Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Gaza assault
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams

 (Read 48797 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 6 7 89 10 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #210 - July 03, 2014, 08:46 PM

    You can't make up shit like this.

    Bigmo accepts "non-divine" sources like Talmud and the Bible to prove a point about "right hand possesses" NOT meaning slaves but just "concubines". But arguing that accepting the hadeeth scriptures as a source or at least a historical reference of the understanding of the Quran being totally "unacceptable". It's so ridiculous I don't have words to describe it.

    Concubines essentially being sexual slaves seems not to have occurred to Bigmo.

    Tell me Bigmo, why can't a woman have a male concubine? And how would having a concubine work anyway? Do I just go up to a Muslim dude and say "hey, sayyidi, please fuck me. I don't have to be your wife, take me as your concubine because being a legitimate wife is way too good for me".
     

    "The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #211 - July 03, 2014, 10:01 PM

    I think Bigmo would have a valid point if there was some etymological or structural reason to believe that the phrase "right hands possess" is analogous to what he is citing in other contexts.  In other words, if the Qur'an uses a word that is *derived from* another Semitic cognate, or demonstrably a direct translation of that other Semitic cognate into Arabic, then he'd have an argument that the traditional interpretation of this word is wrong.

    Generally when scholars argue that Muslim tradition has misunderstood the meaning of words and phrases in the Qur'an, usually the starting point is to establish that Muslim scholars could not agree on what an "Arabic" term as used in the Qur'an actually means -- take furqan or kalala, for example.

    But there isn't any such uncertainty about this semitic term, and it has no relation to the concubine terminology (Hebrew term "pilegesh") or institutions that Bigmo is talking about.  They are totally different words and totally different concepts.  In addition, the way in which the term is used in the Qur'an precludes his interpretation.  For example, here is a link to several comparative translations of 33:50

    http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=33&verse=50

    And here is a word-by-word translation of each word in the verse:

    http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=33&verse=50#%2833:50:1%29

    Finally, here is how that mlk root term is used throughout the Qur'an in all contexts:

    http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=mlk#%2833:50:11%29

    And the following term, "of the right"

    http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=ymn#%2833:50:12%29

    Note that the root mlk has several possible implications depending on its form, all of which imply complete domination and possession.  To possess, to be a king, a kingdom, an angel, the owner.  That is what this root and its derivatives conveys.  Nobody would ever understand it to mean 'concubinage' which is why neither in Arabic nor in any other Semitic language is this root used to refer to concubinage, and why the Arabic scholars never found this term confusing.  It is used to refer to ownership, possession, being the king, just as the same mlk root is commonly used in other Semitic languages.  This is why trying to look to other Semitic cultures and languages is reasonable to try to understand this verse in its historical and linguistic context, but again doing that just proves the opposite of what Bigmo intends.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #212 - July 03, 2014, 10:19 PM

    Zaotar, you are Tom Holland and I claim my autographed copy of your book or the bounty on your head (whichever is of greater value).
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #213 - July 03, 2014, 11:47 PM

    I think Bigmo would have a valid point if there was some etymological or structural reason to believe that the phrase "right hands possess" is analogous to what he is citing in other contexts.  In other words, if the Qur'an uses a word that is *derived from* another Semitic cognate, or demonstrably a direct translation of that other Semitic cognate into Arabic, then he'd have an argument that the traditional interpretation of this word is wrong.

    Generally when scholars argue that Muslim tradition has misunderstood the meaning of words and phrases in the Qur'an, usually the starting point is to establish that Muslim scholars could not agree on what an "Arabic" term as used in the Qur'an actually means -- take furqan or kalala, for example.

    But there isn't any such uncertainty about this semitic term, and it has no relation to the concubine terminology (Hebrew term "pilegesh") or institutions that Bigmo is talking about.  They are totally different words and totally different concepts.  In addition, the way in which the term is used in the Qur'an precludes his interpretation.  For example, here is a link to several comparative translations of 33:50

    http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=33&verse=50

    And here is a word-by-word translation of each word in the verse:

    http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=33&verse=50#%2833:50:1%29

    Finally, here is how that mlk root term is used throughout the Qur'an in all contexts:

    http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=mlk#%2833:50:11%29

    And the following term, "of the right"

    http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=ymn#%2833:50:12%29

    Note that the root mlk has several possible implications depending on its form, all of which imply complete domination and possession.  To possess, to be a king, a kingdom, an angel, the owner.  That is what this root and its derivatives conveys.  Nobody would ever understand it to mean 'concubinage' which is why neither in Arabic nor in any other Semitic language is this root used to refer to concubinage, and why the Arabic scholars never found this term confusing.  It is used to refer to ownership, possession, being the king, just as the same mlk root is commonly used in other Semitic languages.  This is why trying to look to other Semitic cultures and languages is reasonable to try to understand this verse in its historical and linguistic context, but again doing that just proves the opposite of what Bigmo intends.



    I need a like button. For your explanation and for Hassan's. Very helpful, thanks!

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #214 - July 04, 2014, 05:11 PM

    NAILED IT!

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #215 - July 04, 2014, 05:56 PM

    I need a like button. For your explanation and for Hassan's. Very helpful, thanks!


    I don't know where the term "spoils of war" or "captives " comes from. Its not what the Quran says and its implanted. Nowhere in any of the verses concerning ma malakat aymanukum does the Quran in any way refer to captives or prisoners of war or uses slaves. Nowhere.

    So these arguments are very weak.

    Good news is that the issue of slavery is the only issue left here seems like. That is a long way from how this thread started. That is a huge improvement. I think many have been educated here about the Quran.


    And here is a word-by-word translation of each word in the verse:

    http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=33&verse=50#%2833:50:1%29

    Exactly! as you can see there is nothing about slavery or captives in those verses. So many here are just putting words in the Quran's mouth and avoiding the times the Quran does talk about captives and prisoners of war.

    I detect some sort of desperation but without actually words from the Quran to back them I don't see this argumenst as solid.

    As Quranist we are ordered to either free the captives or demand ransom. That is what the Quran ACTUALLY says.

    From there to slavery is a long way indeed.



  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #216 - July 04, 2014, 05:57 PM

    NAILED IT!


    http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=33&verse=50#%2833:50:1%29

    Yup. Nailed it alright.  Afro
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #217 - July 04, 2014, 09:32 PM

    Hagar was not a concubine but was a wife. This is clear in Gen 16. The wiki is wrong but then the site is what it is...  whistling2 The Torah is very clear that concubines were sex servants, second tier wives for men only, without the same legal rights normally attributed to full marriage partners. A woman must consider her options as either a full wife in a monogamous, or patriarchal plural marriage, or being a concubine with diminished marital rights and responsibilities. Also the second wife must be involved and considered in any decision. So concubines are not granted full rights just a certain type of concubine, one which is a second-wife. Rights and responsibilities in the home are not the same as rights under the law or treatment within society. You are equivocating here. A married women can never take a concubine as as polyandry is forbidden in the Torah.

    So I have a question or two. Just so I can understand your view rather than assuming a view for you.

    1. Can a woman become a concubine to a man not married?

    2. Is polyandry legal?

    3. If 1. is illegal. Is fornication illegal?


  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #218 - July 04, 2014, 10:16 PM

    Hagar was not a concubine but was a wife. This is clear in Gen 16. The wiki is wrong but then the site is what it is...  The Torah is very clear that concubines were sex servants, second tier wives for men only, without the same legal rights normally attributed to full marriage partners. A woman must consider her options as either a full wife in a monogamous, or patriarchal plural marriage, or being a concubine with diminished marital rights and responsibilities. Also the second wife must be involved and considered in any decision. So concubines are not granted full rights just a certain type of concubine, one which is a second-wife. Rights and responsibilities in the home are not the same as rights under the law or treatment within society. You are equivocating here. A married women can never take a concubine as as polyandry is forbidden in the Torah.

    So I have a question or two. Just so I can understand your view rather than assuming a view for you.

    1. Can a woman become a concubine to a man not married?

    2. Is polyandry legal?

    3. If 1. is illegal. Is fornication illegal?


    I have answered before about what I believe a concubine is. It does not matter what you believe Hagar was, whats important is how the Jews understood it since concubinage in the Quran came on Medina where many Jews lived.  It was a common understanding among Jews of the time. Whether the Judaic understanding is Torah compliant or not is irrelevant.

    As far as fornication is concerned I have dealt with that issue in my opening post for this thread where I said the Quran only allows accountability when somebody else's right is affected or a burden is imposed on somebody else. Fornication does not affect any outside party. Whether fornication is a legal or not depends on the relationship and what you mean by legal. The Quran does not allow believers to engage in sexual relationship based on lust only. There must be some level of commitment. That is if you mean by legal whether its a sin or not. What can be persecuted under Quranic law that is a different matter. In that case fornication is considered legal.

    I have dealt with Quranic legalism in my opening thread and how Its different (radically different) from Shariah law which is not Quranic.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #219 - July 04, 2014, 10:46 PM

    I don't know where the term "spoils of war" or "captives " comes from. Its not what the Quran says and its implanted. Nowhere in any of the verses concerning ma malakat aymanukum does the Quran in any way refer to captives or prisoners of war or uses slaves. Nowhere.

    So these arguments are very weak.

    Good news is that the issue of slavery is the only issue left here seems like. That is a long way from how this thread started. That is a huge improvement. I think many have been educated here about the Quran.


    And here is a word-by-word translation of each word in the verse:

    http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=33&verse=50#%2833:50:1%29

    Exactly! as you can see there is nothing about slavery or captives in those verses. So many here are just putting words in the Quran's mouth and avoiding the times the Quran does talk about captives and prisoners of war.

    I detect some sort of desperation but without actually words from the Quran to back them I don't see this argumenst as solid.

    As Quranist we are ordered to either free the captives or demand ransom. That is what the Quran ACTUALLY says.

    From there to slavery is a long way indeed.






    Word by word there shows as repetitive gibberish in English. You seriously think that makes more sense? How can you find that accurate, much less Divine? How can you ignore how and when Ayah were given? Quran has no context without this. 4:24 was given after a battle, when captives were taken. It clearly refers to that incident.

    You say, it doesn't matter what it actually says, it only matters what you believe, that the native Arabic speakers for over a thousand years did NOT understand Quran properly. Does not this seem an arrogance to you? Everyone before you was stupid? Don't you think we all desperately want Quran to be benevolent and supportive of human rights? It is not. Unfortunately for all of us.

    I am happy for your delusion. I hope it spreads, personally. I would rather that Islam in it's Sunnah were rejected and any amount of wishful thinking replaced it. I WANT it twisted, and it's cruelty disbelieved, bandaged with some other interpretation. Then I want it translated into THAT Arabic, your Arabic, as the true Quran. Where disbelievers are just your buddies, and women can choose their own path. So go ahead, but please, tell the Sunni this, give them their doubts. We here already know the Quran is stupid and petty.



    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #220 - July 05, 2014, 12:49 AM



    'Rightly possess'

    FAILED IT!

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #221 - July 05, 2014, 05:58 PM

    'Rightly possess'

    FAILED IT!

    Yeah but nothing about slaves or captives. That's not in the Arabic text, the original words of the Quran.

    So as a Quranist I take the Quran as is. I don't add or delete or abrogate. That is cheating to pass an agenda.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #222 - July 05, 2014, 06:11 PM

    this just proves the level of bullshitting employed by Quranists is infinite




    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #223 - July 05, 2014, 06:41 PM

    Yeah but nothing about slaves or captives. That's not in the Arabic text, the original words of the Quran.

    So as a Quranist I take the Quran as is. I don't add or delete or abrogate. That is cheating to pass an agenda.


    Let me rephrase that for you:


    So as a Quranist comedian I take the Quran as is I'd like it to be. I don't add or delete or abrogate for comedic effect. That is cheating expedient so as to pass an apologetic agenda.

    Spank you very much.





    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #224 - July 05, 2014, 07:16 PM


    I have answered before about what I believe a concubine is. It does not matter what you believe Hagar was, whats important is how the Jews understood it since concubinage in the Quran came on Medina where many Jews lived.  It was a common understanding among Jews of the time. Whether the Judaic understanding is Torah compliant or not is irrelevant.

    As far as fornication is concerned I have dealt with that issue in my opening post for this thread where I said the Quran only allows accountability when somebody else's right is affected or a burden is imposed on somebody else. Fornication does not affect any outside party. Whether fornication is a legal or not depends on the relationship and what you mean by legal. The Quran does not allow believers to engage in sexual relationship based on lust only. There must be some level of commitment. That is if you mean by legal whether its a sin or not. What can be persecuted under Quranic law that is a different matter. In that case fornication is considered legal.

    I have dealt with Quranic legalism in my opening thread and how Its different (radically different) from Shariah law which is not Quranic.


    Actually it is not what I believe, it is what the Torah says she was. She is called a wife, the same word used for Sarah. You would know this if you read what I linked to you. Instead you take wiki at face value but refuse to look at what the damn text says..... This is intellectual dishonestly. What the Torah says is very relevant since this is the text they base their views on... If their views contradict the Torah these views are wrong. More intellectual dishonestly. More so a double-standard. You dismissed what other Muslims says, Sunni/Shia and demand we follow what the Quran says. Yet if asked to do the same thing when you cite an external source you flip-flop and say it doesn't matter. So in regards to this point, it doesn't matter what the Quran says, what matters are what the people thought..... Which is a view which places you in the minority. All you have done is prove Mo didn't know Torah law just merely what he was told by Jews, whether correct or not. Also you undermine your whole argument by this double-standard. Thus your argument combined with this view is self-refuting. You destroyed your own argument, congratulations.

    If you demand we just read the Quran for understanding. I will likewise demand you read the Torah for understanding. It goes both ways here. You do not get to change your principles when it suits you or your argument.

    24.2. The fornicatress and the fornicator – flog each of them with a hundred stripes; and do not let pity for them hold you back from carrying out God's law, if you truly believe in God and the Last Day; and let a group of believers witness their punishment.

    24.3 Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden

    Seems illegal to me.

    You are inconsistent in your principles but this is what I expect when someone creates their own interpretation of not only their religion but what other religions follow in order to justify their views.

  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #225 - July 05, 2014, 07:21 PM

    What about the story of Al-Khidr & Musa, where Al-Khidr kills a young boy, and the justification is because the boy's parents were believers and the boy 'MIGHT' become an atheist (obviously cos allah would lead him astray) later in life so better to kill him now before he sends his parents to hell, all under the system that Allah actually set up in the first place.

    At first, Moses is (rightly) shocked that Al-Khidr killed a young innocent boy and reprimands Al-Khidr, but when Al-Khidr eventually explains that he (the young boy)  might become an atheist, Moses reply is basically "fair enough, I hadn't considered that, well done!".

     Huh?


    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #226 - July 05, 2014, 07:25 PM

    'Rightly possess'

    FAILED IT!

    Yeah but nothing about slaves or captives. That's not in the Arabic text, the original words of the Quran.

    So as a Quranist I take the Quran as is. I don't add or delete or abrogate. That is cheating to pass an agenda.


    Do you think we all deserve to burn in hell forever, just for not believing in allah?

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #227 - July 05, 2014, 07:36 PM

    Even if I was to accept every soft interpretation of the quran as Bigmo suggests, the  VERY best you could say is "The quran is the worlds most peaceful book but also the book most easily misinterpreted as violent and tyrannical".

    If that is the case, then what use is it?

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #228 - July 05, 2014, 07:51 PM

    Even if I was to accept every soft interpretation of the quran as Bigmo suggests, the  VERY best you could say is "The quran is the worlds most peaceful book but also the book most easily misinterpreted as violent and tyrannical". ............

    Nooooooooooooooo..

     that is not possible ., Allah says in that Al-Qamar

    ........... And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition? .........


    ....... And in truth We have made the Qur'an easy to remember; but is there any that remembereth?......


    ...........And certainly We have made the Quran easy for remembrance, but is there anyone who will mind?...


    see all those three translation of that verse says  "easy to understand, easy to remember"   and on top of that The SKY DADDY allah is guarding it all the time,  so no scoundrel  can change or misinterpret..

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #229 - July 05, 2014, 08:42 PM

    Well it can't be that easy if Bigmo is the only one in the world with the correct 'interpretation'....well according to Bigmo anyway.

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #230 - July 05, 2014, 08:57 PM

    Well it can't be that easy if Bigmo is the only one in the world with the correct 'interpretation'....well according to Bigmo anyway.

    yap Big Muhammad(PBUH)., I mean bigmo is only the muslim Momin (NOT BORN IN ISLAM to Muslim parents ) but  knows correct interpretation of Quran. ,

     If it is possible I could  put him on an  operating table cut it off and make  a hole., make him to her and   cover her up with   burkha  and apply that verse 4.34  that he is discussing in the other folder..

    Rascals write nonsense

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #231 - July 06, 2014, 06:12 AM

    Well it can't be that easy if Bigmo is the only one in the world with the correct 'interpretation'....well according to Bigmo anyway.


    Most Quranst I know of, probably all of them, see it my way.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #232 - July 06, 2014, 10:50 PM

    The simple fact that there is even a discussion AT ALL, about what the quran says, is evidence that it cannot be as clear and as unambiguously kind as you say it is.

    But I bet you that one thing that IS clear and that ALL quranists agree on, including all your co-quranists, is that you all think I deserve to burn in Hell........FOREVER.

    That alone is enough for me to find this religion objectionable.

    I am better than your god......and so are you.

    "Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #233 - July 08, 2014, 02:44 PM

    Most Quranst I know of, probably all of them, see it my way.

     Oh shudup you self boasting drum beater..

    How many Quranist you know?   common name some.,  or give me the links of a "Quranist " forum except  that free-minds.org.. because I know the guys there..

    And watch this guy who hates me.. I know you didn't say but you too hate me.,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CHm2xigkBc

    may be,  you two haters can become friends with common enemy yeezevee   Cheesy
    Quote
    hmm.. let me add these free book link here

    The Qur'an: A Monotheist Translation

    Quran: A Reformist Translation of Koran   that is from my good friend Edip Yuksel  

    Reclaiming Islam from with-in.. The Monotheist Group

     well they are good to scan through..  May be I should write a book..   no booklet "The Reformed Quran" but that will be very very small booklet..

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #234 - July 08, 2014, 03:26 PM

    Doesn't Edip Yuksel remove two verses from his edition of the Quran?
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #235 - July 08, 2014, 03:29 PM

    Doesn't Edip Yuksel remove two verses from his edition of the Quran?

    yes he did., well his Quran is another version of that Rashad Khalifa's Quran

    but if I were him I would have removed some 3000 verses from that book

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #236 - July 09, 2014, 05:10 AM

    Free Minds.org is a treacherous site. I can't believe I fell for their false liberal version of Islam. They even support evolution by twisting the Quranic verses saying that Adam and Eve didn't reside in heaven before coming to earth!

    I am surprised Yeezevee that you have connections to people like Sina and Yuksel. How did you manage it?
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #237 - July 09, 2014, 05:49 AM

    free-minds.org is an interesting site.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #238 - July 10, 2014, 03:57 PM

    Free Minds.org is a treacherous site. I can't believe I fell for their false liberal version of Islam. They even support evolution by twisting the Quranic verses saying that Adam and Eve didn't reside in heaven before coming to earth!

    I am surprised Yeezevee that you have connections to people like Sina and Yuksel. How did you manage it?


    I am a Quranist and I don't believe in evolution, at least not macro evolution. Quranist are not a cult that all follow some doctrine. As long as something that does not contradict en explicit verse of the Quran than a Quranist can believe in whatever he wants.

    There is nothing called a liberal Islam. It is Quranist Islam. There are liberal Quranist and they are conservative Quranist.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #239 - July 10, 2014, 04:00 PM

    The simple fact that there is even a discussion AT ALL, about what the quran says, is evidence that it cannot be as clear and as unambiguously kind as you say it is.

    But I bet you that one thing that IS clear and that ALL quranists agree on, including all your co-quranists, is that you all think I deserve to burn in Hell........FOREVER.

    That alone is enough for me to find this religion objectionable.


    That is for God to decide and not me.

    I have seen some nasty characters by some people here. Lots of hate in this forum. So I do see some connection between a person's beliefs and his character. In the end its your deeds that determines your salvation.
  • Previous page 1 ... 6 7 89 10 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »