discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[the.crooked]

are you fuckin kiddin me?

 

 

Between a CHRISTIAN and a CATHOLIC?!!!

 

 

 

I hate you people.

 

 

learn your own religion.

[the.crooked]

It's very frustrating to write about these topics so casually because I think we spend an inordinate amount of time in semantic confusion over our basic terms such as "reality" and "truth" - I guess this is why I find it necessary to put them in quotations sometimes. That and Dawood's jihad against reason make this thread a lost cause to me. Maybe I'll come back and write a more in depth response, but I think we understand each other well enough.

 

I think you and I hold the same appreciation for science. I just try in this thread and others to voice a rational perspective against realism in science that lacks on this board (or in most discussions for that matter).

 

 

I don't take things you say as an offense to philosophy. To the contrary the depth to which you have considered these things makes me appreciate the discussion all the more.

 

the casual discussion is hard. That is why I made the general philosophy thread, for slightly more formal discussion.

[Dawood]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html

 

German researchers have evidence that may prove the Koran was not written by Mohammed.

 

Whatever, I bet the person that wrote this article isn't even fluent in Arabic and has no clue about the historical events surrounding the revelation of the quran. This is garbage

Straight from the gate because Muhammad NEVER claimed to write the quran. Muhammad was Illiterate and could neither read or write. The fact that the article starts out trying to prove that Muhammad didn't write the quran shows their complete ignorance on the subject.

It's just anti Islamic propaganda and won't shake the faith of a single muslim.

[Dawood]

Wait, you can't dance if you're a Muslim?

 

Dance all you want dude.

[iloveboxcars]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html

 

German researchers have evidence that may prove the Koran was not written by Mohammed.

 

Whatever, I bet the person that wrote this article isn't even fluent in Arabic and has no clue about the historical events surrounding the revelation of the quran. This is garbage

Straight from the gate because Muhammad NEVER claimed to write the quran. Muhammad was Illiterate and could neither read or write. The fact that the article starts out trying to prove that Muhammad didn't write the quran shows their complete ignorance on the subject.

It's just anti Islamic propaganda and won't shake the faith of a single muslim.

 

 

even if allah made muhammad write the quran technically muhammad did write it. it was his hand who did it, even if his hand was possessed.

 

 

also, the person who wrote the article doesnt need to be fluent in arabic, all they were doing was reporting what people who are able to read arabic reported to them.

[Dawood]

No, the prophet Muhammad was illiterate. he couldn't read or write. He received revelation and he memorized it. He used to recite it and his companions would memorize it as well, then they would teach it to the other muslims and so on. The quran was written by scribes originally on pieces of tree bark, dried animal skins etc...basically whatever they could find to write on after the revelation was sent. The revelations would happen spontaneously so, they used whatever they could find. Before the death of the prophet, he under the supervision of the angel Gabriel gathered all of the various pieces of the quran and arranged it in the order it is written in today.

Also, there were 4 different modes of recitation that the quran was revealed in. These modes of recitation were for the sake of each tribe that had it's own dialect so that none of the tribes of arabs would be excluded from understanding the religion. Some people mistakenly interpret these different modes of recitation as being different or opposing versions of the quran. This is a mistake made by people who don't understand the quran or it's sciences. Or a deliberate attempt to attack the quran's authenticity. Either way it is an error.

 

I'd also like to add that Muslims today still memorise and recite the entire quran the same way they did during the time of the prophet Muhammad.

 

Also, Allah answers them in this verse. (listen to this recitation of the quran)

It has english subtitles.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bXn5QbqJDpo&feature=related

[thinksmall]

Dawood, you should have said:

 

we can dance if we want to..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we can leave your friends behind.

cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance.

well they're no friends of mine.........

 

mwuahahaha

[El Mamerro]

Yeah, but if I were to be Muslim, would I be allowed to dance?

 

*Nevermind, this seems to sum it up. Sounds fair to me. Well, at least under the tenets of Islam.

 

Also, if these documents turn up to be implying something else than what you've been taught and offer concrete, untainted written evidence directly from that era (as opposed to handed-down information that's made it into modern documents), would you be willing to consider what they are saying?

[dowmagik]

my money is on........no

[Dawood]

Yeah, but if I were to be Muslim, would I be allowed to dance?

 

*Nevermind, this seems to sum it up. Sounds fair to me. Well, at least under the tenets of Islam.

 

Also, if these documents turn up to be implying something else than what you've been taught and offer concrete, untainted written evidence directly from that era (as opposed to handed-down information that's made it into modern documents), would you be willing to consider what they are saying?

 

These issues of whether or not muslims can Dance or when we can dance or whatever is not an important issue to discuss. There's many scholars that have a lot of commentary on it and most of the time it pretty much falls in line with what was in that article. The basic principle to follow is not to get out of line in your behavior. Me personally, I don't dance. I just pull up my pants and.....

[dowmagik]

i bet you do the solja boy, dont front! :)

[thinksmall]

Me personally, I don't dance. I just pull up my pants and.....

 

AND DO THE ROCKAWAY, NOW LEANBACK, LEANBACK.. LEANBACK!!!

 

MWUAHAHAHA.. ha.. ahaha.

[Dawood]

i bet you do the solja boy, dont front! :)

 

nah, I'm oldschool I do the steve martin and the wop with a little uprock thrown in.

[KILZ FILLZ]

watch this

[Dawood]

The problem with videos like that is whoever put it together DID NOT do their homework. I can't speak on other people's beliefs and cultures, but at 7:00 it said that Muhammad of Arabia (along with many others) was among a huge list of people that claimed to be born on dec. 25th, virgin birth, etc. etc.

Muhammad, nor any of his followers, nor any Islamic historian EVER claimed Muhammad was a virgin birth or born on Dec. 25th.

As a matter of fact the people of arabia during that time never even heard of December 25th because they (as they do now) went by the lunar calendar and there is no December there.

[Fist 666]

your argument regarding muhammad's presence on the list is solid, i'm sure some of the other names are also a stretch to be on there, but many are accurate.

 

had muhammad not been on the list, you would have had NO argument against the clip, though.

 

whether a calendar is lunar or solar, events happen on the same day (day meaning the specific rotation made during a specific revolution). the same season. lunar calendars are less accurate--they fall behind--most cultures follow solar calendars as they are more consistent to the seasons.

 

 

i thought the video gave a pretty good explanation for why humans have created the gods they have the way they have, esp. for being so brief/rushed.

 

i enjoyed it, and i think most of the arguments he puts forth can hold their ground against christianity

 

dawood: can you give me an in depth response to how you (or islam in general, i guess) view/recognize jesus and his life/role/etc...

 

my understanding is that he is recognized as a prophet and his mother was a great/respectable woman, but i don't know much more than that...

thanks.

[Dawood]

In the quran there's actually a whole chapter dedicated to Jesus and Mary (Surah Maryam)

In short, Jesus is from the best of all the prophets, those being Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Abraham and Noah. We believe in the immaculate conception (virgin Birth) of Mary Although we don't say that Jesus was God's son or God, or in a divine trinity with God or anything of the sort. he was a Messenger and a Prophet of God. His main teaching, like all Prophets was to call mankind to worship one God and to reject idolatry or worshiping any part of the creation in any form. The ones who believed in him, we consider them to be believers (muslims) And of course over time his message was diluted and people went astray and began to worship Jesus along with God. Those are the christians of today.

 

 

here's an excellent article by a muslim scholar on jesus for more in depth info

http://www.al-ibaanah.com/ebooks.php?EID=56

[Juan Fuentes]

muslims should not make distinction among prophets as told in the Quran.

those might be the most named in the Quran but not the best.

[Fist 666]

thanks, much appreciated.

 

to further: is the idea of god having a child offensive to islam? (i assume you recognize the easter story as mild-to-severe blasphemy) or is it specifically the claim that jesus was his son that is offensive?

 

 

(don't know where i'm going w/ this, just trying to get an understanding)

[Dawood]

muslims should not make distinction among prophets as told in the Quran.

those might be the most named in the Quran but not the best.

 

 

Juan, why do you test me. Your knowledge of the quran is weak. Go learn something

before you try to step to me.

 

 

“Those Messengers! We preferred some of them to others; to some of them Allaah spoke (directly); others He raised to degrees (of honour)” [al-Baqarah 2:253]

Among those whom He chose and preferred over others were the Messengers of strong will [Uloo’l-‘Azm,], namely, Muhammad, Ibraaheem, Nooh, Moosa and ‘Eesaa ibn Maryam, may the best of blessings and peace be upon them. And He chose and favoured above them all their leader, the final Messenger, our Prophet Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah

[Juan Fuentes]

i was trying to make it clear muslims dont make distinction among prophets. there are no favorites.

and you wrote in a way it sounded like those prophets were better than the rest.

but to my surprise.

i find that you do take favorites among them. and showed me a verse where God talks about the prophets to prove your mistake right.

you know WE means I in a majestic way.

so you got it wrong there dawood.

 

this is the right verse

(notice the beginning: "say:" meaning the believing people)

 

 

3:84

Say: "We believe in God and what was sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Patriarchs, and what was given to Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We do not make any distinction between them, and to Him we surrender."

 

 

 

that there are some prophets better than others that's true, but we dont know all of them, and God have talked to us about SOME of them, so it is not our job to say who are the best prophets.

[Dawood]

Ok, so we have here, an issue, where Allah says in the quran “Those Messengers! We preferred some of them to others; to some of them Allaah spoke (directly); others He raised to degrees (of honour)” then he says in a different verse.."The prophets from their Lord. We do not make any distinction between them"

 

these two verses appear to contradict one another, but Allah is not the author of confusion and again, we can't really rely on the translation all the time for proper understanding because we know without a doubt that the quran was revealed in arabic and that we need to rely on the arabic speaking scholars of tafsir to understand the meanings of the quran so that we can understand them the same way the Sahaba understood them. Do you agree with me there? Can we at least agree there, Juan? That the proper understanding of the quran is the way the Companions of the prophet understood it?

If we can agree to that, then we can continue our discussion and I can explain to you what the proper understanding of this issue is, but if we can't even agree to that, then there's no reason to continue our discourse.

[Dawood]

thanks, much appreciated.

 

to further: is the idea of god having a child offensive to islam? (i assume you recognize the easter story as mild-to-severe blasphemy) or is it specifically the claim that jesus was his son that is offensive?

 

 

(don't know where i'm going w/ this, just trying to get an understanding)

 

yes it's very offensive as a matter a fact Allah says in the quran....

 

O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allâh aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allâh and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rûh) created by Him; so believe in Allâh and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. Allâh is (the only) One Ilâh (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allâh is All***Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. (An-Nisa 4:171)

 

Easter is not recognised my muslims because we beleive that Jesus was never crucified, there's a verse in the quran that explains it.....

 

And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]: (An-Nisa 4:157)

[Juan Fuentes]

1st question

Ok, so we have here, an issue, where Allah says in the quran “Those Messengers! We preferred some of them to others; to some of them Allaah spoke (directly); others He raised to degrees (of honour)” then he says in a different verse.."The prophets from their Lord. We do not make any distinction between them"

 

2nd question

Can we at least agree there, Juan? That the proper understanding of the quran is the way the Companions of the prophet understood it?

 

1st question:

a mejestic WE (without "say:" at the beginning)

 

and

 

a people/community/believer WE. (under the category of "SAY:", beginning of verse)

 

 

2nd question:

We have thus made it easy in your language, perhaps they may take heed.

48:54

 

Do they not reflect on the Quran? Or are there locks on their hearts?

47:24

 

And We have cited in this Quran every example for the people. But man was always most argumentative.

18:54

 

i let the quran speak because the answer i can give you might not sound as the commands and verses of the quran which i want you to look at it and maybe think the translations of quran although not 100% accurate they can be used when following islam.

 

i know you have a translation of quran in your house and i know it serves a purpose.

[Blood Feast Island Man]

Ok, so we have here, an issue, where Allah says in the quran “Those Messengers! We preferred some of them to others; to some of them Allaah spoke (directly); others He raised to degrees (of honour)” then he says in a different verse.."The prophets from their Lord. We do not make any distinction between them"

 

these two verses appear to contradict one another, but Allah is not the author of confusion and again, we can't really rely on the translation all the time for proper understanding because we know without a doubt that the quran was revealed in arabic and that we need to rely on the arabic speaking scholars of tafsir to understand the meanings of the quran so that we can understand them the same way the Sahaba understood them. Do you agree with me there? Can we at least agree there, Juan? That the proper understanding of the quran is the way the Companions of the prophet understood it?

If we can agree to that, then we can continue our discussion and I can explain to you what the proper understanding of this issue is, but if we can't even agree to that, then there's no reason to continue our discourse.

 

so what, those 2 verses don't contradict each other in arabic?

[Juan Fuentes]

no BFIM.

 

that's 2 different types of WE.

the majestic WE, means I, like when a king or queen speak.

 

and the WE of the people, when the narrator, God, starts the verse with "Say:", so after the "Say:" is people speech.

 

makes sense now?

[Dawood]

so what, those 2 verses don't contradict each other in arabic?

 

they don't contradict eachother at all. I was trying to explain it to Juan, but he always wants to explain it to me. Give me some time, I'll get to it.

[Juan Fuentes]

that's the explanation up there Dawood^^^

(for the third time posted)

[Dawood]

1st question:

a mejestic WE (without "say:" at the beginning)

 

and

 

a people/community/believer WE. (under the category of "SAY:", beginning of verse)

 

 

2nd question:

We have thus made it easy in your language, perhaps they may take heed.

48:54

 

Do they not reflect on the Quran? Or are there locks on their hearts?

47:24

 

And We have cited in this Quran every example for the people. But man was always most argumentative.

18:54

 

i let the quran speak because the answer i can give you might not sound as the commands and verses of the quran which i want you to look at it and maybe think the translations of quran although not 100% accurate they can be used when following islam.

 

i know you have a translation of quran in your house and i know it serves a purpose.

 

 

I'm not even talking about the Majestic "we". That's not even part of our discussion, Juan, You jump around the topic too much to even discuss something with you. Stay on topic.

 

And Juan, there is no 48:54 Surah, Al Fath ends at 29. What are you talking about?

You making up verses?

 

Verily, We have sent it down as an arabic Qur'ân in order that you may understand. (Yusuf 12:2)

 

An arabic Qur'ân, without any crookedness (therein) in order that they may avoid all evil which Allâh has ordered them to avoid, fear Him and keep their duty to Him. (Az-Zumar 39:28)

 

A Book whereof the Verses are explained in detail; A Qur'ân in arabic for people who know. (Fussilat 41:3)

 

We verily, have made it a Qur'ân in arabic, that you may be able to understand (its meanings and its admonitions). (Az-Zukhruf 43:3)

 

 

and yes, I have a quran translation, and It does have it's purpose because I'm not an Arab, so I need it to cross reference and read it to my children. Yes, there's a need for a translation, but still, the DEEN OF ALLAH is not in need of a translation to derive the proper context of it's meanings. The meanings of the quran were there during the time of the Prophet Muhammad in the arabic language and if you can't understand that....Man, what's up with you bringing fake verses?

So, if you want me to explain it to you, I will, but if you want to keep arguing with me, I'm done.

[Juan Fuentes]

44:58....mistake there, the verse exists. is not fake Dawood, you are quickly accusing, very quick.

you should apologize.

 

and i did stay on topic.

 

prophets favorites: solved

WE confusion: solved

understanding of quran: pending...

 

so you say you need something else to understand quran, when God says the quran is perfect, in an easy arabic, easy to read and learn, easy to remember, and detailed.

 

reflect on the quran.