I renounced my faith in the divinity of the Qur'an today
-
How do you know what a bad deed is?
I have my own personal ideas of good and bad based on my human reason and my own personal set of morality. I don't need God to tell me good and bad.
But please answer my question. How do you know what a good deed is?
-
I have my own personal ideas of good and bad based on my human reason and my own personal set of morality. I don't need God to tell me good and bad.
But please answer my question. How do you know what a good deed is?
"Now this is the command Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."
-- The Eloquent Peasant, 1650 BCE"Hence, keeping these in mind, by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself."
-- Mahabharata, Yudhistira 800 BCE"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."
? Confucius 500 BCE"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn"
-- Rabbi Hillel 110 BCE"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them for this is the law and the prophets."
-- Jesus 30 CE -
Furthermore in the Qur'an there are verses that outright condone hitting your wife and taking female captives of war. These female captives are one of the categories of women whom God allows sexual relations with. This disagrees with my own personal morals yet God condones it.
434 I've looked at. If you look at the word in a cross-reference manner IMO it is not reasonable to conclude that 434 means hit. I'm talking from an unbiased perspective. And who says that it is talking about just wives. It applies to girlfriends and fiances as well?
And the Ma Malekat aymunkum which literally translates to those whom your oaths possess are not female captives of war. How is those whom your oaths possess related to female captives of war? There are oaths between one and his girlfriend, between one and his fiance. Also MMA (ma malekat aymunkum) cannot mean female captives of war since the phrase used is not feminine. It denotes both genders.So if my reason trumps God then I must accept my reason and discard God.
Your reason cannot trump God if it was God who gave you your reason. If God does not exist then there is not God for your reason to trump.
Defining perfection is a large leap from proving that The Perfect exists.
An idea is an effect. The cause of it must have as much reality as the effect. Is there anything other than the Perfect that can be the cause of the idea of the perfect?
This is crazy. You cannot say that intuition tells us what is and isn't pleasing in the eyes of God. This would mean that what is pleasing to God is subjective and changes with each human being and that the Abrahamic concepts of righteousness and sin mean nothing.
What is pleasing to God isn't something you feel in your mind. That is simply what you THINK is pleasing to God.
No. I'm saying that there is objectivity to morality and that if God exists, then it has given us reason and within this reason there is the objective morality which in turn means it's upholding is to acknowledge the laws of God thus it is to submit to God. I should not have said pleasing to God. I should have said submission to God.
I can be the best person I can be without a false God or man made holy book. There is nothing divine about having reason. In fact religion is an enemy of reason.
The divine thing about reason is that it points to a reason giver and our use of reason points to design and organisation in the Universe. This implies either infinite universes or God.
Say you take the infinite Universe example. You would have to still acknowledge the existence of God because the infinite Universe hypothesis means that all things that are hypothetically possible ultimately exist in one of the infinite Universes. This means that one of the Universes has an Almighty etc. God.
As for the 19 'miracle' I won't comment any further on that now because it's immaterial to me.
Ok no problem
Religion offers nothing tangible or testable about reality. All it does is provide emotional stimulation. I can get the same thing from Islam as I can with any other religion. There is nothing uniquely divine about Islam to distinguish it from any other man made religion.
Well there is 19 plus the scientific verses. I need to recheck the "scientific" verses but 19 is rock solid IMO. Also the content has proven to be very beneficial.
-
The idea that we should all look inside ourselves and find some deep reality or purpose is nonsense. It is simply an emotional feeling that our own minds create. If I look inside myself I can find anything my mind creates.
The Muslim looks inside himself and sees Allah.
The Christian looks inside himself and sees Jesus.Everyone sees what they want to see.
I agree. This is what the mind does. But do you think you are your mind? Aren't you that which observes the mind? The mind being a bunch of thoughts and emotions, is just that. What observes those things?
You are right in what you say, but I'm talking about something beyond that. Your real self/spirit/whatever you call it. And that is not your conditioned thought forms and emotional pattern of the mind.
As for not putting a name or label to God that is nonsense. If you cannot define God, then God is whatever you want God to be. Religion teaches that God is too great for human knowledge then it claims to have intimate knowledge about the character, intent, attributes, likes, and dislikes of the very same God it claims is too great to understand or limit. It's a big hypocrisy.
If you DO define God, THEN it is whatever you want it to be. The mind makes its God as it wishes. It becomes a mental construct. That why some people see Jesus and others see a purple elephant with bangles. Our mind makes wonderful fairy tales.
I felt God many times in my life. I experienced His presence on several occasions. This feeling of God was an emotion. No different than any other emotion.
This emotion I used to attribute to God is called numinous.
I get the same feeling when I hold a newborn baby, or see a beautiful sight in nature like a forest, mountain, or waterfall.
It is nothing more than an emotion and it says nothing about the realities of the universe.
Those emotions were real. You felt them. They arose in your mind for whatever reason.
Again you are right. It was just emotions. Who claims that would be God or that you would feel God through emotions??? Emotions are emotions. The intelligent force of creation is something else.To suggest that without any holy books or religious influence I would believe in Islam is actually absurd. If religion never existed and I had no concept of heaven, hell, sin, angels, judgment, blessings, revelation and all the things that Islam preaches, I would not wake up one morning and believe in it. The FACT is that religion arises out of a tradition, and that this tradition teaches untestable, nonsensical ideas and you cannot separate your beliefs from this tradition if you claim that the Qur'an is a book from God.
I understand. I sort of agree also. What you describe as Islam is a bunch of tradition, divinely inspired or not. Of course the practice of the religion as we have it come from the books, of course you cannot have all those religious beliefs without the books.
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. If people entertain themselves with questionable religions, this fact cannot by itself alter reality and render a creating force non-existent.
My points have been about the intelligent creative force, not the authenticity of the quran. Even if the quran is man made and "false", it still doesn't mean anything in terms of the intelligent creative force, or whatever you wanna call it.
Peace FJ
-
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