The Original Sin

First, the quotes (I think three altogether) were not yours to begin with. They were from a bunch of other anonymous writers that you copied from the Internet and then pasted into the discussion, as if they were your own. Yes, I am intolerant of plagiarism and impatient with copy/paste responses in general. My "blah, blah, blah" is meant to show my disdain for that. Nothing to do with Islam.

You may be whatever you choose to be. But you do not have the right to pass judgements on others? Or, is it that you hide behind such criticisms? if I fail to give credits I show myself in a poor light how and why does that bother you?

Your intolerance reflects poorly on you. Whether it is against Islam or copy/paste responses. You may give your opinion about things when it is asked for.

BTW, IMHO copying the whole text of a lengthy comment is not a sign of respect. On the contrary, it is a waste of bandwidth and disrespectful to the reader. Anyone who has been following the discussion has already read the earlier comment. If they need to reread it they can just glance up at the previous message. I generally post only enough to indicate what I am responding to. If the original message and the reply are several days or several posts apart, I may include more of the original text, but rarely would I repeat multiple paragraphs.

More of the same unabashed opinionatedness! To each his own. You do what you deem right and let others do what they deem right.

Which is why I regard islam as a failure, at least if success is to be measured in terms of its benefit to society.
Which is exactly why you are wandering in the dark without a clue as to whose failure it is. Although it is not even dark. You have just chosen to wear intellectual blindfolds.

If you considered the proposition without malice you would have seen that the failure is of Muslims not Islam. Because Islam was and is the same even today. Only the attitude of Muslims changed. They stopped doing their jobs. They went off the Siratul Mustaqeem. They are still paying the price.

Yes, it had some successes in its first few centuries, but it refused to progress as humanity progressed. The very concept of "innovation" is pejorative in Islam.

Thanks God Almighty, Islam shuns the idea of progress that you hold dear.

What you fail to see beyond your sacred truths is that Islam is and shall always be constant. It is not going to change with the times as I have said earlier also.

Those faiths which were willing to be changed have been swept aside. But Islam is a genuinely divine faith. Thus complete and timeless. Valid until the end of times. Competent to lead its followers into the next life. Something, you have a difficult with, also.

However, at this juncture I see it appropriate to show you how your kind of progress has damaged the world.

1. Selfish development that has created adverse side-effects, proving to be detrimental to the very existence of the human race.

2. Undermining the core values which form the basis of humanity, happiness and satisfaction.

a) Modern colonization in the name of Development

African countries lose almost $700 billion every year due to unfair trade practices, 70% of which is controlled by MNCs. The people are suffering from "Resource Curse" - the richness of resources have attracted Western corporations who exploit all these, making these countries some of the poorest in the world. People are living in misery, child labor is at its peak. This is the modern-day colonization being legally celebrated by the rich and powerful.

b) Environmental Degradation in the name of Advancement

They have reached the moon and now aiming for other planets and solar systems. In the process, they have created a big passage to outer space. Literally. The famous Ozone Hole. Each minute, at least 51 acres of tropical forests are destroyed and 12000 tons of carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere. 110 million Americans live amongst such high levels of air pollution, the federal government considers it to be harmful to their health. I will let the numbers drive my point.

c) Materialism in the name of satisfaction and happiness

It starts with iTouch. Then iPhone. And then iPad. Nike X for running, Nike Y for walking, Nike Z for office. You would start with Swatch, then Tissot. Still unsatisfied, would buy a Rado. For clothing, you would begin with H & M, move to Zara, and then would always look out for Gucci. The person who is forced to stop at Zara or Tissot is unhappy and unsatisfied because he couldn't climb higher while the world raced ahead. The person with Rado and Gucci is unhappy and unsatisfied because he doesn't know what to do with remaining money and is always worried that someday he may lose it all. But the question is who has been able to keep the materialistic things forever? It is still the most simple things that gives eternal happiness and satisfaction - helping a disaster victim, educating an orphan, working for community, sit in meditation. Happiness is always found within. Just relax and breath slowly. You would understand.

d) Diluting Family Relations in the name of independence

Kids leave their parents as soon as they reach high school/college in the name of independence. Couples break up marriage vows and divorce rates are high. If you take a ride in public transportation, you would see lonely old aged people murmuring to themselves, lifting heavy bags from Walmart, asking the bus driver to help them get into the bus. They don't expect their children to be with them at that age - because they themselves left their parents. Everyone wants to be independent, but this is just an excuse that the civilization makes to cover up the failure of keeping family together. Browse on Google, and you would see that unstable relationships and regret of having spent less time with dear ones are the major factors of unhappiness.

e) Erosion of Leisure time : post industrial development people have to spend more time to obtain the necessities of life.   It takes more time to simply live. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/...

f) Geographic sprawl negated the benefits of cars: Prior to the internal combustion engine, people generally lived within about 20 minutes walking distance of their place of work, shops, and social venues - that is, in a village. As cars and roads were created, we scattered these things out farther so now they are at least 20 minutes away and we need a car and we're burning up fuel like crazy and our cities are choked with cars.

g) Imperialism : Stronger nations - without a trace of apparent regret - routinely seize the resources of weaker nations, topple their governments, and invade them.   This is done under the rubric of "protecting their interests."

h) Nuclear weapons : As stronger nations came into conflict over control of the world's resources, a nuclear arms race ensued where we actually built enough bombs to torch the planet 1000 times over.

i) Regimented educational system : We have a school system whose purpose is job training, not the development of the intellect.   We take a billion young, inquisitive minds and force them to sit down and listen to some adult talk at them.   What do the following people have in common? : Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Woody Allen, James Cameron, The Beatles, Lady Gaga, Buckminster Fuller, Nikola Tesla, Andrew Carnegie, Frank Lloyd Wright. You guessed it - drop-outs.   Einstein couldn't get a recommendation to graduate school.

j) Economic booms and busts : 100's of millions of people routinely end up without the necessities of life for no external reason; the capitalist book-keeping system simply goes haywire, goes into a feedback loop and fails to allocate labor, goods and services successfully.

k) We cannot walk around on our own planet : Every square inch of land has been sold off, except for a few Reservations (parks) and paved passage-ways on which we are expected to be in transit at all times.    Amazing to reflect on, we cannot legally simply walk in any direction we choose.

Just a few things that you may dwell upon.

Go here for more: http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-greatest-failure-of-Western-civilization.

I could write an entire essay on this topic, but I will try to be brief here.

Women are beautiful. As objects. No doubt many of them are also beautiful people with beautiful minds and so on; but surely it is undeniable that their physical form is among the most beautiful things that Allah (if you believe in Him) has created.

Or in my terms, we (both men and women) have been programmed by millions of years of evolution to find the female form to be very attractive. Western culture acknowledges that, and celebrates it. Sometimes it goes too far, I agree, but there is nothing wrong with admiring women's beauty.

True. But Islam never considered them as objects. You have admitted that you do. And you speak the truth. your societies do exactly that.

Their physical form is, indeed, beautiful. And it is usually likely to cause excitement to the male. And that is exactly why Islam orders women to cover themselves. While you parade them in the skimpiest of clothes on them. You use them as models to sell all kinds of products.

Mr Deedat in one of his debates made the point by relating an instance when he saw an advertisement of a BMW car. It had a barely clad woman sitting on the bonnet with a caption, 'Test drive her'. The innuendo is unmissable.

What western feminists are complaining about when they accuse men of "objectifying" women is that we sometimes regard them as mere objects, with no other attributes. That is also somewhat true for certain men in certain situations. In general though, I think the accusation is made too often and with too little justification. To paraphrase Hugh Hefner, Playboy exploits women the way Sports Illustrated exploits athletes. So what? I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that.

But regardless of how you see the question of "objectification", to use the feminist critique of western attitudes as a argument in favour of Islam is to turn their position on its head.

I am not at all surprised that you are not too worried about the rampant exploitation of women in your society. You have been programmed and it is an ongoing process. You become gradually immune to the objectification. Because it is happening all around you and quite frequently. You have reached a stage when you see nothing wrong with it. Even if you see your mother, your sister or your wife in scantily clad pictures or even while they are at home.

Not a single western feminist would choose traditional Islam over western liberalism, "objectification" or not.

But let me inform you how terribly wrong you are about feminists not preferring Islam over western liberalism.

You should know it is already happening but ignorance, is, indeed, bliss. In one of my recent messages I had quoted from a site how western women particularly were embracing Islam in droves. I suggest you go back to that post or as is your wont search google.

Here let me help you:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343954/100-000-Islam-converts-living-UK-White-women-keen-embrace-Muslim-faith.html

And http://www.amazon.in/Women-Embracing-Islam-Gender-Conversion/dp/0292713029

Actually you were, although i neglected to quote your statement:

"I believe the greatest achievement of Islamic culture is it's unprecedented (atleast when Islam was founded) emphasis on the Equality of all humans..."

I had obviously meant that the immediate topic was not equality of men. You can discuss this topic whenever you are ready.But kindly do your homework.

Edited by The Saint - 13 August 2015 at 9:00am

Well, we have Bin Laden's video confession, just for one thing. What evidence do you have that the Jews (which Jews) were involved?

You call that evidence? . A video? With all the best means in the world, including technology, trained men and skilled snoopers, satellite surveillance this is all that you could manage?

Are you telling me that if Laden had not allegedly sent you a video, you would not have known who really did 9/11?Tell me is this evidence enough to condemn a man? Will a court of law hold a man guilty on the basis of a video in which a man alleged to be Laden, supposedly speaking like him accepted he had masterminded the worst attacks on US soil? No that is not evidence.
You should know better! The technology that the CIA and the FBI possess they could make Mickey Mouse look and sound like Laden. LOL

Do you know what detectives do when they go to a crime scene? They look for clues, of course. But they also look for motive/s. They do the latter to identify who could benefit from the crime?

So, ask yourself who really benefited from this crime? Certainly not the Muslims! then who did? The worst enemies of the Muslims. The jews, yes! Or, the Jews and the Christians conniving.

Have you heard of Boko Haram?

Yes, I have. What about them?

First, I am Canadian, not American; but yes, the number of reported rapes is probably much higher in the west than in Muslim countries.

Are Canadians better than Americans in any way? What does the horrifying data demonstrate to you? That the American society is morally bankrupt. Or, do you have some self-deceiving mundane explanation for that too?

Sharia makes it almost impossible to get a conviction for rape, so most do not get reported. That doesn't mean it's not happening. It just means we'll never know the true extent of it.

Lame. It is because of tough laws in most Muslim countries that rape is rare. Even theft and other crimes have a low rate because criminals know there is swift and painfully effective justice awaiting crime of any kind.

Also, the west has much more strict definitions of exploitation and rape.

Really? Would you be good enough to list some of those laws here? surprising isn't it then, that america is the leading raping nation on this planet today. But I have more interesting stats. Among the top ten in the worst only two are not western countries although one is a hindu nation and the other is a predominantly Buddhist and Christian nation. http://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-highest-rape-crime/

Many of Muhammad's sexual liaisons (with a nine year old girl, with his slaves, with multiple wives) would have been considered statutory rape in our culture.

So would have been King Soloman, his father David, in fact several Jew prophets and the husband of Mary, father of Jesus, because when they married, the former was sixteen and he was ninety. And Judah the father of the Jewish race who fornicated with his daughter-in-law by the road side. How many counts of laws violated as per you laws?

Plus, sharia doesn't even recognize marital rape as a crime. So it's hard to compare.

Is that so? Let us have a reference.

However, the point I was making was that Islam provides a religious justification for various kinds of exploitation. At least we know it's wrong.

What did you say? Yes, nonsense. I am saying this is pathetic lying. But I shall still give you a chance to prove your nonsense.

If you don't approve of same-sex relationships, you don't have to be involved in one. What's revolting is the idea that you or I have any right to tell others who they can or cannot love.

Not one among the following would approve of this hideous aberration.

Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad PBUT all......Newton, Edison, Einstein, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, King Salman, Imran Khan, Muhammad Ali, Mel Gibson, Alec and Adam Baldwin, Brigitte Bardot, Pat Boone, Tom Cruise, Jeremy Irons, Jerry Lewis, Chuck Norris, Mickey Rourke.....Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and 65 more of US politicians. The list can go on
But the point is who are you to decide what people can comment about or not. Don't you guys scream and never tire about freedom of speech?


It's no different than telling them who they can or cannot worship. There is no compulsion in religion, nor in love.

Gay associations are not an expression of love. They are an unnatural union that have no meaning and cannot have any result. They defy the laws of nature.

It is a choice dictated by depravity. This is why God Almighty's guidance is so vital. So, that people do not get lost and lose the straight path.

And which of these countries do you regard as "notable successes"?

None. Even though they are client states with access to western technologies.

Do you think a government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood would have been a "notable success"?

A free government without external pressures and threats could be as successful as a western secular government, yes

I'm not sure there is a "status quo" at the moment. The 2014 election was flawed by sectarian violence and widespread fraud.

Are you suggesting that in spite of US and UN monitoring the elections were flawed? Sectarian violence should have been anticipated? Sometimes I am forced to think whether these western interferences under the guise of supervisions are meant to fail or are they supervised by *****s? The American led coalition in Iraq blundered in so many ways that one might be forgiven to believe that they were st**id monkeys not fit to administer a primitive tribe. And in their blundering they allowed the deaths of a million civilians. In my book they are criminals who should be punished. If the governments concerned are not fair and there is no trial, God Almighty will punish the criminals.

The UN and US continue to intervene, without which the country would quickly descend into chaos. Whatever your view on the situation, I hardly think you'll find any "notable successes" there.

Both named here are dubious entities as interventionists. Because they create more chaos than resolving any.

No, you're thinking of "revolutionary". By "radical" I mean extreme, fundamentalist. I mean governments that chop off hands and stone adulterers and murder apostates and mandate niqabs and deny freedom of religion.

What is the difference between both, according to you? It seems a revolutionary to you is more preferable than a radical? Is it because of the contemporary connotations of these words? Because the dictionary holds them as synonymous!
And how can you justify pointing fingers at certain governments and people because they hold certain beliefs, while you hold a certain set of them which are patently anti-God. Anathema to God-fearing people.

Niqabs are also worn by nuns. But I have not heard criticism about them. Capital and lesser punishments are decided by individual governments. Western governments prefer chemical injections and the electric chair as methods of death punishments. Islamic laws are tougher and different and to my mind more deterrent. Don't your kind do periodic introspections to evaluate your attitudes and conducts? More importantly, do you have the courage to make changes when you realise you have been wrong?


My point is that the Quran did not teach us how to extract the nerve of a tooth without pain.

The Quran and the Prophet PBUH encouraged Muslims to seek knowledge. They sought knowledge and became mathematicians, physicists and surgeons. And they taught other races.

Secular, liberal, democratic western society did that.

Yes, after learning the basics from Arabs.

For at least the past five centuries, virtually all such advances in science and medicine, and all the other things that have materially and spectacularly improved the condition of humankind, have come from western and non-Muslim cultures.

But before that the same western culture was sunk in darkness of bigotry, witch-hunting and persecution within. Wreaking untold bloodshed and misery on brethren. And if that was not enough, they embarked on a blood and ruthless trail of occupation and colonizing, which is still continuing in different guises.

If success is defined has providing benefits to human life, then Islam has been a failure.

Don't tell me you forget so soon! Just the other day I attempted to show you a mirror which if you looked keenly in would have made you recoil with horror. http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-greatest-failure-of-Western-civilization

As for Islam, tell me of one proven ill that Islam has caused? I can, of course list numerous benefits that Islam has brought about.

Fine, Next time you are lost, try praying to God and see if that helps. I'll use a GPS, thanks.

I will pray to Him and use the GPS, too. Because that is what the Prophet PBUH taught. Go to the expert.

Actually, you're right. If Allah actually existed, He could do much better in communicating. IMHO the fact that He does not is ample evidence that He does not exist.

What is better? Who decides that? You are incompetent because your knowledge is insufficient. You are not even well-taught by humans what to say of divine knowledge.

There is more proof of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 than there is of Allah's involvement in the Quran.

Yeah? Videos, CIA or FBI handouts? Government versions and mainstream media stories? That is proof? I am surprised ...........no I have been surprised earlier too, because I have seen people like you who are apparently educated and reasonably intelligent accepting official lines hook, line and sinker! Actually this is not the first time the American government has duped its own citizens and others who do read the same stuff. You have been had before also, I am sure you know that.

As for Allah's existence, it is seen every where by those who want to see it. The Quran is a divine book and every sentence speaks of ts divine origin. It is a pity you and your ilk are blind to its magnificence.

The two propositions are not mutually exclusive.

Sure. But in my opinion only one is likely given what America is capable of. Also given that it had a motive.

You asked earlier, "why is the individual an outcast if he speaks a different language?" I'm not sure I understood you but I assumed you meant some sort of persecution.

Yes, I did intend it as a reference to how the world treats an individual vis-a-vis a country. A powerful and rich country which has many friends and adulators.

And let's try to keep this discussion in the current century, please. Without a doubt, terrible things were done to minorities in the past, by all cultures. My point is that we have learned from those failures and progressed in our ethical standards. Except for traditional Muslims, who do not believe that progress is necessary or possible.

Our past always comes to haunt us in some form or the other. Even though you appear to be wary of it there is little you can do to run away from it. Because divine justice moves at its pace but it comes. And it will, In Sha Allah.

You are not repentant but I am of what Muslims may have done. Because I know divine justice when it comes will be swift and absolute.

You say you learned from your failure but I see no sign of it. In fact, I see that the war and colonialists industry has become even more ruthless and it is now aiming at global dominion through arms supplies and exchange control.

OTOH, Muslims continue to be victimised and persecuted. Allowing Israel a free hand even in defying the mandates of the UN and allowing Muslims to suffer in Palestine, Syria, Libya, Iraq the West is not really endearing itself to them.

Muslims have different standards of progress and liberty. We have a manual which holds certain things to be right and others wrong. While you live with double standards. Muslims abhor that but continue to try to live peacefully and struggle and strive where they must.

No doubt you can quote "sources" who make such claims. That's not the same as proving them.

Why the double standards again? When you cite sources, it is proof. But when we do it is not. This IS the attitude that you must change.

If I said such things about Muslims I would be banned from the discussion board.

You cannot, because Muslims are not at all like that. the Muslim Ummah is bigger than Boko haram and ISIS.

No, the article does not mention Israel. By "the birthplace of Christianity" they mean the Middle East as a whole.

Does the article say that?


But we were discussing "the incident of Hazrat Aisha RA", not the Roman victory over the Persians. Specifically, I was suggesting that the timing of the revelation seems rather self-serving of Muhammad.

Side-tracking on the same grounds I notice that you accused me of in another post..........LOL

Why should it not be? He was a faithful servant of Allah and it was his wife's integrity at stake.

There is no good reason for Allah not to have revealed the law before the incident occurred, so that those who were unjustly accusing Aisha would know that they were wrong to do so.

There was a very good reason, in fact. Allah SWT wanted to see who were the hypocrites and who the believers.

None of these prophecies are very impressive either, but I won't be stampeded.

Why am I not surprised! You keep giving yourself away, you know.

Well, the part that says the Romans will be victorious "within nine years" (as your translator renders it, though "within a few years" might be a better translation). But I wasn't talking about the prophecy as a lie. I'm talking about the numerous times you have quoted Muslim apologetic sources and i have shown that they were lying, or at least in reckless disregard for the truth. When are you going to realize that things you find on the Internet -- especially anonymous sources -- are not necessarily true?

I already have. But when are you going to get tired beating this drum?

Why not?

Because no one needs substantiation against the best and most authentic substantiation.

That is a challenge for you. Go and find an inconsistency in the Quran.

They are legion (just Google "Quran contradictions"), but I won't stampede you either. My favourite is verse 18:86, where the sun sets "in a spring of murky water".

I am happy you chose this one. Btw, Google may be an expert for you, it is not for me. But it does tell me where you get your knowledge from.

The sun setting "in a spring of murky water" is an allegorical reference.

"Although we keep answering accusations of Christian missionaries against our religion and Scripture, they vehemently keep parroting them again and again as if we have not answered them already!! Jesus is reported to have said,

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
(Matthew 7:1-3)"

You may want to read a completely logical explanation to the allegation at:http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/03/sun-sets-in-murky-water-as-per-quran.html

Let me know if you have more!

The Saint wrote: And which of these countries do you regard as "notable successes"? None. Even though they are client states with access to western technologies.

So I come back to my original question: If Islam is the ideal form of society and/or government, why do we not see a single working example of this either in contemporary nations or even in the past half millennium or so?

What is the difference between both, according to you? It seems a revolutionary to you is more preferable than a radical? Is it because of the contemporary connotations of these words? Because the dictionary holds them as synonymous!

A revolutionary is one who promotes a revolution, in this context a change in government.  "Radical" means extreme, as I said; and many revolutionaries are indeed extreme.  However, once in power, they are no longer the revolutionaries because they are the government.  Their ideology remains radical, however.

Anyway, semantics aside, my point was that Muslims cannot blame imperialism or colonialism for their extremist governments, when we force one batch of extremists out only to have Muslims themselves vote another batch of extremists right back in.

The Quran and the Prophet PBUH encouraged Muslims to seek knowledge. They sought knowledge and became mathematicians, physicists and surgeons. And they taught other races.

That may have been true a thousand years ago, but look around you today.  Among Middle Eastern Muslims at least, "seeking knowledge" usually means reading the Quran and hadith, and little else.

Don't tell me you forget so soon! Just the other day I attempted to show you a mirror which if you looked keenly in would have made you recoil with horror. http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-greatest-failure-of-Western-civilization

And I agreed that western civilzation has many problems; but our successes far, far outweigh our failures.

As for Islam, tell me of one proven ill that Islam has caused?

How about all the Sunni/Shia violence that has been going on for a thousand years?  Religious wars could not happen without religion.

I can, of course list numerous benefits that Islam has brought about.

Just one or two, please.

What is better? Who decides that? You are incompetent because your knowledge is insufficient. You are not even well-taught by humans what to say of divine knowledge.

I was not taught by Allah at all.  He left it to incompetent and disputatious humans to spread His word.  If I had been Allah, people would not receive the Quran as hearsay.  The rocks and trees themselves would sing the Quran, and babies would be born with it already memorized.

As for Allah's existence, it is seen every where by those who want to see it. The Quran is a divine book and every sentence speaks of ts divine origin. It is a pity you and your ilk are blind to its magnificence.

Yes, it's called the Tinkerbell Effect.  If you believe strongly enough, you will see evidence of your belief.  But it works for all religions, not just for Islam.  I've had Christians, Buddhists and Hindus all tell me the same thing.

You say you learned from your failure but I see no sign of it. In fact, I see that the war and colonialists industry has become even more ruthless and it is now aiming at global dominion through arms supplies and exchange control.

We used to think slavery was okay, but not anymore.  We used to deny women's rights, but not anymore.  Islam still allows slavery, and still places women under the authority of men.

Why the double standards again? When you cite sources, it is proof. But when we do it is not. This IS the attitude that you must change.

The "sources" you cite are just random Web pages, often with anonymous authors, and which do not cite sources themselves.  There is no "chain of narration", as your hadith scholars would put it.  My sources are either authorities themselves or reputable organizations that provide appropriate citations to recognized authorities.

You cannot, because Muslims are not at all like that. the Muslim Ummah is bigger than Boko haram and ISIS.

You're right.  It's also the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad, and Al-Shabaab, and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Abu Sayyaf and on and on.  A great number of Muslims are like that.  My no means all, of course, nor even the majority; but enough that it's no mere coincidence.  There is something about Islam that encourages fanaticism.

Why should it not be? He was a faithful servant of Allah and it was his wife's integrity at stake.

Because the Quran is supposed to be a message from Allah to all people.  It's not supposed to be a personal defense of one man's wife.

There was a very good reason, in fact. Allah SWT wanted to see who were the hypocrites and who the believers.

You're saying that those who questioned Aisha's integrity were hypocrites and unbelievers?  Why?  Because they disregarded a scripture that hadn't even been revealed yet?

Because no one needs substantiation against the best and most authentic substantiation.

You're assuming your conclusion.  How do you know the Quran is "the best and most authentic substantiation"?  Because it says so?

The sun setting "in a spring of murky water" is an allegorical reference.

Which is what religious apologists always say when they encounter a clear error in their scripture.

You may want to read a completely logical explanation to the allegation at:http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/03/sun-sets-in-murky-water-as-per-quran.html

The Web site doesn't actually explain the allegory at all.  An explanation would tell us what the "muddy pool" is an allegory of.  What does it represent, and why?

The site makes a great fuss about the translation of the word wajada ("found"), arguing that it can be translated as "perceived".  Perhaps it can be, but it makes little difference whether he found it or perceived it setting in a muddy pool.  It still implies that it was setting in a muddy pool; and the only way to escape that implication is to add the words "as if".  But I thought the Quran was complete.  Did Allah omit those words?

And if so, then we could play that game endlessly.  Was Muhammad's "night journey" also just an allegory?  How about the jinns?  Satan?  Perhaps when Allah said that men are tempted by Satan, He only meant "as if" by Satan.  Perhaps the moon did not actually split, but was only "as if" split.  Where do we stop with this?  Maybe the entire Quran is just an allegory, "as if" revealed by Allah.

The Web site also asserts that Muslims have always understood the "muddy pool" as allegorical.  Unfortunately, the tafsirs it cites as evidence are from seven centuries or more after Muhammad, which proves nothing.

Moreover, the verse also says that he reached the place where the sun sets.  We know that is impossible, regardless of what he perceived or found there.

No, there is no reason to suppose that Muhammad's contemporaries would have understood this passage as anything other than the sun literally setting at a particular place, in a literal muddy pool, with a people living near it.  If it's an analogy, it seems like a pointless one; and if it's an analogy, then virtually everything in the Quran could be an analogy.