Is this inconsistency in the Quran evidence that it is man made?

yea that's the dealbreaker lmao
 
this is something that is misusing the context of the word 'protector' in arabic. the words wali/auliya can have the following meanings:

Wali - protector, helper, friend, guardian, supporter etc

Auliya - lords, gods, protectors, helpers, guardians, supporters

so when god says he is the only wali vs the believers/angels being wali, the meaning can change. to me its kinda like how in english there is The Lord (God) and the lord in the castle.

It says protector or helper so any meaning is covered. But I see why they would try to play that semantical sleight of hand.

Also, if it meant god or lord it would have been translated as that.
 
I'm no Muslim apologist, but if contradictions in the holy books are suddenly a dealbreaker, then every religion is gonna need to close up shop. Not just the snack bar.

Really? You want to post some from the bible? I have time.
 
Wasnt the Q'ran written by Muhammad?
your gonna have to narrow that down bro, theres about 50 guys called Muhammad living in one council house up the road from me, fuck knows how many there are at KFC.
 
It says protector or helper so any meaning is covered. But I see why they would try to play that semantical sleight of hand.

Also, if it meant god or lord it would have been translated as that.

yes that is what it says in english.
 
Tbf, I'm a Christian and can recognize that the Bible has contradictions. The best way to disprove any religion is to see if it teaches anything metaphysically impossible.
 
No it's kinda pointless, is my point.

People are the ones who are responsible for their actions, not books.

Unless you slip on a book and then fall down a flight of stairs. Then it's the books fault... we call it dangerous literature.
 
This is a good thread and I appreciate it. The found inconsistency can apparently be explained away though as @tramendous has shown.

Pretty consistent book if that's the best shot?
 
It's always a bit silly to examine words translated outside thier original language and look for semantic inconsistancies for a number of reasons; especially when the text is a couple of thousands of years old.
 
Not really sure there are many people in the WR who need convincing of this.

Well, regardless I'm not sure those are the best verses. A Muslim could say that while angels and people protect each other ultimately everything is decided and protected by Allah and that those people/angels are acting as His agents.

That's the thing about religions and holy books in the Abrahamic tradition, you can always retcon or fill in plot holes with "God/Allah/YHWH can do whatever he wants even if you don't understand it"
 
No it's kinda pointless, is my point.

People are the ones who are responsible for their actions, not books.

Say if you believe in God. Like for real. No matter if you think it is silly or not. If someone believes that God wrote the Quran and the Qurans says you will go to heaven FOREVER if you kill the infidels....You don't think that is very dangerous and shares a great part of the responsibility????

Come on, lets be rational adults here.
 
Not really sure there are many people in the WR who need convincing of this.

Well, regardless I'm not sure those are the best verses. A Muslim could say that while angels and people protect each other ultimately everything is decided and protected by Allah and that those people/angels are acting as His agents.

That's the thing about religions and holy books in the Abrahamic tradition, you can always retcon or fill in plot holes with "God/Allah/YHWH can do whatever he wants even if you don't understand it"

Stop with this bullshit. Any one can take anything from any book. But you can come to a consensus of what the passages in a holy book mean. This is fucking simple.

Muhammed was a pedo murderer. What kind of religion do you think he is going to make???
Imagine if hitler fucked kids and made a religion--- that is islam

Oh, hold on this thing called proof
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression (a variation of "z-l-m") do not appear in the verse. The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
 
It's that time of year where we admit it was written by Santa Claus.
 
I'm no Muslim apologist, but if contradictions in the holy books are suddenly a dealbreaker, then every religion is gonna need to close up shop. Not just the snack bar.
In favor of this.
 
The experts agree that it means helpers. The same meaning expressed in different languages.

translating from one ancient language to a completely other language always causes some debate and issues like this. but with a little common sense and discussion, it can be cleared up.

people are also called walis of allah. that doesn't mean they are his guardians but only that they stand up for the cause of god.
 
Not really sure there are many people in the WR who need convincing of this.

Well, regardless I'm not sure those are the best verses. A Muslim could say that while angels and people protect each other ultimately everything is decided and protected by Allah and that those people/angels are acting as His agents.

That's the thing about religions and holy books in the Abrahamic tradition, you can always retcon or fill in plot holes with "God/Allah/YHWH can do whatever he wants even if you don't understand it"

Muslims can say what they want, but does it reconcile the verses? Do muslims have no other helper than allah or do angels also help muslims?

1) muslims have no protector or helper other than allah.
2) muslims have protectors other than allah (other muslims and angels)

Which is true 1 or 2. Both cannot be true.
 
Muslims can say what they want, but does it reconcile the verses? Do muslims have no other helper than allah or do angels also help muslims?

1) muslims have no protector or helper other than allah.
2) muslims have protectors other than allah (other muslims and angels)

Which is true 1 or 2. Both cannot be true.
@tramendous seems to have given a better response.
 
Back
Top