Is modern technology mentioned in the quran...?
-
Mr cavemandoctor; look into your responses....have you answered my questions....?
Yeah, I did....a few pages back. Maybe you missed it.
-
Oh,and people respected one-way.... rotfl Was he regarded as a person of the book,or 'kafir/idolator by some on the forum...??? And why do i need respect from the members that 'cheerlead'.....? Where have i 'explicitly' called anyone an 'idolator' in recent posts...?
You see, unlike you, I don't regard labelling someone as "kafir" as the only form of disrespect. I don't care about labels. I am here to discuss the Qur'an and learn from others. In that vein, you are one of the most disrespectful posters on the forum. Why do I say that? You throw out hollow, superficial "arguments" and dare us to respond to you (at the beginning of each thread, you do this, of course, in a very high-horse condescending manner). When we respond, you fail to respond, or respond with (literally) 20 words that do not even address the bulk of the argument. You then go back up on your high horse and use smilies and couch your posts in "happy" language as if to imply that you're above all this "pettiness."
You accuse us of being subjective. You accuse us not being able to handle the truth. Look in the mirror pal.
-
Mr cavemandoctor; look into your responses....have you answered my questions....? If not,then dont say what you dont do yourself...(612) ... ) Take it easy all.
Mr enquirer, look into your responses. Have you answered his questions? No. Because, you said it yourself, a "20 word response is sufficient." Brother CavemanDoctor wrote out a two post response to each of your arguments. With all due respect, don't play this off as if he didn't answer. All of us here are still waiting for your response. Good luck.
Peace.
-
Peace all. And i suppose those who are currently 'flaming'/cheerleading,dont say the christians,sunnis,shiahs,jews,hindus,etc,etc... are 'idolators',and always fully respect the respective religions of others ...? (never mind that some call even other 'fellow' 'quran onlys',and 19ers idolators as well. )
peace all. ps; oh,and reading into someones posts that deeply has its drawbacks and limitations....Amateur psychoanalysis from some members...
Oh,and people respected one-way.... Was he regarded as a person of the book,or 'kafir/idolator by some on the forum... And why do i need respect from the members that 'cheerlead'.....? Where have i 'explicitly' called anyone an 'idolator' in recent posts...?
Mr cavemandoctor; look into your responses....have you answered my questions....? If not,then dont say what you dont do yourself...(612) ... Take it easy all.
This is all once again a smokescreen. People respect people who have the integrity and intellectual honesty to respond to their points on a debate/discussion forum, but that's not on the cards for this user. A surfeit of emoticons and a smokescreen of slogans abound with no substance. Sad. This behaviour has to be addressed. Please respond to the posts with substance and a categorical rebuttal. -
The ad homineum,and unanswered questions still continue...
Unanswered question? That's your forte, isn't it?
The 'cheerleading' of incomplete answers still continue...
Wakas has shown in a moderated debate who really doesn't answer questions.
In response to your clutching at 'straws' of 25 years,.....25 years studying islam (which includes a study of quran.) but more specific,detailed study of quran in later years,which does not equal 25 years,unless totalled including the 'early' years of learning ...If you cant understand this,then thats not my problem....
I understand the math, I just don't understand how decades of study produced your grasp of al-quraan. Did you remember to open your eyes during those many years?
Its funny all those who try to discredit,and attack,cannot refute,or explain away all the inconsistencies in the 'plethora' of interpretations,and all the discrepancies of their 'theories',with reality.......
They did. The problem is, they thought they were explaining to a sentient human being capable of replying or at least acknowledging the reply. They were wrong.
As for the 'timelessness',well i know many of you liked this theory of modern technology not being mentioned in the quran because of the quran supposedly,being timeless...Well if it WAS timeless,then why does it mention events and technology which are not timeless???... That flat out demolishes,the 'timeless' theory,which many of you 'cheerlead'...
Rubbish. Al-quraan contains statements which are used to explain its concepts to the purpose of being guidance to humanity. In your 25 years of study, you can't understand this? When Al-quraan explains the evolution of the foetus, it connects it with Allah being al-haqq (22/6-7)
And finally,i would just say,when any of the more objective of you,actually understand,agree upon,and can explain clearly what the quran says about certain topics ( topics such as salat,hajj,allah,zakat,shura,right hand women,kaaba,muhammed,democracy,who believes and who doesnt,science,amputations,sticks into snakes,sea splitting into mountains,black magic,whippings,etc,etc...) ,and if you can ever establish/explain how a succesful 'political' or practical 'quran only' system can run, (before the day of judgement please...) then please post these explanations on the forum for everybodies benefit.....
.....I will be waiting for your replies....No wonder you took 25 years. You trust people on the internet for your understanding of AL-QURAAN? Wow, amazing...
My 25 years,taught me to recognise the limitations and 'false rhethoric' of the scriptural interpretations,as explained by the cheerleaders,and followers of illusions...
And my 25 MINUTES talking to you helped me see that you are a FAKE, sir. A person who has done zero reading and presumes to try to fool others into thinking he's a sincere scholar.
Peace all. ps; oh,and if anyone can even ATTEMPT to answer why no record of an 'established' quran only political state in the past 1400 years,then please do so...if not for me,do it for other people who would like to know....
In your 25 years of 'eyes closed' reading, you obviously have not read
- ar-risaala in which shafiee mentions the quranites
- the works about the mutazilites who took a very quranic approach to the quran
- the modern reformists who have critically examined as-sunnah.
- the seerah itself which shows evidence of 'quran-only' (umar saying 'enough for us is the book of Allah'
You didn't know all this in 25 years? Wow. Maybe you're still reading your alif ba ta? Let us know when you get to 'ya', will you?
We are all free to believe in what we deem correct....but the proof of the pudding is in the eating...
Indeed, and you've been feeding us hot air sandwiches. Put some meat into it or stop wasting time.
Take it easy people...take my post as 'constructive' criticism... sun group
I take your post for what it is..rubbish.
-
NadyaThis is all once again a smokescreen. People respect people who have the integrity and intellectual honesty to respond to their points on a debate/discussion forum, but that's not on the cards for this user. A surfeit of emoticons and a smokescreen of slogans abound with no substance. Sad. This behaviour has to be addressed. Please respond to the posts with substance and a categorical rebuttal.
Addressed indeed. This person has come and insulted our deen and then refused to address our responses. This is fasad or mischief and I ask yourself and the mods to consider this. You all banned Albion, why not this guy?
-
I'm actually disappointed in myself. I predicted this would happen (quote below) but still went along with enquirer's charade. I've learned my lesson.
Peace.
I'm in a dilemma here. On the one hand, I can very easily respond to your post. On the other hand, you'll either a) brush it off and go off on some random tangents or b) ignore it. I don't see what the point is. You may take that as an ad hominem attack; I call it "experience with enquirer." I'll respond, knowing full well it's probably pointless to do so.
-
Well Caveman, at least a sincere reader will now see that those who attack al-quraan will eventually find themselves without argument. Sad that the opposition had to be a guy like Enquirer though. There are people out there who outclass him easily. Some actually can address your arguments.
-
NadyaThis is all once again a smokescreen. People respect people who have the integrity and intellectual honesty to respond to their points on a debate/discussion forum, but that's not on the cards for this user. A surfeit of emoticons and a smokescreen of slogans abound with no substance. Sad. This behaviour has to be addressed. Please respond to the posts with substance and a categorical rebuttal.
Addressed indeed. This person has come and insulted our deen and then refused to address our responses. This is fasad or mischief and I ask yourself and the mods to consider this. You all banned Albion, why not this guy?
Ban will be useless. He will come back with new user id.
-
What is MO?
Modus Operandi, meaning he'll come back with the same tired arguments, same tone, same hit-n-run tactics, etc.
-
Realized that MO is Modus Operandi after hitting the post button. Thank you CavemanDoctor.
MQuran if you just pay little more attention what he posting and just refer to topics which I had suggested than you will know who he is actually. There is one more thing that you have to watch out new members and their modus operandi because I am expecting one more to come.
-
Eh? What's this? Who are you referring to KGB?
-
Heh, okay point taken
-
If the quran is a book containing 'irrefutable' science,and is guidance for all times/today,then where are the verses on tv,test tube babies,internet,nuclear power,cloning,automobiles,genetically modified food,transistor radios,ipods,mobile phones,vcrs,electricity,carbon dating,etc,etc...?
Your argument is not making sense...if it is a book containing 'irrefutable' science and guidance for all times why isn't a test tube baby in there? ??? The quran is a book containing facts. Whether it is about biology, geology, astronomy or psychology. It is also dynamic, in which there are layers that can be understood depending on the times that one is living in. What's the problem then? Just because the internet is not in the quran it means that the facts it does contain are somehow incorrect? If they are not incorrect then they are somehow outdated? That is why the only recourse is to prove that the facts in the quran are incorrect/outdated/irrelevant/illogical, not that it doesn't have ipods so it's hooey.As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.Actually, i have to correct you.
No offence but Internet is in fact mentioned in the Qur'an.When Sulayman sent that bird to the queen in Saba and then afterwards he asked who among the present will birng him her throne, one of the jinns, i think (correct me if i wrong about anything) said he will bring it to him before he gets up.
The other said that he'll bring it before he blinks. This is now important. See, in the blink of an eye. Get it? Today, we can "click" and get info from all over the world in the blink of an eye!
I hope this helps.
As salamu alakyum. -
Peace,
The bird didn't bring any message to and from Sheba. The Hoepoe cannot fly long distances. Hudhud is arabic for Hadud, which was the ambassador of Solomon.
Only the jinn, which refer to a leader in this verse, not an invisible creature, indeed used an expression that is the same as in a blink of an eye. That people take it serious that the jinn really could be that fast is sad to see.
In the arabic it says that the person who knows the book/writting, which refers to the letters, brought her throne to Solomon. In the ancient times, a throne was a normal gift between kings and royals.
-
The other said that he'll bring it before he blinks. This is now important. See, in the blink of an eye. Get it? Today, we can "click" and get info from all over the world in the blink of an eye!
Ah I see! So the jinn had the internet operational at the time?
Peace.