Prophecy in the Quran and Suras

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:

The above is an article by an atheist.

it is strange that you quote an atheiest. do you know how much hate they carry for Christianity? will you accept that i roam around the internet and quote from an atheist about what did he say about Jesus, the Bible and Christianity?

My question is this:
What prophecies in the Quran can be shown to be true?

will answer this later after answering your claims about contradictions in the Qur'an. although am sure you have just copied and paste from the internet and you did not even bother to open the Qur'an to examine those things by yourself.

But since you brought up the topic of unfullfilled prophecies I must respectfully ask you about your Quran.
yeah you are totally free to ask about the Qur’an. but did you find those verses while reading the Qur’an or only you picked them up from the internet? (The anti Islamic websites).


Koran 20:85 and 20:87 state that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at Mt. Horeb was molded by a Samaritan. The word "Samaritan" was not coined until 722 B.C.--several years after the events recorded in the Exodus?

Am aware of this claim which made by the Christian missionaries. Ok if you are really interested to know the answer then read this:

Now we will cover the usage of the terms "Samaritan" and "Samarian" as well as the opinions of Judaeo-Christian scholars in light of recent historical investigations. We will also consider recent scientific studies examining the principal characteristics of the Samaritan and Jewish genetic composition, in order to confirm if there is indeed any shared ancestry.
1- The "Samaritan" Error


Henri Lammens stated that in the Qur'an one of


<b>"the most glaring anachronisms" is "the story of the Samaritan (sic) who is alleged to have made the Jews worship the golden calf..."</b>


Christian missionaries have claimed that the Qur'an contains a historically impossible narration when it mentions the name al-Samiri which some translate as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95). They claim that:


The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.


And furthermore:


How can a Samaritan have led the Israelites astray at the time of Moses [about 1400 B.C.] when the city of Samaria was founded by King Omri in about 870 B.C. (see 1 Kings 16:24)? But "the Samaritans" as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the Northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II in after 722 B.C. with non-Israelites which then adopt a syncretism [mixture] between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. Hence, it is historically impossible that a Samaritan could have led the Israelites into idolatry in the time of Moses. This is another time compression of at least 500, but rather 700 years.


These claims have been repeated by a host of Christian missionaries. For example, Anis Shorrosh says:


The Qur'an says the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness was molded by a Samaritan... In fact, the term Samaritan was not used until 722 BC, several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus.


Ergum Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, presumably quoting Shorrosh, say:


The Qur'an says that the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites at Mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan. The term Samaritan was not coined until 722 B.C., several hundred years after the Exodus, when the idol was crafted.


Similar claims have been made by Mateen Elass who says:


As-Samiri is not a proper name as the definite article before the hyphen makes clear. Most Muslim scholars understand this term to mean "the Samaritan," but this is problematic since the Samaritans were not constituted as a separate people until after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel under the Assyrian empire, some five hundred or more years after the golden calf incident.


Gleason Archer in the section "Anachronism and Historical Inaccuracies in the Koran" finds difficulty in the explanation offered by Yusuf Ali for the word al-Samiri in the Qur'an. Archer says:


Yusef Ali suggests that Samariyyu may have been an Egyptian name meaning "stranger, foreigner," or possibly a Hebrew term derived from Shomer ("watchman") - in a valiant effort to avoid the charge of anachronism. Samaritan did not come into being as a race until after the 6th century B.C., and so there could have been no Samaritan around as early as 1445 B.C.!


Similar claims were also made by `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.


Jacques Jomier, however, offers a different form of an argument concerning al-Samiri in the Qur'an. He says:


At the scene of the Golden Calf, a mysterious character appears: he is called the Samaritan (al-Sāmirī). It is hard to know what this word signifies. Some Westerners have seen a connection with the golden calves of Samaria, but this would take us several centuries beyond Moses. In the absence of other documents, one is very hesitant to subscribe such a hypothesis (cf. Qur'an 20. 85-95).


According to Newman, the mention of al-Samiri in the Qur'an is the result of Muhammad's confusion of the "time periods" and tranferring "Jewish teachings about Samaritans to a single person."


Almost all these claims (except for Jomier's and Newman's) can be traced back, whether directly or indirectly, to none but Tisdall: the fountainhead of all Christian polemic against the Qur'an. Confident in his ability to truthfully exegete the Qur'an, the "Samaritan" issue appears to be a source of amusement for Tisdall, who notes rather derisively,


But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years after Moses' death, the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur.


It is interesting that Tisdall equated the Samaritans with the appearance of the city of Samaria to claim the anachronism. Let us now examine whether Judeo-Christian scholars share this view of the origin of the Samaritans as put forward by the Christian missionaries and apologists. We will also make a brief mention of the genetic study which traces the origins of Samaritans.


2- The Traditional View Of Samaritan Origins


The Hebrew word Shomronim or Shomeronim translated as "Samaritans" is underlined in the Hebrew text below. This example is taken from II Kings 17:29:


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Con...ternal/sam3.gif


But every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities which they dwelt... (RSV)



Who is a Samaritan? The traditional view of the origins of the Samaritans is based on II Kings 17. Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary[14] informs us that the Samaritans are a mixed race people, being a native or inhabitant of Samaria, a distinct territory or region in central Palestine. They were so despised by full-blooded Jews for being of mixed blood:


Because of their intermarriage with foreigners the people of Samaria were shunned by orthodox Jews. Situated between Galilee and Judea, Samaria was the natural route for travelling between those two provinces. But the pure blooded Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans (John 4 9). They would travel east cross the Jordan River and detour around Samaria Even the Jewish historian Josephus displays some contempt towards these people. He says:


The Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the Samaritans were also opportunists. When the Jews enjoyed prosperity, the Samaritans were quick to acknowledge their blood relationship. But when the Jews suffered hard times, the Samaritans disowned any such kinship, declaring that they were descendants of Assyrian immigrants.


According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica the Samaritans today number little more than 500, and are almost extinct:


Samaritan, member of a community of Jews, now nearly extinct, that claims to be related by blood to those Jews of ancient Samaria who were not deported by the Assyrian conquerors of the kingdom of Israel in 722 BC. The Samaritans call themselves Bene-Yisrael ("Children of Israel"), or Shamerim ("Observant Ones"), for their sole norm of religious observance is the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament). Other Jews call them simply Shomronim (Samaritans); in the Talmud (rabbinical compendium of law, lore, and commentary), they are called Kutim, suggesting that they are rather descendants of Mesopotamian Cuthaeans, who settled in Samaria after the Assyrian conquest.


Jews who returned to their homeland after the Babylonian Exile would not accept the help of the dwellers of the land, who were later identified as the Samaritans, in the building of the Second Temple of Jerusalem. Consequently, in the 4th century BC, the Samaritans built their own temple in Nabulus (Shechem), at the base of Mount Gerizim, some 25 miles (40 km) north of Jerusalem. The low esteem that Jews had for the Samaritans was the background of Christ's famous parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).


Since the 1970s their population has held at about 500; they are somewhat evenly distributed between Nabulus, which is also the residence of the high priest, and the city of Holon, where a synagogue is maintained, just south of Tel Aviv-Yafo. All live in semi-isolation, marrying only within their own community. They pray in Hebrew but adopted Arabic as their vernacular after the Muslim conquest of AD 636.


3- Samaritans Or Samarians?


The Encyclopaedia Judaica (one of the largest and most famous of all Judaic sources) provides some interesting information about the name "Samaritan":


Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Con...ternal/sam1.gif . The Bible uses the name Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29,


but this probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called themselves Shamerin http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Con...ternal/sam2.gif ; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of the truth = al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being in constant use in their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean inhabitants of the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the probable origin of the word Shomronim is to be found).


Further, The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible confirms that:


... the Samaritans prefer to style themselves 'Shamerim' http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Con...ternal/sam1.gif i.e., "the observant" - rather than 'Shomeronim' http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Con...ternal/sam2.gif i.e., "the inhabitants of Samaria."


In his book The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect, J. A. Montgomery asserts that the Samaritans:


.... call themselves by the ancient geographical apellative, Samerim, which they interpret however as meaning "the Observers", i.e., of the Law.


Thus the use of term Samarians in II Kings 17 tells us nothing about the origins of Samaritans. It can safely be said that there are no unambiguous references to the Samaritans in the Hebrew Bible, and part of the support for this argument is the very fact that none of the terms descriptive of the Samaritan community are found there.


4- What Do The Samaritans Say About Their Own Origins?


The Encyclopaedia Judaica (under "Samaritans") states that until the middle of the 20th century it was widely believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722 BCE). In recent years however, new research based on the study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans[21] has led to a re-evaluation of their origins:


Until the middle of the 20th Century it was customary to believe that the Samaritans originated from a mixture of the people living in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of Samaria by Assyria (722/1 B.C.E.). The Biblical account of in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan materials.


According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory in central Palestine and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new cult there. For the Samaritans, this was the 'schism' par excellence.


If the Samaritans trace their origins from the time of Joseph's descendants, then they were certainly in existence in the time of Moses! Furthermore, even to this day the Samaritans still claim descent from the tribe of Joseph:


The laymen also possess their traditional claims. They are all of the tribe of Joseph, except those of the tribe of Benjamin, but this traditional branch of people, which, the Chronicles assert, was established at Gaza in earlier days, seems to have disappeared. There exists an aristocratic feeling amongst the different families in this petty community, and some are very proud over their pedigree and the great men it had produced.


5- The Origin Of The Samaritans - An Analysis Of The Jewish & Samaritan View


An analysis of the Jewish and Samaritan view of the origins of Samaritans, from The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible (Under "Samaritan Origins"), is quoted below:


The Jewish view. This view identifies the Samaritans as the descendants of the colonists whom Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, is said to have brought from Cutha, Babylon, Hamath, and other foreign parts after he had conquered Samaria in 722 B.C. and deported the native population (II Kings 17). These colonists, it is added, were later supplemented by others, introduced by Shalmaneser's successors, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, alias "Osnappar" (Ezra 4:2, 10). Whatever knowledge of Judaism they possess is dismissed as purely superficial. The first settlers, runs the story, were beset by an invasion of lions. Thereupon they appealed to the authorities to repatriate one of the priests of Yahweh, that they might learn from him the proper procedure of the traditional local cult. The result, however, was a grotesque syncretism; Yahwism served only as a thin veneer spread, for convenience, over an essential and deep-seated heathenism. It was for this basic reason, in fact, that the Samaritans obstructed the efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem and re-establish the sanctuary of Yahweh (cf. Ezra 4:2 ff; Neh. 2:19; 4:2 ff)


In accordance with this view, the Jews dub the Samaritans contemptuously "men of Cutha", or - in slightly more charitable vein - speak of them as "lion converts" (Kid. 75a-76a), regarding them, at best, as one degree nearer than Gentiles, but still not as full-fledged members of the house of Israel.


The Samaritan view. The Samaritans, for their part, dismiss this story as a vile Jewish canard. The deportation in 722, they say, was neither total nor final; the exiles were, in fact, repatriated after fifty-five years! It is the descendants of these native Israelites that they claim to be. According to their version, the breach with the Judeans goes back to the time of Eli, who took it upon himself to set up an apostatic sanctuary of Yahweh at Shiloh, whereas the true "chosen place" prescribed in the law of Moses was Mount Gerizim. This infamy was later reinforced by the "accursed Ezra," who falsified the sacred text and thereby seduced the people, on their return from the Babylonian exile, to erect the second temple beside the Judean capital. Admittedly, pagan colonists were introduced by the Assyrian monarchs; but these must not be confused with the true, native Israelites.


In harmony with this view, the Samaritans prefer to style themselves 'Shamerim' i.e., "the observant" - rather than 'Shomeronim' i.e., "the inhabitants of Samaria."


Critical appraisal. There is something to be said for each of these views, and the truth probably lies between the two extremes.


The biblical story of successive exchange of population, following the fall of Samaria in 722, is confirmed, in its broader outlines, by the Assyrian records.


It is plain from these documents, however, that the Hebrew historian has confused and "telescoped" his data. In the first place, it was not Shalmaneser, but his successor Sargon (who, in fact, completed the siege), that effected the exchange in question. Secondly, it seems more probable that the colonization mentioned in II Kings 17:24 actually took place over several years and under successive monarchs. Thus, the Hamathites were probably transported to Samaria only after Sargon had quelled a revolt in that city in 721 - a revolt in which the Samaritans indeed participated; while the deportation of the Israelites to Media would seem to have counterbalanced one of the Medians to Samaria, following a successful campaign against them in 714. Similarly, the introduction of Babylonians and Cutheans is more plausibly assigned to Ashurbanipal than to Shalmaneser, for it may well have been an act of retribution for their share in the civil war raised by the former's rival, Shamashshumukin.


Such confirmation of the biblical account does not prove, however, that the Jews are right in regarding the Samaritans as the mere offspring of the colonists rather than the true scions of Israel; and there is, in fact, much to support the Samaritan claim.


In the first place, Sargon himself says distinctly that he deported only 27,290 persons, whereas a computation based on a contemporary record in II Kings 15:19 shows that wealthy landowners alone then numbered 60,000! Furthermore, in II Chr. 34:9, we indeed hear of a "remnant of Israel" still resident in Ephraim and Manasseh about a century later, in the days of Josiah; and the analogy of what happened at the fall of the Southern Kingdom (II Kings 24:14) would suggest that, while more influential citizens may, indeed, have been driven into exile, the proletariat were left where they were. Lastly, it should be pointed out that there is, in fact, nothing in subsequent Samaritan doctrine which betrays any indebtedness to Assyrian ideas, and that the attitude of the Samaritans toward the Jews is wholly and most naturally explicable as a continuance of the inveterate hostility between Israel and Judah.


The most plausible conclusion is, then, that after the fall of Samaria in 722, the local population consisted of two distinct elements living side by side - viz., (a) the remnant of the native Israelites; and (B) the foreign colonists. For tendentious reasons, however, the Jewish version ignores the former; the Samaritan version the latter.


This actually shows how trustworthy the Bible is in recording the history of its own people as well as the others. It can be said that the books of Kings cannot be regarded simply as an "objective history".


In order to confirm some of the claims of the Samaritans about their origins, let us turn our attention to a recent study involving genetics.


6- A Genetic Perspective


The Samaritans are a distinct religious and cultural minority in the Middle East. They number slightly over 500 and they reside in Holon, a suburb of Tel Aviv and Nablus, near their holy site of Mount Gerizim. The Samaritans, according to their origins, are divided into three large clans: children of Ephraim (the Danafi and Joshua-Marhiv families), the children of Manasseh (Tsdaka family), and the Priests (Kohanim). As for the priests, the Samaritan Chronicle tells us that in 1624 CE, the priestly house descended from Aaron became extinct, and that since then their sacred functions devolved upon the Levites. Thus the modern-day priestly Cohen lineage is from the tribe of Levi.


Throughout the whole of their history, the Samaritans adhered to an endogamous marriage system that was practised not only within the limits of the community but also within the limits of the lineage. Female Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are expelled from the sect, while the children of male Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are regarded as Samaritans. Recent studies have shown that about 84% of marriages occur between cousins, producing the highest inbreeding coefficient recorded for any population. This gives a good opportunity to study their genetic character and compare it with Jewish and non-Jewish populations. Shen et al. concluded from Y-chromosome analysis that Samaritans descended from the Israelites; and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis shows descent from Assyrians and other foreign women. This effectively validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans. Shen et al. say:


Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.


Furthermore, they conclude:


This study confirms the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture... [T]he data ... indicate that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a much greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their longtime geographical neighbors, the Palestinians. However, this is not the case for the mtDNA haplotypes. In fact, Table 4 shows that distances of Samaritans to Jews and Palestinians for mtDNA are about the same. Further, the low mitochondrial haplotype diversity suggests that the rate of maternal gene flow into the Samaritan community has not been very high despite their tradition to regard children of male Samaritans born to females from outside as Samaritan... Based on the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype, we speculate that the Samaritan M304 Y-chromosome lineages present a subgroup of the original Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, but married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities. This is in line with biblical texts that emphasize a common heritage of Jews and Samaritans, but also record the negative attitude of Jews towards the Samaritans because of their association with people that were not Jewish. Such a scenario could explain why Samaritan Y-chromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Y-lineages..., while their mitochondrial lineages are closest to Iraqi Jewish and Palestinian mtDNA sequences... Finally, the high degree of homogeneity in each of the four male Samaritan lineages, which holds with two exceptions even over 13 microsatellite loci..., underscores the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture that has effectively limited any male-driven gene flow between the four families.


According to this study, the origins of Samaritans can be traced back to a common ancester in the Cohen or the Jewish priestly family which was paternally inherited. Although this study establishes a common ancestry for both Jews and Samaritans as well as the mixed descent of Samaritans due to marriages with foreign women, we still have to look in Samaritan Chronicles to understand the how they originated and how far their ancestry goes. As we have seen earlier, the Samaritans claim to be the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh.


7- Conclusions


Until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722-721 BCE). In recent years however, new research based on a more careful study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. Specifically, with the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available. A historical analysis of this chronicle reveals that the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. The common ancestry of both the Jews and Samaritans was also established by recent genetic studies, going back to Cohen or the Jewish priestly family. This study also validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans.


The missionaries and apologists, ignorant of the Samaritans' own version of their history as well as recent scholarly investigation and critical analysis, content themselves with repeating the 100 year old claim made by William St. Clair Tisdall. Unfortunately, Tisdall was also not fully cognizant with the Chronicles of the Samaritans; consequently, the missionaries and apologists make claims contrary to recent historical investigation.


The Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) is entirely consistent with modern investigations into the origin of the Samaritan sect.


And Allah knows best!

hope this clarify your doubt.

Koran 2:29 state that Allah created the earth first and then the heavens.
Koran 79:27-30 state that Allah created the heavens and then the earth.

The verses as follows:


He it is Who hath created for you all that is on earth.


Then He turned to the heaven, and made them into seven heavens. -- Sura 2:29


Sura 41:9-12 also gives details on the creation process and confirms that the earth was created first and then the heavens. But then we read also:


Are you the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built?


He raised the height thereof and ordered it;


and He has made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morn thereof.


And after that, He spread out the earth. -- Sura 79:27-30


The problem is your lack of understanding to the Arabic words. Because many a times some words have got more than one meaning.


First, the word translated "then" is the Arabic word "thumma". It can either mean "Moreover/Furthermore". It is also true that "thumma" can be rendered "then" (as in a subsequent "and").


Second, the Arabic word for "he turned" can be rendered as "he turned", “he has turned", or "he had turned". The implication being a past action has occured. See "Written Arabic - An Approach to the Basic Structures" by A.F.L. Beeston Chapter 3, note 22.


So what does this mean with respect to the verses quoted by you.


It means that Surah 2:29 may be read as follows:


He it is Who created for you all that is on the Earth. Furthermore, he had turned to the heaven and had made them into seven heavens.


That is an acceptable translation of the Arabic and it does not conflict with Surah 79:27-30. In fact if we assume it "thumma" means "then", the sentance could potentially be awkward. (i.e. "...then he had turned...")


So which is the most accurate rendering? I assume there is no contradiction in the Qur'an and so if I can find a legitimate context that renders all the data coherent, I accept that as a proof that contradiction has not been proven. I don't think anyone can claim "contradiction" on anything unless there is no alternative explanation which legitimately explains why a proposed contradiction is not a contradiction.

(Koran 96:2)
Created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood.


(Koran 21:30)


...WE made EVERY (including man) living thing


from water...


(Koran 15:26)


He created man from sounding clay, from mud


moulded into shape...


(Koran 3:59)


...He created him from dust, then said to him


Be and he was.


(Koran 19:67)


But does not man call to mind that WE created


him before out of nothing.


Was man created out of a blood clot, dust, clay, water or nothing??? I didn't post the verse but the Koran also says that man was created from a sperm drop??

1. Man created from sperm and dust


The Qur’an refers to the lowly beginnings of a human being from a drop of sperm, in several verses including the following verse from Surah Al-Qiyamah:


“Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)”? [75:37]


The Qur’an also mentions in several places that human beings were created from dust. The following verse makes a reference to the origin of human beings:


“(Consider) that We created you out of dust”. [Al-Qur’an 22:5]


We now know that all the elements present in the human body (i.e. the constituent elements of the human body) are all present in the earth in small or great quantities. This is the scientific explanation for the Qur’anic verse that says that man was created from dust.


In certain verses, the Qur’an says that man was created from sperm, while in certain other verses it says that man was created from dust. However this is not a contradiction. Contradiction means statements, which are opposite or conflicting and both cannot be true simultaneously.


2. Man created from water


In certain places the Qur’an also says that man was created from water. For instance chapter 25 it says:


“It is He Who has created man from water”. [25:54]


Science has proved all the three statements to be correct. Man has been created from sperm, dust as well as water. So you can do your homework to find out those discoveries.


3. It is not a Contradiction but a Contradistinction


Suppose I say that in order to make a cup of tea one needs water. One also needs tealeaves or tea powder. The two statements are not contradictory since both water and tealeaves are required in order to make a cup of tea. Furthermore if I want sweet tea I can even add sugar.


Thus there is no contradiction in the Qur’an when it says that man is created from sperm, dust and water. It is not a contradiction but a contradistinction. Contradistinction means speaking about two different concepts on the same subject without conflict. For instance if I say that the man is always truthful and a habitual liar, it is a contradiction, but if I say that a man is always honest, kind and loving, then it is a contradistinction.


Another interpretation is given by one of the Muslims scholar as follows:


The word translated as 'created' is misunderstood here. It is better to translate khalaqa as ‘made’ in many instances. There are several stages to creation (71:14) through which man went and still goes through in the womb. It is well understood that one stage of creation of man follows another. The stages are well recognised in the sciences of embryology.

(Koran 21:76)
Noah, when he cried to US, aforetime: We listened


to his paryer and delivered him and his family


from great distress.


(Koran 11:42-43)


...And the waves came between them, and the son was


among those overwhelmed in the Flood.


??

The first verse does not say all his family were saved. But simply ‘his family’. The detail that his son was not saved is tackled in the longer more detailed passage; this is hardly a contradiction. Here again the principle of the unqualified statement being qualified in other parts of the Qur’an. Please also note that if you had read just a few verses further, the verses 11:45-46 strongly assert that the 'family' of Noah doesn't include his son because of his behavior. These verses emphasise that the concept of 'family' is not narrowly defined as all those with blood relations.

What about this?
(Koran 2:62)


Those who believe in the Quran...and the


christians...shall have their reward with their


Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor they shall


grieve.

this verse talking about the Christians who believe in God and WORSHIP HIM ALONE NOT HIS SON OR ANOYONE ALONG WITH HIM AND DON CALL HIM TRINITY) and the day of judgement and do good deeds. Anyone who ‘believes’ means believe without associating partners with God. Verse 5:72 clearly talks about those who associate partners with Allah.

Granted...those aren't necessarily unfullfilled prophecies in the Quran rather contradictions. I started a new thread here to ask about specific unfullfilled prophecies in the Quran.

Alhamdulelah I’ve proven that none of what you have shown is wrong and that you can never find find in this glorious book any mistake or contradiction. Alhamdulelah.


Salam


Wael