Idea ripped from the evidence for and against the bible?

Does anyone have the same about the Qu'ran? Always the bible is examined in this kind of questions why not the qu'ran. I believe the Qu'ran is the word of god and is thus tottally correct. I have readed a book about that the Qu'ran has no scientific flaws but i cannot find anything about it on the internet. The book as written by a frenchman and compared the qu'ran, bible and torah in the area of scientific flaws.

Qur'an has stories from the bible, but an added part.
Western world tends to fear Islam, thats why we dont refer to it.

No posts like qu'ran is just the bible with added parts. If you say things like that then its clear you have never readed or get good information about the qu'ran.

Not to anger you in any form, I also have read on that exact subject and one of the best sites (of course its biased) is this,


Answering Islam-Contradictions in the Qur'an


If you have different opinions on it this site will at least answer your questions as to what others think..

First is the source really credible? I have seen madeup qu'ran verses before.
second: I do not see the entire verse. I have seen so called things that made the qu'ran racist and such because not the entire verse was posted.

The link you posted is interesting through. I will continue looking trough it.

edit: i have also seen stuff from hadith's being used as if they were from the qu'ran themselves. Also why wouldnt the frenchman say that there are flaws in the qu'ran. He wasnt muslim unless the book was a muslim conspiracy to get more followers

Edit2: i failed to find anything about the book as the book is quite old so i cannot prove that the book exists.

[edit on 19-2-2005 by tomcat ha]

Originally posted by tomcat ha
No posts like qu'ran is just the bible with added parts. If you say things like that then its clear you have never readed or get good information about the qu'ran.

tomcat, infinite IS right. He/She didn't say it is the just the bible with added parts, infinite said that it HAS stories from the bible, along with added parts.

Ed, let me tackle those contradictions.
The 1st is about inheritance. The site claims that the inheritence does not add up, being 1/3 for the son, but if they are ONLY daughters (2 or more), then the daughters get 2/3 of the inheritence. This is in addition to that left to any remaining parents. As you see, there is no miscalculation.
The 2nd is a contradiction about how many angels were talking to Mary. It quotes 2 passages, but the author does not take into account that these could be 2 separate occasions. He even posted a rebuttal from someone who gave this arguement, but replied with "responding party is uncomfortable with his own proposed solution". How is that an answer?
The 3rd point is about numerical discrepancies.
The 1st discrepancy is about how many years to us is 1 day to God. Forget for a moment that God would be outside time, so "days" and "years" in the literal sense, would not apply to God. Also, if noticed, everytime the comparison is made, it says "a day is like .....". This is a comparison so as to attempt to fit into a humans limited understanding. Still, lets forget all this, and get technical. (22:47) is talking generally about how many years to humanity is 1 day to God. However, (70:4), is talking about a SPECIFIC day.

(22:47)
...Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning

70:4
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years:

See what I mean?

I'd like to go on, but my internet time is running out. If you want more disproved, I would be happy to oblige.

[edit on 20-2-2005 by babloyi]

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Always the bible is examined in this kind of questions why not the qu'ran.

Probably because most people around here aren't familiar with the qu'ran nor are they likely going to become familiar with it any time soon. However, almost everyone around here is atleast partially familiar with the Bible so it's easy for them to voice their opinion with some amount of confidence.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to create a post like the one you're talking about and see what happens. There will probably be some others around here, besides yourslef, that should be able to discuss it and examine it's concepts with rigorous intelligence. I personally am not one of them, but I know they're out there somewhere.

Give it a shot, the worst that will happen is nobody will reply with anything worth reading, so you'll be no worse off then you are now.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
. The book as written by a frenchman and compared the qu'ran, bible and torah in the area of scientific flaws.

I have the book you are talking about:
"La Bible, Le Coran et la Science" by Maurice Bucaille

Very interesting book indeed.

Last time I was in a Qur'an discussion the Muslim said i would never understand it unless I knew ancient hebrew and could read the qua'an in the original language like him

Not hebrew but arabic. Indeed it makes much more sense if read from arabic unless its translated by someone who knows arabic cery well. Why? Well simply because some words have a other meaning and only some people understand what they really mean with those words. There are even some words in the qu'ran which didnt exist before it and even know people do not know what those words really mean.

I recently heard that there is a dramatic shift in the Q'uran--before, Mohammed did not preach for holy war against the infidel, but afterward calls to violence against Christians and Jews abound. Historically, this is becuase initially, Mohammed wanted support from Jews and Christians so that his religion could grow, but they rejected Islam, and that's when he started inciting violence against them. How true is that statement?

Biegacz, no such dramatic shift would be possible, because even IF Muhammad first preached peace towards non-muslims, then hatred (which isn't really accurate anyway), the Quran is not assembled chronologically. So, what Muhammad said earlier on would not be first in the Quran, and what he taught later on would not be afterwards. It is all together.
Ok, supposing we ARE supplying evidences for and against the Quran, here is my FOR:
1st of all, Muhammad was illiterate, he could not read or write.
2nd, There was no Arabic version of the Bible or christian scriptures at that time.
3rd, There are many scientific facts that were not known then, that were included in the Quran
4th, The Quran is a numeralogical miracle

So, although the entire Quran came from Muhammad's mouth, you can't say that he made it. It would have to be some outside supernatural force.
Now, you could either say that Muhammad was possessed (demons, the devil, whatever), or he recieved the message from God.
In the Quran, and in the Hadith of Muhammad, there is the story of how Muhammad ascended to the heavens, and spoke with God. Satan or demons cannot pretend to be God, so it would have to be the Real God.

Babloyi i wonder. You know quite much about the qu'ran and islam. The last sentence of your post made me wonder. Are you muslim?

Originally posted by babloyi
3rd, There are many scientific facts that were not known then, that were included in the Quran

Could you provide specifics?

I think the reason most dont say or try to examine the Quran for defects imagined or factual is that most do not have the book and the last time I check the Guidians had the market on hotel bibles and , free distribution ......However the Quran is more elusive to most. Thats the only reason why I think its not out in the threads as much as the bible.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
However the Quran is more elusive to most. Thats the only reason why I think its not out in the threads as much as the bible.

Its in the public library. I read it first in an old volume of comparative religion, and I was shocked and outraged. I thought I had stumbled onto some bizarre cult hate manual. While Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. all talked about peace and love, the Koran advocates murder. Anyone who does not admit this has not read it- or is an advocate of murder.

It is a religion in the same sense that the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations is a religion.

No thanks.

Yes, tomcat, I am muslim. That is not why I know reasonably about the Quran and Islam though. It is the opposite infact. I am muslim BECAUSE I know reasonably well about the Quran. I guess living 5 years in an arab country will do that to you.
Biegacz, here are some specifics I know from the top of my head. If you want more, I am willing to look them up for you.
Basically the Quran is a religious, not scientific book. Most of the scientific knowledge it contains is in a by-the-way, off-hand manner, as if it were common knowledge already.
In the Quran there is a Surah telling how the bees were told to build their homes to collect honey in trees, hills and structures made by man. However, while talking about the bees, they are referred to as female. No one in those times could have known it is the female bee who does the building and honey collecting.
When referring to the Day of Judgement, the Quran says something to the effect that it will happen "All at once- while it is day for one person, and night for another". No one in those times could have known about time differences and time zones- that it could be day for one person and night for another.
The Quran refers to God in one verse as the "Expander of the Universe", and when telling the story of creation, explains how at first "all the heavens and the earth were one" and that they were then "cloven apart". This fits pretty well with the big bang theory- which scientists only now claim was the start of the universe.

I suppose that a debate about the fors and against for the Quran would not be that succesful, because generally people on this forum come from places that have greater christian influence. The only people who would be able to talk would be muslims and those who have studied the Quran so as to disprove it, and show that their hatred of Islam is justified.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by babloyi]

Originally posted by Chakotay

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
However the Quran is more elusive to most. Thats the only reason why I think its not out in the threads as much as the bible.

Its in the public library. I read it first in an old volume of comparative religion, and I was shocked and outraged. I thought I had stumbled onto some bizarre cult hate manual. While Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. all talked about peace and love, the Koran advocates murder. Anyone who does not admit this has not read it- or is an advocate of murder.

It is a religion in the same sense that the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations is a religion.

No thanks.

I neither agree or disagree with it as I am one of the few who have not had a copy to analyze , but I would venture to guess your opinion is an assumed mode of thinking by the supporters of it who say the bible which I do know about and support they would say it is hate and war inside a bound leather case.

Originally posted by babloyi
Yes, tomcat, I am muslim. That is not why I know reasonably about the Quran and Islam though. It is the opposite infact. I am muslim BECAUSE I know reasonably well about the Quran. I guess living 5 years in an arab country will do that to you.
Biegacz, here are some specifics I know from the top of my head. If you want more, I am willing to look them up for you.
Basically the Quran is a religious, not scientific book. Most of the scientific knowledge it contains is in a by-the-way, off-hand manner, as if it were common knowledge already.
In the Quran there is a Surah telling how the bees were told to build their homes to collect honey in trees, hills and structures made by man. However, while talking about the bees, they are referred to as female. No one in those times could have known it is the female bee who does the building and honey collecting.
When referring to the Day of Judgement, the Quran says something to the effect that it will happen "All at once- while it is day for one person, and night for another". No one in those times could have known about time differences and time zones- that it could be day for one person and night for another.
The Quran refers to God in one verse as the "Expander of the Universe", and when telling the story of creation, explains how at first "all the heavens and the earth were one" and that they were then "cloven apart". This fits pretty well with the big bang theory- which scientists only now claim was the start of the universe.

I suppose that a debate about the fors and against for the Quran would not be that succesful, because generally people on this forum come from places that have greater christian influence. The only people who would be able to talk would be muslims and those who have studied the Quran so as to disprove it, and show that their hatred of Islam is justified.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by babloyi]

All fairly understandable but I would venture to guess even those of the same realm of existance as yourself would disagree with some of this just as in the case of the bible , for every opinion there are hundreds who have the opposite oppinion , another of those facts that should be spelled out in the way you say the Quran does , plain and with the assumption of previous knowledge that things are already known by all,

Chakotay, I would be interested in how you liken Islam to a "Neo-Nazi Aryan Nation". There are numerous Quran translations online to gather your evidence. Of course, Islam aims for the conversion of as many people as possible. Just like Christianity. There is nothing, however, about "conversion by the sword". The Quran says so itself: "There is no compulsion in religion".
drbryan, I am aware that there are hundreds of ways that any scripture could be interpreted. That, unfortunately, is the cause of divisions even within religions. Surprisingly enough, though, Islam doesn't really have divisions with regard to interpretations of the Quran. The divisions stem from such material and worldly matters as succession, which arose, obviously, after Muhammad died.
However, those "scientific facts" I gave would take a large stretch of imagination to interpret any other way.