Words of Koran being Corrupted?

Came across this article on Koranic Verses being deliberately mistranslated into new meanings and to say (or not say) what is really there.

http://www.mpac.org/atc/home.asp

Notice at the right it says the following:
"Whosoever killed a human being – unless it be in punishment for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind." QURAN 5:33

But wait a minute!!
Is that really what Quran 5:33 says?
No!
At least not according to three different, well regarded translators have found:

YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.

SHAKIR: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.


Ok whats going on here?
Do we have any Arabic speakers who can sort this out?
Is there something Im missing or what?
Im told this particular verse is instruction for Jews. This is what was given to them as a warning.
Ok.
I still dont understand how entire sentences can be removed though??

 

Your question is welcomed as always
First of all erasmus, please put your hate to the side for a moment.
Its quite fundamental that we know what we are speaking about so we dont risk talking about something without knowledge.

Firstly, there is no contradiciton here and the Quran is free from such (unlike some other scriptures), the first verse says;

Firstly, Erasmus, please recheck your reference. You seemed to mixed up the verses, the first verse is 5:32 and the other one is 5:33, this should be enough as an answer, but just to be sure Il write some moore (that rhymes, perhaps I should start in show biz? ^^) Even the site you posted says 5:32 so I dont know where the mistake came from?

Secondly; You wrote "Words of Koran being corrupted" without even quoting the Koran(Qur´an)! Do you know what the Quran is? The Quran exists only and I repeat ONLY in the arabic form! This is Quran (first chapter).
What you posted was an interpretation of the meaning, in arabic; the tafsir. Its an explanation of the Quran and is not seen nor recognized as Quran by any muslim!(You cannot catch the real meaning of the Quran in another language because you have to choose one of many meanings or use a wrong word due to lack of the english counterpart since english is a light language compared to semtic ones)

Erasmus, with all due respect we are not like christians (Dont throw stone in glasshouses its said ^^, I know that you know that the King James, NIV and Revised version are all completly different, you also know that the catholic and protestant have differnt amount of chapters in their bibles) with thousands of different bibles without having the origanal one. We acually memorize the Quran, I my self am almost finished with its memorazation and there are more than 10 million muslims who know the Quran by heart. It doesnt matter if you go to a mosque in Chechnya, Somalia, S. Arabia or Bangladesh youl still find the same Quran, word for word, dot for dot in the same beautiful recitation. Its a book wich is recitized, not read.

Thirdly, lastly and Finally, I would like to know where you got this information from " Im told this particular verse is instruction for Jews", the verse you mentioned was acually practised by the prophet (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) once. Against who one might ask? Against a group of people who had become muslim then lied and broke the covenant with him, then robbed and brutely killed som innocent beduins, they were given the punishment because of their terrorism in the land. I hope this answered you question, and Allah knows best.

 

Well its different for me because I am used to reading uncorrupt and innerrant scriptures from the Bible.
You just 'saying otherwise' based on a myth you keep pretending is real doesnt change this.

The Koran is different because its a plagiarism of the Bible written so that there is nothing else to check against it.
There is no other witness or means to compare it against something.
So,
Having said that - you would think it would be easy to keep it consistant and translations as well.

Now, you are trying (as Muslims often do) to relegate this issue to a translation problem.
We all know that many words are not able to have a 'word-for-word' translation.
Thats not a problem here.
We know that.
As you have pointed out - this happens with Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek when translating the Bible.
A Greek word may not have an exact english parallel.

So if I have this correct it goes like this:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

It seems to me that you might be suggesting that since Arabic is the chosen language of Allah and translations would 'fall short' anyways..
'Therefore'
Its acceptable to translate a verse with some meaning or context removed (might be offensive to Jews or something)
If it helps the Koran look better or appeal to non-muslims, then an innaccurate or loose translation is acceptable for other sub-languages of the world?

It seems to me this dire and violent warning for Jews in Allahs territory has been rather cleverly and dishonestly mistranslated for the purpose of appearing as a 'Peaceful Message' when in fact its a frightening warning of torture and death to any who do not surrender to Allah and 'cause trouble' in Muhammeds lands.
Cutting off hands and feet even.
Nice Prophet.

btw.. anytime you want to stop pretending that translations are 'proof the bibles are different' would be great.
YOU yourself know and EXPLAINED that you cannot expect word-for-word translations and that this is not a problem.
Yet.
Like so many Muslim apologists you keep saying pretend things like "The Bibles are different.. every translation is different'
SURPRISE surprise Cab... its because they are in different languages.

But hey.. that testifies to the superiority of the original Bible ... one in which its not just limited to Arabic speakers.
What kind of God reveals his Word.. but it only 'works properly' if your lucky enough to be an Arabic speaker?
A Plagiarised one - thats who.

 

Am I the only one here who notices this mans lack of understanding?

 

You already know that languages are translated and you know full well that a translation into King James English (olde english) will sound different than one into a modern english (example: NIV)

You are a bullshit artist who is deliberately causing confusion when you write things like "They are all completely different".

Stop being a typical Muslim liar Cab and admit that they are not 'completely different' and that you are only seeing differnet choices of transliteration or style.
NOT meaning.

So get off your bullshit about 'noticing' my lack of understanding and start being concerned about how MUCH I do understand about your shifty tricks and ways of manipulating and bending presentations of your Koran.

Guess what.. you CAN TRANSLATE Arabic so stop pretending like there is no possible way for anyone to know what your Book says about cutting off the hands and feet of Jews causing trouble in the Muslim lands.
We got it.
Its not confusing.

If Arabic is so weak and useless it cannot be translated (scholars disagree) then its a wonder Allah would choose such a stubborn and unhelpful language isnt it.

 

KJV isn't old english bud Its King's English

"they had different rules for grammer, and a defininate social structure. you only said "you" to those in the same class or those under you. thees, thous, and thys, were reserved for those who were above you. back then you still had peasent, middle, noble, royal. so you really had to now your place. shakespeare used alot of it, i think, because so many nobles went,and i know queen elizabeth was fan of his."

its(Kings english) in the bracket of modern english. there are three levels, old, middle, and modern. beowulf was written in olde, the bayeux tapestry is in middle, and shakespeare and the king james version are modern. and if you notice our language is still changing, so who knows what it might be considered in a couple hundred years



-In the wise words of my friend Sarah


Eramus stop speaking in ignorance

 

no your not....Heck I'm not even Islamic/Muslim (I don't know which to use) I'm Christian....I try not to be "Christian" but Christ Like...That means to study (Remeber Christ ran away to the synogoge!*sp?*)

 

No

 

If you can notice it then speak to it.
Enlighten me.
Dont just run away because some part of your Koran is being talked about.
Maybe a part you dont like.

Was Mohammed warning the Jews to behave or face the penalty of having their hands and feet cut off?
Dont bother asking some question out loud and try and clarify it.
No?

 

'it isnt old english' what an idiot.
Dear Idiot.
The Kings English is spoken today anyways you dumbass. 'Kings English' refers whatever the King Speaks (or in this case the Queens English).
Only an American would say stupid things like you have.

In this case - The 'Kings English' of the KJV is OLD ENGLISH.
Is it not?
Exactly you Moron.

Do you feel stupid now.
Yes.
[/QUOTE]

 

i thought all religions were corrupt . im glad eramus set me straight.

 

[/QUOTE]
Oh my God read my post. Kings English is a bracket of Modern English

King James Version was first published in 1611, Thats the 17th century. Do you know what that means? It was writen in MODREN ENGLISH! Beowulf is old english, its anglo-saxon more of a German dilect though (well at least their verson of german at the time)

Do i feel stupid? No. But you did make me laugh.



Heres a rough time chart of English

Old English (500-1100 AD)
The Norman Conquest and Middle English (1100-1500)
Early Modern English (1500-1800) *REMEBER 1611*
Late-Modern English (1800-Present)

Here is some text for you to compare
Old English (c.1000) sample:

Fæder ure þuþe eart on heofonum
si þin nama gehalgod tobecume þin rice gewurþe þin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele soþlice.​

Rendered in Middle English (Wyclif, 1384), the same text is recognizable to the modern eye:

Oure fadir þat art in heuenes halwid be þi name;
þi reume or kyngdom come to be. Be þi wille don in herþe as it is dounin heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.​

Finally, in Early Modern English (King James Version, 1611) the same text is completely intelligible:

Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heauen.
Giue us this day our daily bread.
And forgiue us our debts as we forgiue our debters.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliuer us from euill. Amen.
​

Note how the King James Version ismade in 17th century.

Like I said, I don't feel stupid but you do make me laugh.


​

 

Idiot.
Old as in 'Not New'.
I say 'Olde' to be making the point ala Simpsons would.
Nobody has used King James English in centuries.
Nice job on splitting hairs and screwing that up in the process anyways.
Your making Hikaru Zero seem less annoying though.
Good job on that.

 

Actually, it's middle english.

What a stupid argument you guys are having.

 

Dont bring me into this.
He is having a bogus argument unto himself.

Im more concerned about the way in which a Muslim has no obligation to give 'the most accurate' translation or even general presentation of the Koran.

Here we saw an example where the translator reasons "No translation other than Arabic could be correct'
So 'therefore' (he reasons)
Its acceptable to give a translation which omits some very signifigant (and disgusting) information on how to murder and torture/mutilate people.

The verse is then read by non-Arabic speakers as something like a 'wise parable' or some 'peace loving' saying.

So we have a real problem here - how does the non-Arabic speaker know what is really said.
This is quite a bit different than reading a Bible Passage.
In that case, the translator must always work for the best and most accurate translation.
The translation has to contain all the meaning and intention of the original language.

In other words, you cant just take a passage and omit the part refering to the subject and the consequences to the subject (in this case, Jews and Jews being mutilated) and then say "Well.. no translation is perfect anyways so I might as well omit parts i dont want people to know about.

If im to believe translators like Pickthall then there is NOTHING STOPPING anyone from easily translating the Arab words for Jews to simply that - Jews.
Its not like its a problem.
You can do it.

 

No its not, Modern English started around 1500-1600 after the great vowel shift the KJV was first published in 1611. Thats the 17th century which would be early modern english.

Translation of the bible more or less went like this
Hebrew/Abric > Greek > Latin > German(Martin Luther) > English.

Despite some differences in vocabulary, material from the early 17th century, such as the works of William Shakespeare and the King James Bible, is considered to be in Modern English, or more specifically, they are referred to as Early Modern English, and most people who are fluent in the English of the early 21st century believe they can read these books with little difficulty.

Either you are just making a joke, then its pretty funny. Or you are arguing with English majors around the world.

 

Yet you kept arguing while I brought up points saying it was early modern english. It still goes to show you have no idea what in the earth your talking about.

And Zero annoying? You got problems with smart people now?

 

No, I havent been arguing anything with you. not 'early modern english' or anything like this.
King James English is old english.
Im not refering to some special classification and neither were you when you said 'Kings English not 'Old' English'.
Stop fucking around and derailing threads and trying to pretend you are debating something with someone.

Your such a tool of the Islamofacists.. they just love people like you.
Love it!

 

Lets see if your right Erasmus, study these different aspects of the bible, all wich show one thing. It is not in its orginal!

(1) Texual differenses(you said the meaning was the same)

Mt 18:11: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost (King James)
OMITTED (New international version, NIV)
Omitted(Revised standard version)

Lk 4:8
Get thee behind me, Satan
OMITTED (NIV)
OMITTED (RSV)

1 John 5: 7-8 (verse seven is omitted in all except KJV, verse 8 is beeing translated differently)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)

For there are three that testify: the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement (NIV) Footnote: Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)


And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.[RVS]

Etc, etc

(2) Or other famous verses which are being debated, such as the incident of the women being stoned or not by Jesus(peace be upon him) or the claim in Mark 16 about christians being able to "... pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. [RSV] (it exists in KJV also but not in NIV)"



"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"


There is an easy way to prove these verses right Erasmus, why not take a drink of poison or two and stay "unhurt" or go to hospitals and start touching patience thus removing their disease??


(3) IF this is not enough for you, lets start with some contradicitons, shall we?

1)How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:12-16 lists thirteen generations.

2)Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

3) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

4) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

5) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

6) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

7) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

8) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

9) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

10) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

11) What color was the robe the blessed Jesus was put in? And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe upon him. (Matthew 27:28). And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple robe. (John 19:2)

12) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction. On top of that even Peter taught it, 1 Pet. 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

13) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

14) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one. Just incase that they are not mutually exclusive then say that in Mark 16:6 it shows that one person was talking but in John 20:13 it shows two people talking. Now that is mutually exclusive.

15) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

16) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olives. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

17) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

18) Jesus took Peter, James and John up the mountain six days (Matthew 17:1) or eight days (Luke 9:7) after he told them that they will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

19 Matthew 4:18-20 shows that Jesus talked to Peter and Andrew together and they both followed him together but John 1:40-42, shows Andrew followed Jesus first and then he went and informed Peter.

20) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

21) Are we saved by works as well as faith? Ephesians 2:8-9 says no and James 2:24 says yes.

22) James 1:13 says God tempts no man but Genesis 22:1 says that God tempted Abraham.


II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.

Who carried the cross? According to john, Christ did, according to the other gospels Simon did

A few numeral contradictions:

KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD

When did Baasha die?
26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8
36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1

How old was Ahizia:
22 in 2 Kings 8:26
42 in 2 Chron 22:2


etc etc. For moore, see: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html


Then we have (4) numerous of scientific errors (such as the claim that the earth is flat; the refutation of Dr, zaik nike in the famoud debate with dr. William cambell is enough; http://downloads2.nadeemdownloads.com/ISLAMIC%20SERVER%2008/Zakir%20Naik%20Videos/video-Zakir%20Naik%20-%20Qur%27an%20And%20Bible%20In%20The%20Light%20Of%20Science%20Vs%20Campbell%202of4.wmv), (5)lost books of the bible, (6) different amounts of books by catholics and protestans(the catholics have a few moore books in their scripture!!! which one is right?)


I hope that was enough, If you are willing to defend these things, your most welcome. But do not start talking about irrelavnt issues or bring up something else, we are talking about the bible which you call "uncorrupted" but which is undoublet severly corrupted by the hands of men.

Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. (Quran 2:79)


PS: If you want to be respected as Kris, try to be moore polite and less swayed by hate and ignorance.

 

This is a common trickery from you Muslim Apologists Cab.
The 'overwhelming wave of complex and varied points and contentions'.. all in one post so its practically impossible to even begin.
Even if I waste hours and hours 'answering to you' and clearing up each one of those .. you can always say 'well what about these other 300 then hmmmm?' and keep it going.
Cheap Tricks.
Most of those are just you having no ability to understand basic principles of Christianity which are beautiful coherant and actually helpful.
(just for example: 21) Are we saved by works as well as faith? Ephesians 2:8-9 says no and James 2:24 says yes.)
Who says 'Yes and who says 'No'? Muslims who dont know what they are reading?

I suppose I can do that trick too:
What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
"We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
"He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an?
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things," (2:256).
"And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith," (9:3).
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5).
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued," (9:29).

The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?
"And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12).
"When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (7:143).
"And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam," (2:132).

Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48). Also 4:116
The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).

Are Allah's decrees changed or not?
"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).

Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?
"We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (10:90-92).
Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him," (17:102-103).

Is wine consumption good or bad?
O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper," (5:90).
(Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?" (47:15).
Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed," (83:22-25).

Creation: The biblical Genesis account says God created all in six days (see Genesis 1:1 - 2:2). The Quran, however, has a real problem here as Surah 41:9, 10, 12 have a total of eight days of creation (4+2+2=8) Meanwhile, Surah 10:3 gives the total number of days of creation as six. This is a problem of self-contradiction.

2. Pharaoh: According to the Quran (Surah 7:120-125) Pharaoh used crucifixion in dealing with the sorcerers - a practice which historical evidence gives no precedent to before the Babylonian Empire. This is once again a problem of historical compression.

3. The Golden Calf: According to the Quran (Surah 20:90-100)a Samaritan helped the Israelites build the golden calf, and it mooed after coming out of the fire. In reality, Samaritans did not exist as a people until at least 1000 years after the time of the Moses and the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Again a problem of historical compression.

4. Judaism: According to the Quran (Surah 9:30) the Jews believe that Ezra is the Son of God - the Messiah. This never has been a tenet of Judaism. This is a clear problem of distorted knowledge of other religions and historical fact.

5. Alexander the Great: According to the Quran (Surah 18:89-98) Alexander the Great was a devout Muslim and lived to a ripe old age. Historical records however show that Alexander the Great died young at 33 years of age (b. 356 B.C. - d. 323 B.C.), and believed he was divine, forcing others to recognize him as such. In India on the Hyphasis River (now Beas) Alexander erected twelve altars to twelve Olympian gods. Once again the Quran shows errors in historical and religious fact.

6. The Trinity: According to the Quran (Surah 5:116, 5:73-75) the Christians believe in "three Gods" - Father, Mother, and Son. This shows the influence of heretical 'Christian' sects in central Arabia at the time of Muhammad. In contrast, Christianity has always distinctly stated that the Trinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The teaching of the Quran on the Trinity has undoubtedly led to confusion among many Muslims on what the Bible (and thus Christianity) teaches about the Triune God.

7. Mary: According to the Quran (Surah 19:28, 3:33-36), Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the daughter of Imran or Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron. Mary is also said to be the sister of Moses and Aaron. Clearly Muhammad confused Mary with Miriam.
A second interesting point about Mary is the story of the date palm speaking and offering its fruit to her (Surah 19:23). This legend is easily traced to similar legends found in the apocryphal "Protoevangelium of James" the "Pseudo-Matthew" and "the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary" all of which have been dated to the fourth to sixth centuries, and were again believed by the sects found in Arabia. (More indepth information on Quranic sources may be found in Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall's The Religion of the Crescent).


Now, YOU will say to me that there is an explanation for any of these if we just stop and take a look at the context and who was spoken to etc etc.
Did you afford me that.
Can you just sit and answer to all of thse.
Even if you answer one I will just paste more and say they are contradictions.
Thats just a gimmick when this is done.