11/24/2013

Premise: The Quran is such a good book and is free from errors

Conclusion: I conclude it is from Allah

Introduction

The above short statement helps to explain why there are Muslims in the world- because they believe the Quran to be “such a good book with no errors”.

The issue of “errors in the Quran” has been associated with this book since its compilation by  Uthman, the third of the rightly guided Caliphs. The Quran was the Arabs’ first experience in writing books, and they only produced five copies of it. Understandably, the project was a major venture in its time and took a while to accomplish. Considering the Arabs’ lack of experience in the field, and the then primitive Arabic script, some errors were predictable. However, the Arabs were more concerned about whether the compiled book contained all the verses or not. This was a complicated issue that divided the Muslims and compelled Uthman to take a firm and dogmatic approach to complete the project. Many leading Muslims, who were experts in the Quran, did not like the end product and refused to surrender their own personal copies (of another version of the Qur’an) because they believed they were more accurate than the official version. The Arabs frequently pointed out that there were some obvious errors in the compiled Quran (Mus-haf) to which Uthman responded “ those errors do not make a haram halal or a halal haram” (meaning do not a permissible injunction prohibited or vice versa). Uthman’s point of view was that the errors were too trivial to justify writing the book all over again.

And the issue of errors in the Quran is still with us today

I wrote many articles highlighting the many language and scientific errors in the Quran. They are published on this site, as well as on IslamWatch.org, besides many other articles addressing the same subject. Whenever Muslims read articles criticizing Islam, they automatically reject them and accuse the writers of being misinformed and prejudiced. As predicted, I received many emails challenging my views. Their usual argument is that there is no problem and no errors in the Quran but the problem is in my “understanding” of the verses (which happened to be the same “understanding” of the celebrated Muslim scholars of the past).

We also published many articles about Mohammed’s practices, which are all based on acceptable Islamic sources. The minimum that an impartial reader would conclude is that Mohammed was a liar and merciless gang leader, and certainly not the perfect man Muslims believe him to be. I urge the Muslim readers to read those articles with open and critical minds to understand why so many Muslims, who invested time and effort for an objective study of  Islam, came to the conclusion that it is a fake religion based on big lies. Muslims who defend Mohammed usually justify his actions on the basis that he lived in different times. All historical figures lived in different times but it seems that Mohammed stands out as the only one continuously needing justifications and excuses to make him appear as a perfect man.

The only way to understand the Quran and Mohammed is to read about them with critical open minds. I do not think it is possible to do that without coming across at least some of the numerous errors we highlighted in our articles. Such findings make it impossible for the impartial mind to believe the claims that the book was authored by God. An unbiased reader wouldn’t even associate the book with an educated man. But how often do Muslims read the Quran with objective and open minds?

When the impartial Arabs read the Quran

The only time Arabs had the chance to read the Quran with objectivity was in the first thirteen years of Islam- and they rejected it. Despite Mohammed’s efforts, the Arabs turned their backs to him at the Ukaz annual festival preferring to listen to ordinary poets. The handful of disciples who sided by Mohammed were motivated by their own personal reasons. After Mohammed’s immigration to Yathreb (renamed Medina), Arab residents of the city, most of whom never read the Quran before, converted to Islam in thousands. Why was the Arabs of Yathreb response completely different from that of the Arabs of Mecca? This is an important and significant paradox that every Muslim should reflect on. For thirteen years, the talented Arabs of Mecca, Mohammed’s own tribe and the masters of the language, dismissed Mohammed as a mad poet and rejected his Quran as nonsense, while the naive Arabs of medina hailed him as a hero and converted overnight, mostly without even reading the Quran!

Doesn’t that ring an alarm bell? Doesn’t that point to the sword, power and pressure as the tools for spreading Islam? 

Since that mass conversion in Medina, Muslims lost their open mindedness regarding the Quran forever. Since that moment all Muslims started to believe that the Quran is a miracle from the moment they start to speak, no understanding required.

What if the Quran was correct?

But what if the Muslims’ claims about the Quran were correct?

What if all the allegations we made against the Quran were investigated one by one and all found to be wrong? What if the Quran consistently proves to be correct every time we subject it to scientific and objective studies? What if the Quran was so nicely written that even the ex-Muslims had to admit to that?

Such a good book as the Qur’an exists only in the Muslims’ minds. Their point of view is: Since the Quran is free from errors and is in agreement with modern science, it must be divine.

A wrong conclusion (logically) from a wrong statement (premise), but this is how the Muslim’s mind works!

I do not think it is difficult to understand that an error-free book is not necessarily divine. Currently, there are millions of such books in circulation worldwide yet none of them is divine.

Muslim scholars do not only claim that the Quran is free from errors, but they also claim it contains miracles! They believe it is unusual for a seventh century book to be scientifically correct, therefore it must be a miracle that the Quran agreed with science.

The following are examples of the many “scientific miracles” that Muslims attribute to the Quran, which are better called “scientific blunders”:

The Quran described the shape of the earth correctly as an egg, using the word dahaha. {It didn’t. The Quran described the earth as flat and used all the Arabic words that can possibly mean flat, including the word dahaha, which also means flat according to ALL Arabic dictionaries}.

The Quran described the geology of the mountains correctly as having roots. {It didn’t. The Quran described the mountains’ roots in a similar way it described the pyramids. The Quran actually claims that the mountains were extra-terrestrial and were thrown on the earth from outside to stop it from swinging this way and that way!}

The Quran described the development of the embryo correctly. {It didn’t. It claimed that bones develop before the flesh, which is wrong}.

And there are many other claims all of which are incorrect.

But let us temporarily assume the claims were correct to see if that leads us to conclude that the Quran has a divine origin.

According to the first of the above claims, the Quran described the shape of the earth correctly. The question is: What is the logical verdict from the above claim (assuming it is correct)?

The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the Quran described the shape of the earth correctly. There is no miracle in getting something like that correctly, the Greek scientists described the shape of the earth correctly more than a thousand years earlier. But Muslims insist that it must be a miracle despite the fact that their supporting evidence is in question: “How did Mohammed know that?” hinting that it must be Allah, the Islamic God, who told Mohammed. First, The Muslims lied in making the claim because the Quran stated clearly that the earth is flat. Second, they jumped to the most unlikely conclusion.

Assuming Mohammed told it correctly (which he didn’t), it is the Muslims’ job to find out how he learned that information (which he didn’t) using proper scientific methodology. They need to research their history applying proper scientific methods. The possibility that the information was known by some people in seventh century Arabia must be ruled out with certainty, which is not an easy feat to do. The good news is that Muslims do not have to do any of that tedious research because the Quran got it completely wrong right from the beginning . The Muslims’ claims are no more than wishful thinking based on figments of imaginations of unusual meanings for the words. Of course, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other possibilities that also need to be considered and ruled out before thinking of miracles involving the Qur’an and Allah.

There is no alternative to going along proper and unbiased methods when examining claims similar to the above. The Muslim scholars have to follow proper scientific methods even if the Quran described something really astonishing, not with hints or suggestions, but in clear language and in great detail. If the Quran discussed the atomic theory with clear description of the protons, neutrons and electrons, just like scientific books do, still that, in itself, does not and would not justify an automatic conclusion that the book was authored by Allah. Jumping to such a conclusion has to be at the very end of the list of possibilities, and only considered when all other possibilities have been ruled out (Ockam’s razor of taking the simplest explanation possible should be the guide here). Logically, it is more acceptable to believe that a UFO landed on the mountain of Hiraa, just outside Mohammed’s cave, and some aliens stepped out and disclosed the information to him than to involve Allah! At least there are more chances for aliens to exist than Allah.

How did Mohammed know that?

This question is the supporting evidence to most, if not all, the claimed miracles of Islam. Muslim scholars assume that since Mohammed existed in the seventh century, he should have mentioned only mistakes in the Quran and Hadith. Therefore, all remarks that appear to be in agreement with modern science must be considered miracles. We must assure those scholars that Mohammed did live to their expectations because he mentioned only mistakes in his Quran and hadith. They only need enough courage to read the Quran with open minds to find out. Also, we must remind those scholars, assuming their claims were correct and Mohammed was on the mark a few times, that it is scholarly wrong to jump to the conclusion that Allah was involved whenever humans achieve something extraordinary.

The majestic pyramids are only one example of the spectacular structures built in the distant past. They are magnificent and stunning by all standards. They are phenomenal architectural marvels that we still do not know how they were built at such an early stage of human civilization. For five thousand years, those mind-boggling structures have defied all natural disasters and all human abuse and still standing tall watching as the rest of the world around them being destroyed and rebuilt several times over. The pyramids are certainly more awesome and remarkable than any book ever published. Based on the Islamic principle of “how did they know that?”, is it reasonable to conclude that the pyramids were built by God?

Conclusion

We disagree with the Muslims’ views regarding the Quran and Mohammed. Our articles produced evidence of the Quran’s poor standard and its agreement with the prevailing backward science of its time (hence the many errors). We also produced evidence that Mohammed was an impostor. But even if we were proved wrong in all of that, it is still illogical and misleading to claim that the Quran was authored by God and that Mohammed was a prophet. The best the Muslims could conclude, assuming their views were correct, is that there are no mistakes in the Quran and Mohammed was not a bad man.

Claiming that a book was authored by Allah is a very big claim that requires very convincing evidence. It is a dangerous claim too because those who believe in Allah must be careful and think many times before attributing words or books to him in case he may not like it. A claim made by a Bedouin over a thousand years ago is neither big evidence nor convincing.

If a person receives a letter from the Chinese president asking him to join the Chinese cabinet meeting to discuss China’s defense strategy, would he believe the letter? Even if the letter appears to be in good shape and style, would that be convincing? A person with average intelligence would ignore it as scam or fraud and would bin it without even bothering to double check with the Chinese embassy about its authenticity.

And it is more likely for a person to receive a letter from the Chinese president than a book from Allah.

The moral is if unbelievable, don’t believe it unless there is evidence.