I renounced my faith in the divinity of the Qur'an today
-
As for the burden of proof there is nothing I can show you that you will accept as proof. Nobody can disprove religion. That's the whole thing about it. It's an unfalsifiable belief
oh! Ok.. at least you said the truth you dont have any proof... to say truth is also one good deed according to Quran.
Brother that was not my question! you said Quran is man made and some of our friends here second you we are not talking about disproving a religon. The question was, please prove it that Quran is man made. You can start by just giving one thought. That will in return help you and many others.
Just because your mind doesnot accept one thing you cannot say that this is wrong unless and until you can prove it.
Your mind says that hitting wives cannot be from God.... some people start telling you NO you did not get the exact meaning and try to suggest different meanings that are acceptable to todays so called civilized world... You both have same prespective.. you are reacting furiously and saying God cannot say this thus this is not God's message and hence it is man made.. the other party is also convinced that God cannot order this therefore they are trying to change the meanings according to their wills....but they are less angry with God and short fall of denying the book as divine...
What if it is other way around?
The Good deeds according to Quran are
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.
(Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #177)Do not devour the wealth and property of others unjustly, nor bribe the officials or the judges to deprive others of their possessions
So this is how I know what are some of Good deeds!
And We inspired the soul with knowledge of evil and piety. Those who purify their souls will certainly have ever lasting happiness and those who corrupt their soul will certainly be deprived of happiness. (Surah ash-Shams, 918-10)
-
But the issue I keep getting back at is... quite simply, if we disregard religion, quran, scriptures etc, then my point is that truth still remains truth... and reality is what it is... what exists exists. The history or religion and scriptures and whether they are stupid or not, has NO effect on the existence of an intelligent creative force.
Precisely. The Qur'an has no effect on the existence of an intelligent creative force and I have no more reason to believe in the Abrahamic God than I have a reason to believe in UFOs or fairies. There simply is no sufficient evidence.
There are 2 enormous leaps to take with the Abrahamic religions. First that God exists which is a huge leap in itself. Second is that this God communicates to mankind and that the word of God is available to us in ancient books.
I don't have any good reason to believe the proposition of Islam or any other religion. Reality is what it is. What exists exists regardless of what the Qur'an says.
As for the other guy who said he knows what is a good deed from the Qur'an that proves my point that the crux of most religious peoples faiths is their holy book. They look to their holy book for answers and think it is from God. I no longer accept the idea that this book is from God.
There are billions of books that exist on earth. All of them were written by men. Why should the Qur'an be any different?
-
Dear @Faithful Jinn,
I just discovered this new thread right now, announcing a breakthrough
"The magnitude of the discoveries speak for themselves and prove that the Quran originates from God Almighty."The thread is here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604243.msg304828#msg304828I am going to read those articles now, let us all examine them...
-
- I like that the method of counting words sees consistent.
Consistency was the thing that the Code 19 calculations where accused of not having. - These counts, pertaining to e.g. calendars and land/water area, are not the typical code 19 style calculations we have seen so many of. They do have a dimension of 19 in them, but they are not based on it.
To me, these calculations deserve to be considered and viewed completely apart from the common code 19 debates and hysteria.
http//www.islamrevolution.org/miracleofthewordday.htm
http//www.islamrevolution.org/landsearatio.htm-
I'm not sure about the rest of the source website. I haven't really had time to go through it.
I do however feel that the articles, in general, promote the traditional style of islam, but without the nasty influence of hadith n sunna. They argue for the common style of namaz and many other typical and traditional ways of doing things, but reject hadith n sunna. I haven't really figured out how and if this holds. I'm not convinced that the quran is supporting these practices, despite the verses given as examples for this. I might be wrong, but I'm not convinced.
I believe there is just too much that is taken for granted in the quran, and I'm talking about words whose translations are taken for granted. We have seen numerous times on this forum how more sensible understandings of words have been presented by various members. Sensible here means 'in congruence with the rest of the quran and also common sense'. We have also seen that translations of words are many times not consistent. Consistency should be the first thing to apply in any attempt to understand things. -
I would be interested to hear what Faithful Jinn thinks about those two articles (the links) mentioned above.
Peace
- I like that the method of counting words sees consistent.
-
- I like that the method of counting words sees consistent.
Consistency was the thing that the Code 19 calculations where accused of not having. - These counts, pertaining to e.g. calendars and land/water area, are not the typical code 19 style calculations we have seen so many of. They do have a dimension of 19 in them, but they are not based on it.
To me, these calculations deserve to be considered and viewed completely apart from the common code 19 debates and hysteria.
http//www.islamrevolution.org/miracleofthewordday.htm
http//www.islamrevolution.org/landsearatio.htm-
I'm not sure about the rest of the source website. I haven't really had time to go through it.
I do however feel that the articles, in general, promote the traditional style of islam, but without the nasty influence of hadith n sunna. They argue for the common style of namaz and many other typical and traditional ways of doing things, but reject hadith n sunna. I haven't really figured out how and if this holds. I'm not convinced that the quran is supporting these practices, despite the verses given as examples for this. I might be wrong, but I'm not convinced.
I believe there is just too much that is taken for granted in the quran, and I'm talking about words whose translations are taken for granted. We have seen numerous times on this forum how more sensible understandings of words have been presented by various members. Sensible here means 'in congruence with the rest of the quran and also common sense'. We have also seen that translations of words are many times not consistent. Consistency should be the first thing to apply in any attempt to understand things. -
I would be interested to hear what Faithful Jinn thinks about those two articles (the links) mentioned above.
Peace
I've skimmed the articles but not gone in depth. I've heard of these 2 instances before however yet never read in depth about them.
I haven't formed an opinion quite yet because it's a pretty deep subject but I will comment on it later.
- I like that the method of counting words sees consistent.
-
Personally, these calculations in regards to day, month, solar, lunar, barr, bahar, and the ratios of plain occurrences and of gematrical values, is something that I just cannot deny. I'm honestly amazed. By the way, I've grown sick of the code 19 debates and have stopped thinking about it... what a mess.... but these calculations... they seem simple, consistent and making sense. They are not just multiples of a number (19) found by mixing stuff from here and there. They seem quite straight forward. Frankly speaking, I don't need numbers, or even the quran, for my faith in the intelligent creative force... so I'm free of WANTING this or that to be true. Let's see how other members receive the articles and what arguments are brought up for and against.
Peace and cheers
-
I've skimmed the articles but not gone in depth. I've heard of these 2 instances before however yet never read in depth about them.
I haven't formed an opinion quite yet because it's a pretty deep subject but I will comment on it later.
Quran is not for fools like you. So I am happy that you renounce your belief in the Quran, thank god one less hadither to give Quran a bad name.
Peace
-
Quran is not for fools like you. So I am happy that you renounce your belief in the Quran, thank god one less hadither to give Quran a bad name.
Peace
You @Maha just remind me of this
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3pfF_rjVQs&feature=player_embeddedACTUALLY YOU POSTED THAT VIDEO IN A THREAD YOU OPENED WITH rotfl
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603272.msg289837#msg289837Was that your model you wanted to emulate to communicate with others? ???
-
Quran is not for fools like you. So I am happy that you renounce your belief in the Quran, thank god one less hadither to give Quran a bad name.
Peace
Is this the example of conduct with others you learned from Quran? Is this what Allah expects from His humble slaves? You dont know what humility is.
Hadither? Lol not only was I never a hadither but I personally know more Sunnis more humble in character than you.
Good luck on your spiritual journey.
-
What your right hands possess does not mean the ones you will marry. It does not mean that in any other place in the Qur'an nor does it mean that here.
Those whom your right hands possess refers to slaves in every occurrence of the Qur'an and to suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant.
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess
Prohibited to you are women already married, EXCEPT for those whom your right hands possess! It could not be any more clear.
Normally, I don't take part in such disscussions, because it's frankly not my damn business if Faithful-Jinn believes in the divinity of the Quran or not. But when I read something like that, I feel that I am obliged to butt in and have a say. I feel that I have to defend the Quran from the slanderous and demonic interpretations that have been fed to our generations by the godless criminals called "The Salaf". (By that, I mean the Judeo-Persian filth like Bukhari , Tirmizhi, and Co. who forced there "interpretations" of the Quran on us).
The term "ma malakat aymanukum" does NOT mean female sex slaves, nor does it mean "what your right HAND possesses" . It means "Those whom you have taken under OATH".
The word "aymanukum" is the plural of "yameen", which means OATH.
Here are some examples
{And do not make God the subject of your casual oaths (aymanukum)}...
{The ones who purchase with the pledge of God and their oaths (aymanuhum) a cheap price, those will have no portion in the Hereafter}...
{And they swore by God using their strongest oaths; (aymanuhum) that if a sign came to them they would believe in it.}...
{And fulfill your pledge to God when you pledge so, and do not break your oath (al-ayman) after making it}...
There's plenty more where those came from.
Also, in case you didn't know, "ma malakat aymanukum" can be MALES as well. Care to read?
{And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or ...... those maintained by their oaths (aymanuhunna)}... (note the feminin aymanuhunna - referring to those women who own male "slaves" as you put it).
So does the above verse mean that believing women are also allowed to keep male sex slaves?
I guess the Judeo-Persian scumbags who wrote "Islamic History" and served it to our generations on a golden platter must have covered that part with their thumbs when they "interpreted" the Quran.
The Quran is not talking about sex slaves or war captives, as the criminal Salaf, who spread Islam by the sword later on, would have you believe. It is talking about those unfortunate males and females who are financially dependant on others, and have no-one to spend on them. As a result, the believing man (or woman) takes those unfortunate people under their wing, and into their household, and SWEARS an OATH (yameen) to support them and take care of them.
Now if a believing man should happen to want to marry one of those women under his oath, then the Quran says he must PAY THE DOWRY and HAVE THE PERMISSION OF HER PARENTS, if she is not yet an adult
Care to read?
{And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths (aymanukum) of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their dowries in kindness; to be independent, not for illicit sex or taking lovers}...
Does this sound to you like they are slaves to be bedded unconditionally?
Finally, during Muhammad's time (I mean the REAL Muhammad, not the Judeo-Persian abomination that the Muslims have idolized), certain non-believing women who were married to like men who were idol-worshippers or rejecters, eventually embraced the faith, and became believing women. As a reslut, they were no longer lawful for their husbands. Some could not even live with their husbands anymore, and went to seek assylum in Muhammad's commnity. As a result, those women became financially dependant. The Quran gave a solution to this, and instructed believing men to test those women to make sure they were truly faithful, then to take them under their OATH. So they became "malakat aymanukum".
Care to read?
{O you who believe, if the believing women come emigrating to you, then you shall test them. God is fully aware of their belief. Thus, if you establish that they are believers, then you shall not return them to the rejecters. They are no longer lawful for one another. And return the dowries that were paid. And there is no sin upon you to marry them, if you have paid their dowries to them. And do not keep disbelieving wives, and ask back what dowries you paid. And let them ask back what dowries they had paid. Such is the judgment of God; He judges between you. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.}...
As you can see, that is only case where a believing man can marry an already married woman, in order to bring them under OATH of support and protection.
So when you read, in , about permitting the Muslim man to marry the "already married women" who are now under OATH, you know that its talking about those same women mentioned in 6010. It all becomes crystal clear when you use the Quran to interpret the Quran. But if you insist on resorting to the Judeo-Persian bullshit that has been peddled as the tru Islamic history, and reach absurd conclusions as a result, then you have no-one to blame but your self.
And if you had the intellectually honesty to look at Islamic history and the history of Muhammad's own lifetime you would see that this is how the verse was interpreted.
The history of Muhamad?? rotfl That's a howler. Do you even know who Muhammad was? Do the so-called "Muslims" know? There is no such thing as "Islamic History" . There is only Islamic GARBAGE. Our so-called "history" has been written by a league of Jews and Persians who conspired together to hijack it. The Muhammad you know and hear about is a MYTH. The Muhammad who was born in 570 A.D, in the rotten and lifeless Hijaz Desert, who circumbulated a black cube covered with a filthy black rag, and kissed a volcanic stone placed inside a vulva-shaped container, then rode a winged horse to Palestine is a MYTH. And teh people who made up that Muhammad, are teh SAME ONES who interpreted "Ma Malakat Aymanukum" as "female sex slaves". Until you realize that, you are not qualified to "interpret" the Quran. The alleged "Sahaba" (Companions) Omar, Abu Bakr, Othman, Ali....the whole lot, did not live during Muhammad's time, nor did they have any relationship to him whatsoever. Can you prove the existance of Aisha? Before you debate if "Muhammad the Pedofile" - a mythical figure created by the Judeo-Persian dogs whose descendants are reading these very posts and laughing at us this very moment - married Aisha when she was 6, 9, 13, or whatever, prove to me that Aisha even existed.. If you can prove Robin Hood of English folklore existed, then you can do the same for figures like "Aisha" and "Hafsa".
Here is the truth Anything about "Islamic History" not mentioned in the Quran or confirmed by archeology or solid physical evidence is worth no more than a pile of horse excrement. The ENTIRE CORPUS of hadith, tradition, and history books, from cover to cover, are not worth the paper they were printed on.
-
Peace Pazuzu,
I notice that there are many nonsensical posts in this forum as well,
debating their misunderstandings and corruptions of God's revelations.
This post is one of them!Say, "O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion beyond the truth, and do not follow the opinions of people who have gone astray, and have misled multitudes of people; they are far astray from the right path."
Peace O0
-
Normally, I don't take part in such disscussions, because it's frankly not my damn business if Faithful-Jinn believes in the divinity of the Quran or not. But when I read something like that, I feel that I am obliged to butt in and have a say. I feel that I have to defend the Quran from the slanderous and demonic interpretations that have been fed to our generations by the godless criminals called "The Salaf". (By that, I mean the Judeo-Persian filth like Bukhari , Tirmizhi, and Co. who forced there "interpretations" of the Quran on us).
The term "ma malakat aymanukum" does NOT mean female sex slaves, nor does it mean "what your right HAND possesses" . It means "Those whom you have taken under OATH".
The word "aymanukum" is the plural of "yameen", which means OATH.
Here are some examples
{And do not make God the subject of your casual oaths (aymanukum)}...
{The ones who purchase with the pledge of God and their oaths (aymanuhum) a cheap price, those will have no portion in the Hereafter}...
{And they swore by God using their strongest oaths; (aymanuhum) that if a sign came to them they would believe in it.}...
{And fulfill your pledge to God when you pledge so, and do not break your oath (al-ayman) after making it}...
There's plenty more where those came from.
Also, in case you didn't know, "ma malakat aymanukum" can be MALES as well. Care to read?
{And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or ...... those maintained by their oaths (aymanuhunna)}... (note the feminin aymanuhunna - referring to those women who own male "slaves" as you put it).
So does the above verse mean that believing women are also allowed to keep male sex slaves?
I guess the Judeo-Persian scumbags who wrote "Islamic History" and served it to our generations on a golden platter must have covered that part with their thumbs when they "interpreted" the Quran.
The Quran is not talking about sex slaves or war captives, as the criminal Salaf, who spread Islam by the sword later on, would have you believe. It is talking about those unfortunate males and females who are financially dependant on others, and have no-one to spend on them. As a result, the believing man (or woman) takes those unfortunate people under their wing, and into their household, and SWEARS an OATH (yameen) to support them and take care of them.
Now if a believing man should happen to want to marry one of those women under his oath, then the Quran says he must PAY THE DOWRY and HAVE THE PERMISSION OF HER PARENTS, if she is not yet an adult
Care to read?
{And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths (aymanukum) of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their dowries in kindness; to be independent, not for illicit sex or taking lovers}...
Does this sound to you like they are slaves to be bedded unconditionally?
Finally, during Muhammad's time (I mean the REAL Muhammad, not the Judeo-Persian abomination that the Muslims have idolized), certain non-believing women who were married to like men who were idol-worshippers or rejecters, eventually embraced the faith, and became believing women. As a reslut, they were no longer lawful for their husbands. Some could not even live with their husbands anymore, and went to seek assylum in Muhammad's commnity. As a result, those women became financially dependant. The Quran gave a solution to this, and instructed believing men to test those women to make sure they were truly faithful, then to take them under their OATH. So they became "malakat aymanukum".
Care to read?
{O you who believe, if the believing women come emigrating to you, then you shall test them. God is fully aware of their belief. Thus, if you establish that they are believers, then you shall not return them to the rejecters. They are no longer lawful for one another. And return the dowries that were paid. And there is no sin upon you to marry them, if you have paid their dowries to them. And do not keep disbelieving wives, and ask back what dowries you paid. And let them ask back what dowries they had paid. Such is the judgment of God; He judges between you. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.}...
As you can see, that is only case where a believing man can marry an already married woman, in order to bring them under OATH of support and protection.
So when you read, in , about permitting the Muslim man to marry the "already married women" who are now under OATH, you know that its talking about those same women mentioned in 6010. It all becomes crystal clear when you use the Quran to interpret the Quran. But if you insist on resorting to the Judeo-Persian bullshit that has been peddled as the tru Islamic history, and reach absurd conclusions as a result, then you have no-one to blame but your self.
The history of Muhamad?? rotfl That's a howler. Do you even know who Muhammad was? Do the so-called "Muslims" know? There is no such thing as "Islamic History" . There is only Islamic GARBAGE. Our so-called "history" has been written by a league of Jews and Persians who conspired together to hijack it. The Muhammad you know and hear about is a MYTH. The Muhammad who was born in 570 A.D, in the rotten and lifeless Hijaz Desert, who circumbulated a black cube covered with a filthy black rag, and kissed a volcanic stone placed inside a vulva-shaped container, then rode a winged horse to Palestine is a MYTH. And teh people who made up that Muhammad, are teh SAME ONES who interpreted "Ma Malakat Aymanukum" as "female sex slaves". Until you realize that, you are not qualified to "interpret" the Quran. The alleged "Sahaba" (Companions) Omar, Abu Bakr, Othman, Ali....the whole lot, did not live during Muhammad's time, nor did they have any relationship to him whatsoever. Can you prove the existance of Aisha? Before you debate if "Muhammad the Pedofile" - a mythical figure created by the Judeo-Persian dogs whose descendants are reading these very posts and laughing at us this very moment - married Aisha when she was 6, 9, 13, or whatever, prove to me that Aisha even existed.. If you can prove Robin Hood of English folklore existed, then you can do the same for figures like "Aisha" and "Hafsa".
Here is the truth Anything about "Islamic History" not mentioned in the Quran or confirmed by archeology or solid physical evidence is worth no more than a pile of horse excrement. The ENTIRE CORPUS of hadith, tradition, and history books, from cover to cover, are not worth the paper they were printed on.
Thanks for this post. I was trying to tell him he got his facts wrong about some things, Ma Malekat Aymunkum included but you did it with much much more depth.
-
You @Maha just remind me of this
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3pfF_rjVQs&feature=player_embeddedACTUALLY YOU POSTED THAT VIDEO IN A THREAD YOU OPENED WITH rotfl
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603272.msg289837#msg289837Was that your model you wanted to emulate to communicate with others? ???
I don't really care about who I remind you of and I don't have time to check your silly videos. I would advice you to stick to the topic.
Peace
-
Normally, I don't take part in such disscussions, because it's frankly not my damn business if Faithful-Jinn believes in the divinity of the Quran or not. But when I read something like that, I feel that I am obliged to butt in and have a say. I feel that I have to defend the Quran from the slanderous and demonic interpretations that have been fed to our generations by the godless criminals called "The Salaf". (By that, I mean the Judeo-Persian filth like Bukhari , Tirmizhi, and Co. who forced there "interpretations" of the Quran on us).
The term "ma malakat aymanukum" does NOT mean female sex slaves, nor does it mean "what your right HAND possesses" . It means "Those whom you have taken under OATH".
The word "aymanukum" is the plural of "yameen", which means OATH.
Here are some examples
{And do not make God the subject of your casual oaths (aymanukum)}...
{The ones who purchase with the pledge of God and their oaths (aymanuhum) a cheap price, those will have no portion in the Hereafter}...
{And they swore by God using their strongest oaths; (aymanuhum) that if a sign came to them they would believe in it.}...
{And fulfill your pledge to God when you pledge so, and do not break your oath (al-ayman) after making it}...
There's plenty more where those came from.
Also, in case you didn't know, "ma malakat aymanukum" can be MALES as well. Care to read?
{And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or ...... those maintained by their oaths (aymanuhunna)}... (note the feminin aymanuhunna - referring to those women who own male "slaves" as you put it).
So does the above verse mean that believing women are also allowed to keep male sex slaves?
I guess the Judeo-Persian scumbags who wrote "Islamic History" and served it to our generations on a golden platter must have covered that part with their thumbs when they "interpreted" the Quran.
The Quran is not talking about sex slaves or war captives, as the criminal Salaf, who spread Islam by the sword later on, would have you believe. It is talking about those unfortunate males and females who are financially dependant on others, and have no-one to spend on them. As a result, the believing man (or woman) takes those unfortunate people under their wing, and into their household, and SWEARS an OATH (yameen) to support them and take care of them.
Now if a believing man should happen to want to marry one of those women under his oath, then the Quran says he must PAY THE DOWRY and HAVE THE PERMISSION OF HER PARENTS, if she is not yet an adult
Care to read?
{And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths (aymanukum) of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their dowries in kindness; to be independent, not for illicit sex or taking lovers}...
Does this sound to you like they are slaves to be bedded unconditionally?
Finally, during Muhammad's time (I mean the REAL Muhammad, not the Judeo-Persian abomination that the Muslims have idolized), certain non-believing women who were married to like men who were idol-worshippers or rejecters, eventually embraced the faith, and became believing women. As a reslut, they were no longer lawful for their husbands. Some could not even live with their husbands anymore, and went to seek assylum in Muhammad's commnity. As a result, those women became financially dependant. The Quran gave a solution to this, and instructed believing men to test those women to make sure they were truly faithful, then to take them under their OATH. So they became "malakat aymanukum".
Care to read?
{O you who believe, if the believing women come emigrating to you, then you shall test them. God is fully aware of their belief. Thus, if you establish that they are believers, then you shall not return them to the rejecters. They are no longer lawful for one another. And return the dowries that were paid. And there is no sin upon you to marry them, if you have paid their dowries to them. And do not keep disbelieving wives, and ask back what dowries you paid. And let them ask back what dowries they had paid. Such is the judgment of God; He judges between you. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.}...
As you can see, that is only case where a believing man can marry an already married woman, in order to bring them under OATH of support and protection.
So when you read, in , about permitting the Muslim man to marry the "already married women" who are now under OATH, you know that its talking about those same women mentioned in 6010. It all becomes crystal clear when you use the Quran to interpret the Quran. But if you insist on resorting to the Judeo-Persian bullshit that has been peddled as the tru Islamic history, and reach absurd conclusions as a result, then you have no-one to blame but your self.
The history of Muhamad?? rotfl That's a howler. Do you even know who Muhammad was? Do the so-called "Muslims" know? There is no such thing as "Islamic History" . There is only Islamic GARBAGE. Our so-called "history" has been written by a league of Jews and Persians who conspired together to hijack it. The Muhammad you know and hear about is a MYTH. The Muhammad who was born in 570 A.D, in the rotten and lifeless Hijaz Desert, who circumbulated a black cube covered with a filthy black rag, and kissed a volcanic stone placed inside a vulva-shaped container, then rode a winged horse to Palestine is a MYTH. And teh people who made up that Muhammad, are teh SAME ONES who interpreted "Ma Malakat Aymanukum" as "female sex slaves". Until you realize that, you are not qualified to "interpret" the Quran. The alleged "Sahaba" (Companions) Omar, Abu Bakr, Othman, Ali....the whole lot, did not live during Muhammad's time, nor did they have any relationship to him whatsoever. Can you prove the existance of Aisha? Before you debate if "Muhammad the Pedofile" - a mythical figure created by the Judeo-Persian dogs whose descendants are reading these very posts and laughing at us this very moment - married Aisha when she was 6, 9, 13, or whatever, prove to me that Aisha even existed.. If you can prove Robin Hood of English folklore existed, then you can do the same for figures like "Aisha" and "Hafsa".
Here is the truth Anything about "Islamic History" not mentioned in the Quran or confirmed by archeology or solid physical evidence is worth no more than a pile of horse excrement. The ENTIRE CORPUS of hadith, tradition, and history books, from cover to cover, are not worth the paper they were printed on.
Thank you for your analyze. It really make sense . It laughable to see how that fool tried to justify sexual slavery and rape by the Quran . Let him sell himself as a sex slave first, then he can talk.
Peace
-
Peace Pazuzu,
I notice that there are many nonsensical posts in this forum as well,
debating their misunderstandings and corruptions of God's revelations.
This post is one of them!Say, "O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion beyond the truth, and do not follow the opinions of people who have gone astray, and have misled multitudes of people; they are far astray from the right path."
Peace O0
bravo
-
I don't really care about who I remind you of and I don't have time to check your silly videos. I would advice you to stick to the topic.
Peace
But you are the one who posted that silly video in the first place hypocrite! hahaha bravo rotfl yay
jedi
And how did you stick to the topic? By insulting some and praising other? What a contribution lol!May God be merciful on you and guide you to the right path, and heal you spiritually! sun
-
Okay I'm not going to get into a long analysis of everything you said about the term "ma malakat aymanukum" just yet. I simply use the established translations and 8 different ones all gave me the same translation.
Why in the world would I believe that your interpretation of the Qur'an is how it was actually practices 1400 years ago?
I appreciate the interpretation of the Qur'an from Quranist viewpoint because it turns a savage and primitive bronze age faith into a beautiful and profound and universal religion.
On the other hand I must also take into consideration historical facts and realities of the time as well as acknowledge that the Qur'an alone Islam of today could possibly be a far different interpretation than how Muhammad and the Sahaba practiced it.
In essence though, I believe most people on this website are no different than the Sunnis, Shias, and every other religious sect that existed in every other religion. You want to interpret your scripture in a way that suits your needs, desires, or beliefs.
Albert Einstein said "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
I believe many Quranists are changing facts to rationalize their own viewpoints. All of a sudden every single interpretation besides theirs becomes incorrect and every single verse that doesn't agree with their own human reasoning or morality has discovered a new meaning. You people would change the meaning of the word "Allah" if you had to! Actually there is a sect of "Quranist" Muslims who have done exactly that (God is not God nonsense)!
This is the very same thing you accuse Sunnis and traditionalists of doing. You say their interpretation is worthless or illegitimate. What makes your interpretations or opinions any more legitimate than Yusuf Ali, Muhsin Khan, or Pickthall?
In my opinion all you're doing is calling their opinion horse shit and then creating your own horse shit to match it.
What makes your interpretation in ANY WAY more credible or legitimate than others?
Here is the truth Anything about "Islamic History" not mentioned in the Quran or confirmed by archeology or solid physical evidence is worth no more than a pile of horse excrement. The ENTIRE CORPUS of hadith, tradition, and history books, from cover to cover, are not worth the paper they were printed on.
This is laughable. Denying history in order to rationalize your own viewpoint of the 1400 year old book? Your opinion is also worth no more than a pile of horse excrement. Basically you're saying that anything that doesn't coincide with your own preconceived notions of what Islam is, is worthless and you will ignore it in favor of your own more worthless opinion.
Hadith and tradition and even history may not be completely accurate but they are based on real evidence and credible information can be gleaned from them. History books at least with sources and based on facts are often times offering credible facts.
Here I have someone telling me that history books are nonsense and that only he and those who agree with him know the true meaning of God's supposed word. Just as crazy as the Salafis.
Now I acknowledge that there is very little we can know about the true life of Muhammad. There was no contemporary material written about him that was critical of him and most of the stuff we have was probably written by his followers and was very likely heavily edited and redacted. In that way it is a pile of horse crap. We can however understand the environment of the area of the world he lived in during the 7th century and when combining that with the "historical" accounts of his life we can try to piece together a reasonable picture of the lifestyle of that time period and region and make educated guesses about things.
But if you're saying nobody has credibility then why should I take your word?
Why would I accept your horse excrement over the horse excrement of another? They're both crap.
-
Peace FJ
In essence though, I believe most people on this website are no different than the Sunnis, Shias, and every other religious sect that existed in every other religion. You want to interpret your scripture in a way that suits your needs, desires, or beliefs.
This does happen sometimes. But this does not take anything away from the book itself. The failure of some to stick to the text or perhaps wrongly interpret it is not a lack of truthfulness in the book.
I believe many Quranists are changing facts to rationalize their own viewpoints.
Where?
You cannot hold assumptions about the accuracy of a people's approach to a book without assessing their methods. I don't think you've done this. I think that this is being said based on just there being different views. If this is the case, then your statement is neither accurate nor fair. If this is not the case, then what corrupt method of approach have you seen to make you think this?What makes your interpretation in ANY WAY more credible or legitimate than others?
Good methodology and objectivity (as in no bias)
This is the very same thing you accuse Sunnis and traditionalists of doing. You say their interpretation is worthless or illegitimate. What makes your interpretations or opinions any more legitimate than Yusuf Ali, Muhsin Khan, or Pickthall?
I certainly don't recall saying their interpretation is worthless. I think it has issues at verses and I can back that via evidence. Evidence being actual meanings of the word, cross-referecing with the rest of the Quran something that at times (sometimes crucial) is taken for granted amongst some sunnis and shiites.
Denying history in order to rationalize your own viewpoint of the 1400 year old book?
This is new to me with regards to that which is classified as authentic history. Thus I must ask, are you talking with info from credible history? Can I have the source please?
-
But you are the one who posted that silly video in the first place hypocrite! hahaha bravo rotfl yay
jedi
And how did you stick to the topic? By insulting some and praising other? What a contribution lol!May God be merciful on you and guide you to the right path, and heal you spiritually! sun
Seems like its impossible to get rid of you. You are such a lonely poor soul. For god sake stop stalking me, stalker. STOP STALKING ME OR I WILL CONTACT THE ADMIN!
-
Peace FJ
This does happen sometimes. But this does not take anything away from the book itself. The failure of some to stick to the text or perhaps wrongly interpret it is not a lack of truthfulness in the book.
To me it does take away something from the book. It's a vague and unclear book that can be interpreted in many ways and if the Islamic God did create this book then the Islamic God is an extremely ineffective communicator.
Where? an interpretation to support your beliefs. It may not be deliberate but it may be an inherent bias and this you cannot deny exists.
You cannot hold assumptions about the accuracy of a people's approach to a book without assessing their methods. I don't think you've done this. I think that this is being said based on just there being different views. If this is the case, then your statement is neither accurate nor fair. If this is not the case, then what corrupt method of approach have you seen to make you think this?
Good methodology and objectivity (as in no bias)And the other traditional interpretations lack good methodology? As for the objectivity I HIGHLY doubt that. If you're a Qur'an alone Muslim you are just as biased as the traditionalists in looking for an interpretation that supports your own beliefs.
For example, a word has two possible meanings. One meaning is the traditional one and there is another meaning that is not as primitive or hateful or sexist. The Qur'anist will always lean toward the non-traditional meaning whether it is deliberate or not.
I certainly don't recall saying their interpretation is worthless. I think it has issues at verses and I can back that via evidence. Evidence being actual meanings of the word, cross-referecing with the rest of the Quran something that at times (sometimes crucial) is taken for granted amongst some sunnis and shiites.
Strange how different sects have different meanings of words isn't it? Do you believe the Quranist perspective is more legitimate than the perspectives of other sects?
This is new to me with regards to that which is classified as authentic history. Thus I must ask, are you talking with info from credible history? Can I have the source please?
I haven't offered any historical information yet so I have no source to offer. Is there a place in my previous post where I offered any specific historical information contrary to the Qur'an?
Typically though, to offer credible history one must take the approach of citing multiple independent sources or cite a book that does so.
Singular sources can be accepted as historical but not necessarily as credible. For example the Bible is obviously a book containing history but the credibility of that history is questionable.
In addition to pure facts though, historians are also analysts who attempt to present claims based on few pieces of information to make educated guesses on things. For example Biblical historians take the Biblical text to make guesses about who wrote these texts by the language of the text, inherent bias of the text, writing style, opinions probably held by the writer of the text, region of where the writer was located, beliefs of the writer, etc.
This is how Biblical historians put together the current and widely accepted theory of who wrote the Bible. This is just an example I'm offering as to how we could possibly speculate history of the Qur'an and Muhammad.