General Issues / Questions

Salaam, Well, Christians believe in reincarnation because they believe Jesus will return. It is self-contradictory. There are also signs of the mechanism of reincarnation in current psychology research. Salaan

Changing indoctrinated sectarians who are very convinced about their conviction is immensely difficult. Oftentimes it is better to let them be. And it can be dangerous to challenge them if you are dependent upon them. Many of them think that deviation from their doctrine is someone who has listened to the "whispers of Shaytaan" and they may be very irrational, superstitious and even beginning with doctrinal measures to counter the deviant one. If you are in a zealous and dogmatic country which constitution is based on so-called Sharia you may need to lay low and not stick out too much. Wahabists seem to be one of the most superstitious of the common sects too due to heavy reliance on hearsay stories. They often give me chills. Salaam

Have you ever heard of rhetorical questions? Salaam

Jesus said there will come pretenders who are disguised ravenous wolves. Well, the wolves are the sectarian clergy basically. A real rasuul (traditionally messenger) will not speak so much about a religious doctrine but more of a spiritual ascension program. The purpose is to help spiritually and not to impose a lot of weird rules. And this person is that by being a mirror of GOD or role model basically. Edit And that includes the blackmailed man of Muhammad as according to hadith. That man can hardly have been a prophet and messenger. Too unrighteous. Salaam

Thank you, Neptin, everyone, for your replies. I will make a bit more of a contribution here when my schedule permits. Thank you, folks. peace

zina is A fahisha, but only one kind of fahisha. Fahisha is not zina, there are many kinds. So for zina is a punishement appointed if the conditions given are sthe conditions given are satisfied, but no punishment is appointed for fahisha. that is, zina is not a synonime for fahisha, not fahisha is a synonime for zina. For instance, rape is sexual but not everything sexual is rape. Salaam Rape is not only sexual but it include Fasad. Therefore rape punishment should be 242 plus 533

God does throw pearls. I have struggled many years with Arabic because of the added difficulty of people using dialects and getting some kind of schiphrenia with the whole thing, but right now I am very happy that I did all the effort. The amount of work I am doing in Qur'an es helping many people who do not have the tool fo the language and have to take as authentic the translations that are around. I thank God very much for that gift. Salaam

Bah. Make everything "haraam" instead and die. The flesh is evil so stop breathing because it contains oxygen, carbon dioxide and all other sorts of particles flying around and die from suffocation. The flesh is just concealed energy, live and get over it. Some foods are less suitable for consumption due to design preferences and pig meat is among that slow to digest and high similarity to human DNA so it is like cannibalism to eat it. And blood lacks nutrition. And remember you become what you eat. The pig consumes basically anything even humans. Murderers have even used pigs to dispose of corpses. Salaam

Peace please read http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607356.0 Jibreel was the rasul to be obeyed sent to Muhammad.

Salam, Even in traditional sources of Islamic history "which are the worst sources to search about the Islamic history", the islamic state "which was not an actual state with definite borders because there were the tribal rule system" Muhammad did not extend beyond The Arabian Peninsula. He sent messages to Kisra of Persia, but nothing more. If there was something like that, muslims would like to mention it proudly. The wars against Persia were years later after Muhammad's death, when Omer Ibn Al Khattab was the caliph, he sent Amr Ibn Al A'as to start the wars. There is a Hadith which claimed to predict the " Fateh Faris" or victory in Persia and adding it to the Islamic caliphate state, which is possibly was claimed to make these wars more acceptable and under religions cover. All the wars till the "Fateh" were at the period of Umar's state. Regards,

The (traditional) identification of l-Qarnyn with "Alexander III (of Macedon)" is problematic! A more credible fit/correspondence would be the founder of the Achaemenid Empire, Kru?/Cyrus II (of Persia). I have read that, there are no reason why to doubt Alexander, especially since his tale is the source for this narrative anyway, if we were going to ignore this, we must also ignore history and the pre-Islamic poetry defining him as Alexander. Why are people finding this problematic? 1 Story is the same. 2 Both had horns. Peace Islamo-Aleikum, thank you for taking time to reply to my post. You must remember that the audience who are questioning Muhammad have knowledge of the book and are testing him to see what he knows. They are not questioning Muhammad about Alexander the Great because he is nowhere to be found in the book. They ask you about Zul-Qarnain. Say, "I will narrate to you some of his history." We granted him authority on earth, and provided him with all kinds of means. 2 Chronicles 3623 ??The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up, and may the Lord their God be with them.?? Isaiah 4513 I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness, I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.? If the Qur'an, 1883, refers to a group of Jews asking Muhammad to relate them the story of Dhul-Qarnayn, it is assumed that everyone at the time is familiar with this person, but they are asking Muhammad for details of Dhul-Qarnayn's story. In order for the People of the Book to know the correct answer to that question, they must already know the details of this story. This story does not appear anywhere in the Bible; but it does occur, point by point in the Alexander romance. Therefore, they must be using the Alexander legend as their source for the correct answer. If they were assuming Cyrus the Great, Muhammad's relation of the story would have been troublesome, since this narrative is not attributed to Cyrus the Great, and we will also ignore the history of the pre-Islamic poetry referring to Dhul-Qarnayn. Also, we know the Jews of this time weren't orthodox, mostly because they believed in a Son of God named Uzair, believed in the Alexander romances and many other reasons. Also, about the rest, it is because you are assuming Quran cannot be referring to anyone else but Bible characters, which is my problem with your opinion. We have ample evidence that historians all agree that Lokman inspired the legendary Aesop. The first identification of the Sabians and Idris would be as far back as 100 AH with Hermes Trismegistus. Just sharing my 2 cents. Peace, blessings be upon thee.

Very interesting, thank you

Thank you

Thank you

Here's the latest work so far http//www.zgjidhja.com/?p=1191 Peace, R. Thank you!

Peace, Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, and that is why folks will struggle mightily to come up with another prophet since his death. If one chooses not to believe the Quran then produce another prophet after Muhammad. The Quran is the last and protected revelation from Allah, confirming and superseding all previous scriptures. Reason for the quran 16/63 By Allah, most certainly We sent (messengers) to nations before you, but the Shaitan made their deeds fair-seeming to them, so he is their guardian today, and they shall have a painful punishment. 16/64 And We have not revealed to you the Book except that you may make clear to them that about which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe. Ex. to the Jews Yes, Jesus is indeed the messiah, To the Christians No, Jesus is not Allah, to the christians will you reject Muhammad as the jews rejected Jesus? When this scripture came to them from GOD, and even though it agrees with, and confirms what they have, and even though they used to prophesy its advent when they talked with the disbelievers, when their own prophecy came to pass, they disbelieved therein. GOD's condemnation thus afflicts the disbelievers. Quran The Ultimate Reference Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them. You shall rule among them in accordance with GOD's revelations, and do not follow their wishes if they differ from the truth that came to you. For each of you, we have decreed laws and different rites. Had GOD willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He thus puts you to the test through the revelations He has given each of you. You shall compete in righteousness. To GOD is your final destiny?all of you? then He will inform you of everything you had disputed. God bless peace

We are with you bro. By now, you must be aware that you were arguing with a hadithist. rotfl No doubt about that... rotfl Thank you so much sister for your support and may ALLAH bless you. Salam

Well, Saddam was originally a puppet regime for the U.S. that rebelled. The Shah (king) of Iran was just a puppet for the U.S. until 1979 and its population rebelled. Iraq invaded Iran because of a plot by the U.S. since they lost their puppet from Iran. Oil is the reason. The U.S. gains nothing from an independent Middle-East, so if they cannot control then they try to ruin instead. When they attacked Iraq they saw that their puppet Saddam was not filling their agenda so they sought to make a liberation to replace it with another. What is better than making sure a Shia-dominated government takes control? The ulterior goal seems very hard to see, but there are economic powers which are not the U.S government but mega-corporations who have enormous power influence working in the shadows. The U.S government is in return a puppet of these corporations. So if the puppets around the world are for U.S, then the U.S government is a puppet for those who work in the shadows. They are everywhere, even in the Congress or Senate. They are totally everywhere wherever they can get their foot in. They control banks, they control resources, they control money. If you have that you can control everything with those resources, especially if you are organised (see documentaries about secrets meetings of world's most influential people where the mighty families like Rothschild are present). American media is controlled by those people. Salaam The shah was well and right deposed by the imperialists. The shah himself was rather malomaniac and egolatric and it was obvious that he had not character of "puppet" or servant and Iran was becoming too powerful and ambitious for the imperials. He had to go. And for that they were keeping in Paris a time bomb in the form of Khomeini. They planned to destroy Iran from the inside with a nuts religious regime and internal strife. But the ayatolas, whatever others faults they may have had, fools they were not and they rid the tide to this day. Also the war procured between Iran and Iraq did not destroy either of them. And there comes the difference between Saddam and the ayatolas. Saddam was had pushing him into attacking Kuwait. That was his most damning error. You cannot believe the imperials they are devils. As simle as that. No honour no word, everybody for them is shit. They are the real all time version of shaytan. They despise, hate people. People for them are worse than cattle. They are preys. And imperials are not a nation. They are a club which has sapped the life of nations. That is where we are now. Salaam

Salaam, By the way, I urge people to study Lane's Lexicon regarding (qaf-ta-lam). "Become acquainted with it" or "knew a thing throughly/well". That is exactly what I propose for a meaning, make acquainted with. If you manage with your qatal (argument to convince) then the person will know it thoroughly well AS A RESULT. You see, the word does not mean kill/fight as I have argued now for some months with heavier and heavier arguments. See if someone will eventually get an 'aha' sensation and realize the deception. Arabic words have only one derived meaning and not multiple different ones, i.e. only one meaning in Lane's is right. It is often the odd meanings which are the right ones since there is a lot of trash distorting the right. Moses did not kill a man, he tried to convince people about GOD and concerning his prophetic mission. Salaam

Never mind. Redundant post. Salaam What's your favorite Sura and why?