Answer to "Why I left Islam" Video on YouTube

In the following video, apparently an ex-Muslim claims after years of dedications to Islam and studying Islamic apologetic he left Islam. He says he can't find himself defending Islam or the Prophet Mohammad anymore due to some shocking examples he has found in Quran such as verse 4:24.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR7_YQ53lfI&t=35s 

Let's "investigate" his claim.

﷽

وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ۖ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ ۚ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُم مَّا وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكُمْ أَن تَبْتَغُوا بِأَمْوَالِكُم مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ ۚ فَمَا

اسْتَمْتَعْتُم بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً ۚ وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَاضَيْتُم بِهِ مِن بَعْدِ الْفَرِيضَةِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا - 4:24

"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

The main ground for his argument is the translation of the word "Al-mohsanat الْمُحْصَنَاتُ" to "married women", which is based on a Hadith as he also referrers to it later. This is an obvious mistake since the very same word has been repeated in the next verse 4:25 followed in Quran.  Yet it has ,this time, been translated to "free, believing women".

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلًا أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُم ۚ بَعْضُكُم مِّن

بَعْضٍ ۚ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلَا مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ ۚ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ

بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنكُمْ ۚ وَأَن تَصْبِرُوا خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ - 4:25

"And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Needless to say, God would not recommend marrying married women first.  Therefore, it is clear that the word "Al-mohsanat" can not mean "married women" by any means. 

If we are in doubt, the best way is to search Quran itself for other contexts where the same word has been used to find out the most plausible denotation. In doing so, we find verses: 5:5 and 24:23 in which the same word has more sensibly been translated to "Chaste" , abstinent or self-restrained women. This definition makes perfect sense in the context of verses 4:24 & 25 too.  

The second phrase in verse 4:24 which is also a key to his take is "Malakat Imanokom مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ".  While this is also wrongfully turned to "your right hands possess" ,influenced by the same Hadith, is in conflict with its sense in many other verses including 24;33, 30:28, 4:3, 4:36 , where it can only mean those whom you possess not the women who may be taken captive in a war.

Perhaps, this is why this verse follows on:

 يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَكُمْ وَيَهْدِيَكُمْ سُنَنَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ وَيَتُوبَ عَلَيْكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ - 4:26

"Allah wants to make clear to you [the lawful from the unlawful] and guide you to the [good] practices of those before you and to accept your repentance. And Allah is Knowing and Wise."

Last but not least, let's say for some cultural or historical reasons a Muslim was in control of a women at the time. Could he force her into a sexual relationship?

"...And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life...." (part of verse 24:33)

We can clearly see in this case that how unreliable Hadith sources are.  This is mainly due to the fact that Hadith collections were gathered decades after the life of the Prophet and is subject to human errors in passing on the narrations unlike Quran text which is guarded by God himself as stated in verse 15:9. 

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ - 15:9

"Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian"

صدق الله العلي العظيم

As for the ex-Muslim guy, I find his claim invalid and insincere particularly when he ends up his argument by appealing to the emotions of the viewers. 

May God grant us an open heart that would sincerely seek the truth and the divine guidance. 

Heart in the Quran

Have you ever wondered why the Quran refers to human heart as the centre of our understanding of the world.  Clearly, it is not meant literally as our heart organ does not have much to do with thinking.  Nevertheless, one would expect the mind, with a metaphysical nature, would be the center for all the intellectual attributes of us as a human regardless of whether you place in the physical brain or you consider it part of our spiritual essence.  What is it that differentiates understanding with our heart as opposed to our mind.

Have you run into physicians who know health risks of smoking best yet they do smoke themselves or the ones that never exercise.  This contradictory behavior is not limited to any one profession.  Perhaps, the most surprising cases are when a member of the clergy is caught red-handed, as seen surfacing in the press every now and then.

The following commercial about distracted driving on Youtube is a perfect example which, I believe, demonstrates the difference between knowing something with your mind and understanding it through your heart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9swS1Vl6Ok&t=0s

if it does not open search on Youtube for "Wait for it... this could save your life", 3.50 minute long.

As we can see and hear the young drivers talk, they all know that texting, for example, is something that they shouldn't do while driving yet they do regardless. They don't take it to heart until their emotions are awakened by hearing JC's personal account. This is when the learning experience is registered in their heart through emotions.

In other words, when a rational concept appeals to our emotions to the degree that it becomes part of our nature then we can call it the ultimate level of understanding or in my view understanding through heart. I am not sure though, if whatever we understand through our heart would be necessarily right or perfect but it evidently causes profound changes in our personality, in our behaviour and perhaps it changes who we actually are.

Back to the video example, once the kids are touched by what has happened to JC they start to change. In essence, it is their heart that changes and accordingly they become a different person, a safer driver that is mindful of risks of distracted driving for ever. This means we are what our heart is and our heart is what it understands.

That said, they could have been the kind of person who would not be moved by JC's life story and would not change their mind either ( probably there are a few interviewee whom are excluded from the commercial). We can therefore, see the fact that our heart should be able or better say be capable of understanding otherwise we won't be affected as if the words are falling on a deaf ear even when we are exposed to God's words through another human's voice.

I think we should humbly and honestly ask God to open our hearts to the true voices we hear by our ears and most importantly to the divine revelations everyone can potentially perceive at their heart.

﷽

إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَذِكْرَىٰ لِمَن كَانَ لَهُ قَلْبٌ أَوْ أَلْقَى السَّمْعَ وَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ - 50:37

"Indeed in that is a reminder for whoever has a heart or who listens while he is present [in mind]."

الَّذِينَ يُجَادِلُونَ فِي آيَاتِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ سُلْطَانٍ أَتَاهُمْ ۖ كَبُرَ مَقْتًا عِندَ اللَّهِ وَعِندَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يَطْبَعُ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ قَلْبِ مُتَكَبِّرٍ جَبَّارٍ - 40:35

"Those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah without an authority having come to them - great is hatred [of them] in the sight of Allah and in the sight of those who have believed. Thus does Allah seal over every heart [belonging to] an arrogant tyrant."

قُلْ مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَىٰ قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَىٰ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ - 2:97

"Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel - it is [none but] he who has brought the Qur'an down upon your heart, [O Muhammad], by permission of Allah, confirming that which was before it and as guidance and good tidings for the believers."

صدق الله العلي العظيم

Is Every Word of the Prophet a Revelation?

At the beginning of the Surah "Al-Najm" there are two verses, number 3 and 4, which are used to  claim that everything our dear Prophet “ Mohammad” has said is a revelation, a message from God.

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيم

وَالنَّجْمِ إِذَا هَوَىٰ -53:1

"By the star when it descends,"

مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَىٰ -53:2

"Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, "

وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ-53:3

"Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination."

إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ-53:4

"It is not but a revelation revealed," 

عَلَّمَهُ شَدِيدُ الْقُوَىٰ - 53:5

"Taught to him by one intense in strength"

صدق الله العلي العظيم

It can be argued that if everything the Prophet has said is a revelation, it follows that his day to day conversations with people around him are included too.  Needless to say, this does not make any sense.  We can therefore, come to the conclusion that the two verses of 53:3 and 53:4 are not meant literally.  

Looking at the verses preceding and following these two verses, it becomes clear that the context of these lines is to reassure the doubtful listeners who found the God's revelations through his Prophet Mohammad hard to believe.  It is imaginable that Quran's prophecies seemed inconceivable at the time and they still are to many at our time.

To visualize what was the circumstance in which these verses were descended to the Prophet, picture yourself talking to random strangers on a street about the last day of the world, resurrection day and afterlife. We can imagine how most people would judge us; totally out of touch with presumably the realities of the world.  

It is a natural instinct of human mind to assume what has been true for a long time in the past would necessarily remain unchanged indefinitely in the future.  We have lived on a fixed ground for thousands of years and the sun has continuously shined on the earth for all this time, why should they change suddenly at a point in future.  This is why the description of the last day of our current world in the Quran may seem unimaginable to the unbelievers.  

God has his own way to give us the chance to restructure our fundamental assumptions about life. What we conceive as an act of mother nature, in terms of an earthquake or a hurricane,  may work as a shake-up to open our eyes to the fact that the natural settings of the world are, in fact, subject to instant change.

In other words, God, through his occasional natural events, helps us realize that it is feasible for the current order of world to drastically change so that one day mountains would start moving around and the Sun would stop shining although it has not happen in thousands of years before us. 

In the later verses including number 12 of this chapter "Al-Najm" God asks the doubters if they  argue with what the Prophet has seen with his eyes, referring to the prophet seeing the angel who delivered the "Vahy" (God's words) in two occasions as described in the next verses.  This is an extraordinary event even for the Prophet since God's words had been normally descended to the his heart according to verses 26:193-194.

I hope I have managed to highlight the significance of understanding the Quran's verses in their context which is usually defined by the surrounding verses. Therefore, we can not take out one or two verses and interpret them independently. 

I also hope I have clarified that not every word of the Prophet is God's words "Vahy".  That is to say, although we hold the Prophet's own talks (Hadith) near and dear to our heart, they are not God's revelation unless they are included in the Quran.  Finally, it is my personal opinion that "Hadith" applicability is limited to the Prophet's time and his cultural environment whereas Quran is timelessly and universally true. 

When The Words of God Echoe through the World

Sometimes it is hard to ignore the striking similarities between the words of a leading figure that we come across in life and the words of God in Quran.   Compare the following two cases and make your own judgment. 

One thing these echoes could remind us of, is the fact that there is someone creating these voices.  They may work as another call to the truth.  It will, however, be our choice as always,whether to believe in these coincidences as a message of God or to deny them one after another as they show up in the course of our life.

It is important to note that our fate for this life and for the one after starts to shape up with making our daily choices; either to confirm what resonates with us as God's sign especially tailored for us (others may not relate to it) or to reject them as just work of nature with no special purpose behind.

I believe if we perceive some events in our life (after examining by reason ) as God's work in our individual life circumstances then we may engage in a life changing conversation with God. Conversely, if we choose to reduce it as purely accidental or .... then it becomes harder and harder for us to realize the truth which is seeing God running the world in every details.

The path of denial would inevitably end up with learning it the hard way which is essentially going through undeniable physical pain that will wake us up and force us embrace the truth.  This is basically the law of nature itself.  For example, if we ignore the symptoms of our health problems, we may end up in such a painful situation that we will have to rush to an emergency room to find out the cause and seek treatment.

We don't have to go through the unbearable bodily pains in order to keep up with a good health. By the same analogy, we don’t have to walk down the path of denial which will lead us to the wrong place in the afterlife, although we are free to choose.

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيم

One:

39:42

اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا ۖ فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَىٰ

عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَىٰ إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ .

"Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought."

Now listen to Nicholas Humphrey, an English Psychologist in the University of Cambridge as he talks about secrets of sleep. This is part of an article by Robert Lawrence Kuhn on LiveScience.com titled "Why Sleep?, Why Dreams?",  Robert is the host of "Closer to the Truth" TV series, whose quest to find the truth seems genuine to me.  

Humphrey, in his first minute of talk says: 

"Sleep is a sort of little death, and what this 'death' tells us is that we survive it: we go to sleep — our consciousness is obliterated, we are obliterated — but, sure thing, next day, we recreate ourselves. And this is such a regular occurrence that, of course, we just take it for granted, but it is a kind of miracle — we lose consciousness and then out of nothing it all comes back again."

"It's like a kind of Big Bang. The universe created out of nothing. We repeat that everyday when we wake up."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7RI7whj5m0

On YouTube: Nicholas Humphrey - Secretes of Sleep

Two:

15:14-15

وَلَوْ فَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِم بَابًا مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ فَظَلُّوا فِيهِ يَعْرُجُونَ - 15:14

"And [even] if We opened to them a gate from the heaven and they continued therein to ascend,"

لَقَالُوا إِنَّمَا سُكِّرَتْ أَبْصَارُنَا بَلْ نَحْنُ قَوْمٌ مَّسْحُورُونَ - 15:15

"They would say, "Our eyes have only been dazzled. Rather, we are a people affected by magic."

Similarly, in the last minute of the this video, Dr. William Lane Craig, an American analytic philosopher and Christian apologist, responds to an atheist who asks why God does not show up in  the sky and confirms his existence to us so we can see and believe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmnRQ3P3Bwo
On YouTube: Dr William Lane Craig Vs Biased atheist Dogma (Presuppositional Apologetics)

While there is a lot we can learn from Dr. Craig's arguments against atheists, I find his comments about Quran and Islam  inaccurate and clearly biased.  

Is There any Verse in the Quran That Revokes a Preceding Command?

Some  Muslim scholars believe there are verses which revoke a previously stated command in the Quran.   Disbelievers, on the other hand, resort to such verses to claim that the Quran is Mohammad's invention.

The purpose of this post is to show although the Quran apparently confirms substitution of some verses in place of the others, we can not find any verse that would, in fact, revoke an earlier command in Quran.  In other words, even knowing that some verses has been definitely replaced, we are still unable to find any evidence, hence the Quran miraculously remains contradiction free. Therefore, we can infer that replacing some verses do not necessarily mean  abrogating a previously given command.

Conversely, the skeptic would say the fact that God says he has replaced some versus and yet we can not find them is itself contradictory.  The Quran's answer is stated in the verse 2:106; God may have caused it to be forgotten.

The first two verses below are considered as the proof of abrogation of some verses in Quran.  The next three pairs of verses are the most famously believed cases in which the second verse is said to abrogate the first one.  There are however, many other verses in Quran which are, more controversially, believed by some scholars to have been substituted by a newer one.

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيم

وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ ۙ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍ ۚ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ - 16:101

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

"And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know."

مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا ۗ أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ - 2:106

"We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"

-------------------------------------

8:72 "Indeed, those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided - they are allies of one another. But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no guardianship of them until they emigrate. And if they seek help of you for the religion, then you must help, except against a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty. And Allah is Seeing of what you do".

33:6 "The Prophet is more worthy of the believers than themselves, and his wives are [in the position of] their mothers. And those of [blood] relationship are more entitled [to inheritance] in the decree of Allah than the [other] believers and the emigrants, except that you may do to your close associates a kindness [through bequest]. That was in the Book inscribed."

---------------------------------------

2:240 "And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind - for their wives is a bequest: maintenance for one year without turning [them] out. But if they leave [of their own accord], then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable way. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise."

2:234 "And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind - they, [the wives, shall] wait four months and ten [days]. And when they have fulfilled their term, then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable manner. And Allah is [fully] Acquainted with what you do."

--------------------------------------

58:12  "O you who have believed, when you [wish to] privately consult the Messenger, present before your consultation a charity. That is better for you and purer. But if you find not [the means] - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

58:13"Have you feared to present before your consultation charities? Then when you do not and Allah has forgiven you, then [at least] establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah is Acquainted with what you do."

--------------------------------------

صدق الله العلي العظيم

The verse 16:101 is the main ground to claim that God has cancelled some of his commands by replacing the new ones.  This understanding comes from equating replacing with cancelling earlier commands which is not stated in the verse itself.

In fact, the verses of 16:101 and 2:106 themselves, are the best example of a potential case of abrogation.  One may suggest the verse 16:101 states God might have substituted some verses with others while 2:106 emphasizes that God does not cancel a verse unless he brings in a better one or a similar verse. It therefore, appears that the verse 16:101 is replaced by 2:106.  

The truth of the matter however, is the second verse of 2:106 is a clarification of the previous one.  It is a further explanation of the same issue that God does not revoke an earlier verse but it provides a different perspective on the same matter to help us understand better or otherwise we are unable to find such a substitution in our memory which is the same as non-existence for us, humans.

-------------------------------------------

The first pair  is viewed as referring to inheritance.  It is believed that the verse 8:72 is meant to equally entitle the early immigrant believers, from Mecca, to what they would have obtained from wars or the Medina-based Muslims may have left after their death.   In this view, the verse 33:6 cancels this equality in inheritance and limit the inheritance to relatives only, unless including them in inheritance  is done voluntarily.

I am not really sure how the verse 8:72 is associated to inheritance as the verse (in Arabic) clearly uses the word " ولایتهم " which has to do with protection not inheritance.  That is to say, 8:72 is clearly stating that the newly established community in Medina does not have an obligation to go back to Mecca and fight for those few Muslims who didn't flee to Medina.

The verse 33:6 however, is prioritizing close relatives (= آرحام ) over all the other believers and Muslims in their entitlement ( possibly to inheritance).  This verse is not talking about the obligation of protecting other Muslims if they seek help.  Therefore, these two verses are clearly addressing two different concerns, thus the verse 33:6 is not abrogating the 8:72.

---------------------------------------------

The Second pair is said to determine the time when a widow should wait before she engages in a new relationship with another man. In this interpretation, the verse 2:240 specifies one year for the women before she can remarry.   Accordingly, the verse 2;234  then reduces the wait period to four months and ten days only.  This way, the verse 2;234 has cancelled an earlier command.

On a closer look on these two verses, we notice that the verse 2:240 is, in fact, commanding the men who are dying to support their wives for a year should their widow chooses not to leave the house of their dead man.  This verse also emphasizes that if the woman chooses to leave their former husband's house before the end of the one year period, it is up to them and the husband is not be blamed for her decision to leave earlier than one year or why he didn't support her.

This is while the verse 2:234 addresses the widows (not the dying men), specifying their obligation to wait four months and ten days from their husband's death.  After this period, they have the right to start a new relationships with another man if they wish to do so.

The important point in these two verses is although the dying husband has an obligation of providing for his wife for one year, the widow must only wait for four months and ten days to engages with another man.  Needless to say, if the woman chooses to stay in his husband's house, which implies benefiting from his financial support, then she is entitled for one year on the condition that she does not take on a new relationship.

The fact of the matter is, I do not see any command being changed in these two verses. Each of the two verses addresses a different side of this relationship specifying two separate obligations.  That is, the obligation of a husband to his wife after his death and the obligation of a widow to his former husband.  There is no cancellation of an earlier command in this case either.

---------------------------------------

The third pair is a perfect example of how the second verse provides further instructions following an earlier command (58:12) without conflicting it.

The verse 58:12 is simply setting the requirement of  giving a charity prior to consulting with the prophet. It also tells us that if you can't, God is forgiving, but it does not provide any alternative.  The verse 58:13, on the other hand, is opening a way for those who have feared to give a charity.  If they have sought God's forgiveness, they can pray and give "Zakat" which is a money to pay to the poor.

In other words, you may not be able to come up with a presentable charity when you are about to meet the prophet but you can make it up at your time with praying and giving a "Zakat" alternatively. Does the second verse ( 58:13) revoke anything in the previous verse? Absolutely and clearly not.

---------------------------------------

Considering the above three pairs of verses that are said to be the most known cases in which an earlier command is abrogated by a new one, we can conclude that there is no such conflicting verses in the Quran or that we can not find them.  I don't however, claim that I have checked all other cases and have refuted their potential contradiction as well.  I am therefore, open to check any counter example you may find on this subject.
 

Empirical Evidence Vs Personal Expeience

Lack of "empirical evidence" is probably the main argument of an atheist against existence of God. By empirical evidence, I mean, the kind of proof that can be verified through our five basic senses; sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell.

It is fair to say that all the natural sciences that man has accumulated through ages is derived from and based on empirical experience.  That is to say, the raw data collected and received through our senses are internally processed by our mind and then a rational conclusion is drawn as a fact of life which makes our life easier.   We touch a burning martial, we feel the pain on our hand and it registers in our mind as fact of life that we will avoid our entire life afterwards.

The component of rational processing appears to be more significant in some the branches of our knowledge such as humanities and art.  In philosophy for example, being the most abstract subject to study, we still gather empirical data which often constitute part of the premises based on which we develop a rational argument to come to a conclusion.

The purpose of this post is to show that the nature of  a "personal experience" is in truth not that different from other branches of human's knowledge and it is as credible, except for the fact that  it does not lead to a quantifiable formula just in the same way that all disciplines of Arts and Humanities do not.  To this end, I am going to contrast the nature of "empirical evidence", which leads to empirical science, with "Personal Experience" which  results in faith in the context of a simple experiment of science.

Before that let's check their definitions in Wikipedia.

"Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."


"Personal experience of a human being is the moment-to-moment experience and sensory awareness of internal and external events or a sum of experiences forming an empirical unity such as a period of life."

The credibility of an empirical evidence mainly comes from two claims; firstly, it is said to be verifiable by everyone and secondly it is expected to bear the same results (absolute) in different experiments. We can evaluate these claims in an experiment to verify the effect of heat on the length of a piece of metal bar or a metal stick with a known length.

Simply, imagine we heat our metal piece for 10 minutes and then measure its length with a precise instrument suitable for the length we are measuring. The exact details don't really matter for our argument. We already know that it is going to be longer as a result of expansion by heat as a matter of basic scientific fact.
Scrutinizing this simple experiment, we ask;

1- Can anyone do this experiment with an accuracy that would meet the basic scientific standards? The answer is definitely no.  You need to have some basic qualifications in order to be able to perform this experiment.  Namely, you are required to know of how to work with the lab equipment and how to read the measuring devices. 

2- Is the result, that is the length of the expansion of the metal piece, absolutely the same for different experiments by different people? The answer again is negative. They vary within a scientifically defined uncertainty limits.   That is to say, the empirical evidence will show an expansion of length by 5 mm +/- 2% for every 1000 mm length of certain metal nature if heated up by 20 deg, for example. 

3- Is the scientific conclusion of "heat increases the size of a metals" merely based on empirical data? Not really. There is a rational mental process involved which is done in our mind to conclude such a relationship between the heat and enlargement of a metallic object.


This leads us to believe that the main reason we accept an empirical experiment as a fact is essentially because of the general consensus of people having the same experience, which forms a general understanding of how a natural phenomena works and how we can manipulate it to our advantage with some anticipated uncertainty.   

By the same reasoning, I would argue that if different people have similar "personal experiences" on the same subject, the consensus of their rationally processed conclusion is inevitably as credible as a scientific fact supported by "empirical evidence".   By the way of example, if there are many people who claim that when they lie they feel bad and their consensus is lying has negative impact on satisfaction of life then this constitutes a fact of life derived from "personal experience".

Therefore, I would like to conclude that if there is a general consensus by a number of people who have come to a rational conclusion that certain events in their life lead them to believe in God who is running the world at every moment, this can be as credible as a scientific fact.  Hence, it can not be dismissed as a source of human knowledge on the ground that it is derived from "personal experience" rather than "empirical experiment." .

As a matter of fact, faith in its essence is a rational conclusion (reasoning) in light of a collection of empirical data. We observe the world through our senses and the only hypothesis which make sense to us is that there has to be a creator. Therefore, the general consensus on this conclusion is the true sufficient condition for God to exist.

Needless to say, Everyone has the choice to deny all the scientific understandings of the world and to live a life of stone age style depriving themselves from the joys of a modern life. Likewise, it can be can be argued that ignoring the metaphysical nature of the world and the way things work may degrade the quality of our life substantially.

Last but not least, is to acknowledge the fact that the scientific grasp of the world, that is only applicable to nature, usually results in a law of a mathematical nature which helps us quantify the effect of the certain changes with respect to the natural status of things. This is while the in case of the metaphysical laws derived from "personal experience" we can not quantity their effect by some mathematical formula. For example, we can not say how much lie you have to say in order to feel so bad that you would feel so sick that you won't be able to go to work. The same is true about most of the disciplines of arts and humanities. Yet they are indispensable branches of human knowledge.

Quran As a Collection of Evidence That Is Revealed Over Time

There are verses in Quran which must have been barely comprehensible until the modern age when we are equipped with the required knowledge and the technology to explore the world and make sense of the natural phenomena.

The following are a few examples:

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيم

الشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ بِحُسْبَانٍ

55:5
"The sun and the moon [move] by precise calculation."

14:33

وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ دَائِبَيْنِ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ

"And He subjected for you the sun and the moon, continuous [in orbit], and subjected for you the night and the day."

25:53

وَهُوَ الَّذِي مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ هَٰذَا عَذْبٌ فُرَاتٌ وَهَٰذَا مِلْحٌ أُجَاجٌ وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَهُمَا بَرْزَخًا وَحِجْرًا مَّحْجُورًا

"And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition."
55:19-20

مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ يَلْتَقِيَانِ

"He released the two seas, meeting [side by side];"

بَيْنَهُمَا بَرْزَخٌ لَّا يَبْغِيَانِ

"Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses."

صدق الله العلي العظيم

Quran quotes and translations from Quran.com


And the following two videos can be regarded as a contemporary take on what the above verses of Quran mean today.

https://youtu.be/VEA_mknada0  Earth Without Moon - Full Documentary 2016 - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUAQy14g0Qc   The Seas not mixing with each other ┇ Quran and Modern Science ┇ IslamSearch.org - YouTube

Considering the fact that it is highly unlikely that people of 1400 years ago could understand such verses to the degree that we can today, by the way of extrapolation we can come to the conclusion that the verses of Quran that seem incomprehensible at our time may be perfectly understood in future. The numerous verses of Quran about "Jinn"  might be good examples of such cases.

This means that in case of verses whose true meaning are apparently hard to grasp at our time, we can not jump to the conclusion that they are meant metaphorically.  Evidently, when human's perception of the world is evolved enough, their true application/meaning will be unveiled to us.

The miraculous nature of Quran is revealed to us as "Personal Experience or Empirical Evidence" which will follow next.