent down before thee, that perform the prayer and pay the alms, and those who believe in God and the Last Day - them We shall surely give a mighty wage." (Arberry)
"Laakinir-Raasi-khuuna fil-'ilmi minhum wal-Mu'-minuuna yu'-minuuna bi-maaa 'unzila 'ilayka wa maaa 'unzila min-qablika wal-muqiimiin as-Salaata wal mu'-tuunaz-Zakaata wal-Mu'-mi-nuuna billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhir: 'ulaaa 'ika sanu'-tii-him 'ajran 'aziimaa."
The word muqiimiin should be muqiimuun. The word should be declined by the "raf'a sign" like the other nouns in the sentence. Indeed the two nouns before it (Raasi-khuun and Mu'-minuun), and the noun after it (mu'-tuun) are declined correctly. Some have argued that this word was declined as such to distinguish and praise the act of praying, but the scholar Ibn al-Khatib says that this is a sick reasoning. (al-Furqan by Mohammad M. 'abd al-Latif Ibn al-Katib, Dar al-Kutub al-'elmiyah, Beirut, p.43). Such reasoning defies logic. Why would one distinguishe prayer which is a branch of religion, and not faith which is the fundamental and root of religion? Besides can this logic apply to the error of declension in the previous verse? Do we conclude that the Saabi'iin are more distinguished than those who believe, and the People of the Book? And why do they get distinguished in one verse and not the other as we have seen? God is much higher than this sick logic. This again is an obvious grammatical error.

The Third Error
In 20:63
"They communed secretly saying, 'These two men are sorcerers'." (Arberry)
"Qaaluuu inna haazaani la-saahiraani ..."
The word haazaani should be haazayn.
The word haazaani was declined incorrectly because the word inna in the beginning of the nominal sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" to the nominative and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". This is the third grammatical error.

The Fourth Error
In 2:177
"It is not piety, that you turn your faces to the East and to the West. True piety is this: to believe in God, and the Last Day ... to give of one's substance ... and to ransom the slave, to perform the prayer, to pay the alms. And they who fulfil their covenant ... and endure with fortitude." (Arberry)
"Laysal-birra 'an-tuwalluu wujuuhakum qibalal-Mashriqi wal-Maghrib wa laakinnal-birra man 'aamana billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Akhiri wal-malaaa-'ikati wal-Kitaabi wan-nabiyyiin: wa 'aatal-maala 'alaa hubbihii zawilqurbaa wal-yataamaa wal-masaakiina wabnas-sabiili was-saaa-'iliina wa fir-riqaab: wa'aqaamas-Salaata wa 'aataz-Zakaata; wal-muufuuna bi'ahdihim 'izaa 'aahaduu was-Saabiriina fil-ba'-saaa'i wazzarraaa-'i ..."
In the above verse there are five gramatical errors. In four of them the wrong tense was used, as the sentence begins in the present tense with the verb tuwalluu, while the other four verbs were written in the past tense:
'aaman should be tu'minuu;
'aata shoud be tu'tuu;
'aqaama should be tuqimuu;
'aata shoud be tu'tuu.
The above verse when translated into English as it appears in Arabic would be: "It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteousness is he who believed in Allah and the Last day and the angels and the Book and the Prophets; and gave his wealth, ... and performed prayer and paid the alms."
But the English translators have observed the tense, and the verbs "believed", "gave", "performed", and "paid" were corrected and written in the present tense. (For example see Arberry, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali and Rodwell's translations).
The fifth error is the wrong declension of the word saabiriina. It should be declined saabiruuna like the preceeding word muufuuna.

The Fifth Error
In 3:59
"the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight, is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, 'Be,' and he was." (Arberry)
"Inna massala 'Isaa 'indal-laahi ka-masali 'Adam; khalaqahuu min-turaabin-sum-ma qaala lahuu kun fa-yakuun."
The above verse when translated into English as it appears in Arabic would be: "The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said to him 'Be,' and he is." The above is Pickthall's translation. Please note that he translated yakuun (is) as it appears in Arabic, i.e. in the present tense.
The word yakuun ("is" in English) should be kana ("was") to be consistent with the past tense of the previous verb "said" as it was corrected by Arberry, Rodwell and Yusuf Ali in their translations of that verse. This is the fifth error.

The Sixth Error
In 21:3
"The evildoers whisper one to another ..."
"Laahiyatan - quluubuhum. Wa 'asarrun-najwallaziin zalamuu..."
The word 'asarru should be 'asarra. The above is a verbal sentence, and the rule for such a sentence, where the verb comes before the (masculine) subject, is that the verb must be in the third (masculine) singular form, if the active subject of the verbal sentence is stated in the sentence. (The same rule holds for substituting the two mentionings of "masculine" by "feminine".) But the verb in the above Qur'anic verse came in the plural form. See how the above rule was observed in the following Qur'anic verses: 3:52, 10:2, 16:27, 16:35, 3:42, 49:14.

The Seventh Error
In 22:19
"These are two disputants who have disputed concerning their Lord." (Arberry)
"haazaani Khismani 'ikhtasamuu fi rabbihim ..."
In Arabic, like English words are declined or conjugated with respect to number. In English there are two numbers: singular and plural. So in English two men are treated as plural. But in Arabic there are three numbers: singular, dual, and plural. So in Arabic the verbs and nouns are treated according to the singular or the dual or the plural. The verb in that verse was conjugated as if the subject is more than two. But the verse speaks only of two. So the rules of the dual should be followed and the word 'ikhtasamuu should be 'ikhtasamaa. So this is yet another error.

The Eighth Error
In 49:9
"If two parties of believers fight, put things right between them." (Arberry)
"wa 'in-taaa-'ifataani mi-nal-Mu'-miniinaq-tatalu fa-'aslihuu baynahumaa."
This error in this verse is like the previous one. The number again is dual but the verb was conjugated as if the subject is plural. So the verb 'eq-tatalu should be 'eqtatalata.

The Nineth Error
In 63:10
"O my Lord, if only Thou wouldst defer me unto a near term, so that I may make freewill offering, and so I may become one of the righteous." (Arberry)
"... Rabbi law laaa 'akhartaniii 'ilaaa 'ajalin-qariibin-fa-'assaddaqa wa 'akum-minas-salihiin."
The verb 'akun was incorrectly conjugated. It should be 'akuuna, i.e. the last consonant must have the vowel "a", instead of being vowelless, because the verb 'akun, is in the subjunctive. Indeed the previous verb ('assaddaqa) has been correctly conjugated and is in the subjunctive. The reason is that in Arabic the present tense is placed in the subjunctive mood if it is preeceeded by certain words (huruf nasebah). One of such words is the "causative fa".

The Tenth Error
In 91:5
"By the heaven and that which built it." (Arberry)
"was-samaaa-'i wa maa ba-naahaa."
The word ma in the Arabic language is used for the impersonal. But the subject of the above verse is God. So the word which should be used is the Arabic word man (meaning "him who"). Arberry translated that verse as follows: "By the heaven and that which built it" meaning God. Pickthall however corrected the impersonal (ma, that which) and translated the verse as follows: "By the heaven and Him Who built it."
Indeed Pickthall also corrected the two verses that follow:
And the earth and Him Who spread it. Q. 91:6.
And a soul and Him Who perfected it. Q. 91:7.
Yusuf Ali, to get out of the problem, translated the above verse as follows: "By the firmament and its wonderful structure". So the subject 'God' does not appear at all in his translation of that verse. He gives his reason for his translation in a footnote saying: The ma masdariya in Arabic, in this and the subsequent clauses, is best translated in English by nouns." But the word bana in banaha is not a noun but a verb in the past tense as translated correctly by Arberry and Pickthall. The word ma should have been man (meaning "who") and in that context it should have been "Who" with a capital W.

The Eleventh Error
In 41:11
"Then He lifted Himself to heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth, 'come willingly, or unwillingly!' They said, 'we come willingly.'"
"... faqal laha wa lel-Arad 'iteya taw'aan aw karha qalata atayna ta'e'een."
Heaven and earth in Arabic are feminine nouns, the verb said in "they said" is accordingly feminine and dual (qalata), but the adjective "willing" at the end of the verse is masculine and plural (ta'e'een), being at variance with the rule that the adjectives should match their nouns in number in gender, thus ta'e'een which is used for plural, should be ta'e'atain which is used for feminine dual.

The Twelfth Error
In 7:56
"The mercy of God is near."
"... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."
The above verse is a nominal clause. In such a clause the predicate should match the subject (rahmata) of the nominal clause in gender. The word qaribun (meaning "near") is the predicate of rahmata Allahi ("mercy of Allah"), they should match each other in gender. But this is not the case in the Arabic text. Rahmata is feminine in Arabic and so the word qaribun (which is masculine) should instead be qaribah (its feminine form).
This rule was correctly observed in other Qur'anic verses. For example, in 9:40 we read: "Kalemat ul-llah heya al-'ulya." Here both Kalemat and heya are feminine. To say instead: "Kalemat ul-llah howa al-'a'la" would never be correct. That would be just as wrong as saying: "... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min ..."

Error 13
In 7:160
"We divided them into twelve tribes."
"wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."
Instead of asbatan it should read sebtan.
In the Arabic it literally says "twelve tribes". That is correct in English but not correct in Arabic. In Arabic it should say twelve tribe because the noun that is counted by a number above ten should be singular. This rule is observed correctly for example in 7:142, 2:60, 5:12, 9:36, 12:4.
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 gernder and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects ... To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the normal rules and structures have been noted... ('Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, California, 1994, pages 48,50)
Hence, the above are just a small sample and more are to come.
Some of the above errors are not a new discovery by modern critics. They were known from the first century of Islam by the closest followers of Mohammad. It is reported that 'Uthman, after viewing the first standared copy of the Qur'an, said, 'I see grammatical errors in it, and the Arabs will read it correctly with their tongues.'[4] The Muslim scholar Ibn al-Khatib who quoted the above report in his book al-Furqan, went on to mention another report on the authority of 'Aa'isha, one of Mohammad's wives, saying, 'There are three grammatical errors in the Book of Allah, they are the fault of the scribe:
In 20:63
"Qaaluuu inna haazaani la-saahiraani ..."
And in 5:69
"Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaaraa man 'aamana bilaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."
And in 4:162
"Laakinir-Raasi-khuuna fil-'ilmi minhum wal-Mu'-minuuna yu'-minuuna bi-maaa 'unzila 'ilayka wa maaa 'unzila min-qablika wal-muqiimiin as-Salaata wal mu'-tuunaz-Zakaata wal-Mu'-mi-nuuna billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhir: 'ulaaa 'ika sanu'-tii-him 'ajran 'aziimaa."'[5]
Two comments need to be made.
Either, the original Qur'an was revealed containing these errors, or the errors resulted from mistakes by human scribes as they were copying the Qur'an. There exist no other possibilities. As the first choice is unthinkable, the second is the only logical explanation. But that also means that it is not true that the Qur'an we have in our hands is the "only inspired scripture that has come down to us intact as revealed to the prophet. There has been no tampering of the text and the original purity of the language has stayed undefiled."

Hello Friendship
Thank you for your reply

YOUR RESPONSE
You must understand that there are regulations in interpretation of the holy Qur'an given by Muhammad Rasulullah and the Sahabas. At the sametime, the life history of Muhammad is extremely important in interpreting the holy Qur'an.

MY REPLY
To argue using the Quaran, Hadfiths or Muslim commentaries means very little to me as I place little importance on them. This does not help me with the contradictions.



YOUR RESPONSE
In the absence of such regulations in the interpretation of the OT and NT, I apply the same method.

MY REPLY
To apply the use of regulations and interpretations to the OT and NT is flawed. Reflecting on the life of Jesus is helpful but the Christian interpretation of the OT and NT is based on our relationship with God. Not on the commentaries of teachers or written regulations. This is dead religion.



YOUR RESPONSE
I am thus bound to respect the OT and NT and never accept the idea of contradiction or what the majority of those planting terrorism and hatred in the world say about the Holy scriptures.
It seems your Bible and mine are different and even yesterday in a BBC programme I heard that the various Christian denominations use different bible.

MY REPLY
Yes I agree, religion can be reinterpreted and twisted to plant hatred. But you seem to be saying two different things here. First you say you respect the OT and NT then go on to criticize the different types of bibles ?
The reliability of the original eye witness based scriptures of the Injil is solid and this is the basis to all translations. I personally have many different translations of the Bible. They all add meaning.
I also have an interlinear Bible that gives the original Hebrew and Greek words that I use in conjunction with a Greek / Hebrew dictionary if I really want to get into the original meaning.
Most Christian leaders have learnt the Greek and Hebrew languages.



YOUR RESPONSE
This is not so with the Qur'an. We have one word but some people changed the meaning but not the text. Every word or letter in the Qur'an was approved by Allah, spoken by Gabriel and then Muhammad, conveyed to us by those who heard it. We know their names, number day and by day, month by month and year by year. Our statistics are accurate.

MY REPLY
As said above most Christians are familiar with Greek / Hebrew interlinear Bibles and dictionaries and leaders have been trained in the Greek and Hebrew languages.
Im sorry but your answer does not adequately explain the contradictions in the Quaran in my opinion. If the true Arabic meaning is lost in translation it lacks relevance to the rest of the world and how can the Quaran be the �infallible� word of God?
You criticize translation of the OT and NT but translations seem to be even more of a problem for the Quaran and the Muslim world.
Further more, Arabic linguistic scholars have identified grammatical mistakes in the Quaran which raises doubts about the pure miracle work of the Arabic Quaran.



YOUR RESPONSE
Please kindly be honest and tell me if you ever read : Reverend Maththew Henry's unabridged and complete commentary of the Bible?" If you have never read it, please start doing so for you will understand that he indeed translated those part of the holy Qur'an not translated or given meaning by Muslim scholars.

MY REPLY
No Im sorry I haven�t read Matthew Henry's commentary. While having their place I tend to avoid commentaries for the reason they are a mans interpretation. Christians are encouraged to be in close relationship with God and get HIS commentary.



YOUR RESPONSE
It is wrong and absurd to assume that that the Bible must tooth and nail or dovetail the Qur'an. NO! It is the lessons and examples to fear Allah and believe in Him that is important.

MY REPLY
However Mohammed himself said the Torah and Injil were important.



YOUR RESPONSE
First of all as I said in many places, Allah and Muhammad never called the followers of Jesus the son of Maryam Christians. We know them as Muslims. So the discrediting never stemmed from true Muslims.

MY REPLY
Thank you for your comment but I see all time here.



YOUR RESPONSE
For example, the true Jews never believed that anti-semetism originated from the Muslims but from Roman empire.

MY REPLY
Anti Semitism existed long before the Romans. If you read the Book of Ester in the OT which was written in the third or fourth century BC you will read a power account of anti Semitism.
Some of the Anti Semitist talk coming from Muslim countries these days like Iran for example is disturbing.



YOUR RESPONSE
Who changed the manner Solomon prayed in the Temple? So imagine how Islam and history is distorted! Please let us correct the present by referring to the past!

MY REPLY
Im not sure what you mean about how the manner of Soloman praying in the Temple changed ? But yes we must refer to the past. That is why I am always encouraging of you to refer to the Tenakh (OT) and Injil.

God Bless You Friendship
David

David4848 wrote: Hello BMZ YOUR RESPONSE I had wanted to address this part of your post last night but I did not have time. I would like to write on that now. Those were not Jewish Quraish tribes. There were three Jewish tribes living in and around Medina, namely, Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayzah. Banu Qaynuqa created mischief, provoked the Muslims, worked against the Muslims by siding with the Meccan pagans and were besieged. They agreed to surrender and were allowed to depart, taking with them all their transportable possessions. They were not massacred! so why would Banu Qurayzah be massacred? Qurayzah story of slaughtering 400-900 Jews is a hoax, written by Ibn Ishaq, who sucked up to the Jews of his time and was considered a Liar by the early true scholars of Islam. Imam Malik called him a Liar. Ibn Ishaq had a collection of 600 plus ahadith but you would be surprised to know that none of his hadith made it into the six Hadith Collections. If the story were true, there would have been hundreds of stories and reports by many, not just Ibn Ishaq. Only the top leader of Banu Qurayzah, was killed. If you read about Banu Qurayzah hoax, you would notice that this story of Ibn Ishaq has been quoted mostly by polemicists. There is no such story in the hadith collections.Ibn Ishaq just based his story on Jewish tales. He was not even there and he heard it from the Jews, who were expelled. My point is that the Banu Qurayzah story is a hoax! MY RESPONSE Thank you clarifying details however original my original points were the People book not convert to Islam as claimed and that Mohamad was a man of the sword while Jesus was of peace. It is well known the Jewish Qurayzah were Jewish fought at least3 battles with Mohamad and they are well documented. The battle of Khaybar being one. Ibn Ishaq writings a hoax maybe ? Winners generally write history and many would not want to portray Islam in a bad light.? I believe the Hadith is not historically reliable and has a religious bias? YOUR REPLY Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God. MY RESPONSE Also you are only partly correct about the Bible being written by man. Written by man but inspired by God. The Quaran testifies to the Tenak (OT) and Injil as from God.

Hi David,

I have already clarified that the Banu Qurayza story is a hoax. So, I will just leave it there. Two other Banus, Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadir, who had fought the Muslims, were allowed to go earlier.
There was no reason to finish the third. Their leaders were killed.

"Shasta's Aunt" is my signature, not a reply.

I am only interested in true revelations, not stories and statements made by men claiming they were inspired by God Almighty. Did God inspire the person to write genesis 38? So, I would not consider Genesis 38 as an inspiration or a work inspired by God.

Can the following passage be called an inspiration by or from God?

Gal 4:22-31 (NIV) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband." Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Under inspiration of God Almighty, the person would have only said, "Therefore, brothers, we are not children of devil but all of us are the children of Abraham."

Do you see what I see, David?

Salaams
BMZ


Edited by BMZ - 21 December 2010 at 6:13pm