4,937
edits
Contradictions in the Quran: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (Fixed seo tag; removed Jonah as Muslim readers are never impressed with this one. Obviously they immediately think (as do tafsirs) that 68.48-49 means Allah's favour allowed him to be cast ashore without any disgrace, not that he wasn't cast ashore at all.) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|image=Quran-bookmarks.png | |image=Quran-bookmarks.png | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{QualityScore|Lead=4|Structure=4|Content=4|Language=3|References=4}}A recurring [[:Category:Criticism of Islam|criticism]] of the [[Qur'an|Quran]] is that it contains contradictory pronouncements, as is argued of many other religious scriptures. The occurrence of these contradictions, critics argue, is particularly problematic in the case of the Quran because the Islamic tradition holds it to be the direct, unmediated word of [[Allah]], or God. Indeed, {{Quran|4|82}} makes the confident assertion: "Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction." | |||
Critics hold that at least some of these contradictions are irresolvable through any reasonable interpretation and that, to resolve them, exegetes must resort to incredible interpretations. While some of the proposed contradictions, critics admit, may be resolved through the doctrine of [[Naskh (Abrogation)|abrogation]], whereby Allah is said to override his previous instructions (through, for instance, permitting [[alcohol]] at one point and prohibiting at another), many other contradictions are not resolvable in this manner. Indeed, the Islamic tradition holds that the doctrine of abrogation is only applicable in cases of law and not theology - what Allah says at any point with regards to the divine, the hereafter, history, the day of judgement, or other such non-legal matters, must (and, the tradition holds, does) always hold true. Critics, however, have stated that many, including some of the most problematic, of the proposed contradictions are precisely of the theological, and not legal, variety. | Critics hold that at least some of these contradictions are irresolvable through any reasonable interpretation and that, to resolve them, exegetes must resort to incredible interpretations. While some of the proposed contradictions, critics admit, may be resolved through the doctrine of [[Naskh (Abrogation)|abrogation]], whereby Allah is said to override his previous instructions (through, for instance, permitting [[alcohol]] at one point and prohibiting at another), many other contradictions are not resolvable in this manner. Indeed, the Islamic tradition holds that the doctrine of abrogation is only applicable in cases of law and not theology - what Allah says at any point with regards to the divine, the hereafter, history, the day of judgement, or other such non-legal matters, must (and, the tradition holds, does) always hold true. Critics, however, have stated that many, including some of the most problematic, of the proposed contradictions are precisely of the theological, and not legal, variety. | ||