Any examples of 'quran only' states from history.....?
-
OpenMindWell, that's not what I asked. I asked if you believe it to be all from God? Or none of it? Or some of it? If some of it; out of curiosity, how do you figure? Do you pick and choose which parts you like? Or.. do you actually have evidence?
Its based on the BETS principle.
-
Peace mquran. oh,so you believe in history now that you think it works in your favour to discredit modern 'secularism'....How very appropriate... bravo
Your emotions/ideological attatchments are heavily overshadowing your intellect/concept of reality pal...And you trying to discredit a system doesnt mean anything...You think you and your quranic system will stop secularism....Good luck with that... I think i just saw a flying pig... rotflPeace Openmind;I try to ascertain which parts are true by verification (doesnt 1736 say the same thing as that?)....As for god,well you define god,and i will tell you if the quran comes from your definition of who/what god is...
Peace Sc;How ironic,you are asking me to start a thread...? Im flattered....I will start it tommorow....
-
Peace Sc;How ironic,you are asking me to start a thread...? Im flattered....I will start it tommorow.... )
Just wondering though, are you going to duck and run again when you can't respond to someone's counterargument?
I'm still waiting on your response to my argument in the "modern technology" thread.
Peace.
-
OpenMindWell, that's not what I asked. I asked if you believe it to be all from God? Or none of it? Or some of it? If some of it; out of curiosity, how do you figure? Do you pick and choose which parts you like? Or.. do you actually have evidence?
Its based on the BETS principle.
Mhm. BETS is the key... After all "his guide is his conscience." How can he be wrong? His guide is whatever he likes.
Peace.
-
Sc;How ironic,you are asking me to start a thread...? Im flattered....I will start it tommorow....
I have asked you to do a lot of things but the real irony is, you pick and choose. If that's flattery, so be it. Good luck and remember to respond with evidence and detail or please don't start any threads, infact reply to the ones you ducked. Thanks. -
Peace Openmind;I try to ascertain which parts are true by verification (doesnt 1736 say the same thing as that?)....As for god,well you define god,and i will tell you if the quran comes from your definition of who/what god is...
It's okay if you can't give me a straight answer.
I'd love to hear your form of "ascertaining which parts are true by verification." Please, tell me how you do this.
And again, it's ok if you can't give me a straight answer due to your pseudo-philosophy that benefits no one.
Peace.
-
Peace cheerleaders. Are you three one poster,mquran too?... rotfl
'Repeat a half-truth enough times and you will convince yourself of its divinity'...
Are you guys trying to convince me,the forum,or yourselves... bravo yay
Take it easy on your emotions guys and gals...
And where is your quran only state?..... confusedPs;brother SIMPLE,excellent post about the realities of governing a modern society....Seems others including mquran,are living unaware of the practicalities of running a state using just quranic slogans and theoretical ideologies... Thank god for enlightened democracy and secularism... yay yay group
-
It's fine man, I'm not getting emotional. You make claims, bring no evidence, your claim gets refuted, then you get emotional.
It's rather funny, you still haven't responded to the modern science thread. Heh. Good stuff. Oh well, what's the point when...
Please guys,dont criticise me for not answering questions or diverting the topic,or not giving evidence...
Double standards?
So, so sad.
-
Peace cheerleaders. Are you three one poster,mquran too?... rotfl
'Repeat a half-truth enough times and you will convince yourself of its divinity'...
Are you guys trying to convince me,the forum,or yourselves... bravo yay
Take it easy on your emotions guys and gals...
And where is your quran only state?..... confusedPs;brother SIMPLE,excellent post about the realities of governing a modern society....Seems others including mquran,are living unaware of the practicalities of running a state using just quranic slogans and theoretical ideologies... Thank god for enlightened democracy and secularism... yay yay group
And you talk about respect and civility? No need for such condescending language. We're not emotional; we simply would like for there to be a level playing field.
You accuse us of being subjective. You accuse us of not asking "tough questions." You accuse us of not "verifying" things. But the fact of the matter is, you're the one who ducks, who hides, who runs when threads blow up in your face, etc.
You always start out your threads with such condescending language as if to imply that you're above all this, that you're somehow more "enlightened" than the rest of us. How about get off your high horse, come down to our level where us normal peons roam, and respond to some of our arguments. If we're so subjective, so deluded, and so wrong, surely you can easily respond to our arguments.
So again, I ask you. Will you please respond to my counterargument in your "modern technology" thread? I spent time writing it out and I would like to think you have the respect and common decency to properly reply to it, since it was you who ironically started the thread and invited answers to your claims.
Peace.
-
God Bless mquran,
for your belief is honest but somewhat misplaced - i think.
To me, the only laws from Allah are in al-quraan. In al-quraan, there's an explicit command to fight against zulm or oppression. So by al-quraan, fighting against suffering is a good thing.
Sorry br. to me honestly all laws are from Allah as long as they have been through a salaat process,i.e counsel of a lot of people having been taken into account.
? Therefore, congratulate My servants who listen to all views, then follow the best. These are the ones guided by God; these are the intelligent ones.
Ah I see. So that's why we have people who pay taxes because they HAVE to rather than from the desire that their money will help the less fortunate. Instead of having a society filled with imaan, we have a society like an animal, forced to follow the whip. I'd rather have a believing society any day.
If people are like animals they should be made to carry their own loads instead you or me having to carry it .
They should be made to pay their share of their bills e.t.c whether its by force or otherwise.
I think that?s all for this debate from me.
God Bless you.
-
Peace all. Look guys you don't seem to like me using a personal/direct approach with you, so just reflect on your many misplaced/misleading posts/accusations to me... I'm tough enough to take your ad homineum...I don't think you guys are.
'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.
Peace, and I hope we can conduct a good civil debate tomorrow. group bravo yay sun
ps; I've answered your technology questions, if you want more clarification then ask. Possibly my answers are not enough to convince you... that's fine we can agree to disagree... group -
Peace all. Look guys you don't seem to like me using a personal/direct approach with you, so just reflect on your many misplaced/misleading posts/accusations to me... I'm tough enough to take your ad homineum...I don't think you guys are.
'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.
Peace, and I hope we can conduct a good civil debate tomorrow. group bravo yay sunPot, meet kettle.
Tough enough to take ad hominem? You're the one who constantly brings up respect/civility/politeness, whenever someone is direct with you and doesn't emulate your the-more-emoticons-the-better approach. Like I said in the modern technology thread, you have to grow a thicker skin.
Personally, I like direct approaches. I like going through discussions point-by-point. That is how real discussions should be carried out. Unfortunately, you don't work that way. Far from being "direct," you never really respond to arguments that dont confirm your beliefs. You're quite literally the most indirect poster I've seen on a message board. Whenever someone responds to your claims, and you're left without an argument, you simply run away under the guise of "taking the higher road."
ps; I've answered your technology questions, if you want more clarification then ask. Possibly my answers are not enough to convince you... that's fine we can agree to disagree... group
I'd love to agree to disagree. Problem is, I have nothing to disagree with since you never responded to my two post-thesis. Respond, point-by-point, to my counterargument and then we can come to a more resolved conclusion.
Peace.
-
EnquirerPeace mquran. oh,so you believe in history now that you think it works in your favour to discredit modern 'secularism'....How very appropriate...
I quoted history because YOU believe in it. The reason why you're miffed is that you can't have your cake and eat it as well. You believe that in such a superficial version of history that it will bite you from time to time but that's your bed, so you lie in it.
Your emotions/ideological attatchments are heavily overshadowing your intellect/concept of reality pal...And you trying to discredit a system doesnt mean anything...You think you and your quranic system will stop secularism....Good luck with that... I think i just saw a flying pig...
Now you're sounding like Lex Luthor. Grow up please and listen to the group of adults who are trying to tell you You are not conducting a discussion or a debate. Rather you're conducting a whiny, petulant rant claiming 'islam needs reformation !!!' and you gape in surprise when you find out al-quraan gives rights regardless of faith. My god man, you should be ashamed of yourself for such poor quality of research.
Secularism simply substitues the God of the Christians with a new god the anything goes god.
-
NadyaI have asked you to do a lot of things but the real irony is, you pick and choose. If that's flattery, so be it. Good luck and remember to respond with evidence and detail or please don't start any threads, infact reply to the ones you ducked.
Nadya, this person has already alleged that al-quraan's followers justify harm to society even though he didn't know that al-quraan asserts equal rights for everyone. Is it possible that the moderators look into this? I'd be quite happy to debate him on the contents of al-quraan if he stands by his assertion.
Here's what he said plus my comments
Quote
EnquirerPeace soul2squeeze. I think the distinction between change or restore may not be necessary...I think it is clear that reform is needed....Its not just the followers of hadith that justify harm to society...
This is a subtle insult to al-quraan and its followers. Critising what al-quraan has to say is one thing but what do you call implying that al-quraan advocates terrorism through the voice of those who uphold it solely? This individual, now universally acknowledged to have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to discussion, shouldn't be allowed to get away with this.
Here's the thread
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5755.msg90150#msg90150 -
Hold on, enquirer, let's go through your "debate" with CavemanDoctor.
This is brother CavemanDoctor's response to your claims.
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.
Anyway, onto your points
If people think electricity,internet,new farming techniques and vaccinations that save thousands of lives are 'trivial' or 'hooey',then thats up to their consciences...
Talk about a red herring. Where did Nadia say anything about those inventions being hooey? Please provide a direct quote.
And doesnt the quran say it is a complete book,and that nothing is ommited from it...? (6116 and others.)
First, it's 6114-115. Second, from the verses themselves, it is painfully clear that the Kitab is "complete" and "fully detailed" in matters that are important for our spiritual growth/salvation. This is why the verses refer to God's word being complete "in truth and justice." This is why the verses say the Kitab is complete so that we need no one but God as judge/lawgiver. Read the verses. Let me rephrase read the verses without an agenda and take them for what they are worth. Far from us having to "bring out a NEW or DIFFERENT interpretation," this is just plain common sense and reading text within a context.
In all honesty, you're telling me you read those verses and said to yourself, "It says the Kitab is detailed and complete, WHY DOESN'T IT MENTION 27 INCH TELEVISIONS THEN?" I mean, really? Please answer honestly. Don't skirt around this issue. I expect a direct response to my question. When you read those verses, did you really ask yourself why the Qur'an doesn't mention inventions from the 20th century? Is that how you "interpreted" the verses about the Kitab being complete?
Semi-rhetorical questions aside, it is abundantly clear that these verses refer to the Kitab being complete in its purpose. The Qur'an posits itself as a reminder and a guide to mankind for the fundamental growth of the society as well as the individual, both spatio-temporally and spiritually. In that purpose, it is complete. In that purpose, God's words are complete with "truth and justice." In that purpose, it fully explains itself.
It never claimed to have everything about everything ever written in the history of everything. It simply boggles my mind that you even think it could mean that.
Just to beat a dead horse here, I'm going to give an example to reinforce my point
Let's say you buy one of the aforementioned 27 inch televisions (Smiley), and it comes with an Operating Instructions Manual. The first page of the manual says "Herein lie the fully-detailed instructions on how to operate the television set you have just purchased." You read the book patiently and finally get to the end of the book. Would you then throw your hands up in the air, and proclaim, "THE BOOK SAID IT'S FULLY-DETAILED. WHY THEN DOESN'T IT MENTION HUMAN CLONING? NUCLEAR PHYSICS? TOYOTA CAMRIES? WHY GOD WHY?"
Is the above question a reasonable one? Is the above question the result of a sane, logical mind? Or is the above question the result of a mind that is trying its absolute hardest to find fault where there is none?
And please don't say the two examples are divergent. Just as the Qur'an claims itself to be a reminder and guide to mankind on how to lead one's life (and in that respect, claims itself to be complete), the Operating Instructions Manual for the TV too claims itself to be a guide on how to use the TV (and in that respect, claims itself to be complete).
Is the book incomplete,did god forget,or is there some other explanation...?
God did not forget. And the book is not incomplete. If the book claimed to be an encylopedia of every scientific and technological breakthrough from the beginning of time to the end of time, then yes the book would then be incomplete and we could conclusively say that God indeed did "forget." Unfortunately for you, the book never claimed such a thing. Smiley
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...?
Again, simple use of logic would negate this claim. This is a grave misundertanding about what the "Qur'an has a scientific miraculous aspect to it" camp claims. As far as I know, no one claims the Qur'an to be a galactic scientific encyclopedia. This isn't the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The Qur'an is, first and foremost, a reminder and guide for mankind. With that said, however, it very clearly makes many references to pieces of evidence that are testable and falsifiable by science. It has verses that have a biological, cosmological, geological, etc. aspect to them. This is undeniable.
The science camp make two claims
-
none of the Qur'an's references to pieces of data that are testable by science have been falsified by science. E.g. if a verse said that "your Lord has created the cow, with eight stomachs, and therein in a sign for those who are sincere." This would be testable by science. We would dissect a cow, realize it doesn't have eight stomachs, and consequently the Qur'an would be falsified. It would be deemed to have at least one verse that goes against science. So far, no verse has been found to contradict established science. Considering the book was written about 1400 years ago, this in itself should, at the very least, raise your eyebrow.
-
some of the very same verses that have scientific aspects to them evidence knowledge that was not known at the time of the Qur'an's writing. To be sure, many (like Harun Yahya) make outlandish claims and forced interpretations on verses to find "miracles." I do not ally myself with such people. But, the existence of these forced interpretations don't preclude the Qur'an from actually containing verses that have miraculous scientific aspects to them. If, for example, the Qur'an refers to a cosmological phenomenon that was not known 1400 years ago, but has now (in the past 100 years) been known to conform with science, we have to ask ourselves, "how did this get in there?" But that's just one piece of datum, and I agree that one piece of datum doesn't a miracle make. But what if other verses make similar references that again were not known 1400 years ago. Over and over again, this happens. At some point, you have to really say to yourself, "ok, something might be going on here. Either the author of this book was the world's luckiest man or there is more to the story."
Sorry for the long exposition. My point is us claiming the Qur'an to have some scientific aspects that are miraculous doesn't mean we expect to find every single scientific thing in the history of mankind in it.
One last thing you asked why it didn't mention these things if it were a "guidance for all times." You yourself answered the question. It is a guidance for all times. I ask you, what do ipods, electricity, etc. have to do with guidance? You can't call the Qur'an contradictory when it doesn't even abide by your assumptions.
You saying ipods, electricity, nuclear physics are components of "guidance" is your own assumption. It is not something the Qur'an claims. You can't then use that assumption and say, "aha the Qur'an claims its a guidance for all times, and yet it doesnt mention X, Y, Z (assumptions I've just made about what the Qur'an should include), therefore the Qur'an contradicts itself."
This reminds me of those Sunnis who say "you follow the Qur'an alone? But it doesn't tell you what side to sleep on." Yes, it doesn't. But that doesn't make it incomplete. That just means the author of the Qur'an didn't find dictating sleep habits to be necessary for one's spiritual growth. Similarly here, the Qur'an claims it is a guidance for mankind and you respond with "but it doesn't talk about ipods." The author of the Qur'an didn't think mentioning ipods would be necessary one's spiritual growth. And you know what, I don't blame him. Smiley
Peace.
You go on to say..
Peace all. ps;caveman doctor; I willl respond to your thesis later...
Then, after about a day, this is your response to CavemanDoctor's above quote
Cavemandoctor; One major problem with your example...The tv instructions dont claim to be divine,complete,or for all times.....
That's it. That was your "response" to his "two post thesis."
This is simply amazing. You start out condescending, and when someone completely refutes your claims, you respond with literally 20 words. Very very very disrespectful and horrible argumentation (or lack thereof).
Brother enquirer, all "ad hominems" aside, I'm not attacking you. I'm saying this for yourself. Are you really honest with yourself? If not, please do so, for your own sake. You're only lying to yourself and the forum, and being nothing but counter-productive. Just look at the above quotes as a reminder.
Peace
-
-
Nadya, this person has already alleged that al-quraan's followers justify harm to society even though he didn't know that al-quraan asserts equal rights for everyone. Is it possible that the moderators look into this? I'd be quite happy to debate him on the contents of al-quraan if he stands by his assertion.
Yes, I realize this...it's been going on for a long time now, the allegations and the lack of courtesy/integrity to reply properly and 'decently' to people responding to his claims. This really has gone on far enough. I am looking into this and hopefully we will come to an agreement on what should be done to make this forum a better place for substantial/sincere discussions from all viewpoints about the quran and not a playground for all and sundry.
-
I would urge all to look at the forum rules as there have been some additions, namely Rule 2. Thank you all.
-
Peace all. Ok,leaving aside all the amateur 'psychoanalysis',repeated accusations and 'short sighted' moral righteousness of some of the posters....Lets get it on..... yay muscle
Rule 2 has been duly noted...Thank you....
May i ask if there will be a rule to refrain from insulting the beliefs of sunnis,shiahs,hindus,sikhs,atheists,christians,jews,etc.,etc...? Im sure 6109 also states this...Or will that verse be re-defined as well...? o I dont hold much stall in justice from the majority of the mods/admins these days....My evidence is experience,and the way that most of them conduct themselves...
As i told you,im tough enough to take your accusations,as they are starting to hold little water,and are becoming emptily repeated 'cliches'...
I will start the thread now... handshake -
Peace
I've read the new Rule 2 that stresses the start point of the forum, Quran words as God's words but this is change, I always understood the site/forum as a place to study the quran, a place for students of the quran, there are users that say they are still studying and understanding, immersed in an on-going verification process, in a working hypothesis and they have not reached certitude because there are things they haven't study yet.
-
ElenaI've read the new Rule 2 that stresses the start point of the forum, Quran words as God's words but this is change, I always understood the site/forum as a place to study the quran, a place for students of the quran, there are users that say they are still studying and understanding, immersed in an on-going verification process, in a working hypothesis and they have not reached certitude because there are things they haven't study yet.
It is that, a place where immersion in an on-going verification takes place. However, do think a person who throws accusations at the Quran, thinking it legally discriminates between believers and non-believers after 25 years of study, yet lacks the honesty and integrity to deal with the answers is here to do that?