Qur'anic Contradiction?

[Aburaees]

Here is part of Salih's story in the Qur'an;


Surah 7:73

To the Thamud people (We sent) Salih, one of their own brethren: He said: "O my people! worship Allah: ye have no other god but Him. Now hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! This she-camel of Allah is a Sign unto you: So leave her to graze in Allah's earth, and let her come to no harm, or ye shall be seized with a grievous punishment.

Now compare this to the following;


Surah 5:103

It was not Allah who instituted (superstitions like those of) a slit-ear she-camel, or a she-camel let loose for free pasture, or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals, or stallion-camels freed from work: It is blasphemers who invent a lie against Allah; but most of them lack wisdom.

Surely this is a contradiction!

.

[sardab]

Surely you are short of investigative mind.

Second verse refers to supersititions Arabs held at that time. The word in the original text is "bahira" for one of those supersititions, and translator put an explanation of the word in the translation. When a female camel gave birth to 5 offsprings, 5th of which is male, then Arabs slitted its ear and freed her for free pasture. They completely stopped benefiting from her. It is this supersitition that this verse refers to. Nothing to do with Salih's she-camel.

[Aburaees]

Surely you are short of investigative mind.

Second verse refers to supersititions Arabs held at that time. The word in the original text is "bahira" for one of those supersititions, and translator put an explanation of the word in the translation. When a female camel gave birth to 5 offsprings, 5th of which is male, then Arabs slitted its ear and freed her for free pasture. They completely stopped benefiting from her. It is this supersitition that this verse refers to. Nothing to do with Salih's she-camel.

Actually I wasn't referring to the "Bahira" camel, but Iwas referring to the "Sa'ibah" camel.

So, before accusing me of being short of investigative mind, please go and investigate "Sa'ibah".

I put it to you that Salih's camel is no different to a "Sa'ibah" camel!

.

[Aburaees]

Actually I wasn't referring to the "Bahira" camel, but Iwas referring to the "Sa'ibah" camel.

So, before accusing me of being short of investigative mind, please go and investigate "Sa'ibah".

I put it to you that Salih's camel is no different to a "Sa'ibah" camel!

.

Allow me to make it clear to you.

Surah 5. Al-Ma'idah, Ayat 103.

Allah has not instituted things like Bahirah, or Sa'ibah, or Wasilah, or Ham. But those who disbelieve invent lies against Allah, and most of them have no understanding.

(The Noble Qur'an by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan.)

Bahirah: A milking she-camel, whose milk used to be spared for idols and other false deities.

Sa'ibah: A she camel which used to be let loose for free pasture in the name of idols, gods, and false deities.

Wasilah: A she camel set free for idols because it has given birth to a she camel at its first delivery and second delivery.

Ham: A stallion camel freed from work for the sake of their idols, after it had finished a number of copulations assigned for it.

(Translations provided in the Noble Qur'an by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan.)



Salih's camel was a Sa'ibah camel;

Surah 7. Al-A'raf, Ayat 73.

...This she-camel of Allah is a sign unto you; so you leave her to graze in Allah's earth...

(The Noble Qur'an by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan.)

Now isn't it clear that Salih's camel was a Sa'ibah camel?

And this is a clear contradiction of Allah's statement in Surah 5:103!



.

[sardab]

Saibah: Technically similar result as in bahira. Difference is in the cause. When a man has a trouble or illness, he vows to free his camel and stop benefiting from it if his problem ends.

Salih's camel was a miracle of God, Salih wanted his people to not to harm it and let it free for pasture. They milked it. Those who did not accepted his message killed the camel.

Two totally different stories. Period.

Accepting that there's no contradiction here as you claimed does not make you Muslim, but refusing this simple truth makes your intention crooked. Have a check-up!

[Aburaees]

Saibah: Technically similar result as in bahira. Difference is in the cause. When a man has a trouble or illness, he vows to free his camel and stop benefiting from it if his problem ends.

Salih's camel was a miracle of God, Salih wanted his people to not to harm it and let it free for pasture. They milked it. Those who did not accepted his message killed the camel.

Two totally different stories. Period.

Accepting that there's no contradiction here as you claimed does not make you Muslim, but refusing this simple truth makes your intention crooked. Have a check-up!

Proof please.

Show us the proof that a Sa'ibah camel is what you say it is.

Show me the proof and I shall give up my claim.

.

[Aburaees]

Saibah: Technically similar result as in bahira. Difference is in the cause. When a man has a trouble or illness, he vows to free his camel and stop benefiting from it if his problem ends.

Salih's camel was a miracle of God, Salih wanted his people to not to harm it and let it free for pasture. They milked it. Those who did not accepted his message killed the camel.

Two totally different stories. Period.

Accepting that there's no contradiction here as you claimed does not make you Muslim, but refusing this simple truth makes your intention crooked. Have a check-up!

Proof please.

Show us the proof that a Sa'ibah camel is what you say it is.

Show me the proof and I shall give up my claim.

.

I am not unfair, I will completely drop my claim if you show me a proof that a Sai'bah camel is what you say it is.

I will drop my claim if you can show me a proof that Salih's camel is not like a Sa'ibah camel.

I will openly admit my error and apologise for my ignorance if you will show me your proof. Not your own words or statements, but your authentic source from which you derive your statement.


.

[sardab]

Aburaees, you fabricate something and expect me to disprove. Sorry, the normal course should be that you have to substantiate your case.

Anyways, I will give you the source but will not quote it here. A little labor please.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 723

[Aburaees]

Aburaees, you fabricate something and expect me to disprove. Sorry, the normal course should be that you have to substantiate your case.

Anyways, I will give you the source but will not quote it here. A little labor please.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 723

Thank you for the source, I'll quote it.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 723:
Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab:

Al-Bahira was an animal whose milk was spared for the idols and other dieties, and so nobody was allowed to milk it. As-Saiba was an animal which they (i.e infidels) used to set free in the names of their gods so that it would not be used for carrying anything. Abu Huraira said, "The Prophet said, 'I saw Amr bin 'Amir bin Luhai Al-Khuzai dragging his intestines in the (Hell) Fire, for he was the first man who started the custom of releasing animals (for the sake of false gods).' "

Also Ibn Ishaq the Muslim Historian was quoted in the biography of Muhammad (Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safiyr-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri);

Sa'ibah; a female camel that gave birth to ten successive females, but no males. It was then set free and all were forbidden to tie her, shear off her wool, or milk her.

Also Ibn Hisham 1/90-90;

A she-camel consecutively giving birth to ten female calves without the intervention of any male calf was tabooed and was named al-sa'ibah. She was not to be used for riding or carrying any load, her hair was not to be trimmed and her milk was not to be drunk except by a guest.

I fabricate nothing, so you should be careful of making false accusations.

It is clear that a Sa'ibah camel was a she-camel set free in the name of a god, as a result of the "miraculous" feat of producing ten consecutive females.

Salih's camel was a she-camel set free in the name of Allah

Surah 7:73 - To the Thamud people (We sent) Salih, one of their own brethren: He said: "O my people! worship Allah: ye have no other god but Him. Now hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! This she-camel of Allah is a Sign unto you: So leave her to graze in Allah's earth, and let her come to no harm, or ye shall be seized with a grievous punishment.

Now let's draw parallels from the facts;

1) Both camels were she-camels.
2) Both camels were set free for a god.
3) Both camels were considered a "sign" from a god.


In a culture where many types of camels were considered miraculous, and were set free for gods, what other kind of "sign" from god do you propose that Salih's camel was?

You can say what you like. If you don't produce a source that goes against my claim, there shall be many christians and muslims on this site who will judge for themselves in the matter.

Why on earth would Allah deny Sa'ibah camels as coming from him, only to reveal that one of his elect messengers brought an identical camel as a sign from him?


.

[sardab]

Do you know where does the word "munafeq" derive from. That means a laybrinth of roads and a munafeq will insist on not taking the true one, but will try other and other.

Salih's camel was not set free in God's name. It is just that Salih warned his people not to harm the camel and let her pasture freely. That camel was not made forbidden to be benefited from as in bahira or saibah. And Muslims now has no habit of sparing an animal for God. Even when they sacrifice an animal, they eat its meat.

Case closed!

[Aburaees]

Do you know where does the word "munafeq" derive from. That means a laybrinth of roads and a munafeq will insist on not taking the true one, but will try other and other.

Salih's camel was not set free in God's name. It is just that Salih warned his people not to harm the camel and let her pasture freely. That camel was not made forbidden to be benefited from as in bahira or saibah. And Muslims now has no habit of sparing an animal for God. Even when they sacrifice an animal, they eat its meat.

Case closed!

I know what a "Munafiq" is, it is a hypocrite. I have not shown any signs of hypocrisy.

Tell me, why must you attack my personal character in order to put forth your case?

Is it because you are running out of options?

Salih's camel was "a She-Camel OF ALLAH", that means that she belonged to Allah.

A Sa'ibah camel also belonged to a god, whether it was Hubal, Allah, or any other deity.

Salih's camel was also a "sign from Allah", tell me what is the sign in a simple camel if it is not a Sa'ibah, Bahirah, Wasilah, or Hami camel?

Salih's camel was set loose for free pasture, which was a typical pagan practice as we can see in the cases of Sa'ibah, Bahirah, Wasilah, and Hami.

Interestingly, the other Qur'anic verses pertaining to Salih's camel omit the part where she was set free to graze. Instead she was supposed to be allowed access to water.

Salih's camel was to be allowed free pasture, that in itself forbids anyone from eating her or working her.

I know it is not a Muslim practice today, but it certainly looks like it was Salih's practice to anyone with an unbiased interest in the subject.

You can close this case by showing me an evidence that clearly distinguishes Salih's camel from a Sa'ibah camel. I have brought my evidence, and you have brought nothing but your own words.

You quoted a source from Bukhari but you did not provide the Hadith. No wonder, as it only enhanced my case when I quoted it fully.

Both camels were;

1) Signs/Miracles
2) Set free
3) Belonged to a god

Maybe you can tell us what was so miraculous about Salih's camel.


.

[Aburaees]

I would like to know Abdullah's comments on this thread.
What follows is a summary of my position.


Here is part of Salih's story in the Qur'an;


Surah 7:73

To the Thamud people (We sent) Salih, one of their own brethren: He said: "O my people! worship Allah: ye have no other god but Him. Now hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! This she-camel of Allah is a Sign unto you: So leave her to graze in Allah's earth, and let her come to no harm, or ye shall be seized with a grievous punishment.

Now compare this to the following;


Surah 5:103

It was not Allah who instituted (superstitions like those of) a slit-ear she-camel, or a she-camel let loose for free pasture, or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals, or stallion-camels freed from work: It is blasphemers who invent a lie against Allah; but most of them lack wisdom.

Surely this is a contradiction!


Salih's camel was "a She-Camel OF ALLAH", that means that she belonged to Allah.

A Sa'ibah camel also belonged to a god, whether it was Hubal, Allah, or any other deity.

Salih's camel was also a "sign from Allah", tell me what is the sign in a simple camel if it is not a Sa'ibah, Bahirah, Wasilah, or Hami camel?

Salih's camel was set loose for free pasture, which was a typical pagan practice as we can see in the cases of Sa'ibah, Bahirah, Wasilah, and Hami.

Interestingly, the other Qur'anic verses pertaining to Salih's camel omit the part where she was set free to graze. Instead she was supposed to be allowed access to water.

Salih's camel was to be allowed free pasture, that in itself forbids anyone from eating her or working her.

I know it is not a Muslim practice today, but it certainly looks like it was Salih's practice to anyone with an unbiased interest in the subject.

You can close this case by showing me an evidence that clearly distinguishes Salih's camel from a Sa'ibah camel.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 723:
Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab:

Al-Bahira was an animal whose milk was spared for the idols and other dieties, and so nobody was allowed to milk it. As-Saiba was an animal which they (i.e infidels) used to set free in the names of their gods so that it would not be used for carrying anything. Abu Huraira said, "The Prophet said, 'I saw Amr bin 'Amir bin Luhai Al-Khuzai dragging his intestines in the (Hell) Fire, for he was the first man who started the custom of releasing animals (for the sake of false gods).' "

Also Ibn Ishaq the Muslim Historian was quoted in the biography of Muhammad (Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safiyr-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri);

Sa'ibah; a female camel that gave birth to ten successive females, but no males. It was then set free and all were forbidden to tie her, shear off her wool, or milk her.

Also Ibn Hisham 1/90-90;

A she-camel consecutively giving birth to ten female calves without the intervention of any male calf was tabooed and was named al-sa'ibah. She was not to be used for riding or carrying any load, her hair was not to be trimmed and her milk was not to be drunk except by a guest.

Both camels were;

1) Signs/Miracles
2) Set free
3) Belonged to a god

It is clear that a Sa'ibah camel was a she-camel set free in the name of a god, as a result of the "miraculous" feat of producing ten consecutive females.

Salih's camel was a she-camel set free in the name of Allah , as she was a "miracle" or a "sign" from Allah.


So the question is this;

DID ALLAH INSTITUTE THE SETTING FREE OF A MIRACULOUS SHE-CAMEL IN HIS NAME? YES OR NO?


Maybe you can tell us what was so miraculous about Salih's camel.


.

[Abdullah]

7:73 To the Thamud people (We sent) Salih, one of their own brethren: He said: "O my people! worship Allah. ye have no other god but Him. Now hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! This she-camel of Allah is a Sign unto you: So leave her to graze in Allah's earth, and let her come to no harm, or ye shall be seized with a grievous punishment.

5:103 Allâh has not instituted things like Bahîrah (a she*camel whose milk was spared for the idols and nobody was allowed to milk it) or a Sâ'ibah (a she*camel let loose for free pasture for their false gods, e.g.*idols, etc., and nothing was allowed to be carried on it), or a Wasîlah (a she*camel set free for idols because it has given birth to a she*camel at its first delivery and then again gives birth to a she*camel at its second delivery) or a Hâm (a stallion*camel freed from work for their idols, after it had finished a number of copulations assigned for it, all these animals were liberated in honour of idols as practised by pagan Arabs in the pre*Islâmic period).*But those who disbelieve invent lies against Allâh, and most of them have no understanding

1. No, both camels are not signs/miracles. Salih's camel was miraculous because it was produced from a boulder and was gigantic. The "saibah" is a random superstition of the arabs tolet a camel travel around loose with nothing on it.

2. In what way was Salih's camel set free? For it never belonged to any human.

3. Even if we think that they (the camels) are the same in those aspects, Allah swt is saying that He did not institute this as

a) a practice to be observed
and b) To be dedicated to their idols, which they believed would bring them closer to Allah (see Az-Zumar 39:1-5


4. Saalih was a Prophet who produced a sign. The "saibah" was a pagan custom. The two things are incomparable.

5. Even in the first verse, it makes clear that it is condemning any practices devoted to 'gods' besides Allah.

[Abdullah]

7:73 To the Thamud people (We sent) Salih, one of their own brethren: He said: "O my people! worship Allah. ye have no other god but Him. Now hath come unto you a clear (Sign) from your Lord! This she-camel of Allah is a Sign unto you: So leave her to graze in Allah's earth, and let her come to no harm, or ye shall be seized with a grievous punishment.

5:103 Allâh has not instituted things like Bahîrah (a she*camel whose milk was spared for the idols and nobody was allowed to milk it) or a Sâ'ibah (a she*camel let loose for free pasture for their false gods, e.g.*idols, etc., and nothing was allowed to be carried on it), or a Wasîlah (a she*camel set free for idols because it has given birth to a she*camel at its first delivery and then again gives birth to a she*camel at its second delivery) or a Hâm (a stallion*camel freed from work for their idols, after it had finished a number of copulations assigned for it, all these animals were liberated in honour of idols as practised by pagan Arabs in the pre*Islâmic period).*But those who disbelieve invent lies against Allâh, and most of them have no understanding

1. No, both camels are not signs/miracles. Salih's camel was miraculous because it was produced from a boulder and was gigantic. The "saibah" is a random superstition of the arabs tolet a camel travel around loose with nothing on it.

2. In what way was Salih's camel set free? For it never belonged to any human.

3. Even if we think that they (the camels) are the same in those aspects, Allah swt is saying that He did not institute this as

a) a practice to be observed
and b) To be dedicated to their idols, which they believed would bring them closer to Allah (see Az-Zumar 39:1-5


4. Saalih was a Prophet who produced a sign. The "saibah" was a pagan custom. The two things are incomparable.

5. Even in the first verse, it makes clear that it is condemning any practices devoted to 'gods' besides Allah.

[Aburaees]

Salih's camel was miraculous because it was produced from a boulder and was gigantic.

Can you prove this statement with an authentic Hadith or a Qur'anic verse?


.

[Abdullah]

Can you prove this statement with an authentic Hadith or a Qur'anic verse?

THis will be my last response for Aburaes and Loki, and aburaes u r right i dont know u, but every since we have been talking, it seemed to me all you have done is come to attack islam, i keep telling u fallacy statements are irrevleant and i explained how the Qur'an had a uniqueness, go read some articles on the uniqueness of the qur'an the arabic style, all you do is deny plagerizm, Bismillah to Bismallhy IS NEARLY IDENTICAL. but you 2 have used irrevelant statements and u keep doing it. so there is no point in me talking 2 u 2, so this will b my last response towards you two.
If you want a intellectual and civilized discussion, feel free to let me know.
N e wayz here is ur answer

http://www.thenoblequran.com/sps/nb...=73&taf=KATHEER
http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/E...phets/Salih.htm

[Aburaees]

Salih's camel was miraculous because it was produced from a boulder and was gigantic.

Can you prove this statement with an authentic Hadith or a Qur'anic verse?
.

I would like an answer to this one please.

.

[john doe]

all you have done is come to attack islam, i keep telling u fallacy statements are irrevleant and i explained how the Qur'an had a uniqueness, go read some articles on the uniqueness of the qur'an the arabic style, all you do is deny plagerizm, Bismillah to Bismallhy IS NEARLY IDENTICALY

The Quran is an open invitation for attack, its defenceless in my opinion. No disrespect to you Abdullah. I’ve read it and it’s effortless to contradict it. I’ve concentrated my energy on the hadith past recently….my goodness! If only the Muslims actually read it (literally read it)…and if they were intelligent enough they would walk away from Islam without hesitation.

They say “Islam is peace”, no disrespect to you again but these two words just don’t go together, it’s an oxymoron.


I have some questions for you Abdullah to begin with, if you may answer them.

1. Who is the author of the hadith?
2. Mohammed had a principle teacher, what was his name?

[Abdullah]

I would like an answer to this one please.

I just gave you TWO links to your answer

The Quran is an open invitation for attack, its defenceless in my opinion. No disrespect to you Abdullah. I’ve read it and it’s effortless to contradict it. I’ve concentrated my energy on the hadith past recently….my goodness! If only the Muslims actually read it (literally read it)…and if they were intelligent enough they would walk away from Islam without hesitation.

loolz, i find u funny, your seem to me one of those people that believe in bias views and have not really gone to Actaully research about Islam. hmm if what u say is true, then im guessin You think Malcome X was stupid? your kind of people disgust me, im not gonna waste my time on you or talk ill of you because Everyone will get there fair share on Judgement day

Assalam alaikum

I have some questions for you Abdullah to begin with, if you may answer them.

1. Who is the author of the hadith?
2. Mohammed had a principle teacher, what was his name?

Interesing how you dont follow directions, WRONG TOPIC ,

[john doe]

I was born in Iraq, and I think I know more about Islam and their decrees probably more than you do, after all it was all forced in schools. And being an Assyrian which our history spans over 6000 years, I’d say we know the making of your religion before the words Islam were even uttered, so the least you can do is give me a break pal. It might surprise you but I have Muslims friends from both sects, hell even Kurds!


Why is it that when ever you ask a Muslim some obscure but rather valid question(s) they always seem to have the tendency to evade those question(s), why do you think that is? Yet most can recite the Quran from the heart.

btw. If I’m trying to be comical, believe me I’d let you know.


But....once again if you may, could you answer the two question which I imposed on you, if you don't then I'll just have to assume that you lack the knowledge. And don't give me any excuses, a muslims ought to be prepared for any random questions to test his faith and prove to other non-muslims, right?

[Abdullah]

loolz, i find u funny , make another topic and asks those, one of the rules here is not changing topics,

[john doe]

Is that the best you can do? You have to give people here some credit here; saying that I’m funny is just an excuse to evade my questions, nothing more. Don’t you think?

Come on man! I asked two simple question? Don’t you think it’s embarrassing that a Muslim brother like yourself with that kind of name can’t answer two simple questions?


I'm not your enemy here,

[Abdullah]

Is that the best you can do? You have to give people here some credit here; saying that I’m funny is just an excuse to evade my questions, nothing more. Don’t you think?

Come on man! I asked two simple question? Don’t you think it’s embarrassing that a Muslim brother like yourself with that kind of name can’t answer two simple questions?


I'm not your enemy here,

Its not an excuse, its a rule im following, you we follow rules here right? can you repost the questions

[Alpha]

Responding to:
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic ... 6526#56526

Not quite, my friend. Have a look at the following contradictions: (This is an example, Dont try to rebuttal because the topic is on Qur'an)

Take a look at Noahs story, a scientific inaccuracy.

I guess you were there.

'What do scribal errors prove?' you may ask. The answer is that it proves that the Bible has been tampered with and is no longer the true word of God. It solidifes the Qur'an's claims against the Bible.

Actually, it doesn't. Because the massive manuscript evidence for the Bible shows that it has not been tampered with. Even if there is a scribal error, God has provided so much manuscripts that the truth of the scriptures can be easily figured out. It's almost like me catching someone doing a crime on tape, then they find the tape and delete the evidence from that one tape, but then I have more copies of the tape to "solidify" the evidence.

Of course not. But it proves that the textbook is not accurate source of understanding calculus when it is replete with errors. Remember, I believe that the original teachings of jesus pbuh were perfect but they have been tamplered with. This is whjy we need Islam, and the final testament.

In my Calculus textbook, the author has probably mispelled a couple of words, that's also the case for my physics and data structures textbooks. But my course still goes on and the teachers still use those textbooks, because the teaching of the subjects are still fully understood from the textbooks. You strive at a gnat despite the fact your Qu'ran deals with the same issues but has way less evidence to support it than the Holy Bible.

Also, your analogy is not accurate. The reason is that the Bible claims to be the word of the Divine being who is flawless, while a calculus textbook does not. Therefore, errors in the Bible disprove its Divine origin or at least prove that the Book has been tampered with.

God is flawless, but human beings are not. I can argue how can we trust someone who was illiterate (Muhammed) for providing the word of God? Therefore, your logic is inconsistant. God uses imperfect human beings without interfering with our free will. If you can come up with some reasonable explanation that God can put the trust of His word with an illiterate man, then there is even more reason to still believe the Bible is the word of God despite the scribal errors, especially with the fact of the manuscript evidence to negate the Bible being tampered with.

Well i guess you havent got the point i was trying to send, The Qur'an is Gods Words, Rbin hood is a children story, how can you even compare the two? it just shows how ridicolous it is, if you compare Childrens story with Gods words,, How can you debate?

Who told you the Qu'ran was the word of God?

As for the Qu'ran, it also has scribal errors.

Then can you show me any?? That's what this whole debate is about buddy! Let's get on with it!

From: answering-islam.org

How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad? One day [54:19] or several days [41:16; 69:6,7]

Further numerical discrepancies Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 human years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)? --- How many gardens are there in paradise? ONE [as stated in 39:73, 41:30, 57:21, 79:41] or MANY [18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32]? --- According to Sura 56:7 there will be THREE distinct groups of people at the Last Judgement, but 90:18-19, 99:6-8, etc. mention only TWO groups. --- There are conflicting views on who takes the souls at death: THE Angel of Death [32:11], THE angels (plural) [47:27] but also "It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death." [39:42]
Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings [35:1]. But Gabriel had 600 wings. [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455]

P.S. However you respond to these contradictions, don't talk about alleged Biblical contradictions if the same logic can be applied. So either way, you lose. If you can't respond to them, you lose. If you can respond to them, you lose!

[Abdullah]

I guess you were there.

So just because i wasnt there doesnt mean it is true or not, scientific backs up there was a local flood but now a World Wide Flood, that is impossible not only for the weather but for noah building the boat. but we arent debating on this topic so lets leave it

In my Calculus textbook, the author has probably mispelled a couple of words, that's also the case for my physics and data structures textbooks. But my course still goes on and the teachers still use those textbooks, because the teaching of the subjects are still fully understood from the textbooks. You strive at a gnat despite the fact your Qu'ran deals with the same issues but has way less evidence to support it than the Holy Bible.

Actually, it doesn't. Because the massive manuscript evidence for the Bible shows that it has not been tampered with. Even if there is a scribal error, God has provided so much manuscripts that the truth of the scriptures can be easily figured out. It's almost like me catching someone doing a crime on tape, then they find the tape and delete the evidence from that one tape, but then I have more copies of the tape to "solidify" the evidence.

Alpha, apparently you dont wanna debate, to prove my point, you bring a point about calculus, what does that have to do with internal contradiction? then you move into robin hood and all these wierd comparisons, Alpha dont waste my time, if you wanted a real debate you would of asked ONE question per post, if you wanted a real debate i would of debated you with my own words, but since you dont wanna debate and this becoming a discussion, i will just post links

In 32:11 we are told that for each individual there is an angel placed in charge of when the appointed death time comes.

"Say, 'You will be put to death by the angel in whose charge you are placed, then to your Lord you will be returned."

However, when we read 47:27, we note that it speaks about the disbelievers in plural. This is indicated by the word 'them' in the verse.

"How will it be for them when the angels put them to death? They will beat them on their faces and their rear ends."

Since verse 47:27 speaks of the disbelievers in plural, thus the word 'angels' is used in plural.

Finally, in 39:42, we are told that it is God who takes our souls.

"GOD puts the souls to death when the end of their life comes …………. "

To demonstrate that the author is presenting pathetic arguments just to conjure up any contradiction, let us consider the following example of the following two statements:

'In the beginning of the World War the German forces invaded Poland."

'In the beginning of the World War Hitler invaded Poland."

Can we say that there is a contradiction between these two statements? Obviously not, for although it is obvious that Hitler did not go personally with a gun and invade Poland, it is understood that the German forces were acting upon Hitler's commands when invading Poland. Consequently, it is correct to say both sentences without having any contradictions.

Similarly, and although it is the angels who are in charge of putting people to death, yet they are acting upon the commands of Almighty God, and in that sense our lives are terminated in accordance with God's will.

Here are other links that rebuttal your claims
http://www.submission.org/answering-Islam.htm
http://www.understanding-islam.org/....asp?sscatid=89
http://www.answering-christianity.c...an/quranerr.htm
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm


IF you want me Rebuttaling the claims myself, then dont start throwing silly comparisons and have a debate on that, that is just silly,