a surah like it
-
The big deal is, some ppl want to just play with statements like 'both islamic and western scholars' and get away with it.
The big deal is that you are CRINGED and AFRAID of those scholars, scientists, encyclopedias, dictionaries and other historical data, for exposing your BIG MOUTH. ignore
Thank you Mr Moderator Sir, that would mean that any person posting 'suralikeit' must first be able to read it in order to defend it. That's all I needed to know.
Mr. mquran thinks only he can read and understand the 'suralikeit' and no one else. rotfl Well, we'll see about that.
-
DanishYou think that all historical and scientific data/analysis, encyclopedias, dictionaries and so forth are just some guy, eh, and hence they are all wrong?
8Oh you'll be doing a lot of articulation of the philosophy of science so ready yourself please.
Dude, are you living in this world or what?
We shall soon see who is living in delusions.
YES and absolutely, don't forget that the burden of proof relies on YOU for defending the Quran to become Allah's Words (divinity), contradictions, inconsistencies, repetitions, compilation methods, chaptering, numbering, headings, titling, overall presentation, etc., etc. which requires both internal and external analysis.
I refuse the burden of proof of allegations you bring forward as in my approach, only al-quraan is necessary for al-quraan's divine nature to be proven. As Wakas has pointed out, the burden of proof is on you. Are you afraid to handle it? And I'm the one with no *****. you say?
Yes, it the Quran I shall be discussing and YOU will be defending my concerns?
Not if you bring for example, an allegation in which professor X said this about early arab historian Y who said Z. I couldn't care less about X,Y,Z and they only tell me that critics of al-quraan cannot handle its text but need to rely on extra-quranic resources.
Both internal and external relevancy of the Quran will be discussed along with some general questions to start with? Stop crying and bickering about extra-quranic sources and hochpoch of conditions. Just defend your alleged Allah's Words in any way you can, if you are so confident.
Ok and you will defend your interrogative assumptions. I will throughly question them and you do have plenty , don't worry.
A blatant outright LIE. Check your posts before you start making confession in bold above. I've kept your collected statements for later exposure.
Then produce one now please. Before we debate, kindly prove to me that I have used non-quranic evidence to support al-quraan's divinity. The fact that you and your pal Enquirer need to lie about me shows a lot.
And what have you done to refute my 'fears'....err...those sources? Absolutely nothing but peddling and bloating around with a big-mouth? Now you have a golden chance to prove it yourself by moderated debates for which you've been jumping and grunting about all over the forum for quite some time. So once again, stop crying about it and lets move on
Yawn...did you say something new?
Don't worry, I'm will not bring that issue on this debate and will comprise a separate one.
Ah good, I was wondering about that one. Let me know eh? Wouldn't want to miss that D
Now, are you ready or have some sheds of tears left.
Address my concern above and we can begin. Do you accept Wakas's decision or not?
-
Danish The big deal is that you are CRINGED and AFRAID of those scholars, scientists, encyclopedias, dictionaries and other historical data, for exposing your BIG MOUTH
Since Im afraid, why don't you take on the burden of proof? We will then see how far your faith in 'scholarship' is justified.
Mr. mquran thinks only he can read and understand the 'suralikeit' and no one else. Well, we'll see about that.
Actually no but I do know that YOU can't read it and that you brought it forward was an act of dishonesty on your part. This is what your 'scholarship' really comprises of dishonesty and if you think i'm wrong, accept the burden of proof and give the OK for me to interrogate your external sources because if they ARE true, they will stand rational questioning. However, I know for a fact they aren't.
Address this and we can begin.
-
Peace,
I study theology and there are as much scholars that agree that the Quran comes undisturbed and undistorted, except for only small details, as that there are scholars that say it is a copy of the Bible or that it is made in the middleages. For every scholar you put in, i can put in another scholar. So your arguments are ignorant. And most scholars that write against the Quran being authentic are scholars with agenda's. They are biased, as they are strict Christians, Jews or Atheists who don't respect any spirituality. On the other hand i have a lot of Christian, Jewish and Atheist scholars who highly respect the Quran and the history surrounding and acknowledge it's authenticity, some believe even it is from God, some say it is a copy of the Bible but say it comes directly from Muhammed to us. So using scholar arguments is futile, as i can throw in as much orientalists as you and probably more. This is the problem with history and trying to proof your stand using other people's writings. There are as much people's writings saying the opposite of what your preffered author wrote. And almost all of them have convincing evidence.
So what is left? Faith.......I believe in the Quran for certain reasons, and i'm certainly not a blind person. The problem with this discussion is, that there is almost as much proof against as for the Quran. You can choose a side. But the outcome of why you choose a certain side is based on your knowledge and experience of this life. I have a long long list of why i believe in the Quran, you have a long long list as to why not believe in the Quran. My proofs don't convince you, and yours don't convince me. So this is not a battle of the proofs anymore, but a battle of psychology. The clash of the convictions......Believing in the Quran is based as much on evidence as on will, this is the same for not believing in the Quran. So it is your psychology, how your conciousness was formed and is forming that determines the view, not 'proofs'.
I'm here to study the Quran and share views. have fun clashing..... In the end the people will choose the side that they already choose deep inside themselves. So people see what they will see.
Peace
-
Danish The big deal is that you are CRINGED and AFRAID of those scholars, scientists, encyclopedias, dictionaries and other historical data, for exposing your BIG MOUTH
Since Im afraid, why don't you take on the burden of proof? We will then see how far your faith in 'scholarship' is justified.
Actually it is you that is refusing to take on the burden of proof. rotfl Here it is if you can read your own quote
I refuse the burden of proof of allegations you bring forward as in my approach,
Mr. mquran thinks only he can read and understand the 'suralikeit' and no one else. Well, we'll see about that.
Actually no but I do know that YOU can't read it and that you brought it forward was an act of dishonesty on your part.
See above and stop repeating like a parrot.
This is what your 'scholarship' really comprises of dishonesty
We shall see about that too, as in the false explanation you gave to 'enquirer' on 538 in another thread. Check that one out. It was funny.
if you think i'm wrong, accept the burden of proof and give the OK for me to interrogate your external sources because if they ARE true, they will stand rational questioning. However, I know for a fact they aren't.
Once again, see above and stop parroting.
-
Peace,
Moderators, please determine an agenda of rules on which we can mutually agree upon and lets get this debate started for which he is extremely enthusiastic yet reluctant about. I am not here to play mquran?s fusses on refusal/acceptance games all day long, as shown below.
First his refusal
I refuse the burden of proof of allegations you bring forward as in my approach,
And then his acknowledgement.
Ok and you will defend your interrogative assumptions.
And once again
As Wakas has pointed out, the burden of proof is on you.
Now a hesitation
only al-quraan is necessary for al-quraan's divine nature to be proven.
Let me analyze his statement above
Danish Is Quran Allah?s Words?
Mquran Absolutely.
Danish How do you know that?
Mquran Because the Quran says so?
Danish How does the Quran say so?
Mquran Because Allah says so?
Danish How does Allah say so?
Mquran Because the Quran says so?The entire quran revolves around essentially on this moot and circular reasoning. Trash everything else because they are all assumptions and not to be trusted. Why? Because the Quran says so and thus Allah says so? This is the ?reality? where mquran dwells in. A blinded faith.
Another example of hesitation (as done earlier in similar fashion)
Not if you bring for example, an allegation in which professor X said this about early arab historian Y who said Z. I couldn't care less about X,Y,Z and they only tell me that critics of al-quraan cannot handle its text but need to rely on extra-quranic resources.
The point of muquran to discuss Al-quran from within, without outside interference, has already been acknowledged and mentioned. The point to discuss Al-quran from ?distance? must also be considered. It?s fair and balanced. I?m not sure what he?s bragging about. It seems he can't go pass his bickering and parroting.
I?ve said enough and shall only respond to the rules determined by you (the moderators), else I?m wasting my time with mquran's nonsense.
-
Dear Moderators,
Let me analyze his statement above
Danish Is Quran Allah?s Words?
Mquran Absolutely.
Danish How do you know that?
Mquran Because the Quran says so?
Danish How does the Quran say so?
Mquran Because Allah says so?
Danish How does Allah say so?
Mquran Because the Quran says so?The above statement constitutes a lie and slander. I have never said the following nor is my belief the following. Danish invented the above conversation because
a. He has - as usual - throughly miscomprehended how al-quraan explains imaan.
b. He doesn't actually dare to confront the facts.Wakas has said
By posting the references, the reference provider MUST be able to defend them, because referencing them directly implies that is the side they are approaching the debate from. If not, they must clearly state prior to referencing that they are unsure of its veracity themselves but provide it for discussion.
This is fair because unlike Danish, i don't worship scholars (when he claims to worship god, what rubbish, he worships himself more like). If he wants to bring in, as Wakas says, he MUST be able to defend it. I will make sure he does just that )
Thanks for your decision, I await Danish's response. Don't hold your breath though.
-
Why the contradiction and inconsistency?
The Quran does contain abundance of errs and I shall prove it one by one by moderated debates, else children come barging in.
Danish any "evidence" you come up with the alleged inaccuracies of the Quran, like arnoldyasin already said can be proven as incorrect understandings. I've read plenty of good articles my self that claim the quran contains an abundance of errors. And most of these articles say "if you ask a Muslim about these inaccuracies they will blame the translator" but simply checking another translation takes away the credibility of the article no matter how thorough their evaluation was. I personally like reading these articles coz it means i have to check other translations thus i end up with a better understanding of the quran. I don't see the point in a "moderated debate" about this subject when all you have to do is pick up an article which claims there are inaccuracies in the Quran and compare it to other translations. Any claim of inaccuracy you put forward can easily be proven wrong if you just took time to investigate it (by simply checking another translation), that way you will not have to "play around" with "puppies" like me and openmind. ignore But it genuinely sounds as though you are not interested in quranic divinity and just want to say that only idiots believe that the Quran is divine. Any alleged inaccuracies you put forward will probably be something I have heard of several times before by different people/books/articles but since you don?t want to "play around with puppies like me" then i?ll let you investigate for your self if you genuinely do care about the subject.
peace,
sugar -
Peace
I'm thoroughly disgusted by this thread.
I read page after page only to have my blood boiled more and more. I don't know where people find the audacity to call God's challenge pointless and yet in the same breath have challenged God. But of course, their challenge is perfectly rational.. it's God's Challenge that is baseless. How twisted one's logic can become.
The title of 'a surah like it' is a direct attack on God's Word period. Please do not splice hairs by trying to find non-sensical loopholes in His Challenge. If you are truthful why don't you come up with one!
Let's pick an aya any aya that deals with this challenge... let's say 223-24
here we see that Allah challenges any who is in doubt to produce a chapter like that of the quran and surely man cannot. OF COURSE anyone could make any text similar with words and analogies as another text. There is much more to quran than just something that rhymes. Perhaps this challenge is for believers to ponder of all the criteria which makes quran unique and superior to any other text.
It not only rhymes and makes sense, but has layer upon layer of meanings. It has wisdom for all times and places and is not culture specific. It relates scientific facts. It uses the universal language, mathematics. On top of all these things, it promotes peace and harmony with the rest of mankind and earth.
As for the ridiculous statement that Mohamed wrote it, then why wouldn't he just take the credit himself? Why wouldn't he go down in history as the greatest poet/philosopher/law-maker/history-writer/scientist/psychologist/sociologist of all time? Why would he write something as though God wrote it and he's just a messenger of a message he's making up? Sorry this is beyond delusional.
If you don't believe the quran is from God the burden is on you. You're the one making the claim. Prove to us all that people sat around and invented it.
How sad to see those who are so arrogant as to insult the Holy Word of God. It's no surprise when they in turn insult their own brothers and sisters on this forum.
Peace -
Danish any "evidence" you come up with the alleged inaccuracies of the Quran, like arnoldyasin already said can be proven as incorrect understandings.
Any evidence or references will back-up and support directly in relevance to Quran, so no misunderstandings occur. For example, if the Quran mentions 'cutting of hands' of thieves, then my reference will back up that claim by historical data/analysis to prove that that is exactly what used to happen back then. People twist the meanings of Quran to suit their agendas because their manipulations are from TODAY's perspectives (sometimes a mixture of both the past and current), not 1400+ years ago. No wonder we have so much chaos in understanding it.
An example of inconsistency Lets take a simple hypothetical situation, in that, Pakistan and India having exactly the same laws for thieves in cutting their hands as per the Quran. Now if the hands of a thief were cut off in Pakistan but a thief in India was imprisoned, assuming the cases were similar and both were found guilty, then this is inconsistant and has nothing to do with time and place.
Such cases are found in the Quran and will be presented to the upcoming "prophet of doom" to defend, specially when he mocks GOD by taking HIS name in vain and compares it to a man-made historical book to become Allah's Words in such fashions.
Now if you still don't understand what I said above, then there's no point in discussing with you. I would like to mention this though, that I too believe in the Quran for its wisdom to some extent, but not in the pathetic manner others believe by directly mocking GOD and thus notice that I don't take GOD's name when discussing verses of the Quran by venting out on HIM, i.e. GOD said this/that, GOD cannot this/that, GOD must this/that, etc.
-
Danish any "evidence" you come up with the alleged inaccuracies of the Quran, like arnoldyasin already said can be proven as incorrect understandings.
Any evidence or references will back-up and support directly in relevance to Quran, so no misunderstandings occur. For example, if the Quran mentions 'cutting of hands' of thieves, then my reference will back up that claim by historical data/analysis to prove that that is exactly what used to happen back then. People twist the meanings of Quran to suit their agendas because their manipulations are from TODAY's perspectives (sometimes a mixture of both the past and current), not 1400+ years ago. No wonder we have so much chaos in understanding it.
Your assumption seems to be that actors within history were objectively correct. Could not those "back then" who historically cut off hands of thieves also be people who happened to "twist the meanings of the Quran to suit their agendas because their manipulations" were from YESTERDAY's perspectives?
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Peace.
-
Peace,
I agree with caveman, you cannot know exactly how they read it. In the Ummayad period they flogged thieves. We only have the ancient arabic meanings. Yad means hands/abilities/resources, what has choosing abilities/resources instead of hands to do with TODAYS perspective? Nothing. If you read the Quran in its overal perspective, cutting hands goes against it's logic. This to be seen now as well in those days. Logic and humanistic thinking is not based on time.
-
Soul2squeezeI'm thoroughly disgusted by this thread.
I read page after page only to have my blood boiled more and more. I don't know where people find the audacity to call God's challenge pointless and yet in the same breath have challenged God. But of course, their challenge is perfectly rational.. it's God's Challenge that is baseless. How twisted one's logic can become.
The title of 'a surah like it' is a direct attack on God's Word period. Please do not splice hairs by trying to find non-sensical loopholes in His Challenge. If you are truthful why don't you come up with one!Please don't be disgusted, please. This challenge while is TO them, is also FOR us.
I threw the challenge to Enquirer before and he replied 'be open-minded and good' and told me, that's enough. Of course he wouldnt answer to further interrogation of meaning (or anything else, if we're honest).
Benefit from this challenge, s2s.
-
Soul2squeezeI'm thoroughly disgusted by this thread.
I read page after page only to have my blood boiled more and more. I don't know where people find the audacity to call God's challenge pointless and yet in the same breath have challenged God. But of course, their challenge is perfectly rational.. it's God's Challenge that is baseless. How twisted one's logic can become.
The title of 'a surah like it' is a direct attack on God's Word period. Please do not splice hairs by trying to find non-sensical loopholes in His Challenge. If you are truthful why don't you come up with one!Please don't be disgusted, please. This challenge while is TO them, is also FOR us.
I threw the challenge to Enquirer before and he replied 'be open-minded and good' and told me, that's enough. Of course he wouldnt answer to further interrogation of meaning (or anything else, if we're honest).
Benefit from this challenge, s2s.
I'd like to echo mquran here. I cannot tell you how much this challenge has increased my faith. Contrary to what enquirer would like to believe, I love it when tough questions are asked and challenges are brought forth. Without fail, the questions they bring forth (as well as the questions I myself ask) are answered (in my mind) logically. And my faith is thereby strengthened.
Far from being afraid to question and doubt, I've found my questions and doubts have always with time/study/patience been logically put to rest.
Peace.
-
DanishAny evidence or references will back-up and support directly in relevance to Quran, so no misunderstandings occur. For example, if the Quran mentions 'cutting of hands' of thieves, then my reference will back up that claim by historical data/analysis to prove that that is exactly what used to happen back then. People twist the meanings of Quran to suit their agendas because their manipulations are from TODAY's perspectives (sometimes a mixture of both the past and current), not 1400+ years ago. No wonder we have so much chaos in understanding it.
This comment betrays a lack of reading. The sunni corpus contains at least 5 different opinions regarding the 'handchopping' nonsense (see Mohamed Hashim Kamali's 'principles of islamic jurisprudence). The reason why this guy chooses this is to uphold his agenda. He's more sunni than the sunnis themselves.
An example of inconsistency Lets take a simple hypothetical situation, in that, Pakistan and India having exactly the same laws for thieves in cutting their hands as per the Quran. Now if the hands of a thief were cut off in Pakistan but a thief in India was imprisoned, assuming the cases were similar and both were found guilty, then this is inconsistant and has nothing to do with time and place.
Totally irrelevant to the issue. Al-quraan is where I get my legislation from, not indians or pakistanis.
Such cases are found in the Quran and will be presented to the upcoming "prophet of doom" to defend, specially when he mocks GOD by taking HIS name in vain and compares it to a man-made historical book to become Allah's Words in such fashions.
Moderators, please take note. Instead of debating, he continues to mock al-quraan. Another breach of rule 2.
Now if you still don't understand what I said above, then there's no point in discussing with you. I would like to mention this though, that I too believe in the Quran for its wisdom to some extent, but not in the pathetic manner others believe by directly mocking GOD and thus notice that I don't take GOD's name when discussing verses of the Quran by venting out on HIM, i.e. GOD said this/that, GOD cannot this/that, GOD must this/that, etc.
If he believes in al-quraan, then we need to ask WHICH ayaat and WHY? In the end, a new principle will emerge BDTS.
-
Peace
I'm thoroughly disgusted by this thread.
I read page after page only to have my blood boiled more and more.take a chill pill
I don't know where people find the audacity to call God's challenge pointless and yet in the same breath have challenged God. But of course, their challenge is perfectly rational.. it's God's Challenge that is baseless. How twisted one's logic can become.
they don't believe the quran is divine...
Perhaps this challenge is for believers to ponder of all the criteria which makes quran unique and superior to any other text.
that?s just ridiculous! why would a believer want to challenge God?
the challenge is for unbelievers and those who doubt it is the word of god...
Khalifa
If you have any doubt regarding what we revealed to our servant, then produce one sura like these, and call upon your own witnesses against GOD, if you are truthful.Yusuf Ali
And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true.Pickthal
And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave, then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful."Progressive Muslims"
And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to Our servant, then bring a chapter like this, and call upon your witnesses other than God if you are truthful.but has layer upon layer of meanings.
that's where the claims of inaccuracies and contradictions come from
As for the ridiculous statement that Mohamed wrote it, then why wouldn't he just take the credit himself?
lol you have misinterpreted what i have said...
http//www.submission.org/mo-write.html
Why wouldn't he go down in history as the greatest poet/philosopher/law-maker/history-writer/scientist/psychologist/sociologist of all time?
Dude he has! the guy is idolized by multitudes of people who claim he is an infallible (but illiterate) guy.... The stuff they say about him makes me sick! they believe the guy is practically equal to God.
Any evidence or references will back-up and support directly in relevance to Quran, so no misunderstandings occur. For example, if the Quran mentions 'cutting of hands' of thieves, then my reference will back up that claim by historical data/analysis to prove that that is exactly what used to happen back then
The following is written in the preface of the translation of the message available on Freeminds?
Some Arabic words, like in English, may have more than one related meaning. Thus ascribing the ?wrong? meaning may sometimes create contradictions between verses in the Scripture or give a strange understanding to the topic the verse is addressing.
In such cases, the advice from the Scripture itself is to follow the best meaning derived?
?The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.? (The Message 391
One of the clearest examples for using this method is to deal with the issue of ?theft?. There is one verse that gives the law for theft and its interpretation can vary widely depending on which meaning is ascribed to the Arabic words
?The male thief, and the female thief, you shall ?Iqta? (cut / cut-off / sever / separate) ?Aydiyahum? (their hands / resources / belongings / possessions) as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Almighty, Wise.? (53
The scholars of today and the past have all gone for the ?cut-off the hand? understanding and thus we witness scenes of amputations being carried out in countries which claim to uphold the Scripture
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime and Allah is Exalted in power. (53
However, had they gone through the extra step of looking to the ?examples? within the Scripture for application, they would have come to a far different conclusion. The story of Joseph with his brothers provides the clearest and simplest example for how to deal with the subject of theft?
?They said ?By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!? He said ?What shall be the punishment, if you are not truthful?? They said ?The punishment is that whomever it is found in his bags, then to compensate is his punishment. It is such that we punish the wicked.?? (The Message 1273-75)
Thus, the proper meaning/translation of the verse becomes
?The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut from (Iqtau) their resources (Aydiyahum) as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Almighty, Wise.? (The Message 53
Such a meaning also conforms to the overall laws of God?s justice that the punishment should never exceed the crime 16126.
then my reference will back up that claim by historical data/analysis to prove that that is exactly what used to happen back then
But the Arabs rejected the word of God for Hadith and Sunnah. They were destined to disbelieve, I?ll post the exact verse once I have found it?. The Quran talks a lot about how Moses community created a religion that was not authorized by God and just because they did that does not mean you can say the Torah is not the word of God. Muhammad?s community did just what Moses community did which was to take the words out of context and create a new religion that was never authorised by God.
verse 62/5
Khalifa
The example of those who were given the Torah, then failed to uphold it, is like the donkey carrying great works of literature. Miserable indeed is the example of people who rejected GOD's revelations. GOD does not guide the wicked people.Yusuf Ali
The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of God and God guides not people who do wrong.Pickthal
The likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the likeness of the ass carrying books. Wretched is the likeness of folk who deny the revelations of Allah. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.Shakir
The likeness of those who were charged with the Taurat, then they did not observe it, is as the likeness of the ass bearing books, evil is the likeness of the people who reject the communications of Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust people.Sher Ali
The likeness of those who were charged with the Law of Torah, but did not carry out its commandments, is as the likeness of an ass carrying a load of books. Evil is the likeness of the people who reject the Signs of Allah. And Allah guides not the wrongdoing people."Progressive Muslims"
The example of those who were given the Torah, then failed to uphold it, is like the donkey carrying great works of literature. Miserable indeed is the example of people who rejected God's revelations. God does not guide the wicked peopleverse 17/4
Khalifa
We addressed the Children of Israel in the scripture "You will commit gross evil on earth, twice. You are destined to fall into great heights of arrogance.Yusuf Ali
And We gave (Clear) Warning to the Children of Israel in the Book, that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance (and twice would they be punished)!Pickthal
And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scripture Ye verily will work corruption in the earth twice, and ye will become great tyrants.Shakir
And We had made known to the children of Israel in the Book Most certainly you will make mischief in the land twice, and most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence.Sher Ali
And WE had clearly conveyed to the Children of Israel in the Book `You will surely do great mischief in the land twice, and you will surely become excessively overbearing.'"Progressive Muslims"
And We decreed to the Children of Israel in the Scripture, that you will make corruption twice on earth, and that you will become very high and mighty.one thing man will learn from history is that man will never learn from history- Aidid Safar
You?ll probably refute what I have said above and claim that I am "making excuses" to justify my belief that it is the word of God.
Such cases are found in the Quran and will be presented to the upcoming "prophet of doom" to defend, specially when he mocks GOD by taking HIS name in vain and compares it to a man-made historical book to become Allah's Words in such fashions.
The Prophet of Doom is a book right?
when will it be published in the UK, it should be interesting.
I apologize for the long post.
peace,
sugar -
Your assumption seems to be that actors within history were objectively correct. Could not those "back then" who historically cut off hands of thieves also be people who happened to "twist the meanings of the Quran to suit their agendas because their manipulations" were from YESTERDAY's perspectives?
Funnily enough, Danish DOESN'T question this. Of course he wouldn't, because it suits him even though the hadith about hand-chopping are all divergent. Cavey, if you can hold of it, find Kamali's Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. This book itself shows that this whole hand-chopping thing was so divergent and all the hadith regarding it are 'sahih', its pathetic. Another book to look at is 'why there are disagreements between madhabib' by tim winter (shiekh abdul hakim murad). Plenty of juicy bits in there.
-
Mq am i missing something or have I just misunderstood him? confused
Danish i get this slightly annoying feeling that we are just gonna go round in circles. I believe the Quran is divine for many reasons.... but for each reason i have ever given unbelievers in the past the facts i had mentioned had been "belittled" by them to a point where it seemed pointless explaining to them why i believe the Quran is divine.
We will certainly question those who received the message, and we will question the messengers.
You are not responsible for guiding anyone. GOD is the only one who guides whoever chooses (to be guided)
As for those who disbelieve, it is the same for them; whether you warn them, or not warn them, they cannot believe.
GOD seals their minds and their hearing, and their eyes are veiled. They have incurred severe retribution.
(RK translation)
peace,
sugar -
Sugar Mq am i missing something or have I just misunderstood him?
You're missing something but not much. 'Prophet of Doom' is result Danish's slanderous methods towards yours truly. He does this to distract us from the actual debate which the moderators have agreed upon because he's quite berefts of arguments. Come on, the man pastes websites he himself can't read D