"Laa lilaha illallah"
-
That was my one post on that subject to which you posted in this thread "why you believe relying on alcohol is ok for social occasions because some people are not self destructive alcoholics. " which is clearly not what I said at all.
some people drink on social occassions, they do not have to have it and that is not what I said. A social occassion can be a wedding/funeral/nightout/birthday/etc where some people have a drink, it does not mean they are alcoholics or addicted or have to have it. I said nothing at all about relying on it either. I am talking about some people and not specifically muslims, there are other people in the world.
Yes, I made a mistake, and I apologized twice for it when you and Leyna both questioned it, and I even thanked Leyna for questioning me when I was obviously wrong.
So why do they have it then for social occasions? They don't have to have it, they want to have it but they don't have to have it, ok.
There is minor addiction and major addiction. Both are addictions. Just because it doesn't ruin your life like how a major addiction is, doesn't mean it is not a part of your life. They want it for those social occasions. No, they don't have to have it for those social occasions they just want to have it for those social occasions.
-
51 says you can eat all 4 footed animals apart from the exceptions named, they are named in Torah, the only one named again in Quran is swine as far as im aware
I don't know in what state of mind was Yusuf Ali when he translated http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/005.%20Al%20Maida/temp%20Al'an'aam%20(four%20leg%20animals).gif as "four footed animals", if Urdu word "chopai" was in his mind even then he made a blunder since in Urdu too this word refers only to four legged mammals and not animals which is a broad term.
What is stated in Grand Qur'aan is this
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/005.%20Al%20Maida/temo5.001h.gif
For you people such herbivorous mammals have been made permissible/lawful who are http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/005.%20Al%20Maida/temp%20Baheema%20(dumb,%20four%20footed%20animals).gif . -
That was my one post on that subject to which you posted in this thread "why you believe relying on alcohol is ok for social occasions because some people are not self destructive alcoholics. " which is clearly not what I said at all.
some people drink on social occassions, they do not have to have it and that is not what I said. A social occassion can be a wedding/funeral/nightout/birthday/etc where some people have a drink, it does not mean they are alcoholics or addicted or have to have it. I said nothing at all about relying on it either. I am talking about some people and not specifically muslims, there are other people in the world.
That is actually exactly what you said, you even posted the entire quote yourself, I simply cut the relevant part out. You can review it again and see that part for yourself.
with alcohol thats not the case and one can be a social drinker for years and years without getting to the point one has to have it.
Yes you don't need to comment on relying on alcohol, it is obvious if one drinks for social occasions they rely on alcohol for social occasions...
-
"because i was busy and have a life, my apologies for that!"
"I will stop now, I could go on."
Then why wouldn't you say I have to go do something i.e. work, I have to stop now. You said I could go on but I will stop...if you could go on, then that means...that you could go on...but from what you said, it can be understood that you chose not too, not I can't go on because I have to go to work...you should choose your words carefully.
and you should read more carefully and not jump to a conclusion before ranting off at someone. i am sorry I didnt write words in the format you would understand clearer, perhaps you would like to take over writing my posts for me so that you can be clear in what I say? Can I leave off here and go to the toilet so I dont have to end with 'I could say more but I have to go to the toilet'?Then why would you say that proof enough for you was the recital period? You didn't say it was The Message that proves his testimony, you said it was the fact that a man with little to no education one day started reciting the Qu'ran. That is what you said, not that The Message itself was your proof.
Where did I say it was the recital period? I thought it was clear what I said.Here let me quote you
please do!"A mortal man with little to no education suddenly starts reciting words like Quran, that is evidence enough for me and evidence enough for those that believe. Where do you think it came from if not from God?"
In answer to your posts
First of all, when they say "We bear witness" can it not be said (I'm seriously asking for some feedback and perhaps constructive criticism on the following) they are hypocrites because they are not actually bearing witness? Are they in the prophet pbuh's head and witnessing the revelation? They are only witnessing it through him uttering the revelation, not through directly witnessing the message being delivered
Based on the evidence they were given they believed that he was The Messenger of The God? What evidence? I am not talking about evidence in regards to the enlightening contents of the Qu'ran, I am talking about direct evidence that the Prophet received revelations from The God.
I wrote
What evidence? A mortal man with little to no education suddenly starts reciting words like Quran, that is evidence enough for me and evidence enough for those that believe. Where do you think it came from if not from God?
Where I said 'what evidence?' I was not questioning the evidence as your post did, I was questioning that you couldnt see the evidence. I said nothing about time period and it is clear that the evidence for me IS the Words of Quran which are obviously not from the man Muhammed who was uneducated, but was delivering these beautiful words that were/are obviously from someone/something much higher than we can comprehend. If you had read to the end I make that clear "Where do you think it came from if not from God?"
And what do you mean how do I draw that you are implying I am not a believer? If you say that the fact that he recited the Qu'ran period when he had little to no education is enough for those who believe as a reply to me for saying that my evidence is the message itself then how else can I possibly understand it?
then try reading it properly, let me highlight bits you missed or misunderstood
A mortal man with little to no education suddenly starts reciting words like Quran, that is evidence enough for me and evidence enough for those that believe. Where do you think it came from if not from God?
Now let me try again to clarify my position in the hope you will be able to understand the words I say in the form I say them
Muhammed was given the words to recite. Muhammed was uneducated and a normal human being. The words he recited had to be from a higher source/God/The Creator.
You asked "Based on the evidence they were given they believed that he was The Messenger of The God? What evidence? I am not talking about evidence in regards to the enlightening contents of the Qu'ran, (This is what is my evidence) I am talking about direct evidence that the Prophet received revelations from The God."
The evidence is that he recited these words and no one else did. If his camel recited those words then I would say his camel was a messenger of Allah, maybe the people would have believed more!
No one came and said 'hey thats not right, my son got this message and you stole it' did they? Muhammed recited those words, Muhammed received the message and that is the evidence.
And if you don't look for replies, how did you know there were replies for this thread? You know you can click on the top right corner of the main forum page for replies. I haven't even been here as long as you and I know this.
My apologies for not using the forum in the same way that you do. I was having a discussion in this thread so I looked at this thread, I had finished what I had to say in those other threads with the one post I made in each. If you would like to choose for me which threads I can reply to, please write my replies and post them to me in PM and I will be happy to reply where you want me to with how you think I should reply.
-
And I am not a hypocrite for believing laa lilaha illAllah, because The God's PROOFS for those who believe are detailed for me in the Qu'ran.
Where have I said you were a hypocrite? ??? I think you really are being well out of order now AK, I have not said that anywhere, you are seeing things that are not there. -
I am not disputing we are allowed to eat the food of the Jews. I am disputing necessity for turning to the old testament for clarification of specific foods.
The Jews are also allowed to eat our food. Some restrictions were lifted but the detail as in named animals are in the Torah, THE LAW.
-
Where have I said you were a hypocrite? ??? I think you really are being well out of order now AK, I have not said that anywhere, you are seeing things that are not there.
I was not saying you yourself said I was a hypocrite, I was referring to you understanding my logic to believe that those who say la illa ha ill Allah are hypocrites according to said logic because they have not witnessed or seen The God directly. They have however witnessed and seen His proofs directly.
-
I don't know in what state of mind was Yusuf Ali when he translated http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/005.%20Al%20Maida/temp%20Al'an'aam%20(four%20leg%20animals).gif as "four footed animals", if Urdu word "chopai" was in his mind even then he made a blunder since in Urdu too this word refers only to four legged mammals and not animals which is a broad term.
What is stated in Grand Qur'aan is this
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/005.%20Al%20Maida/temo5.001h.gif
For you people such herbivorous mammals have been made permissible/lawful who are http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/005.%20Al%20Maida/temp%20Baheema%20(dumb,%20four%20footed%20animals).gif .Which rules out many of the animals named in Torah including birds of prey and removes the restriction on camels but not on shellfish. ;D
-
The Jews are also allowed to eat our food. Some restrictions were lifted but the detail as in named animals are in the Torah, THE LAW.
Yes, I know what Torah means, it actually literally means "The Law/The (lawful) Lifestyle"
So the Qu'ran did not clearly explain the details of what can and cannot be eaten to you then? And as such do you believe one can deduce from you referring to the old testament for these details that you don't believe it is a clear explanation for everything? Does the Qu'ran tell those who submit to It to refer to other books for details or as a source of law? Isn't this what we admonish hadithists for? Are we to make an exception for the old testament though?
-
So why do they have it then for social occasions? They don't have to have it, they want to have it but they don't have to have it, ok.
because thats what some people do on social occassions! Thats like asking why do people eat whole grain bread!There is minor addiction and major addiction. Both are addictions. Just because it doesn't ruin your life like how a major addiction is, doesn't mean it is not a part of your life. They want it for those social occasions. No, they don't have to have it for those social occasions they just want to have it for those social occasions.
Yes but it doesnt mean its an addiction even a minor one. Any addiction means a 'need' not a desire but a need for something. Many people drink but not because they need to, if it was taken away they wouldnt have withdrawals from it and would accept its no longer there, there is not that need that an addict has, even a minor addict.
-
Yes, I know what Torah means, it actually literally means "The Law/The (lawful) Lifestyle"
So the Qu'ran did not clearly explain the details of what can and cannot be eaten to you then? And as such do you believe one can deduce from you referring to the old testament for these details that you don't believe it is a clear explanation for everything? Does the Qu'ran tell those who submit to It to refer to other books for details or as a source of law? Isn't this what we admonish hadithists for? Are we to make an exception for the old testament though?
oh please!
Read some of my other replies.
The hadith are NOT from Allah, the Torah and Gospel ARE from Allah, its one book, its the same message from the same source given through different messengers. Quran tells you this!
-
people eat whole grain bread because its healthy. Or do you know of other reasons why they eat it? It's tasty perhaps, but it is also healthy and I'm sure those who eat it eat it for BOTH reasons and simply for the taste.
They may not have physical withdrawal from not having it...but can you honestly tell me that people who are accustomed to/rely on drinks for social occasions will not feel any from slight to major psychological discomfort from not getting their drinks? Do you think they will be happy if they don't make it to the liquor store/beer store on time (I live in Ontario, Canada over here the government is the only licensed seller of alcohol, you can't buy it in stores, only restaurants that have a license and "the Beer store" and the "LCBO" (not sure what that stands for)
oh please!
Read some of my other replies.
The hadith are NOT from Allah, the Torah and Gospel ARE from Allah, its one book, its the same message from the same source given through different messengers. Quran tells you this!
-
That is actually exactly what you said, you even posted the entire quote yourself, I simply cut the relevant part out. You can review it again and see that part for yourself.
with alcohol thats not the case and one can be a social drinker for years and years without getting to the point one has to have it.
Yes you don't need to comment on relying on alcohol, it is obvious if one drinks for social occasions they rely on alcohol for social occasions...
No thats wrong, it is not obvious they rely on it, thats your assumption.
-
oh please!
Read some of my other replies.
The hadith are NOT from Allah, the Torah and Gospel ARE from Allah, its one book, its the same message from the same source given through different messengers. Quran tells you this!
I hope you are not insinuating that I believe hadith are from Allah. I believe that (6114) refers to ANY SOURCES OF LAW not just the hadith.
Listen, if God wanted people who submit to the Qu'ran to refer to other books as well, why would He send the Qu'ran? Why would He say it is a clear explanation for everything?
That passage, 6114, I believe is for muslims who feel that they may need other books besides the Qu'ran to supplement their knowledge of laws. I do not believe they do. Those other books are for Jews and Christians who refuse to follow the Qu'ran.
And by refusing to follow the Qu'ran is to believe things like its ok to charge interest to foreigners but not to your fellow Jews, (WHICH THE QU'RAN REFUTES) and believe things like Job cursed the day he was born
I believe the Qu'ran says it confirms the other books, because it confirms the TRUE message that may have been changed in those other books.
-
people eat whole grain bread because its healthy. Or do you know of other reasons why they eat it? It's tasty perhaps, but it is also healthy and I'm sure those who eat it eat it for BOTH reasons and simply for the taste.
They may not have physical withdrawal from not having it...but can you honestly tell me that people who are accustomed to/rely on drinks for social occasions will not feel any from slight to major psychological discomfort from not getting their drinks? Do you think they will be happy if they don't make it to the liquor store/beer store on time (I live in Ontario, Canada over here the government is the only licensed seller of alcohol, you can't buy it in stores, only restaurants that have a license and "the Beer store" and the "LCBO" (not sure what that stands for)
What you have described is addiction, that is not social drinking. If they are having slight to major psychological discomfort then they are having withdrawal symptoms!
LCBO = Liqour Control Board of Ontario.
-
I was not saying you yourself said I was a hypocrite, I was referring to you understanding my logic to believe that those who say la illa ha ill Allah are hypocrites according to said logic because they have not witnessed or seen The God directly. They have however witnessed and seen His proofs directly.
??? Im sure that makes sense to someone, certainly not to me
-
No thats wrong, it is not obvious they rely on it, thats your assumption.
So they buy it, and drink it why then? Is it because they don't rely on it? It is an assumption of mine? Please explain why it is an assumption and why they don't rely on it for social occasions, but drink it to lubricate social occasions, and why this doesn't mean they rely on it?
What you have described is addiction, that is not social drinking. If they are having slight to major psychological discomfort then they are having withdrawal symptoms!
LCBO = Liqour Control Board of Ontario.
-
-
??? Im sure that makes sense to someone, certainly not to me
What doesn't make sense? You said that going by my logic, people who believe in la illaha ill Allah are hypocrites, going by my logic, because they have not directly seen The God...and my reply was they are not hypocrites, because they might not have seen him, but they have seen His proofs.
What doesn't make sense, can you detail it instead of simply saying it doesn't make sense?
-
Thats it!
Im done here for tonight and didnt read past this. Good night!
Mazhar we can inshaAllah continue our discussion at some other point, I certainly had enough today!
peace
That's too bad.
I believe that (6114) refers to ANY OTHER SOURCES OF LAW not just the hadith.
Listen, if God wanted people who submit to the Qu'ran to refer to other books as well, why would He send the Qu'ran? Why would He say it is a clear explanation for everything?
That passage, 6114, I believe is for muslims who feel that they may need other books besides the Qu'ran to supplement their knowledge of laws. I do not believe they do. Those other books are for Jews and Christians who refuse to follow the Qu'ran.
And by refusing to follow the Qu'ran is to believe things like its ok to charge interest to foreigners but not to your fellow Jews, (WHICH THE QU'RAN REFUTES) and believe things like Job cursed the day he was born
I believe the Qu'ran says it confirms the other books, because it confirms the TRUE message that may have been changed in those other books.