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


Islam and Science Fiction
Yesterday at 11:57 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 09:32 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
Yesterday at 02:57 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 08, 2025, 01:38 PM

German nationalist party ...
February 07, 2025, 01:11 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 05, 2025, 10:04 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 07:29 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad

 (Read 190034 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 27 28 2930 31 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #840 - November 25, 2009, 08:49 PM

    Quote
    For most people on this forum, Hell being mentioned in the Quran does not equal evidence. People here have much higher standards.

    I did not say that the mere mention of Hell in the Quran is evidence. I, too, have much higher standards.
    Quote
    Especially from a book containing factual mistakes, such as on embryology, grammatical inconsistencies, etc.

    The Quran does not contain any factual mistakes, whether on embryology or grammar. All these "mistakes" are debunked over and over. Grammar rules were derived from the Quran for God's sake.
    My advice to you is to go to the other side and listen to them. Do not only camp on one side.
    Quote
    Maximum should not mean eternal.

    So what should it be? Maximum punishment, what is that like? I surely cannot imagine a greater punishment than eternal Hell. So it must be maximum punishment. Maximum sins require maximum punishments. Justice served.
    Quote
    If the maximum punishment was a year in hell instead, you'd be arguing for that, but only because it was in the Quran.

    No I would not. If I found that the Quran was wrong on a specific point I would not be discussing this.
    Quote
    Whatever's in the Quran must be argued/apologized for. The conclusion is established first based on no evidence (such as quranic perfection) and then people have to perform all sorts of apologetic acrobatics to fit everything into that black hole of a conclusion.

    I am afraid that is prejudicial of you.
    Quote
    Being sincerely convinced of Jesus' divinity and of the Quran's fallibility after doing research and being completely open to all possibilities still lands one a spot in hell. God says to think in the Quran. A person willing to come to Islam does just this, but comes to the opposite conclusion- that the Quran can't be divine. But still-eternal hellfire is just. This is a severly warped form of "justice".

    You are wrong here. I fsomeone sees no evidence for Islam then he is on the safe side. Only those who reject the evidence land in Hell.
    And only God knows whether someone rejects Islam because he genuinely sees no evidence for it, or because he does not want to see any evidence for it. Afro
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #841 - November 25, 2009, 08:51 PM

    "The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His apostles. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His apostles." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."  [2:285]


    Don't you understand the meaning of proper evidence? If you quotethe Quran, there are plenty of other books claiming to be from some God\s.

    That is debateable.If a Creator exists (And I believe that He exists), then He must be single. The existence of multiple Gods means that each one of them is limited in order to allow for existence of the other god/gods, but that is an impossibility since God by definition cannot be limited.


    Your belief as I said, is no proof. What exactly is the definition of God? Its not a science, it is, as you said, a belief. Of course, there's nothing preventing a God from being multiple & limited. One God, one Devil is no more believable than many gods & many devils.


    If they are presented with evidence that their views of God is wrong, and yet they persist in their false belief, then they are not moral at all and deserve their due punishment. This applies to the Hindus and Buddhists.
    You misunderstood the verse about Christians. It says that the divinity of Jesus is fake and that Jesus told them that whoever ascribes partners to God will go to Hell. So it is talking about those Christians that lived during the time of Jesus.Hey I am not arrogant. I hope you now see why your objections fail.


    If the evidences are the logical strawmen that you build up, then I'm sure that Hindus & Buddhists would cling even more firmly to their beliefs & dismiss Islam as the religion of the deluded!  Afro

    Also goodness alone is not good enough to enter Paradise if you reject the evidence presented to you. That is not goodness. This is what verse 4:48 is talking about.
    Also, belief alone is not good enough. A bad, evil believer will not go to Paradise.


    That was the strawman & threat Muhammad or whoever wrote the Quran put into the faith to make it more ascceptable to some gullibles. They'd fear Hell & not only would they be good, but they'd accept Muhammad's religion, thus getting him more converts.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #842 - November 25, 2009, 08:51 PM

    If the evidence for the falsification of their belief has been presented to them, then they are on the safe side. All these verses speak of the rejectors of the evidences.
    Regards,


    If they're presented with evidence for the falsification of their belief...You mean if it is proven to them that that their religion is wrong? Ill assume you mean the opposite, unless I'm misunderstanding you. If you do mean the opposite, I think you're being more compassionate than the Quran.

    "We were married by a Reform rabbi in Long Island. A very Reform rabbi. A Nazi."-- Woody Allen
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #843 - November 25, 2009, 08:53 PM

    Do you believe that adulterers should be flogged 100 times? and that thieves should have limbs cut off?

    No I do not.
    For the adulterers flogging is the maximum punishment. It is only for those who keep committing adultery. It is not the necessary punishment.
    As for theives, the Quran does not even say to cut their lims off. "Qataa Yad" here means to prevent/admonish them.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #844 - November 25, 2009, 08:54 PM

    He's not disagreeing that is has several meanings. Just that it only means one thing in that verse.

    That's what he said:
    "واضربوهن  means "Hit them!" - nothing else - end of story!"

    For him "wa idribihuna" only means to hit them, which is false of course.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #845 - November 25, 2009, 08:59 PM

    These verses (Not suras) speak of those who deny the evidence for Hell. read verse 52:11.
    Is there evidence for Hell? I said that maximum sins deserve maximum punishments. If the existence of God is shown to someone, and that someone still rejects God, then he deserves Hell. It might seem at first as "extreme torture" because no sin on earth deserves such immeasureable punishment, but we are not talking here about earthly crimes, we are talking heavenly crimes, the biggest sin imaginable.

    Regards,


    Don't you understand what evidence v. self delusion is Salem?

    Hassan for eg has a very prestigious degree in Islamic & Arabic studies, he explained what hit meant in that particular verse. We have a member from Saudi too, who'd also written in some other thread that that bit can't be translated as anything apart from beat or strike.

    Then you reject it, that deserves maximum punishment!  grin12

    The evidence of God you want to show is from the Quran, but there're countless other books claiming to be from the Creator. There's no reason to accept the validity of your Quran over those.

    And your "evidences" aren't evidence at all, they're your beliefs & claims.

    Anybody can reject those, in favor of someone else's claims.

    I understand that the Quran, in its essence, is simply the biggest threat book of all, Allah repeats & re repeats His threats on practically every page, but many other religious books have lesser threats, or no threats like Buddhist or Jain texts!

    Should I have to be scared into accept Muhammad's story because he's the biggest threat preacher of them all?  grin12

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #846 - November 25, 2009, 09:02 PM

    Quote
    OK, what proof do you have that prayer hasn't changed since Mohammed?

    If it has chaged history would have told us.
    Quote
    And people quote the sunnah in terms of a source of salat. If you're following what you think he did, then that's sunnah.

    Actually the "sunnah" is inconsistent when it comes to prayer, but that is beside the point.
    Quote
    Yes, many reject the hadith, but not most.

    I know.
    Quote
    They're ridiculous to follow as you have no choice but to be an intellectually dishonest cherry-picker, but most Muslims do this.

    That is an insult and I do not accept. I have been respectful to you.
    If we were "intellectually dishonest cherry-picker", we would have rejected only the bad Hadiths and kept the good Hadiths, and there are plenty of them. But no, we have integrity. We reject all of them, the good and the bad, because they are medieval forgeries.
    Quote
    Many is still a minority. Islam is as it is practiced by the majority of its believers. As unmonolithic as it is, the hadith is still the second most important authority in Islam, even if it isn't to you. Being a quran-aloner disallows a possibility of being an average Muslim. The average Muslim is the ordinary muslim like anyone else. Ordinary Muslims are hadith-rejectors.

    In a nutshell, what the majority of Muslims believe to be the case, must be the case. That is a logical fallacy in its purest form. Read on argumentum ad populum.

    Regards,
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #847 - November 25, 2009, 09:04 PM

    I did not say that the mere mention of Hell in the Quran is evidence. I, too, have much higher standards.The Quran does not contain any factual mistakes, whether on embryology or grammar. All these "mistakes" are debunked over and over. Grammar rules were derived from the Quran for God's sake.
    My advice to you is to go to the other side and listen to them. Do not only camp on one side.So what should it be? Maximum punishment, what is that like? I surely cannot imagine a greater punishment than eternal Hell. So it must be maximum punishment. Maximum sins require maximum punishments. Justice served.No I would not. If I found that the Quran was wrong on a specific point I would not be discussing this.I am afraid that is prejudicial of you.You are wrong here. If someone sees no evidence for Islam then he is on the safe side. Only those who reject the evidence land in Hell.
    And only God knows whether someone rejects Islam because he genuinely sees no evidence for it, or because he does not want to see any evidence for it. Afro


    The mistakes were debunked? By whom? I hope not Maurice Bucaille, Keith L Moore, or someone out to prove Islam is right.
     There are grammatical discrepancies. I know grammar rules were derived from the Quran.
    You obviously have no clue how much research Ive done. Ive looked at both sides of the fence. The other side is aggravating with its constant use of illogical arguments. Using such reasoning is inevitable w/o tangible evidence, however.

    I am not prejudicial. I provided an observation of how people argue for the Quran. As it stands, no one has ever been able to prove the Quran is perfect. The only indication that it is such is that it says so in the Quran. This is circular reasoning, but it seems to be the norm. Your comment is more directed st those who use this illogic than me.

    Again, your much too compassionate for the Quran. I agree with you. A just God wouldnt punish someone for sincerity, but Allah does. Many verses speak of rejecting plain evidence after it has been presented to you. If God isnt going to punish those who are sincere disbelievers, why couldnt he just say so. Nowhere does it say that those who coudnt see the truth after examining it dont go to hell. Also, to whom does 3:85 refer?

    003.085
    YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

    "We were married by a Reform rabbi in Long Island. A very Reform rabbi. A Nazi."-- Woody Allen
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #848 - November 25, 2009, 09:04 PM

    Quote
    O whoops. I didnt mess up the quote tag. My post didnt get posted along with it.

    No problem.
    Quote
    I meant to say that things are so subjective with this, you're working with different definitions and ideologies so you run around in circles with what youre trying to prove.

    Which applies to both us, right?
    My argument was subjective was his was deeply subjective in the first place. I only tried to show its absurdity to him.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #849 - November 25, 2009, 09:05 PM

    No I do not.
    For the adulterers flogging is the maximum punishment. It is only for those who keep committing adultery. It is not the necessary punishment.
    As for theives, the Quran does not even say to cut their lims off. "Qataa Yad" here means to prevent/admonish them.


    Does the verse indicate a continuation of the crime?

    "We were married by a Reform rabbi in Long Island. A very Reform rabbi. A Nazi."-- Woody Allen
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #850 - November 25, 2009, 09:06 PM

    No problem.Which applies to both us, right?
    My argument was subjective was his was deeply subjective in the first place. I only tried to show its absurdity to him.


    Yeah I know. I meant for all of us.

    "We were married by a Reform rabbi in Long Island. A very Reform rabbi. A Nazi."-- Woody Allen
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #851 - November 25, 2009, 09:08 PM

    That's what he said:
    "واضربوهن  means "Hit them!" - nothing else - end of story!"

    For him "wa idribihuna" only means to hit them, which is false of course.


    Several meanings in general. When this verse was written, I doubt it was meant to be ambiguous. As in, it only had one meaning in the context of the verse, whether, hit, beat, admonish, have sex with, whatever.

    "We were married by a Reform rabbi in Long Island. A very Reform rabbi. A Nazi."-- Woody Allen
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #852 - November 25, 2009, 09:13 PM

    By the way, your second example does not have a preposition


    I guess your Arabic is not so good then.

    واضربوا عنهن  (This one has the preposition  عن about/from)


    واضربوا لهن مثلا  (This one has the preposition   ل  to/for)


  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #853 - November 25, 2009, 09:17 PM

    Salem, can you find me where from only the Quran are women allowed to initiate divorce proceedings?

    I know about talaq & khula, but please find me the Quranic verses.

    Here're the verses pertaining to divorce, I've taken it from Rashad Khalifa's Quranist site, as thats' by Quranists too.

    [2:226-227] Those who intend to divorce their wives shall wait four months (cooling off); if they change their minds and reconcile, then GOD is Forgiver, Merciful. If they go through with the divorce, then GOD is Hearer, Knower.


    [65:2] Once the interim is fulfilled, you may reconcile with them equitably, or go through with the separation equitably. You shall have two equitable witnesses witness the divorce before GOD. This is to enlighten those who believe in GOD and the Last Day. Anyone who reverences GOD, He will create an exit for him.


    [2:228] The divorced women shall wait three menstruations (before marrying another man). It is not lawful for them to conceal what GOD creates in their wombs, if they believe in GOD and the Last Day. (In case of pregnancy,) the husband's wishes shall supersede the wife's wishes, if he wants to remarry her. The women have rights, as well as obligations, equitably. Thus, the man's wishes prevail (in case of pregnancy). GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.

    [65:4-5] As for the women who have reached menopause, if you have any doubts, their interim shall be three months. As for those who do not menstruate, and discover that they are pregnant, their interim ends upon giving birth. Anyone who reverences GOD, He makes everything easy for him. This is GOD's command that He sends down to you. Anyone who reverences GOD, He remits his sins, and rewards him generously.


    [33:49] O you who believe, if you married believing women, then divorced them before having intercourse with them, they do not owe you any waiting interim (before marrying another man). You shall compensate them equitably, and let them go amicably.





    [2:236] You commit no error by divorcing the women before touching them, or before setting the dowry for them. In this case, you shall compensate them - the rich as he can afford and the poor as he can afford - an equitable compensation. This is a duty upon the righteous.

    [2:237] If you divorce them before touching them, but after you had set the dowry for them, the compensation shall be half the dowry, unless they voluntarily forfeit their rights, or the party responsible for causing the divorce chooses to forfeit the dowry. To forfeit is closer to righteousness. You shall maintain the amicable relations among you. GOD is Seer of everything you do.



    [2:231] If you divorce the women, once they fulfill their interim (three menstruations), you shall allow them to live in the same home amicably, or let them leave amicably. Do not force them to stay against their will, as a revenge. Anyone who does this wrongs his own soul. Do not take GOD's revelations in vain. Remember GOD's blessings upon you, and that He sent down to you the scripture and wisdom to enlighten you. You shall observe GOD, and know that GOD is aware of all things.


    [2:229] Divorce may be retracted twice. The divorced woman shall be allowed to live in the same home amicably, or leave it amicably. It is not lawful for the husband to take back anything he had given her. However, the couple may fear that they may transgress GOD's law. If there is fear that they may transgress GOD's law, they commit no error if the wife willingly gives back whatever she chooses. These are GOD's laws; do not transgress them. Those who transgress GOD's laws are the unjust.


    [2:232] If you divorce the women, once they fulfill their interim, do not prevent them from remarrying their husbands, if they reconcile amicably. This shall be heeded by those among you who believe in GOD and the Last Day. This is purer for you, and more righteous. GOD knows, while you do not know.


    [2:230] If he divorces her (for the third time), it is unlawful for him to remarry her, unless she marries another man, then he divorces her. The first husband can then remarry her, so long as they observe GOD's laws. These are GOD's laws; He explains them for people who know.

    Thus, from the Quran, in all the verses, its the man divorcing his wife, not vice versa.Man is initiating divorce, no verse says, "When you divorce your husbands".


    The following is the omly verse wherein a woman divorces, but its a non Muslim woman divorcing her non Muslim husband & marrying a Muslim, this isn't the case in most divorces.

    [60:10]  O you who believe, when believing women (abandon the enemy and) ask for asylum with you, you shall test them. GOD is fully aware of their belief. Once you establish that they are believers, you shall not return them to the disbelievers. They are not lawful to remain married to them, nor shall the disbelievers be allowed to marry them. Give back the dowries that the disbelievers have paid. You commit no error by marrying them, so long as you pay them their due dowries. Do not keep disbelieving wives (if they wish to join the enemy). You may ask them for the dowry you had paid, and they may ask for what they paid. This is GOD's rule; He rules among you. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

    So using the Quran only, where is the woman shown initiating the divorce, why does Allah always speak to the man on how to divorce his wife\wives, not even once vice versa?

    Even khula would have to be prohibited by Quranists!  grin12


    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #854 - November 25, 2009, 09:21 PM

    Quote
    Don't you understand the meaning of proper evidence? If you quotethe Quran, there are plenty of other books claiming to be from some God\s.

    Do you understand the meaing of proper evidence. But your question was not about proper evidence. It was about what genuine Islam was all about, so I gave the definition.
    Quote
    Your belief as I said, is no proof.

    I did not appeal to my belief here. I am talking pure logic.
    Quote
    What exactly is the definition of God? Its not a science, it is, as you said, a belief.

    It is not a philsophy, not science. Science only deals with nature.
    God is an omnipotent, omniscient, good Being. Another defintion says that God is a maximally great Being. Both defintions are basically the same.
    Quote
    Of course, there's nothing preventing a God from being multiple & limited.

    There is. If He is limited then He depends on His existence on someone/something else, and God needs nobody for His existence. He cannot be a contingent Being.
    Quote
    One God, one Devil is no more believable than many gods & many devils.

    We are not talking about devils here.
    One God is by more believable than many gods. Actually the existence of many gods is an impossibility as I have showed. So any religion that believes in multiple gods is a false religion from the outset. That only leaves Islam and Judaism as possible true religions.
    Quote
    If the evidences are the logical strawmen that you build up, then I'm sure that Hindus & Buddhists would cling even more firmly to their beliefs & dismiss Islam as the religion of the deluded!

    I have not provided any evidences for Islam so far. I never claimed otherwise. That's not my intention from this discussion. I am only responding to popular objections to Islam. That's it. Whether there are indeed any evidences for Islam is a whole different manner from this.
    And even if I were to present evidences for Islam, and even if those evidences failed, how would that make Hinduism and Buddhism truthful? It would not even make atheism truthful. That's a logical fallacy on your part.
    Quote
    That was the strawman & threat Muhammad or whoever wrote the Quran put into the faith to make it more ascceptable to some gullibles. They'd fear Hell & not only would they be good, but they'd accept Muhammad's religion, thus getting him more converts.

    That is not a strawman or a threat made by the author of the Quran. Hell is not there for threatening people, just like prisons are not their for threatening people. Hell is there to establish justice. Those who commit maximum sins deserve maximum punishments. That's the work of Hell. To establish justice.

    Regards,
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #855 - November 25, 2009, 09:23 PM

    If they're presented with evidence for the falsification of their belief...You mean if it is proven to them that that their religion is wrong? Ill assume you mean the opposite, unless I'm misunderstanding you. If you do mean the opposite, I think you're being more compassionate than the Quran.

    Yes I mean the opposite. And no I am not more compassionate than the Holy Quran. I derive my theology from the Holy Quran.
    Regards, Smiley
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #856 - November 25, 2009, 09:25 PM

    That's what he said:
    "واضربوهن  means "Hit them!" - nothing else - end of story!"

    For him "wa idribihuna" only means to hit them, which is false of course.


    Wrong - I said in this verse it only means "hit".
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #857 - November 25, 2009, 09:28 PM

    According to the quran, what happens to Kaffirs when they die?  Also what is your view on alcohol, hijab and circumcision?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #858 - November 25, 2009, 09:34 PM

    Quote
    Don't you understand what evidence v. self delusion is Salem?

    Yes I do. And I am not trying to establish the existence of Hell now. I am only saying that Hell is the only just punishment for the rejectors of God. Sorry if you misunderstood me.
    So if God exists, then His existence entails the existence of Hell.
    Quote
    Hassan for eg has a very prestigious degree in Islamic & Arabic studies, he explained what hit meant in that particular verse. We have a member from Saudi too, who'd also written in some other thread that that bit can't be translated as anything apart from beat or strike.

    My all respect goes for them, but I disagree with them on that specific point. Daraba has several meanings. Every scholar of Arabic knows that.
    Quote
    Then you reject it, that deserves maximum punishment!

    No. I said rejectors of God deserve maximum punishment. And I explained why.
    Quote
    The evidence of God you want to show is from the Quran, but there're countless other books claiming to be from the Creator. There's no reason to accept the validity of your Quran over those.

    The evidence of God is not derived from the Quran. It is derived by rational thought.
    Whether the Quran is the word of God is a different matter.
    Quote
    And your "evidences" aren't evidence at all, they're your beliefs & claims.

    Anybody can reject those, in favor of someone else's claims.

    I did not claim to present any evidence. I am only trying to answer objections. It seems these objections here center on Hell.
    Quote
    I understand that the Quran, in its essence, is simply the biggest threat book of all,

    No, it is not.
    Quote
    Allah repeats & re repeats His threats on practically every page, but many other religious books have lesser threats, or no threats like Buddhist or Jain texts!

    God does not threaten. He only explains the consequences of one's choice.
    Quote
    Should I have to be scared into accept Muhammad's story because he's the biggest threat preacher of them all?

    No, you should come to believe in the Quran after a rational examination, not because it "threats" people.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #859 - November 25, 2009, 09:43 PM

    Yes I mean the opposite. And no I am not more compassionate than the Holy Quran. I derive my theology from the Holy Quran.
    Regards, Smiley


    OK Afro

    "We were married by a Reform rabbi in Long Island. A very Reform rabbi. A Nazi."-- Woody Allen
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #860 - November 25, 2009, 09:45 PM

    Do you understand the meaing of proper evidence. But your question was not about proper evidence. It was about what genuine Islam was all about, so I gave the definition.I did not appeal to my belief here. I am talking pure logic.


    Pure logic!  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

    It is not a philsophy, not science. Science only deals with nature.
    God is an omnipotent, omniscient, good Being. Another defintion says that God is a maximally great Being. Both defintions are basically the same.There is. If He is limited then He depends on His existence on someone/something else, and God needs nobody for His existence. He cannot be a contingent Being.


    If I ask a 5 year old, he or she too would define Santa for me as someone who comes from the Poles with presents for her & her siblings every Xmas eve while they sleep!  Cheesy

    However, that too would be no valid definition.We're talking of unseen & unknown stuff-your Allah & the kid's Santa both.  Tongue

    If God is such a contingent being, He'd not feel any loss if people failed to worship Him!  Roll Eyes

    One God is by more believable than many gods. Actually the existence of many gods is an impossibility as I have showed. So any religion that believes in multiple gods is a false religion from the outset. That only leaves Islam and Judaism as possible true religions.I have not provided any evidences for Islam so far. I never claimed otherwise. That's not my intention from this discussion. I am only responding to popular objections to Islam. That's it. Whether there are indeed any evidences for Islam is a whole different manner from this.


    As I said, you have showed no more than a child shows Santa!

    There's nothing to disprove that many gods collaborated in making the Universe, or that God doesn't care whether we worship Him or not!


    And even if I were to present evidences for Islam, and even if those evidences failed, how would that make Hinduism and Buddhism truthful? It would not even make atheism truthful. That's a logical fallacy on your part.That is not a strawman or a threat made by the author of the Quran. Hell is not there for threatening people, just like prisons are not their for threatening people. Hell is there to establish justice. Those who commit maximum sins deserve maximum punishments. That's the work of Hell. To establish justice.



    I never claimed that Hinduism, Buddhism or atheism are more believable, but they too come with your type of strawmen claiming to have "evidence" & "proof".

    Jail exists, we see & know it, Hell exists in your head, just like reincarnations exist in the Hindu & Buddhists head. Oh & reincarnations too aim to establish justice, only the Hell in your Head is a bit more gruesome!  Cheesy

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #861 - November 25, 2009, 09:50 PM

    Quote
    The mistakes were debunked?

    Yes.
    Quote
    By whom?

    There is a great amount of literature on this.
    Quote
    I hope not Maurice Bucaille, Keith L Moore, or someone out to prove Islam is right.

    None of these people.
    Quote
    There are grammatical discrepancies.

    No there are not. If there are the Pagans of Quraysh, who were the most sophisticated scholars of Arabic would have pointed this and Islam would have been dead.
    Quote
    I know grammar rules were derived from the Quran.

    If the grammar rules were derived from the Quran, as you rightfully said, then it cannot contain any grammatical discrepancies.
    Quote
    You obviously have no clue how much research Ive done. Ive looked at both sides of the fence. The other side is aggravating with its constant use of illogical arguments. Using such reasoning is inevitable w/o tangible evidence, however.

    What kind of research have you done? How long did it take you? Whom did you read for?
    Quote
    I am not prejudicial. I provided an observation of how people argue for the Quran. As it stands, no one has ever been able to prove the Quran is perfect.

    Debateable.
    Quote
    The only indication that it is such is that it says so in the Quran. This is circular reasoning, but it seems to be the norm.

    I have not done this. I am answering your objections to Hell.
    Quote
    Your comment is more directed st those who use this illogic than me.

    It is directed at all illogical people.
    Quote
    Again, your much too compassionate for the Quran.

    No I am not.
    Quote
    I agree with you. A just God wouldnt punish someone for sincerity,

    Right.
    Quote
    but Allah does.

    No He does not.
    Quote
    Many verses speak of rejecting plain evidence after it has been presented to you.

    If an evidence is presented to you and you reject it for no logical reason, then you deserve punishment.
    Quote
    If God isnt going to punish those who are sincere disbelievers, why couldnt he just say so. Nowhere does it say that those who coudnt see the truth after examining it dont go to hell.

    Here it is:
    "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." [2:62]
    "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- Allah will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for Allah is witness of all things." [22:17]
    Quote
    Also, to whom does 3:85 refer?

    003.085
    YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

    Islam is submission to God. If you do not submit to the Creator you do not deserve Paradise.

    Regards,
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #862 - November 25, 2009, 09:52 PM

    Does the verse indicate a continuation of the crime?

    And adulterer is one who continues to commit adultery. It becomes an attribute of the person.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #863 - November 25, 2009, 09:53 PM

    Yeah I know. I meant for all of us.

    I agree.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #864 - November 25, 2009, 09:56 PM

    Yes I do. And I am not trying to establish the existence of Hell now. I am only saying that Hell is the only just punishment for the rejectors of God. Sorry if you misunderstood me.


    Again, there's no asis to claim that a God would be so offended by His rejection or people believing that He's more than one that He'd want to roast people forever! That doesn't show a very good Being, rather a big bully & insecure being! Allah should've been called "The most insecure" rather than "The most merciful"  Cheesy

    So if God exists, then His existence entails the existence of Hell.


    Again, read my response above.

    If God exists doesn't give any indication of His character, He might want to roast people for some years, or not at all!

    He might be confident & merciful enough to not care anything for disbelief!

    No. I said rejectors of God deserve maximum punishment. And I explained why.


    No doubt, a child too would explain that a rejector of Santa deserves no presents!  Cheesy

    Whether the Quran is the word of God is a different matter.I did not claim to present any evidence. I am only trying to answer objections. It seems these objections here center on Hell.No, it is not.God does not threaten. He only explains the consequences of one's choice.No, you should come to believe in the Quran after a rational examination, not because it "threats" people.


    I have read the Quran, & my objections are on plenty more points than Hell alone. I have read the Quran & come to the conclusion that its one of the most vile books ever written, if not the most! In many ways, too many to enumerate.I know quite a few others who have come to that conclusion, like the recent case of Sebastian Faulks.

    The evidence of God is not derived from the Quran. It is derived by rational thought.


    And many people have come to disbelieve in God altogether after rational thought, many have believed in many gods, many have reached a conclusion that God shouldn't care if they believe or not.

    Anyways, thanks. If I believed in another religion, with your kind of preaching, I would become even more devoted to that religion.  Afro

    As it happens, my agnosticism has grown, thanks to your preaching.




    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #865 - November 25, 2009, 10:01 PM

    And adulterer is one who continues to commit adultery. It becomes an attribute of the person.



    Your own definition. Not the Quran's. Once is enough.

    Quote
    a⋅dul⋅ter⋅y  [uh-duhl-tuh-ree]  
    ?noun, plural -ter⋅ies.
    voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adultery

    Quote
    a?dul?ter?y    (-dlt-r, -tr) KEY

    NOUN:
    pl. a?dul?ter?ies
    Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.


    http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/adultery

    No indication of continuation.

    "We were married by a Reform rabbi in Long Island. A very Reform rabbi. A Nazi."-- Woody Allen
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #866 - November 25, 2009, 10:03 PM

    Yes.There is a great amount of literature on this.None of these people.No there are not. If there are the Pagans of Quraysh, who were the most sophisticated scholars of Arabic would have pointed this and Islam would have been dead.


    Actually the pagans did often mock & point errors, but Muhammad managed to slaughter all the definat & forcibly convert the rest, but those stuff are there're in hadiths, which you choose to reject as inconveninet!  Wink

    Islam is submission to God. If you do not submit to the Creator you do not deserve Paradise.


    Again, there's no basis for this claim. The Creator might not care whether we believe or disbelieve, but I know you'd be ready with your strawmen.

    As I said, youd be terrific at increasing people's disbelief! We had a Christian missionary many months back, who possessed the same capacity to turn people off Xtianity!  Cheesy

    You & he could debate sometime!  Afro

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #867 - November 25, 2009, 10:08 PM



    Seriously salem, I know that many of us don't understand Arabic, but we all do understand English.

    So we need to forgo all our knowledge of Arabic and English, accept your unprovable claims as definitions & pure logic & submit to Al or burn eternally?  Cheesy

    Even if the Quran wasn't such a vile book, such self delusion would be difficult.  Wink

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #868 - November 25, 2009, 10:10 PM

    Several meanings in general. When this verse was written, I doubt it was meant to be ambiguous. As in, it only had one meaning in the context of the verse, whether, hit, beat, admonish, have sex with, whatever.

    It cannot mean "to have sex with". It is possible to mean hit and it is possible to mean separate.
  • Re: Famous Muslim to infamous Murtad
     Reply #869 - November 25, 2009, 10:11 PM

    I guess your Arabic is not so good then.

    واضربوا عنهن  (This one has the preposition  عن about/from)


    واضربوا لهن مثلا  (This one has the preposition   ل  to/for)




    Sorry missed that. How about
    ضرب الله مثلا
    Clearly there is no preposition here.
  • Previous page 1 ... 27 28 2930 31 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »