General Issues / Questions

Oh, last time I heard Quran was written by aliens. And the Alien landed in Yemen to deliver the book?

Oh okay the captives dig yet the us had a policy of bring bodies back but this I only know from that movie with Frank white or something denzel Washington played the character. Yet their are indian burial grounds and such places people build on without regard to the misfourtune going against the book can bring. Wouldn't cremation or Buzzards eating the flesh be a better option yet I can find bodies bring left in the open in the bible yet Quran not bible speak of burning remains. Closest thing is purifying with ashes in the bible. Does anyone know of the tibetian book of the dead it speaks of burning bodies but who was the budha or messenger who brought that message language makes the search complexed.

I have never had such discussion with him, but I would want to assume so. The guy on the thread however, seemed too knowledgable and invested in the Quran to not be a Muslim, however that is only my assumption. I took a look at the user's other discussions. Hard to tell what he is. It seems like he approaches religions quite openly. https//www.reddit.com/r/kabbalah/comments/3wthge/the_linage_of_kabbalah/ The person spends a lot of time on fantasy novels though. I wonder if this subreddit had anything to do with Invalid's "melt-down"? I think it came from the torture he had to go through in his personal life. Here and there, he mentioned of getting threats from sectarians. But most often he was not clear here about his belief. It is common for a tortured soul to have bitterness. Sometimes I lurk around in reddit relating to religion and cultural experience. I can tell you that in reddit, there are many anti-Islam users who believe that the conservative traditional interpretation is the legit one and the alternatives are 'heritical'. Their views put further notion that Islam is hateful, intolerant , sexist etc because of believing it as the solely 'authentic' which is no different from some Muslims following that interpretation. I would say that islam subreddit is even worse for not tolerating different debates and religious views. Internet is so weird whenever it comes to these stuff. I used to just lurk around the conspiracy subreddit. Just a few months ago, I started going to the Islamic one. Sometimes the exMuslim one shows up in search. You are right about the temperature of those two places. They are passionately in love with Tina (There Is No Alternative fallacy). But I am these days reading the pantheist subreddit. The people there sound far more intelligent and their view seems to lean towards Quran. They don't fully agree with one another, yet so harmonious. This one user named cheezymoogle <a href="https//www.reddit.com/r/pantheism/comments/1250mv/for_pantheists_who_call_the_universe_god_why_call/">here </a> seems to sum up things that have been in my head for a long time. I was just having trouble putting it into words brickwall 4/140 And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell. True. Freedom of speech which the two groups don't seem to believe in.

Salam, Isn't the easiest "teacher" the Qur'an itself? Yes, but I have noticed that some people who leave the sects to follow Quran alone do not read it. They wait for others to do it for them.

there's nothing wrong in visiting graves of family/friends. visiting my grandmother's grave, planting flowers, remembering her, the times we spent, telling her how much i miss her, etc well ok that is different from visiting a shrine like a ritual every year, praying and asking the dead person to protect or help you. is there any ayat that specifically states visiting shrines is wrong? jafar, that's a good one. i suppose i too can make claim that i am related to the prophet! Salam and Peace....! The main point is what is the logic in visiting a grave of reletives or some saint/sufee/awliya....? Does it benefit the dead relatives....?......No. Does it benefit the visitor in this world or the Hereafter.......?.......No. So....Allah will never Command us to do anything which is illogical or nonbeneficial.....it is nothing but a wastage of one's precious time.....which must be put in serving the mankind and not in visiting the graves....a useless act. Another point is......... If someone believes, the awliyah (real or so called) can hear us, benefit us in anyway..............such belief is Shirk and nothing but Shirk. There are several verses in Al Quran that tells us the dead ones (rasools and others) can not hear us. So...keeping a belief against Allah's Quran...........is a Shirk.

Bender, Do you not speak with confidence if you know about something? Hi, Yes I do. What I wrote is not at all impossible to know, it just takes some insight and investigation and often logical contemplation. Even the greatest animal expert has zero clue about how it is to be an animal. Maybe you have observed them, but what you do is apply your standards to them. According to a dog we are deaf, according to a falcon we are blind, etc etc What is a soul anyway? I believe no one, except Allah, know what a soul is.

You are an artistic fellow ;D

i will watch them brother. thanks for sharing it

Bernie's opinion on the Palestine-Israel conflict can be read here http//feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-israel-and-the-palestinians/

No. I am not naive and quite aware of what THEY do, but they are not really Jews either by definition. And anyone who acts like one can be a Jew too, it is all about filling an attribute. I can be a Jew or you can be one. OK. Well then you don't understand Talmudic Judaism. The problem of zionism is deeply rooted in Judiasm. They have been a problem before they came up with the term "zionism."

I always wonder what those who don't believe in a higher power feel about the capacity of the human mind. Do they believe that the human mind is infinitely capable of understanding, or do they they acknowledge that as complex and beautiful a carbon based neural network is, it is still fundamentally limited like everything else in the universe. Once we acknowledge this limitation, could this be the first step towards finding God?

Hell is not eternal, neither is Paradise, only God is eternal. And all that has come from God will return to God. The Qur'an plenty of times states that our destiny is God. There i no eternity for u either in heaven or hell we will end up in God. What is bet for us is to fall in love with God, so that if we suffer we suffer with satisfaction. Adn that we know the delight of total love. Predestination is a toy idea. We may think of that because we are bound by time. We are completely unable even to imagine timelessness. So whe we get into those discussions we are handling elements of which we have no knowledge and on which we have no power. There is the aya where we are told to construe de best meaning out of what we read in the Qur'an. What is the best meaning we can get of justice, of the jahannam, of paradise of etrnity. Look at the dogs, they may have no intellect but they have world of trust. You may go for a long time, they alway trust you will be back. they may be naughty but they never doubt you or stand up against you. They are happy even in very tough and trying circumstances if thyknow you acknowledge as belonging to you. They already have their share of paradise. Are they wrong? God can make universes not only cese to exist but to not have existed. What is this worry as beforehand and after. That is us not God. Whatever answer we come up with is th answer of the ignorant. We are talking of magnitudes that we cannot grasp not conceive. God is our master and whateve He does is what it should be. Salaam

Explaining Chapter 5 verse 33 of the Holy Quran The verse appears to call for extreme and cruel punishment for those who wage war against God and His messenger. The verse goes as follows, according to Yusuf Ali?s translation 5|33|The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; This verse should however be considered in the light of other verses in the Holy Book which attributes these forms of punishments to the greatest enemy of God, namely Pharaoh. Look at the next three verses, where these cruel punishments are threatened to God?s Prophet and the believers 7|124|"Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross." 20|71|(Pharaoh) said "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm-trees so shall ye know for certain, which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting punishment? 26|49|?Said (Pharaoh) ?Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? surely he is your leader, who has taught you sorcery! but soon shall ye know! Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross!? This creates a better context within which to reach a proper understanding of chapter 5 verse 33. A more correct translation would then be 5|33|If anyone deserved being massacred, crucified, having their hands and feet cut on opposite sides, or removed from the face of the earth, then it would be those who wage war against God and His messenger, frantically spreading corruption on earth. To them would such humiliation be fit, and for them would there be a severe punishment in the hereafter. Now let?s apply a modern day context to increase our understanding of this verse. Israel has declared that its enemies are fair game for assassination. The US has declared that its enemies are fair game for drone strikes. Both of these countries are also known to summarily incarcerate their enemies for lengthy periods. America and Israel have furthermore been exposed for subjecting their enemies to severe humiliation and torture. If that verse was to be applied to this modern context, and the language slightly adapted to our times, it would render a meaning such as the following If anyone deserved being blown up by missiles, tortured or locked up indefinitely, it would be those who wage war against God and His messenger whilst vigorously promoting corruption and evil on earth? As you can see, the Quran repeats the cruelty of Pharaoh?s unjust punishment on the righteous and projects it back on the perpetrator of such cruelty. It is useful to note that the Arabic of verse 33 is written in the passive mood. It nowhere calls for Believers to mete out such punishment, only that such punishment would have been fit for those who spread corruption and engage in aggressive war. It in fact implies that the same may happen to those who practice such cruelty, in which case they would have brought it upon themselves. Thanks for putting it up here. I came across the true meaning on another site just a few days ago. Nobody is ordered in the Qur'an to crucify or such a thing. Nah, it was what they did to Prophet Isa. Allah is giving an example here.

To me Aidad Safar seems to think that all Arabs are Muslims which makes it hard to take him seriously. In one of his article I read (only the first sentences) he was acting as if all Arabs are Muslims ignoring that not all Arabs are Muslims. Always when he writes Arabs, he writes 'The Arabs', it's really hilarious. At least he could write The Arab Muslims but it would still be equally as stupid. If anything, Arabs represent very little (less than 15%) of the todays Muslim population. Here is an example of his stupidity God has declared the Arabs to be the staunchest disbelievers and the staunchest hypocrites. This will be demonstrated beyond all doubt by this book. The Qur?an confirms The Arabs are staunchest in disbelief and hypocrisy, and most likely not to know the limits of what was revealed by God to His messenger, and God is Knower and Judge. (997) Thus, the probability of Arabs being the caretakers of God?s deen is close to zero. The current status quo, however, has the Arabs as the heroes and champions of ?religion? with non-Arabs putting their blind trust in the Arabs. Sure you can argue whether he is refering to the Arab Muslim conquerers that existed hundreds of years ago when he writes 'The Arabs'. However in the last sentence he confirms that he is generalizing all Arabs because he writes this Thus, the probability of Arabs being the caretakers of God?s deen is close to zero. The current status quo, however, has the Arabs as the heroes and champions of ?religion? with non-Arabs putting their blind trust in the Arabs. Anyway this made me laugh because his arguments are a complete joke. He also acts as if the entire Arab world is about Islam only, ignoring the secular mass movements that took place who never cared about Islam letalone religion. The founding fathers of the Arab countries were almost all secular (some were probaly not even Muslims) who relied on Arab nationalism instead of Islam. The point is that the Arab world isn't only about Islam, infact some Arab countries have been ruled by Arab Christians as well. Syria and Lebanon are two examples. If you want to talk about who corrupted Islam then last time I checked those who corrupted Islam with Hadiths for example were of Persian origin. And let's not forget Timur (a 'Muslim' warlord of Uzbekistani origin) who reduced several populations (he caused deaths of 17 million people and sometimes ordered to bring their skulls as 'trophies&#039. https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur I don't recall anyone writing a Uzbekistani conspiracy against Islam. It doesn't make sense when Aidad writes 'The Arabs', he has to be specific, is he refering to Arab Muslims, Arab Jews, Arab Christians, Arab atheists? Pick one. And even if he picked one his argument would still be stupid especially since it is full of generalizations. Maybe Aidad Sadar is one of those hilarious idiots who hate Arabs but lives in Dubai? I know that many on this Forum will agree with Sadar because these are the same losers who blame Arabs for their own failures. No seriously, someone even implied that Arabs were too inferior for democracy and secularism on this same Forum. As a person who's very interested in Arab history I know that not any of this is true, and I'm gonna say research before you spread misinformation.

if prophet lived his life in Europe then the dress of sunna will be the "three piece suit",,, if he lived in southeast asia,, our dress of sunna should be "shalwar qameez" he eats spicy food in southasia and pasta and fried chicken in Europe .. similarly he get birth in arab so he eat dates like other people and wear what other wears.. sometimes I look at the people with green head turban in very summer and they forcefully make it wear to kids as well I feel so strange .. they are acting in it like a school kid in uniform.. is it not unjustice how they are presenting the examples of prophet which he never never claimed and if child protest they suddenly raise their hand and ask him is it not shaitain who is telling you to remove this dress code miswak,, and so on,,, interestingly more than half of the bukhari sunna are proved wring infront of own scholars of this faith...

i have the tanzil quran, but due to some confusion over the license contradicting their own copyright statement im left kind of wondering what to do.. i emailed them and they havent replied.. i realy mean free and open source.. because i am wanting to work on a free and open source (truely FOSS unlike zekr which is all based on material with restrictive licenses) quran browser im quite sick of theese hypocrites saying 'free and open source' and 'dont profit of the prophet' yet its all based on licenses which effectively mean you cant develop it.. however i will probably just use the tanzil quran regardless, there license is Creative commons, which itself states that you cannot restrict the rights given by the license, which they are trying to do, as far as my understanding goes im legaly allowed to use and modify it..

https//youtu.be/P_xZq_ksnwY?list=FLSmp32Fxd4ecxS2oBcCwnrg

I do not know what you want to get at and it seems to me that you disregard some of the things I say and then come with the same thing again and again as if I had not said anything. As to the restriction to the prophet, it was a restriction that was not on the number because at that time he was also told to tell the wives he had to choose whether to stay with him under the conditions that are also meant in the Qur'an or to leave him with nice compensation. In the Qur'an we are not told how many left and how many stayed, which goes to show that the number is not the question, and you cannot say from there that he was allowed a greater or a leser number of wives than anybody else. Just that at that point he was told to let go of those who did not accept God's conditions and keep those who accepted them and not make any change in that after that. That, as it is obvious, does not say he was allowed a greater or a lesser number of wive tha anybody else. You say don't eat pork after that. Exactly the same as with any other dissposition that cmes in the Qur'an, after it comes, you have to follow it, before itis another question but you keep on and on that from the beginning there were different set of rules for the prophet and for other as regards poligamy and that in spite of rules for all people regardless, the prophet kept adding wives and wives thanks to a particular rule for him, which obviously you disapprove strongly. Fine, disapprove as much a you want, but please do bring proof that the prophet got indeed aproval for a greater number of wives than anybody else. Please quote those ayas, please do, and let us stop running around. As to pork, God makes exception indeed. 2.173 Sahih International He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced , neither desiring nor transgressing , there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. If we are told to marry the singles, we do have to marry the singles, except if we are unable to. Women should not marry married men, but if there are many single men or single women in proportions greater than the other sex, the single of them there would still have to be married, if they desire so unless you want to condemn on your own responsibility great chunks of people to a life without marriage and without children. We should not forget the aleyas about the heifer to be sacrificed. We are nit-picking, but that we nit-pick does not make us any more sincere or better willed or better hearted. We all know finally why we do things, whether out of good will and got intentions, or selfseeking and sef-righteous. No amount of turning the Qur'an provisions right and left and this way and that is going to make up for lack of real commitment to goodness and mercy, for ourselves and for our fellowbeings. If we lack that, we may be as monogamous as we care it will do us no good. Salaam

Pork as meat does also hold a bad quality and in addition to that our genes are fairly similar in the tissue so it is basically cannibalism to consume it too. If Quran uses haram as a word then it implies that it is not recommended to eat it. Wellness to you Amenuel

The Arabic root verb ka-fa-ra means to ?cover?. The essence of kufr in Qur?an becomes fairly clear if the below verses are analyzed. This are the first verses (in the current order of Qur?an) to use the root ka-fa-ra 26 Indeed those who repress - it is same for them whether you warn them or don?t warn them, they won?t put faith. 27 God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing and on their vision a veil ? and for them - a great suffering. (My personal translation, cross checking is recommended, highlight added.) It is evident that Kafir is someone who is repressing / covering his faith (Iman). What is Iman, faith? Iman/Faith is not merely ?believing?. Iman/Faith is accepting our relationship with another, which would lead us to act in conformity to that relationship. A faithful (mu?min) shopkeeper does not cheat his customer ? not because he believes his customer exists but because he accepts his relationship of trust with his customer and thereby is led to act in conformity to that relationship. Same can be said about a faithful husband, or a faithful servant. Similarly, a person faithful to Allah accepts his relationship of subordination to Allah and thereby is led to act in conformity to that relationship ? which is righteous behavior. The hallmark of iman, contrary to common perception, is not pronouncement of kalima / shahada, rather it is the righteous behavior. (That is why in Qur?an Amalu salehin is frequently associated with Iman). This urge to accept our relationship with the One who has caused us to be and upon acceptance of such relationship acting righteously to all that is created ? is an inherent aptitude of every conscious soul. Not everyone would articulate this urge using these same words ? but no matter from which background, school of thought or nationality one comes out this fundamental urge is there ? which some would define religiously while others secularly (as morality). A significant number of us, while acknowledging ourselves as ?faithful? / ?moral? - would find it convenient to repress / cover this urge. Such faith repression is the root of every immoral act that is performed willfully. Such faith repression is kufr. No wonder Qur?an says nothing positive about the kafirs. Going back to verses 26-7, the people who actively repress their faith, it does not matter what the messenger brings to them, they won?t put faith. However if we translate kufr as merely ?disbelieving? the verse loses its essence ? if people who disbelieve would never believe then there is no point of books and messengers. Also empirically it is frequently observed that atheists turn to believers. In the same vain, when Iblis started to disobey Allah, he did not suddenly start to disbelieve in Allah, he started to repress his faith that he has to accept his obligation to Allah and obey His order. And thus he was among the "kafireen". So, to summarize, Kafir are faith repressors. A close translation can be ?ungrateful? or ?unfaithful? ? but disbeliever is a big misnomer. This is my 2 cents to the discussion of meaning of the word ?kafir?. May Allah guide us to the straight way. Regards, Arman