Is the Quran for all time?
-
There are 2 ways in the Quran. Some will focus on LAW, they will discuss the punishments etc. And some will focus on a spiritual system of behaviour that doesnt require law, because people feel right and wrong as clear as fysical pain nearly. See it in the light of our sister relegions. judaism is heavily based on law, where Xtianity has gone out in the weeds with a guitar and flowers in the hair, and little fat angels with trumpets, and rainbows, and green fields ...ok you get the point. To me both are idolators, the jews are just very good at hiding this fact.
I think you have completely misunderstood the idea of what judaism is based on.
Our Tor? is not a "law". It means "teaching" or "herritage" like the one you recieve from your parents. It is what points or casts a direction.
"The law" would rather be ha-lakha which neither authoric nor is it a static one but fluently and constant changing.As speaking of the Koran, there's nothing implying that it's of the nature of a "law".
Please explain the idoltery of judaism to me!
Kindly,
S -
I think you have completely misunderstood the idea of what judaism is based on.
Our Tor? is not a "law". It means "teaching" or "herritage" like the one you recieve from your parents. It is what points or casts a direction.when people start banging their head against a wall as part of their releigious practice, they have 1. estabslished a law 2.is comitting idolatry.
YHVH is undoubtly a volcano spirit, or ceveral verses certainly suggests this. "Yhvh was a pillar of smoke by day, and a pillar of fire by night", "the lord THUNDERS wonderfully with his voice", "Thunder is in hebrew called the voice of God - Strongs Bible concordance" etc ..
Peace
-
Peace mquran. Do you think all of the quran is literally relevent to todays society? Do you take the quran as superior to what you can see/verify with your own mind/eyes? Where is bird flu,aids,nuclear weapons,global warming,chemistry,medical breakthroughs,cancer,chemical warfare,social statistics,social research,psychological research,esp,detailed dream analysis,quantum physics,gulf wars,tsunamis,pregnancy tests,pregnancy scans, etc.. directly in the quran?
Peace all. -
when people start banging their head against a wall as part of their releigious practice, they have 1. estabslished a law 2.is comitting idolatry.
First of all, what part of banging ones head against the wall implies that a law by doing so is being established.
Second, how does this act imply that the law being established by the head banging, is the Tor??
Third, what part of jewish liturgy even involves "...people start banging their head against a wall" in the first place?YHVH is undoubtly a volcano spirit, or ceveral verses certainly suggests this. "Yhvh was a pillar of smoke by day, and a pillar of fire by night", "the lord THUNDERS wonderfully with his voice", "Thunder is in hebrew called the voice of God - Strongs Bible concordance" etc ..
Thunder is not caused by volcanos. So this would make the Lord a volcano/thunder spirit, right? Can you please explain how this fits the context of idolizing jews.
As a matter of fact I believe that what you just quoted is not of the Tor? you keep insisting is a "law". Would you mind refering to what verses they come from? -
Peace enquirer,
Yes quantum physics is directly found in the Quran, i'm busy now with writing an article about it. Secondly enviromental issues is also directed in the Quran, by saying we have to search a balance with nature, so God already gave us a way we should live, you want an answer for something we caused by not answering to this advise already given in the Quran. And God advises us to study our world to find answers. The Quran gives us hints HOW to look, not always WHERE to look. Wars are started by us, not Him, don't push our responsibillity of free will on to God, saying He allows it, so He is not a merciful God. We ALLOW war, we ALLOW stupid ass holes to be in power, we ALLOW people to starve in Africa. These are OUR responsibillities. And God pushes us to understand nature and ourselves. He only gives us a direction, there are examples of psychology and science in the Quran, so your demand of direct answers or i dismiss it as a good revelation is unwarranted. Tsunami's has to do with laws of nature. These tsunami's are direct results of OUR handling of enviroment, stop blaming God.....
Peace
-
Peace mquran.
Peace and blessings upon you.
Do you think all of the quran is literally relevent to todays society?
Yes i do.
Do you take the quran as superior to what you can see/verify with your own mind/eyes?
Yes I do.
Where is bird flu,aids,nuclear weapons,global warming,chemistry,medical breakthroughs,cancer,chemical warfare,social statistics,social research,psychological research,esp,detailed dream analysis,quantum physics,gulf wars,tsunamis,pregnancy tests,pregnancy scans, etc.. directly in the quran?
Not there.
Question does this make al-quraan deficient or is your categorisation system itself deficient. If you feel al-quraan is deficient, why don't you produce a coherent treatise like it?
-
Peace arnoldyasin. I agree with a lot of your excellent reply.
I am not blaming god...i am blaming the interpretation of god...
As for the quran,i also blame the interpretation of it,and the belief that it is perfect or absolutely necessary for guidance...
Peace all. -
Peace mquran. If you say you put the quran before your own eyes/minds verification process,then how do you know that your mind is correct in verifying that the quran is correct? Would you allow whippings,right hand posession and amputations in todays western societies? Yes,i feel quran is relatively deficient, in that it does not explain or answer every question in life.(but then why should a mans words do all that anyway?) I feel it can be a useful book,but not the permanent,perfect,complete constitution for all times. You claim that the quran is a coherent treatise? Well not for many people...,a lot of 'quran only' posters have not even come to a uniform agreement on what salat is...,never mind how to treat the quran as a 'coherent treatise'.
Ok,here is my small,incomplete,subjective,fallible,deficient treatise for success;
'Keep your minds open,and keep doing good deeds.'...
Thats as coherent as any verse of the quran is...
Peace all. -
Peace all,
You seem to have missed my point. When I said that the Quran might not be for all time, I was talking specifically about the laws within it, not necessarily the guidance, b/c it can still provide guidance and a warning without all of it being accurate today.Ichepren
- When it is understandable to all people for all time and relevant to the issues in those peoples' lives for all time
I see, ok. Is this criteria of 'understandability for ALL people for ALL time' your own or from al-quraan itself? Al-quraan tells us of people who are deaf, dumb and blind so I don't think this 'understandability' criteria is correct.
That criteria of understandibility is an objective one. If a book cannot be understood by human beings today, then it is not useful to them. How can we apply something that we do not understand?
2.Why do you assume that it is only the "essence of man" that can determine relevance. And what do you mean by the "essence of man?"
I think the second question above should precede the first question. The 'essence of man' are the unchangable truths about man and his destiny and the reason its relevant is (obviously, at least to me) that man's destiny is an overwhelming reality. Al-quraan speaks of this essence and so is relevant for all man for all time.
So, you have made an incorrect assumption that the essence of man is all that the Quran dictates. How does your reply square with the crucifixion of those who fight against Allah and the Prophet? That is a law in the Quran that may not be relevant today. It begs several questions that we may not be able to answer like who decides when someone fights God and the Prophet? Who decides which punishment the suspect should be given? etc.
3.When people of a specific time cannot apply it or understand it
I see. And is it possible that it has to do with their own deficiencies? Also, 'people of a specific time' is an unjustified monolith. I am from this specific time and I do not feel so about al-quraan. On the contrary, I find al-quraan completely penetrative of my human condition.
Good for you, but you must see that this is only your perception.
4.That only adds evidence for the idea that it may be obsolete. If we at this time cannot understand the book, then it is not useful. Your question is also circular. You said that we may not be able to understand b/c we do not apply the book...but how do we apply the book if we do not understand it?
Apply the book? Can you please quote the reference for this? I seem to be unable to recall mentioning practice and applicability here. What I do remember saying is that our limitations could be the reason for our incoherent understanding. That was all.
As for the underlined section above, who is 'we' ? Are you speaking for yourself or free-minders? Disagreements existing doesn't mean all parties are unclear. It could mean that X is right and Y is wrong. We all disagree with Sunnis about the sources of Islam. Going by your logic, that in itself would render the Quran time-bound at the outset.
Your logic is faulty. Disagreeing with Sunnis about the sources of law is irrelevant to whether or not the Quran is time bound. At least as the Quran relates to the hadith then and now, hadith is and has never been allowed, so regardless of whether the Quran is time bound, the hadith are still not a part of Islam, then and now.
Secondly, the applicability of a book has everything to do with its relevancy and therefore determines whether it is antiquated. If a book cannot be applied, then it is obviously bound to the time in which it was written. We can see that in many religious documents that are just patently irrelevant now
By "we" I mean whoever seeks to apply the Quran. Disagreement among such a large number of intelligent people does beg the question of whether the Quran can still be interpreted properly.5.This is obvious and I can predict that it will lead to a match of semantics. When I said the "spirit of the Quran," I mean the underlying reasons for specific laws and rituals. Ex. the spirit of salat is getting closer to God. This is a simple concept
A simple but an artificial concept nevertheless. When Al-quraan demands obedience, it doesn't leave room for 'spirit' or 'letter'. Indeed, imaan is indicated by the phrase 'we hear and we obey', not by the phrase 'we hear and we will seek the spirit of the law'. Al-quraan metaphorises when it chooses to and not unless.
You seem to have missed the point that obedience totally depends on the ability of the servant to understand the master. If the master is speaking German to a Hebrew slave then there is a lack of comprehension is there not, and the slave can never be obedient to the master. Lets assume for a second your dichotomy of spirit and letter is correct.
I would then ask how you would treat the punishment for public lewdness (24/2) ?
I am glad that you brought that up. The punishment would still be ok.
Let us also talk about the punishment for homosexual behvaiour and obscenity where those who commit such acts are to be locked up in their homes until God makes a way for them. How are we to do such a thing now? I do not think that everything in the Quran is time bound, I should make that clear.And as for the underlined section above, al-quraan says that it's 'hudan linaaas' (2/185). It readily uses the word 'section' (firq for people and 'badh' for book) and yet doesn't do so here. Therefore, I conclude that the underlined section above is false.
I do not see how this is relevant. A book can be a guidance and a warning without being entirely applicable for all time.
-Once again, I only posed a question of the possibility that the Quran may not be for all time or perhaps only the warnings are for all time, I am not sure. I am not saying anything for definite, as I am only beginning to think of this possibility. But Mquran, if you are certain that it is relevant for all time, then maybe you can answer the following questions
- when is ramadan?
- who are those to whom we are bound by oaths?
- what is salat and when are the times for salat? what does one do in salat?
These are only a few of the "murky" questions that we are made to answer if we are to apply all of the quran now.
-
Peace ichephren. Very good post,and very good questions...I hope they are answered...
Peace all. -
Peace ichephren
am totally with you. I stated several times on this forum that if i adhere to the message ( one god, honesty between people, righteousness, no cheating between spouses or partners;..) i do not believe that laws are still applicable...
Even though much depends on interpretations also is it to chop of hands or to cut from their provision...
When is adultery happening - also a question of interpretation , but in no way would i accept to live in a society were the 100 lashes or other are practized...even though i live in a society where you can go right to prison for it... and if i sure am against "immoral" sexual encounters or call it what you like, i believe its part of each persons liberty to decide what he/she does to her body and soul as long as the people involved do it willingly
i wouldn't leave more to my son than my daughter either - societies change and laws evolve!
and even though i don't believe in applying quaranic laws nowadays , quran still is my guidance - see no problem with that!
lk
-
IcheprenYou seem to have missed my point. When I said that the Quran might not be for all time, I was talking specifically about the laws within it, not necessarily the guidance, b/c it can still provide guidance and a warning without all of it being accurate today.
And you have missed my point, it seems. I am saying, this concept of seperating the laws and guidance is not from al-quraan itself. You are free to believe as you will but those who do not judge according to The Book are deemed to have judged according to their own delusions (5/49) and only those who believe are those who accept God's judgement with full compliance (4/65). So if you expect guidance while you conceal God's laws as 'irrelevant', I think it won't happen.
That criteria of understandibility is an objective one. If a book cannot be understood by human beings today, then it is not useful to them. How can we apply something that we do not understand?
So if one who rejects God and worships His hawaa came to you and said 'i dont understand al-quraan', its AL-QURAAN which is at fault ?! Sorry but I find this preposterous.
Do you agree that in the world, that there are people WHO REFUSE to understand ?
So, you have made an incorrect assumption that the essence of man is all that the Quran dictates. How does your reply square with the crucifixion of those who fight against Allah and the Prophet? That is a law in the Quran that may not be relevant today. It begs several questions that we may not be able to answer like who decides when someone fights God and the Prophet? Who decides which punishment the suspect should be given? etc.
Under what criteria may crucifxion not be relevant?
Kindly demonstrate the criteria of this possibility?Good for you, but you must see that this is only your perception.
I see, so when al-quraan is deeply penetrative it's only my perception but when al-quraan is deemed irrelevant partially, it's objective ?
By what standards do you make your judgements ?
Your logic is faulty. Disagreeing with Sunnis about the sources of law is irrelevant to whether or not the Quran is time bound. At least as the Quran relates to the hadith then and now, hadith is and has never been allowed, so regardless of whether the Quran is time bound, the hadith are still not a part of Islam, then and now.
Here is your logic by your own words
Maybe the reason why we cannot decide where hajj is to, what exactly the quranic year is composed of, or when we begin fasting is b/c we are not meant to know...it is not for us to know.So its not possible that the reason that 'we' still dont know what hajj is is because all of us are so focussed on projecting our own prejudices on al-quraan ? It's always al-quraan's fault ?
So if a sunni came to me and said 'obey the messenger' means 'obey hadith', why is his view any less valid in order to authenticate the proposition that al-quraan isn't relevant. Are sunnis less human than free-minders?
Secondly, the applicability of a book has everything to do with its relevancy and therefore determines whether it is antiquated. If a book cannot be applied, then it is obviously bound to the time in which it was written. We can see that in many religious documents that are just patently irrelevant now
I will repeat this question one more time for your convenience
By what criteria do you deem it irrelevant ?
If a person who isn't interested to invest the time and effort to understand al-quraan, is it fair to then deem al-quraan irrelevant ? If a person who REFUSES to understand the book, is it al-quraan's fault?
By "we" I mean whoever seeks to apply the Quran. Disagreement among such a large number of intelligent people does beg the question of whether the Quran can still be interpreted properly
So sunnis aren't seeking to apply the Quran? I know Sunnis who are far more sincere in bringing out the Quranic discourse than some of us here.
Furthermore, you refuse to deal with the fact that our disagreement may only be indicative of ONE party being wrong. I will illustrate an example for your convenience
Say A says 'salat is ritual prayer'
B says 'salat is focussing'
Are you telling me the only possibility in this is that AL-QURAAN is wrong? I think your logic is faulty, not mine.
You seem to have missed the point that obedience totally depends on the ability of the servant to understand the master. If the master is speaking German to a Hebrew slave then there is a lack of comprehension is there not, and the slave can never be obedient to the master. Lets assume for a second your dichotomy of spirit and letter is correct.
Don't assume anything please. Kindly bring out evidence from al-quraan that this dichotomy is sanctioned. I think you'll find that this dichotomy is your own creation, not from Allah.
As for 'not understanding', I know of people totally illeterate in Arabic at first who actually put in the effort and tasted the fruits of al-quraan. If some of us refuse to do so, that's hardly Allah's fault.
I am glad that you brought that up. The punishment would still be ok.
Why would that be ok ? By what criteria is it 'ok' ?
Let us also talk about the punishment for homosexual behvaiour and obscenity where those who commit such acts are to be locked up in their homes until God makes a way for them. How are we to do such a thing now? I do not think that everything in the Quran is time bound, I should make that clear
Can you be clear as to what you mean by 'how are we to do such a thing now' ? Obviously I cannot do such a thing because I don't have legislative power but if I had it, what would prevent me from doing such a thing?
I do not see how this is relevant. A book can be a guidance and a warning without being entirely applicable for all time.
Once again, you have not understood the Quranic concept of 'guidance', Allah doesn't guide you if you do not judge according to His system. This is not some spiritual path which shuns worldly affairs. Al-quraan fully functions in the world and you only grow your nafs via the infusion of Allah's attributes.
Can you please show evidence that its possible to be guided while disregarding God's law?
Once again, I only posed a question of the possibility that the Quran may not be for all time or perhaps only the warnings are for all time, I am not sure. I am not saying anything for definite, as I am only beginning to think of this possibility. But Mquran, if you are certain that it is relevant for all time, then maybe you can answer the following questions
- when is ramadan?
- who are those to whom we are bound by oaths?
- what is salat and when are the times for salat? what does one do in salat?
These are only a few of the "murky" questions that we are made to answer if we are to apply all of the quran now.
This is an irrelevant set of questions because whatever I answer, it doesn't prove or disprove al-quraan's relevance. We're currently discussing al-quraan's view about YOUR suggestions as to how to apply it. I'm assuming that you care what al-quraan says but if im wrong, please correct me and we don't need to continue.
Anyway, I will answer these 3 questions when you have addressed my point which denies that because a group is in a disagreement, this makes al-quraan relevant.
Your position simply shifts the position of al-furqaan from al-quraan to 'everybody' (some people cannot get the quran, therefore the quran is irrelevant). This position to me, is ridiculous as al-quraan has warned against those who refuse to think and the majority of people who refuse to believe.
-
Elkei wouldn't leave more to my son than my daughter either - societies change and laws evolve!
I respect your choice but I call to question your understanding of al-quraan. Al-quraan clearly gives the 1 to 2 ratio as a limit and it tells you in 5/106 to draw up a will when death approaches you. Why would it tell you to draw up a will if the ratio is set in stone. It's sad that you've judged al-quraan before even noticing this!
-
First of all, what part of banging ones head against the wall implies that a law by doing so is being established.
the fact that people do it and blame others for not doing it. Same with the sunnis really. If you are an orthodox jew, in the sense that you take only the Torah for guidence and ignore the halakhah. all peace to that.
In the Mishnah (Abot 12) one sees the broad philosophy that governed the minds of the early rabbis
"By three things is the world sustained
- by the law,
- by the (temple) service,
- and by deeds of lovingkindness."
I fint the order interresting.
Thunder is not caused by volcanos. So this would make the Lord a volcano/thunder spirit, right?
Thunder is ALTSO caused by volcanos, it is normal that volcanic activity draws thunder. When you look at the images of "moses on the mountain" in a book like encyclopedia judica, whgat do you see. IF it isnt a volcano. TO me that is just one hebrew saying to another hebrew ; "its a volcano Erhan"!
Can you please explain how this fits the context of idolizing jews.
one word, JHVH!. I can, and have, traced this diety back to Enlil of sumer, and certainly volcanic spirits. You may have changed a bit here and there, and wont use the name etc.. its stil a volcano tho.
As a matter of fact I believe that what you just quoted is not of the Tor? you keep insisting is a "law". Would you mind refering to what verses they come from?
the old testament, known in jewish circles as the tanak. So deny this, and you deny both JHVH and Moses. But that will be your choice to make.
The ealy judaism was in fact not monotheistic at all. it was henotheistis, wich mean they had a major god in a pantheon of many. THis major god later became the focus of a somewhat monotheistic faith. alltho, when you keep the pagan rituals of old, are you still monotheist? i dont think so, but ofcourse, God is our judge. -
Peace mquran
i would appreciate a little more etiquette wink from you like greetings of peace...somethings the book we both accept as our guidance (even if we have different understandings) prescribes...
and why do you always attack like
It's sad that you've judged al-quraan before even noticing this!i actually know about his interpretation which leaves people free - but in general if one leaves a will in an sunni country, he/she can only write it in accordance with the rules of parts fixed in quran...if not it will be attacked in courts and broken. And this is reality, this is how our book is applied and understood today... and this is why we have to break away from it, keeping its spirit in mind though.
Another prescription from quran i would like to remind you off speak to the people in the nicest possible manner, so that one that is your ennemi might become your best friend... and please abstain from telling me again that my attitude is non islamic as u did before.
i only tell you that it may be unislamic in your eyes - but only god will judge me, and it is the only judgment i accept
lk
-
would appreciate a little more etiquette from you like greetings of peace...somethings the book we both accept as our guidance (even if we have different understandings) prescribes...
Sorry, my method is to give greetings at the beginnings of threads. I see threads as conversations and since I don't salute people at every turn I speak, I don't give salaam in that way either. Al-quraan tells me to give salaam when i meet people.
and why do you always attack like
Strange that you see my response as an attack. I was simply responding to your statement regarding al-quraan. You made a fallacious statement and deduced that al-quraan was inapplicable. I find it sad that al-quraan was sentenced by a person who 'accepts it as guidance' (as you admit above) without consideration.
i actually know about his interpretation which leaves people free - but in general if one leaves a will in an sunni country, he/she can only write it in accordance with the rules of parts fixed in quran...if not it will be attacked in courts and broken. And this is reality, this is how our book is applied and understood today... and this is why we have to break away from it, keeping its spirit in mind though.
Sunni country ? So al-quraan's principles are being attacked due to SUNNI applicational issues? Elke, I don't know how long you've been in this forum but equating al-quraan to sunni application of al-quraan is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Don't you have a better response than this?
Another prescription from quran i would like to remind you off speak to the people in the nicest possible manner, so that one that is your ennemi might become your best friend... and please abstain from telling me again that my attitude is non islamic as u did before.
Thanks for the reminder. However, I feel that I was reminding you in the nicest way possible and I conject that your emotive response is due to the fact that you've been caught out. It's so pleasing to the ears to see how we talk of 'modern times' and 'applicability to Arabs of 7th century' but when the shallowness of our study becomes apparent, its not as pleasing.
only tell you that it may be unislamic in your eyes - but only god will judge me, and it is the only judgment i accept
It was certainly unislamic in my eyes, but also irrelevant to my life. These discussions are useful as simulations of real possibilities. Whether you judge with half the quran, a quarter or none of it isn't my business at all. What IS my business is to run these thought experiments in my own existential arena and see their validity in my own life. Ichephren, yourself and a few other relativists have so far only shown that your displacement of al-quraan as al-furqaan is at the very least, contrary to what al-quraan teaches. That's all I really cared to know.
-
peace mquran
Sunni country ? So al-quraan's principles are being attacked due to SUNNI applicational issues? Elke, I don't know how long you've been in this forum but equating al-quraan to sunni application of al-quraan is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Don't you have a better response than this?
i in no way equate quran to sunni application , but this is what it unfortunately comes to in reality and this where you should come down to from time to time.
also, i do not attack a quranic principle if giving more to the sons was then appropriate in most cases because at the time they were the bread earners and only family support this is not valid anymore today in most societies.i still consider following the spiritual guidance of quran in doing the best possible thing permitting a balanced situation, giving my son as much as my daughter...
for the rest of it, i do think you are very aggressive and rude, and the above pasted response is another proof. You often hurt the feelings of people and i guess you don't even realize it because that's just the way you are...
Discussing with you does not bring me anything (i know its the same for you) we're not on the same wavelength and you'll never get what i'm saying... i do get what you say though, have been there, but fortunately i evolved. Wish you the same
lk
-
Peace elke and mquran. Elke;i have read some of your posts and find you to be a rational,humane,mannered person who tries to apply the quran to make peace for humanity...Which i commend you for.
Mquran; i find your posts very close-minded,opinionated and critical of others,whose intelligence is way higher than yours. You seem to want to attack anyone who disagrees with you. This book that you claim is perfect...well elke quoted you a verse about 'saying what is best',and you dont seem to want to follow it...Will you attack and condemn yourself? I agree with elke,i was once dogmatic and uncaring like you..but ive evolved too...
Peace all. ps;Are you the judge? you seem to be acting like you are the god or gods spokesman? I hope you open your mind and evolve too. -
Elke in no way equate quran to sunni application , but this is what it unfortunately comes to in reality and this where you should come down to from time to time.
Which reality is this? Why should I consider what certain people are doing (i.e. 'muslims') and not consider others (i.e. 'non-muslims'). Everyone is the same except for their adherence to the law.
At the end of the day, we were discussing al-quraan not the ways some people practise it. You know this as well as I do.
also, i do not attack a quranic principle if giving more to the sons was then appropriate in most cases because at the time they were the bread earners and only family support this is not valid anymore today in most societies.i still consider following the spiritual guidance of quran in doing the best possible thing permitting a balanced situation, giving my son as much as my daughter...
Good for you. However, this isn't the gist of the argument. Your words were simply
i wouldn't leave more to my son than my daughter either - societies change and laws evolve!
the second sentence wouldn't have been pronounced had the 'draw up will' verse been known. It wouldnt have been necessary. But in your haste to throw the Quran into the past, you overlooked it.
for the rest of it, i do think you are very aggressive and rude, and the above pasted response is another proof. You often hurt the feelings of people and i guess you don't even realize it because that's just the way you are...
You're entitled to your view. I think you're superficial in your analysis and quick to disempower the Quran. This is because you have a preconcieved notion as to what ad-deen should be. You should quit deluding yourself that guidance comes separately from obedience to the law. Al-quraan teaches that once the law is abandoned, we follow nothing but delusions. Please see here that I'm not questioning your personal conduct. I don't know you in real life. I am simply participating in a thought experiment to render al-quraan's philosophy manifest.
Discussing with you does not bring me anything (i know its the same for you)
No, discussion with you, ichepren and other 'quranic relativists' do help me in introducing 'philosophical possibilities' to my understanding of al-kitaab.
we're not on the same wavelength and you'll never get what i'm saying...
Here's what you're saying Quranic laws were only for a certain time and are no longer applicable now. However, I still take my guidance from al-quraan.
Did I get what you're saying?
i do get what you say though, have been there, but fortunately i evolved. Wish you the same
I certainly don't wish me the same because if rejecting al-quraan's law (in effect rejecting al-quraan itself) is 'evolved', I'd much rather be 'devolved'.
-
Mquran; i find your posts very close-minded,opinionated and critical of others,whose intelligence is way higher than yours. You seem to want to attack anyone who disagrees with you. This book that you claim is perfect...well elke quoted you a verse about 'saying what is best',and you dont seem to want to follow it...Will you attack and condemn yourself? I agree with elke,i was once dogmatic and uncaring like you..but ive evolved too...
Enquirer, I find your posts to be empty, a gasbag of words without substance. This is why you come up with explanations like your 'far-fetched' fiasco, because you're not out to sincerely investigate anything. The reason you agree with Elke is due to a common desire, not a common understanding the desire to reify your own projections. That's why you commend Elke's wrongful pronouncement of al-quraan's laws, you do it yourself all the time. This is the only way you people can sentence al-quraan into the past, by pretending not to hear what it REALLY says. How sad and pathetic.
I would love to see a sincere critic of al-quraan come up with proper arguments instead of the 'you cant agree, so al-quraan must be wrong' nonsense. But I wont hold my breath...