Invitation to join the debate at faihfreedom.org
-
Peace Edip, all
Edip Yuksel wrote
Your obsession with hell and animosity against the mathematical sign of the Quran is revealing. You tend to see all hell and smoke in chapter 74 and claim that God's only answer to one's argument against the divine authorship of the Quran to be burning that person in hell forever....
I think that promising of the saqar wasnt the answer to the argument against the divine autorship, but a threat and a warning -a promise of a hell
s torturing which awaits those who consider the gods messages as man-made...and the readers of that story are to ponder and to be motivated by the punishement promised to the rejecters and disobedient...Hell topic is scatered throughout the book and is of most reccuring topics--a cornerstone of the God`s teaching...its a FINAL destiny of a good portion of humanity...and its of the main motivational tools which The God uses to motivate people to be obedient...
By quoting that verse as reaction to my article, you show that either you did not read my article carefully or you did not understand it.
Can you summarise your article? Do you claim the hell IS forever ?
Or you are pointing to your different translation of kh-l-d?
If this is the case then yes i agree such a translation is maybe justified at some places, but surely not at all of them....
Whatever, the perpetuality of the hell is not based solely on this word and the hell, being it place where the wrongdoers will dwell, or a state which they will experience, IS CLEARLY FOREVER, as it concerns the book of the god...
The book of the others may claim otherwise.
Peace
-
I quickly read the Ali Sina website... I wasn't impressed at all.
What did I see?1 - Name calling, a tendency to use the word 'idiot' a lot.
2 - The "it 's a well known fact", "it s self evident"-like expressions said a lot
3 - The quoting of part of the Qu'ran and interpretations without a context
4 - In his challenge he just says, to sum up, "You won't be able to prove me worng anyway, and I have read everything and know everything about Islam anyway"No comment.....
-
Peace be upon you,
Yes, and that is how much of the world thinks. What a challenge right?
We must look at that the same way one in the Gym looks at the weight bar. We do not feel disgust at the weight bar because we know that by that RESISTANCE, we will get stronger, no other way.
-
Your obsession with hell and animosity against the mathematical sign of the Quran is revealing. You tend to see all hell and smoke in chapter 74
What is truly revealing here is that there IS mention of the fire in chapter 74 while there is NO mention of the mathematical sign of the Quran niether in chapter 74 nor in the whole book of The God...
Its but a name that you have invented and for which The God hasnt sent the approval...
The mathematical sign of Quran are Rashad
s words and not the Gods words..... just like Hadith and Sunna is a man-made name coming from the mouth of those who, having wavering and perversity in their hearts have attached their subjective phantasies to the ambiguous sayings of the book of The God, claiming to intepret it...Those propagating code 19 doctrine are propagators of the mesage of Rashad Khalifa and not of the message of The God -the great reading- which has nothing to do with this outrageous interpretation of it...
Praise and glory be to Him! It is He who is in possesion of the interpretation of the book and not Rashad-the god of those who insist and persist on his message.
best wishes,
Zlatan
-
Salaamun alaikum Edip, all,
EdipYour obsession with hell and animosity against the mathematical sign of the Quran is revealing. You tend to see all hell and smoke in chapter 74 and claim that God's only answer to one's argument against the divine authorship of the Quran to be burning that person in hell forever....
I'm not sure if Zlatan said or implied that. However, I would like to point out that Al-Quraan has a very clear verse to testify as to its authorship
Soon will We show them our Signs in the horizons and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that THIS IS AL-HAQQ. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things? (41/53)
The signs of Allah all around us and in us as well will testify to the all-encompassing nature of Al-Quraan.
Having said all that, I know you're very busy and don't wish to argue with you. I wish you and Layth all the best in your projects.
p.s I don't think u should call it 'islamic reform' but rather 'reform of the muslims'.
thanks and peace.
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
Who are the people in 911? Please read from 91-10 to see who "they" are. They are people who were debauchers/"fasiqoon", exchanged The God's sign for a small price, repelled from the path of The God, and who attacked those who had faith. But even those people, are our BROTHERS and SISTERS in the obligation of "islam"/submission/compliance to The God if they meet the conditions in 911
No, not fasiqeen but al-musyrikeen. See 9/1 please. Your point still stands however.
-
peace to all,
today I was just visiting the faithfreedom site to check upon the debate. I think it wasnt a smart thing to do to paste all those history about the prophet which also comes from hadith and many other books. As Edip is going against history or hadith for Quranic understanding than it was not necessary at all to quote all those. Now ali Sina has a valid argument to bring on the other part of hadith which talks negative abt the prophet. Now it seems that edip and Sina are both using hadith, but differently as which supports their arguement.
In my opinion...If Quran is a book of guidance than there is no need for any history to understand. There might be history mentioned in the Quran it self but the whole purpose of those are to learn some lessons not just to know what happened. Thats why I think Quran should be understood by observing life, science, surrounding, common sense and creative thinking. There is no need to find who this muhammad guy was or if he ever existed. There is no need to even talk abt him. All we need to focus is what message quran is trying to give us.
so in my opinion, best to think of the word "muhammad" is as an attribute of a personality. It can minimize all these ho-ha about a person who dwelled in the desert.
I hope this makes some sense.
Peace
-
Peace be upon you SA,
In my opinion...If Quran is a book of guidance than there is no need for any history to understand. There might be history mentioned in the Quran it self but the whole purpose of those are to learn some lessons not just to know what happened. Thats why I think Quran should be understood by observing life, science, surrounding, common sense and creative thinking. There is no need to find who this muhammad guy was or if he ever existed. There is no need to even talk abt him. All we need to focus is what message quran is trying to give us.
so in my opinion, best to think of the word "muhammad" is as an attribute of a personality. It can minimize all these ho-ha about a person who dwelled in the desert.
I hope this makes some sense.
You know it makes sense to me. I havent had time to go back to that forum just yet, but I had no trouble there. I was not debating Ali Sina however, but I disarmed whoever responded to me very easily. You will see that some even did not want to discuss it with me on the premisse that I was on thier side being against the suicide bombers. Yes , thats true, a person who can truly be described as a "muslim" IS against suicide bombings, but I did not let them off the hook, I continued to explain that they must stop THIER HATE as well. Thier hate is based on misconceptions, and they had no argument because I don't follow the notion of a historical "muhammad". YOu will see that they had no foundation to stand on againt me.
-
I also think that if we want to get rid of idolizing a human character named Ahmed or whom we say "muhammad" than first we need to consider "muhammad" to be an attribute/personality/characteristic rather than a historical person.
I think I repeated myself P
peace
-
Hi,
Here in France, history books talk about an historic character named Mohammed (Mahomet in french).
I am not sure we should deny the existence of the character (just like there are studies about the historical Jesus), but just point out the fact that the message is what we follow. The conjectures about the messenger are irrelevant IMO. -
today I was just visiting the faithfreedom site to check upon the debate. I think it wasnt a smart thing to do to paste all those history about the prophet which also comes from hadith and many other books. As Edip is going against history or hadith for Quranic understanding than it was not necessary at all to quote all those. Now ali Sina has a valid argument to bring on the other part of hadith which talks negative abt the prophet. Now it seems that edip and Sina are both using hadith, but differently as which supports their arguement.
Dear brother Shamsul Arifin
No, Ali Sina has no valid argument. You inshallah will see my rebuttal to his latest answers in a couple of days. I know that it seems that my case is hopeless regarding that article about Muhammad's mission.
But, it was a trap for Ali Sina and he fell over it. This is an intellectual war, and there are ways to expose the dishonest enemy. Wait and see)
As for argument regarding Ahmad and Muhammad, I consider it a very far-fetched and even silly conspiracy theory.
The verse "ismuhu ahmad" means his name or his description is more praised. Ahmad in that verse is not a proper name but an adjective, in Arabic called, ismu-l tafdil. Ism in Arabic does not necessarily means NOUN; in fact, it means "description" and all Jewish and Arabic proper names had meaning and were descriptive.
If the promised messengers proper name was AHMAD as you claim, than this name should have been commonly used by early Christians who received this prophecy from Jesus. Do you think they were just disappeared?
There are many other historical, logical, and Quranic problems with this cospiracy theory regarding the name. It just astonishes me how enlightened brothers like you fall into the vertigo of such wierd universe ?
Peace,
Edip -
Salaam,
I visited the Ali Sina website to read about the "debate - round ( shock ???) VI).
Here is what I read
You may say but Muslims are humans too. Is having the human appearance enough to make us humans? The sign of humanity is in our humanness. No person who believes in those inhumane teachings of the Quran that calls for killing and murder of innocent people deserves to be called human. Therefore, this is a war between humanity and a spiritually underdeveloped subhuman species. The actions of Muslims are barbaric. Their thoughts are beastly. They have no human conscience and they are preying on us humans. So this is a war between humans and Muslims.
So Muslims are not human? shock
That reminds me a startegy used by the Bush government + Fox News to justify the war against Irak You show your "ennemies" in an angle that makes them look like monsters, without caring about the diversity among them - The result is that, in the view of the public, they are "de-humanized", they become bloodthursty monsters, so killing them is not like killing "real humans"... -
Salaam,
People who kill others usually use this tactic to convince themselves that they are not killing a fellow human, but a sub human. However I do understand Ali Sina's idea that these people are not human because they do not embody humane ethics. Yet, regardless, they are still human and should not be looked at as sub-human. These are just humans who are opposite to other humans and the other humans and the other humans. lol
Joe
-
Peace be upon you Edip,
No, Ali Sina has no valid argument. You inshallah will see my rebuttal to his latest answers in a couple of days. I know that it seems that my case is hopeless regarding that article about Muhammad's mission.
But, it was a trap for Ali Sina and he fell over it. This is an intellectual war, and there are ways to expose the dishonest enemy. Wait and see
That excites me!
As for argument regarding Ahmad and Muhammad, I consider it a very far-fetched and even silly conspiracy theory.
WHat is silly about it?
The verse "ismuhu ahmad" means his name or his description is more praised. Ahmad in that verse is not a proper name but an adjective, in Arabic called, ismu-l tafdil. Ism in Arabic does not necessarily means NOUN; in fact, it means "description" and all Jewish and Arabic proper names had meaning and were descriptive.
Yes, and that is the basis for the argument. It is descriptive of "Hamd" meaning his description will be more appreciated(ahmad). So when we add "MU" to this concept, it means one who is appreciative.
We cannot verify ANY of the messengers, all we can do is follow the lesson. The only weapon for the rejectors are the made up stories of a historical figure. No one can prove these historical figures, not prove they did not exsist, so we have to rely on the guidance of the God when He says DO NOT PURSUE that which you have no knowledge of. So our only option is to understand "muhammadun" as a characteristic. And it fits the overall context of the reading(quran).
If the promised messengers proper name was AHMAD as you claim, than this name should have been commonly used by early Christians who received this prophecy from Jesus. Do you think they were just disappeared?
Brother Edip, no one has claimed that this messengers name was "Ahmad". What is being show here is that "hamd, ahmad, and muhammad" are all related and you should not take one as a proper name and the other as a description. We should BE muhammad, not look for a historical muhammad.
There are many other historical, logical, and Quranic problems with this cospiracy theory regarding the name. It just astonishes me how enlightened brothers like you fall into the vertigo of such wierd universe
YOU WERE NOT PRESENT. YOU WERE NOT A WITNESS. Please bring your evidence of a real person named Muhammad that wrote this book. This is not a book about history, it is about guidance in the eternal present.
-
Salaamun alaikum,
Kyle YOU WERE NOT PRESENT. YOU WERE NOT A WITNESS. Please bring your evidence of a real person named Muhammad that wrote this book. This is not a book about history, it is about guidance in the eternal present.
Al-Quraan 21/10 We have revealed for you (O men!) a book in which is YOUR OWN MENTIONING will ye not then THINK?
Al-Quraan seems to agree , Kylester D
-
Today I posted a lengthy answer to Ali Sina, and accepted the offer to tone down the language of our debate. But, I read the posting above, which quoted the following paragraph, I wrote the following and posted at faithfreedom.org/forum
You may say but Muslims are humans too. Is having the human appearance enough to make us humans? The sign of humanity is in our humanness. No person who believes in those inhumane teachings of the Quran that calls for killing and murder of innocent people deserves to be called human. Therefore, this is a war between humanity and a spiritually underdeveloped subhuman species. The actions of Muslims are barbaric. Their thoughts are beastly. They have no human conscience and they are preying on us humans. So this is a war between humans and Muslims.
Ali
Someone posted the above excerpt in another site claiming that Ali Sina wrote it. I know that your mouth is filled with foam and venom against Muslims, but I do not expect you to be using the exact language of Fascists and Nazis. In case you have not written the above-qouted idiotic statements, which I hope that you have not, then ignore these words and let the real source get my message.
To the coward vampire, who is instigating wars and genocides
You are the real subhuman, you are a vampire who is thirsty to suck the blood of more than a billion humans on this planet. If this is an irrational reaction to a terrorist event that killed several thousand people, then you should demonstrate many times more hatred and irrational reaction to the terrorism, atrocities, murders, and massacres committed by USA-INC, UK, USSR, and Israel; in the last century alone, in which they killed MILLIONS of PEOPLE and destroyed countries and annihilated entire cities! By calling destruction of entire cities, together with families and children, with the word WAR does not make a bit difference.
Though I condemn a warmongering group of hypocrite Christians by calling their name Evilgelical, I never justify killing Evilgelical Christians, let alone all Christians, or killing Zionist Jews, let alone all Jews. You are a monster using the mask of humanism. You cannot be a human; you are a hatemonger and blood-thirsty creature.
I do not condone killing animals like you; but I might approve of putting a leash around your dirty neck.
Peace is our weapon against fascist warmongers.
Yes, PEACE
Edip -
Edip,
The paragraph is in ROUND VI
http//www.faithfreedom.org/debates/EdipYukselp19.htm
Edip is absolutely right. I am not only willing but striving to bring all the people of the world together and make them see that humanity is under attack by an alien enemy who does not see us as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, or Animists but merely as kafirs and as such deserving to die. Their enmity is with Mankind.
You may say but Muslims are humans too. Is having the human appearance enough to make us humans? The sign of humanity is in our humanness. No person who believes in those inhumane teachings of the Quran that calls for killing and murder of innocent people deserves to be called human. Therefore, this is a war between humanity and a spiritually underdeveloped subhuman species. The actions of Muslims are barbaric. Their thoughts are beastly. They have no human conscience and they are preying on us humans. So this is a war between humans and Muslims.
Now he has edited portions of that round so please post these as soon as possible on your thread - to make his weasel tactics ineffective. I believe he may remove that section as it has just incriminated him.
Peace.