Any examples of 'quran only' states from history.....?
-
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?
-
Enquirer 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'...
Hold little water ? Well, we need to measure the volume of the container. It's very suspect in my book.
-
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.
I believe there is a clear distinction between what you mention and what the rule is adressing...The Scripture itself instructs us to
ponder,reflect, andverify, never simply to accept blindly.What the rule is adressing is the following
And it has been sent down to you in the Scripture, that if you hear God?s revelations being rejected and ridiculed in, then do not sit with them until they move on to a different subject; if not, then you are like them. God will gather the hypocrites and the disbelievers in Hell all together.(4140)A person who is out to study the Scripture does not do so by ridiculing the Book or intentionally lying about or ignoring what it says...
-
Peace all. I believe many on this site have their issues and doubts about the quran being gods words/totally true/or relevant to todays world...
Making rule changes does not dispel those doubts... -
Peace layth. How can you ascertain/verify that a person is lying,ignoring or ridiculing the book...? Some could accuse you of that,and not just with the book,but with god too...
And isnt there ridicule of other religions,scriptures,alternative definitions of god,dissenting voices,by some 'quran only' members on this site....?
If you are quran-only why not follow verse 6109...?
Or is this a rule to sugar-coat and protect sectarian interests...?
I will see what you think of this verse...
'So do you believe in a part of the book,and then reject a part..........'? (285.)
peace. -
Enquirereace layth. How can you ascertain/verify that a person is lying,ignoring or ridiculing the book...? Some could accuse you of that,and not just with the book,but with god too...
Lying When he says he's read a lot but doesn't know basic stuff.
Ignoring When his answers are absent.
Ridiculing When he accuses the followers of al-quraan to condone harm to humankind.
-
Peace,
Making rule changes does not dispel those doubts...
The rule addition has nothing to do with dispelling your doubts (that is between you and God)...The rule is to allow the students of the Scripture to have a place to study/reflect/ponder the words of the Scripture.
How can you ascertain/verify that a person is lying,ignoring or ridiculing the book...? Some could accuse you of that,and not just with the book,but with god too...
Hmmm, let me see...When a person presents an issue and is shown a clear verse in the Scripture that adresses his/her concern, but then that person moves on to repeat the same claim as if they had never been presented with the evidence, that is clearly
ignoringthe words of the Scripture.In your case you have rejected the entire book as being from God, so that would simply make you a
rejectorof God`s revelations.And isnt there ridicule of other religions,scriptures,alternative definitions of god,dissenting voices,by some \'quran only\' members on this site....?
The difference between what you do and what others on this site do is as follows
- You reject the words of the Almighty and the system He decreed for His creation.
- Others here reject the words of man and the system they falsely attribute to the creator.
If you are quran-only why not follow verse 6109...?
Or is this a rule to sugar-coat and protect sectarian interests...?I am a muslim/submitter (not
quran only)Also, I believe you mean 6108.
Do you take the terms used in the Scripture of
idolworshiipersandrejectorsas theswear wordsto be avoided in 6108? -
Peace mquran. All three of your points are pretty subjective,unproven,conjectural,and your opinion... Glad the legal system is way better than this in secular systems.... bravo
Peace layth. I know you previously changed some of the verse-numbers to suit your own translation,so maybe it is 6108...
You seem to be in love with your own ideology...you speak as if you ARE gods spokesman...
By your own definitions you may be an idol-worshipper,as you may be idolising your own ideology. ...Caught in your own web of illusions...?
I myself will just say you need to reflect on your thoughts,motives and behaviour...
Peace all. -
Peace,
You seem to be in love with your own ideology...you speak as if you ARE gods spokesman...
God is His own speokesman...Just because you choose to ignore His words (revelations/verses) when they are presented is no need to start making wild accusations.
I myself will just say you need to reflect on your thoughts,motives and behaviour...
I know where I stand when it comes to the rejectors.
-
Peace mquran. All three of your points are pretty subjective,unproven,conjectural,and your opinion... Glad the legal system is way better than this in secular systems....
Better? Try not paying your taxes. They put octogenarians in the nick for not paying council tax. Do me a favour!
You seem to be in love with your own ideology...
What's wrong with that. In a world full of jahl (superficiality leading to lack of intelligence), to be able to rely on something so solid is revitalising. I appreciate al-quraan has been obfuscated to the point where it looks like a religious book (as per your assertions about al-quraan) but once the veil has been lifted even to a small extent, the conceptual power of the book is amazing. Of course, I cannot objectively prove any of this as I cannot make you see.
By your own definitions you may be an idol-worshipper,as you may be idolising your own ideology. ...Caught in your own web of illusions...?
If one follows al-quraan fanatically (the word 'fanatical' doesn't connote hatred of other people and their rights in this context) , one would be according to the assertion of al-quraan 'worshipping Allah'. So no, there's no danger of idol-worship, quranically speaking.
-
Peace layth. How can you ascertain/verify that a person is lying,ignoring or ridiculing the book...? Some could accuse you of that,and not just with the book,but with god too...
And isnt there ridicule of other religions,scriptures,alternative definitions of god,dissenting voices,by some 'quran only' members on this site....?
If you are quran-only why not follow verse 6109...?
Or is this a rule to sugar-coat and protect sectarian interests...?
I will see what you think of this verse...
'So do you believe in a part of the book,and then reject a part..........'? (285.)
peace.Can you show an example of a Qur'an-alone member that has said something like this?
-
Peace layth. How can you ascertain/verify that a person is lying,ignoring or ridiculing the book...? Some could accuse you of that,and not just with the book,but with god too...
And isnt there ridicule of other religions,scriptures,alternative definitions of god,dissenting voices,by some 'quran only' members on this site....?
If you are quran-only why not follow verse 6109...?
Or is this a rule to sugar-coat and protect sectarian interests...?
I will see what you think of this verse...
'So do you believe in a part of the book,and then reject a part..........'? (285.)
peace.Can you show an example of a Qur'an-alone member that has said something like this?
Can you show that 'enquirer' said that a Qur'an-alone member said something like that? Lies upon lies you guys sweat out just to have fun with the Quran? Pathetic.
