Re: Website Attacking Quranites
-
Peace4life,this forum has many people intepreting/elaborating on the quran words,or am i mistaken about that?
whats the idfference between a dictionary and a hadith? Both are invented by man,or are the opinions of dictionaries and interpretors divine as well? The linguists are no better than the hadith scholars at times,same stuff with a slightly different method,yet both criticise/ostracise each other.......Is that not sectarianism?
Why didnt god send a grammer/linguistics book down as well to rectify the mess? If you say the quran is the grammer criterion then we go round in circles again debating grammer rules,contexts and the difference between modern,archaic and classical arabic because we cant agree on what the qurans grammer rules are...... -
Peace4life,this forum has many people intepreting/elaborating on the quran words,or am i mistaken about that?
I don't know about this..
whats the idfference between a dictionary and a hadith? Both are invented by man,or are the opinions of dictionaries and interpretors divine as well?
Since when are dictionaries and definitions opinions? Definitions are objective, interpretation is subjective. The hadith is a collection of sayings and doings narrated by so and so, compiled by so and so... A dictionary is a list of words with their definitions.
The linguists are no better than the hadith scholars at times,same stuff with a slightly different method,yet both criticise/ostracise each other.......Is that not sectarianism?
Scholars give opinions based on their study, the difference between hadith and linguistics scholars is that linguists find the meaning behind the words, grammar, syntax, semantics whilst hadith scholars find the meaning derived from the hadith.
Why didnt god send a grammer/linguistics book down as well to rectify the mess? If you say the quran is the grammer criterion then we go round in circles again debating grammer rules,contexts and the difference between modern,archaic and classical arabic because we cant agree on what the qurans grammer rules are......
I don't think we are really all that bogged down by linguistic nuances, the meaning and the words of the Quran are still comprehensible even when it has been translated. Do you find the meaning of the Quran completely lost because it's been translated by Yusof Ali or whoever? The meaning is still there is it not? The Quran was written in Classical Arabic thus one trained or knowledgeable can derive further details missed.
-
There are many different dictionaries/grammer books which will give you conflicting views./definitions....Of course dictinaries are somehwat subjective,language evolves,words grow unused,grammarians and linguists differ.....Just look at anwar discussing with ayman,or tanveer with samia or imamquranonly.....Just look at shabbir versus free-minds or parveez versus shabbir......Folks these days even go as far as eytomlogy,poetry and metaphorical use of words,are these objective as well?
If dictionaries are that objective,just check out the thread on the use of the word dharaba or the word salat?
Finally,if you solely use 'dictionaries' to explain the quran then see what happens with the coherence and see the literalism create real problems in the meaning.....
ps; what is the difference between collecting the meaning of words and collecting the words of muhammed? Both have similiar methods,with a similiar degree of subjectivity to objectivity.....Both have their problems,yet you demonise one and trust the other,why? -
Salam,
Enquirer, I don't use dictionaries to understand the Quran. I understand it from the context and by understanding what God values and doesn't value.
These values don't change throughout the Quran, therefore, no matter how much the lanuage has been messed with (semantically), the true messages are still there. The Quran does not have linguistic barriers.
You can read Arabic, why don't you try opening your heart for God and read the Quran Alone and understand what God is saying? You don't need a dictionary and you don't need Hadith.
Why don't you imagine that you are born just you and the Quran (no sects, no organised religion, no hadith from prophet or family). What would you understand from God and the Quran then? Of course we have nothing against the prophet or his family and their writings or any other messenger or scripture, but since all these have been corrupted we don't need them. Especially because God tells us that His book is complete and perfect and you will not find contradictions in it. Different interpretations are a personal matter (we all have a different experience/ relationship with the Quran). But at least the book itself has no contradictions.
Salam.
-
Peace4life,i was a quran only muslim and i have done those things which you had recommended,and i found that i was probably one of a very small handful of people who read the quran in arabic and tried to understand it for this age and reality.....I found that i would either have to have faith in this book blindly or re-interpret it to an amazing degree....When re-interpreting i finally saw i was just re-inventing the wheel and projecting reality/humanism onto the quran rather than taking the quran as it is......Folks can re-intepret all they want,but how is the book objective any more,its all opinions......?
Finally,i dont see how a supposedly benevolent merciful god can doom moral atheists and agnostics to eternal hell just for using the intellect he supposedly created and asked us to use.....If i study the signs (as god/quran says to.) and then i find the book defective and god non-existant then what do you want me to do? Lie,and say i believe? -
Enquirer,
No one can force you to believe in God or His book. It is entirely up to you. I know that deep down you know that there is God, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
One day if (God forbids) you get sick or lose all your money or lose something special and your ego hits rock-bottom and you realize that this life is temporary, then you will only have God to turn to. And guess what? He responds and helps those who believe in Him.
There are may special reason why God has chosen Arabic for His book. You can't mess with it linguistically. You know what's plural/feminine/masculine etc. and no matter how much the language changes semantically, God's message can still be found there in the context. The expressions have no substitution. The poetic voice helps you remember.
You're one of the lucky ones who CAN read Arabic so why don't you use your skills to help others rather than promote atheism, because that is not going to work here!
On judgement day when God asks me what Hadith I followed I will tell Him Your Hadith my Lord. That's what matters. We do not need a consensus on anything because we are not a sect, nor an organized religion. We are Quran Only people and each of us has their special connection with the Quran and God. Some of us bother to pray physically, others don't. God doesn't need our prayers anyway, it is up to the individual. It wouldn't be any better if people were in organized religion and just blindly followed methods while in their hearts they do not believe. Your faith is your faith -it's a personal matter and it's for your own soul.
It's non of my business how God will judge atheists, all I know is that if deep down you seek truth, God will guide you to it. But you have to believe in Him and trust Him otherwise you're really searching for growth of your own ego rather than searching for God.
By the way each chapter of the Quran relates to modern life or an aspect of my life and I can see the points/lessons in it. God sent it as a timeless and perfect book, not as a book of ancient stories. So it's ok to have your own interpretations as long as they are truthful and they work and they teach righteous lessons. On the other hand the people who look at the Quran as if it's a bunch of ancient stories are the ones who are doomed. So perhaps you used to be on the right path - I don't know what got you out!
Of course you will not understand what I mean unless you actually open your heart to it. God has placed your soul in a body of an intelligent man who knows Arabic .. why don't you put yourself to good use?
And please let us know what you find defective in the Quran so we can help you! (that is, If you need help). elektro
Cheers.
-
Peace4life,i would get a very similiar reply from a sunni,shiite,christian,jew, or any other 'believer' in god......Though your post is sentimental and superficially 'feel good' you underestimate the things i have been through in my life...
You are just using your faith to justify the quran only stance,and you assume anybody who doesnt believe in god is somehow egotistical or has not searched genuinely......Your stance is based on what? Just verses? Show me how non believers and non quran onlys are all egotistical and/or not genuine in seeking truth... ?
By the way,as i have said i have heard similar sentiments from sunnis and christians,who should i believe? I have heard jews say their torah has never been changed and christians say jesus' message is preserved,so just saying quran is preserved means nothing.......These folks also say the message is valid for all times just as you do,yet many rules are archaic and against logic,common sense and science....
As for those verses i find wrong or contradictory,i have documented many on the forum,but i see a new tactic is to claim that the verse being discussed has another meaning and this eventuually leads to the book being interpreted subjectively when its supposed to be objective and a criterion......
Let me start with why 100 lashes and four witnesses for the so called fornicator? -
Salam,
Why 100 lashes and four witnesses for the so called fornicator?
Why not ?
-
Becaue it doesnt deter properly,its barbaric,doesnt teach morality and its impractical to get four witnesses to the event unless the people indulging are very very stupid,or the witnesses are perverts or spies.....
Anyway,by your eloquent response why cant a christian say in reply to how jesus can be the son of god,why not? -
Salam,
Why not ?
You can't say that, the burden of proof is on you - us.
I'd say because it is an extreme punishment for an equally extreme case - similiar to the death penalty for murder. Since when have four witnesses been available for most cases of fornication/adultery? One of the effects of that verse is the halting of the spread of pornography - not much you can do when your viewing audience is restricted to 3 people. Wow, I feel sick for writing that.
The reason for 100 lashes is unknown, to me, but the reason for four witnesses is to have a strong case against the person. Note that the witnesses are punished if they present a false testimony.
-
Becaue it doesnt deter properly,its barbaric,doesnt teach morality and its impractical to get four witnesses to the event unless the people indulging are very very stupid,or the witnesses are perverts or spies.....
That was a completely morally subjective statement.
Define "barbaric". Likewise, what is "morality"? These are highly subjective - an Arab terrorist might see the use of WP munitions by the US army as "barbaric", likewise, the US army might see the use of human shields by terrorists as equally "barbaric". Who is right?
And so what if it is "impractical to get 4 witnesses"? Is that not the whole point? Remember the Quranic concept of God knowing what you do regardless of if others know?
-
OPf,if someone kicked your sister in the street and you disliked that,can i say to you thats a subjective moral statement and your being unreasonable? And does it invalidate your right to dislike the assailants behaviour because you cant prove it universally/objectively 100%....? Are you going beyond reason and logic to dislike the assailants behaviour? You want me to objectively prove its bad for someone to kick an innocent person in the street? If so,then i feel you have webbed yourself a connundrum of reason from which you will refute even blatant common sense assertions.....Its no wonder folks need a book to tell them how to wash...
Even when some things are pretty common-sense and agreed upon doesnt mean some neadethral wont disagree.....
Is a violent career thief right in saying its barabric and wrong for him to be imprisoned? Is it objective or acceptable when society says on the contrary he should be imprisoned? -
OPf,if someone kicked your sister in the street and you disliked that,can i say to you thats a subjective moral statement and your being unreasonable? And does it invalidate your right to dislike the assailants behaviour because you cant prove it universally/objectively 100%....? Are you going beyond reason and logic to dislike the assailants behaviour? You want me to objectively prove its bad for someone to kick an innocent person in the street? If so,then i feel you have webbed yourself a connundrum of reason from which you will refute even blatant common sense assertions.....Its no wonder folks need a book to tell them how to wash...
Even when some things are pretty common-sense and agreed upon doesnt mean some neadethral wont disagree.....
Is a violent career thief right in saying its barabric and wrong for him to be imprisoned? Is it objective or acceptable when society says on the contrary he should be imprisoned?It depends. If my sister was Hitler himerself (rotfl) I couldn't care less.
And yes, you can definitely say that, but you just have to bring proof as such.
And does it invalidate your right to dislike the assailants behaviour because you cant prove it universally/objectively 100%
No. Because morals are subjective - you can dislike as you wish. It only holds true if you take the complete picture and prove it objectively. This is where we can sum something up into "constructive" aka "good" and "destructive" aka bad, karma, etc. Now, "karma" in the sense I'll use it here is, as you see, constructive = +karma and destructive = -karma.
If my sister was innocent, then you kicked her, you caused her pain. She does not like this pain - thus, -5 karma for you. But it turns out you kicked her because she torched your house and family earlier - +100 karma, and by kicking her, you will prevent her from burning others' houses and families down (yes, the crimes and punishment are disproportionate - irrelevant). Now suppose that her initial karma was -1000, and when you kicked her, it was +5, -995. Now add God into the fray who wishes to balance this system out, hence he punishes her and thus karma is back to 0. Simple, no?
If you dislike something that results in net and gross +karma , then you are wrong. If you dislike something that results in gross -karma but net +karma, you are relatively justified - you have to suck it up. If you dislike something that ends in both net and gross -karma, you have every right to be disliking it.
Its no wonder folks need a book to tell them how to wash...
)
Even when some things are pretty common-sense and agreed upon doesnt mean some neadethral wont disagree...
Subjectivity came when you used the term "neanderthal" hence assuming your morals are above theirs - relativism says, in the most eloquent way, that this is bollocks. The only way you could say this is if the "neanderthal" didn't show how his disagreement would result in an overall +karma for the system. Otherwise there is no way in Hell you can put down his/her morals.
Is a violent career thief right in saying its barabric and wrong for him to be imprisoned? Is it objective or acceptable when society says on the contrary he should be imprisoned?
It depends on karma. Usually, imprisoning the thief would result in a net >/=0 karma for society, hence we go ahead - the career criminal will keep committing crime and subtracting brownie points from the system unless we stop it.
What relevance does having four witnesses beng impractical have? How do you know having more, or less witnesses is more constructive?
Somewhat unrelated question, would you like your children, in any way, to watch pornography?
-
Ok,first i assumed you were intelligent enough to know my post was talking about your innocent sister,and i did make a reference to innocence in my post,showing you dont read them properly.....(They are only small,not like your mini essays....Strawman rules again hey? ) Your karma nonsense disproves and contradicts your other post,because one persons take on good karma can be another persons bad karma,and what is good or bad is again subjective according to your previous post........
Who decides what is destructive karma and what is someones just desserts? And in reality karma does not operate perfectly at all,sometimes unfortunately,might is right,not karma.....Add 'god' in the mix and the karma system is still arbitrary and vague.....I tell you what,show me how this karma is a rule of life?
Away from budhhist/hindu archaic dogma and on to the 21 st century,enlightened humanists have codified concepts such as unalienable civil liberties,rights of society,utilainarism,democracy,cost benefit analysis,morality by experience,ethics and the rule of law....It might not be objective to religious folks but it is to civil society and enjoys consensus ,and yes,it is superior to the methods of the neandethrals,and i think you know who/what i mean by that term.....
Honour killings,blood feuds,whippings,unprovable dogmas,inhumaity and such like are not morally approved of by superior advanced civil socities....And it doesnt matter what the dogmatists,anti humanists and backwards folks think because the civilised world has the very firm hot seat in world power,economics,science and how to run a society without threats from invisible monsters..... -
OPF,the 4 witnesses being impractical is a major flaw,why would god legislate a law that is impractical? You know in th real world laws need to be practical and the requirements for proof not so wild as to render it almost impossible to catch anybody....How can you deter folks if you can never catch them as the requirments are too strange and demanding? Whats the difference between 3 eye witnesses as opposed to the arbitrary 4 needed?
Having to high a number of witnesses needed renders it very hard to get a conviction,thats the difference as opposed to 2 or even 1...
And no,i do not want my children to watch adult films,thats why i act as a parent to my children... -
-
Ok,first i assumed you were intelligent enough to know my post was talking about your innocent sister,and i did make a reference to innocence in my post,showing you dont read them properly.....(They are only small,not like your mini essays....Strawman rules again hey? ) Your karma nonsense disproves and contradicts your other post,because one persons take on good karma can be another persons bad karma,and what is good or bad is again subjective according to your previous post........
Who decides what is destructive karma and what is someones just desserts? And in reality karma does not operate perfectly at all,sometimes unfortunately,might is right,not karma.....Add 'god' in the mix and the karma system is still arbitrary and vague.....I tell you what,show me how this karma is a rule of life?
Away from budhhist/hindu archaic dogma and on to the 21 st century,enlightened humanists have codified concepts such as unalienable civil liberties,rights of society,utilainarism,democracy,cost benefit analysis,morality by experience,ethics and the rule of law....It might not be objective to religious folks but it is to civil society and enjoys consensus ,and yes,it is superior to the methods of the neandethrals,and i think you know who/what i mean by that term.....
Honour killings,blood feuds,whippings,unprovable dogmas,inhumaity and such like are not morally approved of by superior advanced civil socities....And it doesnt matter what the dogmatists,anti humanists and backwards folks think because the civilised world has the very firm hot seat in world power,economics,science and how to run a society without threats from invisible monsters.....Ok,first i assumed you were intelligent enough to know my post was talking about your innocent sister,and i did make a reference to innocence in my post,showing you dont read them properly
Or the converse, which is that I expected you to understand the analogy, irrespective of innocence - I did say the numbers themselves were irrelevant.
(They are only small,not like your mini essays....Strawman rules again hey? )
God forbid I be consistent, try to be clear, and verbose... That would be horrible indeed.
Your karma nonsense disproves and contradicts your other post,because one persons take on good karma can be another persons bad karma,and what is good or bad is again subjective according to your previous post...
But if they don't prove why it is constructive or destructive, their beliefs have no precedence - they are only beliefs. Again, if you cared to read my post instead of hastily attacking the messenger as usual, you would see that I addressed that.
And in reality karma does not operate perfectly at all,sometimes unfortunately,might is right,not karma
That's why we form societies. To stop people infringing upon others, to stop the so-called mighty from bullying the so-called weak.
And in reality karma does not operate perfectly at all
Maybe if you were talking about the Buddhist definition. I did specifically say that for that post, karma is to be taken as "credit", or rather, a measure of constructivity or destructivity. Disregard the original meaning because I only borrowed the word "karma" because that is a relatively close definition. Just for you, I'll call it "Bob" from now on. My sister who burnt your house down had -1000 Bob.
Add 'god' in the mix and the karma system is still arbitrary and vague.....I tell you what,show me how this karma is a rule of life?
Away from budhhist/hindu archaic dogma and on to the 21 st century,enlightened humanists have codified concepts such as unalienable civil liberties,rights of society,utilainarism,democracy,cost benefit analysis,morality by experience,ethics and the rule of law....It might not be objective to religious folks but it is to civil society and enjoys consensus ,and yes,it is superior to the methods of the neandethrals,and i think you know who/what i mean by that term.....
Honour killings,blood feuds,whippings,unprovable dogmas,inhumaity and such like are not morally approved of by superior advanced civil socities....And it doesnt matter what the dogmatists,anti humanists and backwards folks think because the civilised world has the very firm hot seat in world power,economics,science and how to run a society without threats from invisible monsters.....Arbitrary & vague? Only the buddhist system. The Quran is relatively clear. "show me how this karma is a rule of life" - It isn't. But societies implement it because otherwise, it becomes survival of the mightiest. In other words, though "survival of the fittest" always holds true, the definition of "fittest" is changed from "strongest" to "those who do more good". I know which I prefer.
enlightened humanists have codified concepts such as unalienable civil liberties,rights of society,utilainarism,democracy,cost benefit analysis,morality by experience,ethics and the rule of law...
Water is not wet. But it is quite wet.
,and yes,it is superior to the methods of the neandethrals,and i think you know who/what i mean by that term...
Tell that to the survivers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what a shining beacon of morality and ethics that was.
Honour killings,blood feuds,whippings,unprovable dogmas,inhumaity and such like are not morally approved of by superior advanced civil socities
Funny you say that. I'm not defending those people, though. Nice try, I guess.
and it doesnt matter what the dogmatists,anti humanists and backwards folks think because the civilised world has the very firm hot seat in world power,economics,science and how to run a society without threats from invisible monsters.....
His Esteemed Ayatollahship Sheikh Dawkins will most certainly be pleased to hear that.
How can you deter folks if you can never catch them as the requirments are too strange and demanding?
Checks and balances... Maybe there is a given level of freedom to commit "zina" willed by God? Thought about that for a change? Islam is not as static as you love it to be. In other words, don't create a problem then use your created problem to disprove whatever. Oh, and how many people typically witness main-stream pornography, anyway? 3 or 4?
Whats the difference between 3 eye witnesses as opposed to the arbitrary 4 needed?
There is an additional eye-witness as opposed to the arbitrary 3 needed.
Having to high a number of witnesses needed renders it very hard to get a conviction,thats the difference as opposed to 2 or even 1...
Glad you get it. There are many Quranic safeguards against wrongful conviction.
And no,i do not want my children to watch adult films,thats why i act as a parent to my children...
Now, you have two paths you can take. We don't know which is right or wrong. One is that you prevent mainstream pornography and hence your children shall never know (though they inevitably must be educated on it - how else to understand the implications of that verse?), or the second is that you let it carry on, and you educate your children in the hope that they won't go against you.
Which of those has been more successful?
-
Man,there is very little of note in this post to reply to.....You post like a man who believes in logic/science yet you show all the ingredients of a faithhead......The UK,europe and the US although having flaws in their systems are still vastly superior to any society brought about by islam or quran only........The fact you can question and post as you do is mainly because of the inventions of these nations coupled with the democracy and freedom these nations give....I believe that answers you as well d argento....
All i can say is im glad folks of your ilk will never get in power in the civilised world.....You put dogma before people and live in a fantasy idealist world....
Just a question folks,has anybody ever implemented 'quran only law' in history,and was it successful? The answer is in the question....