For a long time I was taught that the Quran was a book with no errors, nor imperfections or flaws, but ever since I've pushed forward this claim openly and challenged people to this concept I've found a huge array of so-called errors within my holy book and theology.

Forthcoming, I found myself in serious doubt concerning such widespread concepts such as the Satanic Verses, contradictions, scientific errors and the holy book, the Quran.

Shortly though, I would find that all these "errors" were simply fabrications and libel directed at the religion for it's popularity and integrity. These opinions I found were not formed merely from my own research, but the works of non-Muslim sources too.

For example the widely accepted notion; the Satanic Verses is accepted under the the premise of fallacious reasoning.

Since William Muir the historicity of this episode has been largely accepted by non-Muslim scholars of Islam. William Montgomery Watt and Alfred Guillaume argued for its authenticity based upon the implausibility of Muslims fabricating a story so unflattering to their prophet: "Muhammad must have publicly recited the satanic verses as part of the Qur'ān; it is unthinkable that the story could have been invented by Muslims, or foisted upon them by non-Muslims."

The idea that a certain topic is true, because of the incredulity of it being fabricated is ridiculous. Nevertheless Several non-Muslim scholars dismiss the entire discourse as fabrication under various interesting grounds of reasoning.

(Although I would simply say this was an argument from ignorance and a genetic fallacy)

Regarding the argument of implausibility of Muslims fabricating this story, Shahab Ahmed in the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an states that "the widespread acceptance of the incident by early Muslims suggests, however, that they did not view the incident as inauspicious and that they would presumably not have, on this basis at least, been adverse to inventing it."[1] Alford T. Welch, in the Encyclopedia of Islam, also agrees that this reason alone would be insufficient to assert its authenticity.[14] He says that the story in its present form is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication although there could be some historical basis for the story. Welch states that the story falsely claims that the chapter 53:1-20 and the end of the chapter are a unity; Furthermore the date for the verse 22:52 is later than 53:21-7, and almost certainly belongs to the Medinan period. Further several details in the setting of the story such as the mosque, the sad̲j̲da do not belong to the Meccan phase of Muhammad's career. [15] Welch also thinks that the story is more likely to have not been mentioned in the Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad. He says that the above analysis does not rule out "the possibility of some historical kernel behind the story." One such possibility, Welch says, is that the story is of a historical telescoping nature: "that a situation that was known by Muhammad's contemporaries to have lasted for a long period of time later came to be encapsulated in a story that restricts his acceptance of intercession through these goddesses to a brief period of time and places the responsibility for this departure from a strict monotheism on Satan."[14]

John Burton argued for its fictitiousness based upon a demonstration of its actual utility to certain elements of the Muslim community – namely, those legal exegetes seeking an "occasion of revelation" for eradicative modes of abrogation. Burton supports his theory by the fact that Tabari does not discuss the story in his exegesis of the verse 53:20, but rather in 22:52. Burton further notes that different versions of the story are all tracable to one single narrator Muhammad b. Ka'b, two generations removed from Ibn Ishaq, but not contemporary with the event. [16] Burton's solution to the problem has not been widely accepted. G.R. Hawting writes that this is partly due to the complexity of his argument, but mainly to the fact that the satanic verses incident does not serve to justify or exemplify a theory that God reveals something and later replaces it himself with another true revelation.[17] Burton, in his rejection of the authenticity of the story, sided with L. Caetani, who wrote that the story was to be rejected not only on the basis of isnad, but because of the fact that "had these hadiths even a degree of historical basis, Muhammad's reported conduct on this occasion would have given the lie to the whole of his previous prophetic activity."[18]

Maxime Rodinson finds that it may reasonably be accepted as true "because the makers of Muslim tradition would never have invented a story with such damaging implications for the revelation as a whole."[19] He writes the following on the genesis of the verses: "Obviously (Tabari's account as good as says so in fairly clear words) Muhammad's unconscious had suggested to him a formula which provided a practical road to unanimity." Rodinson writes that this concession, however, diminished the threat of the Last Judgment by enabling the daughters of Allah to intercede for sinners and save them from eternal damnation. Further, it diminished Muhammad's own authority by giving the priests of Uzza, Manat, and Allat the ability to pronounce oracles contradicting his message. Disparagement from Christians and Jews who pointed out that he was reverting to his pagan beginnings and rebelliousness and indignation from among his own followers influenced him to go back on his revelation. However, in doing so he denounced the gods of Mecca as lesser spirits or mere names, cast off everything related to the traditional religion as the work of pagans and unbelievers, and consigned the Meccan's pious ancestors and relatives to Hell. This was the final break with the Quraysh.[20]

Since John Wansbrough's contributions to the field in the early 1970s, though, scholars have become much more attentive to the emergent nature of early Islam, and less willing to accept back-projected claims of continuity:

Since John Wansbrough's contributions to the field in the early 1970s, though, scholars have become much more attentive to the emergent nature of early Islam, and less willing to accept back-projected claims of continuity:

To those who see the tradition as constantly evolving and supplying answers to question that it itself has raised, the argument that there would be no reason to develop and transmit material which seems derogatory of the Prophet or of Islam is too simple. For one thing, ideas about what is derogatory may change over time. We know that the doctrine of the Prophet's infallibility and impeccability (the doctrine regarding his 'isma) emerged only slowly. For another, material which we now find in the biography of the Prophet originated in various circumstances to meet various needs and one has to understand why material exists before one can make a judgment about its basis in fact...
G. R. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History, pp. 134-135

...*continued on the Wiki page*

The arguments against it's authenticity are much better grounded than the fallacies purposed for the theory.

Furthermore without too much elaboration I found that this was the case with many errors found within the fabric of the Quran. I also found that although many apologetic writings are attempts at explaining away or sugar coating errors, many attempts at skepticism are the exact same phenomena; attempts at explaining something usual as error or tarnishing it.

As a result of this I conclude, even if in haste or error, that the Quran is hereby flawless and that no one can find fault in it. And hereby ask...

Isn't the Quran perfect?

Originally Posted by Inertia

Isn't the Quran perfect?

I am sort of confused by what you are asking. Are you asking if the Qu'ran is perfectly authentic in its writings?

Or are you asking if the teachings in the Qu'ran are perfect?

I would assume the first, and therefore I have nothing to really argue against, since I do not have much knowledge in proclaiming historical authenticity of an ancient book of morals.

If it is the second option that I discussed, then I would be more than happy to argue whether or not the teachings can be considered as 'perfect.'

Well, essentially the former, the latter would be an eternal debate, but I'd be more than willing to engage in that one too.

Do you believe that women only have half the worth of a man?

No I don't.

No one disagrees?

There is no point in asking a question that you yourself have answered for yourself and are probably quite dead set on your reasoning and your answer to that same question. I believe this makes you something close to a zealot, and zealots are dangerous.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here.

Originally Posted by Sinspiration

There is no point in asking a question that you yourself have answered for yourself and are probably quite dead set on your reasoning and your answer to that same question. I believe this makes you something close to a zealot, and zealots are dangerous.

For sure I have my certainties, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to recognise that, that's pretty much the point of my post. Whether I'm a zealot or not depends on your definition of the word, I'm not, if you're referring too the Great Jewish Revolt, but I can be if you simply mean "doubtless". I could be dangerous too, but humanity is dangerous on a whole... Nevertheless all of these ideas bear no real significance to the thread or an argument nor debating or life it self as almost everyone on here, especially you posting, appear to be "dead set" on something, hence disagreements; hence debate.

Ergo, one would be brought to conclude and ask, what exactly was the point of your post, since you're just stating the obvious and accusing me of something that is the very reason this debate section exists. In my not so humble opinion your post is simply a very cleverly crafted cop out.

Originally Posted by Wynna

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here.

Yes, forgive my ambiguity, I assumed members here (at least one) would have some back ground information on this topic, I was sorely mistaken and I'm quite disappointed. Nevertheless, my claim is that my faith stands on the premise that there are no errors in the Quran, nor contradictions, nor anything proven false and that it is infallible.

To me this is important, because it would mean that anyone could take it's words as.... Gospel?

Honestly, I believe nothing in this world is PERFECT.
The meaning of perfect is complete, whole, un-marred.
Because man IS marred and when you go to translate a "perfect" text into a language other than it's original, it's going to become marred.
Not to say that everything INSIDE the text is then to be claimed as false.

But you see, Fina, some Muslims will argue that any Qu'ran not in Arabic is not the "true" Qu'ran anyway, for the very reason you outlined.

It still couldn't be "perfect" because it's man written.
As a Christian, I believe the Bible to be perfect in it's CONTENT. Inspired by God through man's hand. But not completly perfect.

But the Qu'ran was dictated to Muhammad directly from the angel Gabriel with the intent to "purify" the current scriptures (being the bible). Muhammad committed it to memory, and it was passed down orally for quite a while before it was written down.

And isn't it a known fact that when things are passed down at *all* (especially orally), that it gets skewed?

Actually the Qu'ran is praised because, of all of the Abrahamic doctrines, it has been changed the least, especially because it was only written in one language, which is still in use today.

The bible's books, however, were written in several languages over a much longer period of time, and have been subjected to several biased translations, and the meanings of some of the words have been lost entirely. This is not the case with the Qu'ran.

Changed the *least*, maybe so.
But still changed.
Thus not perfect.

But since it has been changed least, wouldn't its content be more perfected than the Bible's?

And why would the changes make it imperfect? We change scientific theories all the time, in the name of perfecting them.

the question isn't about which one is better than the other, Bible or Qu'ran. I was simply using it as an example.
The changes in it make it imperfect because they're man-made changes. Changes that were made through oral dictation through several decades, if not more. Ever play the game telephone? Try playing it with words from an angel, looooong narrations. How much could stay the EXACT same?
Not much.
These changes weren't made to perfect the Qu'ran, like scientific theories. They were made out of time, different people, different takes, differest perspectives, until one man decided to put down what he heard on paper.
Thus, the Qu'ran.
Not perfect.

Of course, what you guys are arguing, is based on the assumption that Muhammad actually received this supposed message through a divine intervention and then passed the teachings down orally. However, it is all falsely lacking in evidence as, like the Holy Bible, there is absolutely no evidence of this Allah.

Word to that.

(except there IS a lot more proof to support the Bible than the Qu'ran.....just sayin'....)

Originally Posted by Fina Lee

Word to that.

(except there IS a lot more proof to support the Bible than the Qu'ran.....just sayin'....)

Sources please.

Originally Posted by Fina Lee

Word to that.

(except there IS a lot more proof to support the Bible than the Qu'ran.....just sayin'....)

I am going to have to agree with Keyori on this. Every Christian who has gone up in arms against me on the legitimacy of the Bible, has in my opinion, sorely lost. Everything I poke a hole in, they claim is a symbolism of some sort. What a load of crock and a complete copout.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Of course, what you guys are arguing, is based on the assumption that Muhammad actually received this supposed message through a divine intervention and then passed the teachings down orally. However, it is all falsely lacking in evidence as, like the Holy Bible, there is absolutely no evidence of this Allah.

But Allah, simply means "The God"; The almighty creator of the universe. Of course to many today, the simple existence of the universe and life on our planet is not evidence of the existence of a God, but to much more it is. Interpret the facts how you like the proof of the divinity of the Quran is the unchanged infallibility of the text itself. It's there for anyone to examine.

Fina Lee says she doesn't believe there's any such thing as something "Perfect". This is actually a view I agree with. The word perfect is actually a fabrication of the human mind, nothing is in essence "Perfect". The word I should have used is "faultless".

Given the period of time and the method that the Quran was revealed (Tutela you should know that even skeptics believe it was compiled gradually over decades and not written as a full body of text, we believe this also) and the fact that it has been unchanged in meaning (Although originally revealed in more than one dialect according to tradition). There should naturally be contradictions, errors or even faults of human knowledge, but there isn't. Actually, the Quran describes the world from a perspective of science unknown to man at the time (Embrology, geology, meterology and more) , which only attests further to its divinity.

On the topic of translation, it's incorrect to say the English Quran is not the real Quran. I would say that the English is merely ambiguous to the literal meanings of the text as many metaphors change with the transfer so we can understand the Arabic syntax.

An example of 4 independant translations.

10 In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
11 When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"
12 Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.

10 There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lie.
11 And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers.
12 Now surely they themselves are the mischief makers, but they do not perceive.

10 In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.
11 And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only.
12 Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not.

10 In their hearts is a disease (of doubt and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease. A painful torment is theirs because they used to tell lies.
11 And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peace-makers."
12 Verily! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not.

Yes, words have changed places and there's a new term being used here and there, but the meanings are usually more or less the same, which is what is important.

Inertia, please remember to put the translations you didn't write yourself in quotes please. :yes: I'll fix it for you now, but next time, you must quote anything you didn't write yourself.

But even if the Quran, in it's original text and untranslated is not marred by human error in translation.. who is to say that Muhammad had a perfect memory of the scriptures he received? And who is to say that those he passed these scriptures to, oraly, I might point out, had perfect memory of their telling? And for several generations, if I remember correctly, as the text itself wasn't writen as the stories where told, but much much later. Human error could have changed the meanings, the very fabric of the text to support the way of life and understanding of Allah at the time of it's writing. Which may not have been accurate to the original words of the Angel Gabriel.

So no, I don't believe it could be perfect, in that I don't believe it is possible for the exact words of Gabriel to be told and retold so many times before being writen and stay pure to their origin.