Scientific Errors in the Qur'an
That was Yusuf Ali, a famous translator. See Tafsirs that I just added. The other Quran verses (and hadiths and everything else on that page, quotes from scholars) are clear in saying that homosexuality is wrong/forbidden/punishable, so Quran 4:16 is not saying something new. --Axius (talk | contribs) 14:24, 29 May 2014 (PDT)
I didn't say homosexuality isn't wrong, but this verse doesn't include the word "men". It says "the two" so it doesn't specify if its between 2 men or between a man and woman And all people make mistakes, so it isn't weird if Yusuf Ali, based on a specific understanding of this verse, mistakenly added a word. By the way, do you have the tafsir in Arabic? I'd like to check it. --Nightmare140 (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2014 (PDT)
- What recognized translations say and what the scholars in the Tafsirs says overrides what you and I say. No I dont have the Arabic tafsirs but what I quoted are the authentic English versions of the Tafsirs. In the Tafsirs when they say "men" they mean "men" and that is true whether it is Arabic or english. One of the Tafsir explains why its wrong to interpret that as 'a man and a woman' and it is in fact 'two men'. (1) Did you see that explanation? When the Quran says "The two" it is talking about "two men" as the Tafsirs from two Islamic scholar explain.
- (2) Why do you think this verse is saying something new that everything else on that page is not saying? Other Quranic verses and what hadiths say about a topic has to be considered to find out what the meanings are or what Islam says about a topic. --Axius (talk | contribs) 02:55, 30 May 2014 (PDT)
- Additional translations for "two men" 
- Ahmad Ali: If two (men) among you are guilty of such acts then punish both of them. But if they repent and reform, let them be, for God accepts repentance and is merciful.
- Additional translations for "two men" 
- Talal Itani: If two men among you commit it, punish them both. But if they repent and reform, leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Full of Mercy.
I found the Arabic versions of the tafsirs, and what I concluded is that most of the scholars (even the ones you mentioned) don't know certainly if it was meant for 2 men or a man and woman although some of them believe one of the meanings is more suitable than the other. For example, Tafsir Ibn Al-Jalalayn that you brought up talks about the 2 possibilities and then says that the 2nd possibility of the meaning being 2 men is more suitable because the pronoun used is for masculine. But I'll tell you that in Arabic if you want to refer to a group of people containing both men and women, you use the masculine pronoun, so it isn't a decisive clue that "2 men" is the meaning here. And I say again that the word "men" wasn't mentioned even once in this verse, so if someone, while translating, understands it from the meaning and it's not written, he should write it within parentheses (if he's sure) like what Ahmad Ali did. As for Tafsir Ibn-Kathir, he put up 3 possibilities of what the meaning would be, one of which means 2 men. The other tafsirs are mostly the same as these 2.--Nightmare140 (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2014 (PDT)
- This just proves again how false the Quran is when it makes the claim of being in detail and that "Nothing have we omitted from the Book". A lot has been omitted from the book and a lot is unclear and could have been written in a more clear way. 
- So indeed:
- Tafsir Ibn Al-Jalalayn that you brought up talks about the 2 possibilities and then says that the 2nd possibility of the meaning being 2 men is more suitable
- It is two men. As for your analysis, again what the two Tafsirs say overrides what you say. "Two men" may not have been mentioned but as the Tafsir says its most likely two men that the Quran is referring to.
- What do you think of the reasoning made in the first Tafsir quote?:
- but this [opinion of his] may be countered by the fact that [the reference to] the two [men] becomes clear on account of the particle min being attached to a masculine pronoun [minkum, ‘of you’], and by the fact that they suffer the same punishment, [both effect the action of] repentance and [are both granted] that they be left alone [thereafter], [all of] which applies specifically to men, given that for women detention is stipulated, as was stated before.
- Once again I ask you for the 3rd time: Do you think the "two men" version of 4:16 goes against what has been said about the topic in other locations? That is all quoted on that page and this includes verses. The topic of the people of Lut is mentioned in many places on that page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 04:25, 30 May 2014 (PDT)
No I don't. The point I'm talking about is if "this" and only this verse is talking about 2 men or not, not if the whole thing about homosexuality is true or not. You're saying the Qur'an isn't as clear and detailed as it claims to be. Hell, if you want it to be clearer and more detailed than that, do you want a 20000-page book that no one can read? God claims the Qur'an is clear and detailed, and indeed it is. He doesn't say each and every verse has an independent meaning that could be clearly understood while standing alone, but the Qur'an as a whole stands tall, with each verse clarifying the other ones if necessary. Now, if people can understand a verse, then there's no need to clarify it with other verses, making a 603-page book even bigger. Now, as you can read from Tafsirs, we can infer from other verses and Hadiths the punishments of adultery or homosexuality and apply it here to understand the meaning clearly. So even if you still don't know the partial meaning of the verse (if it's 2 or 2 men), you clearly and fully understand the complete meaning of the subject in hand, so what do you want more? Anyway, let's continue, you again quoted the Grammatical reasoning that was made to prove it, which I already talked about in the last edit. --Nightmare140 (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2014 (PDT)
- We just quote authentic, recognized translations and in addition if they are supported by Tafsirs of of well-renowned Islamic scholars, that is more than what needs to be done. If you have a problem with the sources, you can start contacting Islamic scholars around the world and get them to invalidate Yusuf Ali's translation and the two Tafsirs (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn and Tafsir Ibn Kathir)
- I like these kinds of discussions as they result in further improvement of our site. In this case I found out additional Tafsirs should be present on the page.
- In regards to your comments about Quran getting long if additional detail was added, no it would not. Ideally Quran should not be repetitive and for example contain the same statement 31 times ("So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?"). 30 of these verses should have been deleted from the Quran and the same words could have been used to fill out many details or perhaps include amazing miraculous verses which would attempt to prove the 'divine' origin of the Quran. In the case of 4:16, it would take only one arabic word to clarify the meaning of this important verse. Mistakes like these further prove the non-divine origin of the Quran and this is realized by those who have left Islam and some of them have submitted testimonies on our site using an online form. You're welcome to use that form in the future if you change your mind about Islam. But such debates are for the FFI forum which you can visit.
- Let me know if you have any other issues relating to this article or comments that could result in the improvement of the page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:41, 30 May 2014 (PDT)
I know that u quote authentic, recognized translations and well-renowed Islamic scholars, but you're ignoring the fact that Muslims believe only the Qur'an doesn't contain mistakes (in addition to Hadiths that were truly told by Prophet Muhammad PBUH), so even scholars and translators commit mistakes (example: Ibn-Abbas (Or Ibn-Kathir, I don't remember) said while explaining a verse that the Earth is flat. Does that mean Islam believes Earth is flat? No, it's just that he committed a mistake based on what they thought back then) I, too, like these discussions because whenever I take part in one, I find out that Islam is always prejudged. As for why the same verse was repeated 31 times, I don't know why, and no one can know why because God is all-knowing (but I'm sure it has to contain some "miraculous" meaning as you were saying, so discussions about Islam based on the "reason" of saying something in the Qur'an are invalid because God knows the reasons of what we do, but the opposite isn't correct. So, the "divine" origin of the Qur'an as you like to quote it is proved not by the reason (although it is proved based on the reaspons in some places that we know about), but rather by the divine "meaning", "miraculous" verses and other fields... Don't worry, I'll not change my mind anytime soon because I'm sure of my religion. And again I'll repeat, repeating something for its importance is not considered a mistake, and not mentioning something is also not considered a mistake. As for faithfreedom, I registered there when you suggested that I do, but I've still not gotten an answer yet... Seems they didn't accept my membership for some reason (or I made a mistake of some kind, but I don't think so)--Nightmare140 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2014 (PDT)
- You and me are some anonymous username on the internet and we do not have the religious authority to say multiple recognized famous Islamic scholars, Tafsir authors and translators made a mistake. Also other anti-homosexuality verses have to be considered to know what the meaning was and you have been completely ignoring those verses (people of Lut) and other hadiths. It is clear the Quran is anti-homosexuality. You cannot look at one Quran verse and decide it must mean something that you want it to mean and ignore everything else and what scholars have said. Everything has to be considered while interpreting the Quran but ok, how someone interprets the Quran is up to them.
- You can email the FFI people here and ask them about forum issues  but yes they'll be happy to debate with you. --Axius (talk | contribs) 05:54, 31 May 2014 (PDT)
Note that I did not say the Qur'an isn't against homosexuality. I'm just saying that I think this particular verse doesn't have to do with it.
Also, you should know that when I said Muslims believe scholars and translators would be wrong and that only the Qur'an and Hadiths (the ones we're sure of) don't have mistakes, I didn't decide that on my own. It's an Islamic rule.