I am sure that you have the best of intentions.

Don't be so sure.

You might have another problem, Caveman. Do you have any human idol whom you deem infallible? Or do you claim that you are in agreement with me on major theological issues and the only problem you have is my ego? Are you going to hide from people the real reason why you attack my character?

Peace,
Edip

Stop with the red herrings. My post was about your massive ego and arrogance. That is all. No ulterior motives. Nothing about theology.

It was just about you. Can you accept that someone can be discussing you without also discussing the code, or the quran, or God? Contrary to what you may think, you are not the code, you are not the quran, you are not God. You are Edip, an egotistical arrogant man. And that's all I commented on. Deal with it.

Those who are the real arrogant are those who are blind and deaf to divine signs. See 7146.
Those who have lost the arguments against my position were more articulate than me. So, the credit does not go to me, but to the truth that I am conveying.

However, arrogant people project their arrogancy. When they cannot deal with the subject matter and when they lose the argument, they indulge in personal attacks on the winnig party's character.

These who are attacking my person are demonstrating their pathetic contradiction. They hurl arrogant and false accusations, yet they pretend to be humble and righteous!

The issue is not me, it is the message I am delivering. Primarily, it is not me, it is the truth that you are hating. I hope that you take heed and explore the subject with objectivity and humility.

What I posted here are true and people will inshallah see it witness it with their eyes and ears when the docu-film is published. Then, you will be exposed as a liar by accusing me of being arrogant for merely telling the truth!

Peace
Edip

This post proves my point exactly. You have no idea where I stand on Code 19. You just assume I am against it since I am against you. Again, ego.

The code aside, you are arrogant. Me exposed as a liar? A liar about what? I said nothing about the validity of the code, only about your demonstrable character.

At any rate, thanks for proving my point.

Today, one of the most famous American atheists was exposed and literally check-mated in a Socratic debate between me and him on the Quran, its scientific aspect and code 19.

I will write an article on this issue. The docufilm, will inshallah be ready by the end of this year.

Peace,
Edip

Honest question for you. Do you care more about finding the truth, or more about 'winning' and 'checkmating' and monopolozing and taking credit for ideas? I've followed your often-deluded work for years now, and it definitely seems like the latter. You are an incredibly arrogant person who sometimes has good intentions. Often, however, you care more about Edip than you do the truth. Very obvious. It is a very very big problem for you.

Here's some advice take a break from ramming Code 19 down peoples' throats and instead focus on bettering yourself. You have a massive problem with egotism and arrogance. Growth isn't just about numerology and quranic minutiae. You have serious personality flaws that you need to work on.

I'm guessing you won't be responding to this post -- you'll be too busy posting about how you beat yet another opponent into submission -- so I'm going to PM you about this too.

Who cares? You don't have to answer to anyone. Your name does not violate any forum rules.

In short, screw the guy who sent you the PM.

That verse is certainly not incompatible with the concept of reincarnation. It could be interpreted in different ways, however. Definitely not a surefire ringing endorsement of reincarnation.

I say that as someone who is grappling with believing in reincarnation. There is quite a bit of convincing data supporting it. And I tend to agree with your reuniting with the Source idea.

The other verse pointed at in the link you gave is also quite ambiguous in this context.

Keep us updated on your studies in this topic. I'm always interested to hear people's takes on it.

path

Care to give an analysis of how reincarnation is compatible with your reading of Islam? Thanks.

That flag -- and having any flag, for that matter -- is just pointless.

No controversy. No one's upset.

Intention. And execution. Often a sizable gap between the two.

What is the purpose of having the fetus?

Never expected to respect/honor your parents in everything. If they are in the wrong, then those actions deserve no respect.

See Abraham and his father (2151 onward) as well as the many verses that warn us not to follow our parents who are misguided.

The Qur?an has been used sparingly by others. If they do, then I am entitled to bring verse to refute

It has been used less by others precisely because it is the view of many that the quran has precious little to say on this particular subject. This very obvious fact seems to have gone over your rookie head.

I am not softening. I said what I said, and I also said it could be considered haram by certain interpretations at critical states. Do not misquote.

I didn't even quote you so it's not possible for me to misquote you. I don't need to be spoonfed an understanding of your posts by you. Any reasonably competent reader can see your words for what they are. The implications are clear.

A victim of your own idea of importance. If you ever want to put me in my place, let me know when I have been because I might miss it. It is OK. Some of us are better at some things than others, and if arguing is not your thing then that?s no matter.

You do understand I can see through emotional polemics of bruised egos? I should be angry or experiencing at least some feeling that tells me you are right (if you are right!). I forgot that you have no point.

Peace.

Empty, baseless armchair psychology. Hilariously stupid insults too. Amateur hour.

I'll now leave you to your masturbation. Mental, not physical of course.

I am the only one using the Qur?an to derive my arguments. It may be better to rephrase your emotional comment with more clarity (e.g. you might re-write it as ?Yes, the Qur?an is the truth and thus we should use that as our benchmark and argument rather than our inclinations or preferences on what is advisable?).

Nope. That's your opinion. Others use the quran in a way which you disagree with. You somehow equate that to them not using the quran at all.

I have admitted even in my own postings that there is nothing definite, (though if you interpret some things certain ways then it will become haram ? and I can accept that). However the evidence in favour of me is clear.

I don't care about your lip service. Don't try to retroactively soften your language.

If you are offended, then you do not have to use this forum. Or people can answer my requests for explanations! Just a small truth.

Peace.

P.S. Stop acting like victims. That wastes badnwidth and contributes nothing.

Not offended. Not a victim. You just need to be put into your place. And others need to see it.

You are not God's mouthpiece. You're a cocky young kid who thinks he has everything figured out, and has no trouble proclaiming that to everyone. Views counter to yours -- not the quran's, but yours -- will be posted. Deal with it.

The Qur?an is the truth

But you necessarily aren't. You do see that right? You do accept that you are not the quran come alive, right? Do you understand that concept?

Your pasting verses, even gleaning personal (yes, personal subjective) principles from verses does not change that fact. Your posts contain your own presuppositions, assumptions, commentary, and opinions, in addition to actual verses pasted. In spite of how many times you say you employ "tangible" principles, "logic," and make "obvious" connections, you can still never get around that fact. You are not nearly as objective as you think. No need to be offended; no one is wholly objective.

You are not the quran. Stop acting like you are. Got it?

Here's some advice A piece of weak evidence is weak regardless of how many times it's multiplied. Adding multiple weak pieces of evidence together does not a strong case make. At the end of the day, you still have a weak case. You consistently fail to grasp this fact.

Guarding private parts,

Assuming this pertains to masturbation.

go not night unto fornication

Fornication? Relevance?

, restrain eyes from women to avoid temptation,

Assumption of relevance to this particular situation again.

remember Him standing, sitting, lying, accountable for thoughts/intentions,

Would you remember God while ejaculating into your wife? Answer Yes or No. Then answer how that would substantively be different than remembering God while masturbating.

?
4712

Relevant quote from that verse, I presume, is "eating as the livestock eat"

So you're taking that small phrase, and broadly equating it to acting like an animal. Then implying that acting like an animal in any way is bad. Then implying that masturbating is acting like an animal. 3 assumptions, one on top of the other. All based on....."eating as the livestock eat."

"Logical" alright.

Qur?an says sleep was made as rest. Sleeping 8 hours bad if you miss fajr prayer?

Deliberately obtuse. Annoying.

The fact that not everything is ?legislated? results in you being a chimp in a playground.

I want to be offended but this is such a lame insult all I can do is giggle.

I don?t force either. I challenge people to refute and provide verses and the obvious principles therein. I also discuss various possibilities because there are many. Central principles answer all questions. Your arguments are dull and your ego is your problem.

If you could have it your way, you'd "force." Under your "unity of Islam" banner. You are no different from any extremist group who condemns anyone who dares veer from the party line. You don't "discuss" anything. You attempt to steamroll everyone with your own personal views, sprinkling tangentially-related verses here and there that do not prove what you think they do.

You are playing with fire here. This business of legislating morality based on the flimsiest of evidence. Very dangerous.

I do not label anything. I simply employ the principles you cannot answer. I have dealt with it logically, but if you are so sure I am wrong you will not need to reply.

Peace.

Simply repeating the words "obvious" and "logically" over and over again doesn't make it so.

For someone who is so against masturbation, you seem to have no problem waving your dick around. It's pathetic and unbecoming.

because firstly that is lewd

Your own personal value. Prove otherwise.

secondly it is animalistic (an attribute of unbelief (4712))

Your own assumption. Also, a pointless empty statement.

and thirdly (but not lastly) it is in no way beneficial for being a Muslim (serving Allah (SWT)).

Red herring. Not everything needs be "beneficial." Some things just...are. Sleeping 8 hours vs. 5 hours is not "beneficial" for being a Muslim, one way or the other. And yet our choice in sleep is up to us. Not everything is legislated. You will never realize this, however. You are a braindead sheep, intent on passing off your views as divine dictate. What's worse, you think you use logic simply cause you plaster each post with multiple verses.

It does not define ?lewdness? because we know what is indecent (if unsure, examine the principles of the Qur?an).

No, "we" don't know anything. I know my own views, and you know yours. Difference is, I don't attempt to force mine on you. Again, your own assumption. Circular statements like "if unsure, examine the principles of the Qur'an" are just laughable. Quite amazing how blatantly you put the cart before the horse.

It is up to you to prove something to your own desire and stop complaining since all your huff and puff will never blow the house down. Your comments are as usual wishy-washy, and that means that you have a wishy-washy understanding of what you ?follow?. If you have a problem with someone who has a view, it is best to actually argue.

My views seem wishy-washy to you precisely because you have this moronic need to label everything, to put everything into a box. I don't. Deal with it.

....

I am sorry you do not seem to understand that according to the Qur?an, humans were made to worship God and this life is a test. How you perceive the test is itself the landscape, but the test is the test. I think you are pretty shallow whilst pretending to be deep, but a deep ocean is also an empty ocean as demonstrated (once again) by wishy-washy righteousness without substance which is really the inability to stomach Islam as a religion. You seem to think that studying the Qur?an is a sin, but that is easy to understand if we realise that you and your ilk actually look at the Qur?an as a philosophy without actually believing it (yet you call yourself Muslim and have a problem with people who act like Muslims). That is fine, but then only according to your own religion are you correct. Indeed the Qur?an is a book of truths! So what does the Qur?an actually mandate? The landscape is our own thoughts (e.g. the Qur?an does not define every word like ?compassion? for us!), but the Qur?an is plain unless you want to argue otherwise.

You are also dumb in that you seem to miss the absence of my ?declaring? anything haram. I said that masturbation is quite evidently (from the Qur?an) not in ANY way beneficial for being a Muslim (i.e. serving Allah (SWT)) and thus to say ?it is permissible because it is not specifically mentioned? is itself a shallow statement showing why ?Qur?an-alone? never progresses.

Therefore, you will bring the verses.

?

Peace.

You gathered all that about me simply cause I said you are attempting to legislate all morality? Hilarious. I shouldn't be surprised though; that's your MO. You take your preconceived views and dress them up however you see fit in quranic garb, and castigate anyone who disagrees with you. You are of the worst types of people on this planet self-righteous extremists who equate their own arbitrary whims with divine dictates.

I didn't miss your lack of "declaring" it as haram. I just read between the lines. You merely pay lip service. If you sit there and say something is not necessarily haram but then go on and on about how bad -- or sorry, "inadvisable" -- something is, well...the writing's on the wall.

Your very first post in this thread was pasting the following verse

"Say My Lord has only prohibited indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed..."

I know you won't recognize this because, again, you think any of your preconceived views are by default endorsed by the quran, but implicit in your posting that verse is the assumption that masturbation is automatically "indecent." You take that as an automatic given and proceed to build paper castles around that view, in the process looking down upon anyone who dares disagree with you.

You then say things like "When you do so, you should do it for the sole purpose of release and not for enjoyment." Please, why don't you "bring the verses" on that? These are all your own views. My guess is you will again twist 4712 to answer this question, outlawing anything you deem to be 'enjoyment.'

Stop looking for loaded buzzwords in the text and attaching your own views to them. It is offensive and malicious. You think you are "drawing obvious conclusions from obvious principles" but I assure you, you are not. The diversity in views should tip you off to that fact. You are imposing your own personal values. What you are doing is far, far, FAR worse than...gasp, masturbating ever could be.

You will explain exactly in what way your comment addresses what it responded to and justify. We will then see how common-sense it is for you.

E.g. why did you highlight my statement if you agree with it? If you do, that is fine (citing a relevant ayah would have helped me to understand what your original point was). If you do not agree with it, you will either have misread me or said something odd for the sake of your own words. Or perhaps you think that the Qur'an has been altered over time (that is fine but you will support).

...

Peace.

What are you going on about?

The verse is relevant. The reality is this you and others of your ilk treat the quran as some academic pursuit, not seeing the forest for the trees. You focus on minutiae, ignoring the realities of the world around you, in a pathetic attempt to maintain some trumped up sense of righteousness. The verse highlights the fact that the qur'an is a book with real world applications, its truths being seen within ourselves and our environment. It's relevant because your head was in the sky; you have your mind made up and are trying to twist any verses to fit in with your views.

The quran is a map, not the landscape itself. You still have to go out there and navigate your way around life. Moronic statements like "So then you will bring the verses" completely miss the point. There isn't a quranic dictate on every single topic. I know you want there to be because you have trouble thinking for yourself but again, you are just forcing things onto the text that are simply not there. You want everything to be legislated, when it's so obvious that isn't the case. At best, this leads to false judgment; at worst, intolerance and extremism.

Anybody here study the LSD situation in the 60s? Alan Watts was there. Anybody notice that lots of people who have used hallucinogens come up with the same convictions? that their minds stream into panentheism, nonduality work, Buddhism? Wikipedia tells me Sufiism is where you go for nonduality from Islamic traditions.

Looking forward to comments...

Peace,

--Debbie

Yeah, and there are obviously two potential explanations 1) There is something about hallucinogens and their effect on neurochemistry that brings about specific consistent effects in the user, though not 'real' in the objective sense or 2) Hallucinogens actually open the user up to free-standing realities; consistency is there because users are tapping into an actual reality.

Hard to say which is more valid. Many hallucinogen users are certainly convinced it's #2, that's for sure.

Interesting verses. Irrelevant but interesting nonetheless. I suppose you think pasting those verses somehow makes your thread less stupid? It doesn't. Still stupid. Still a waste of space.

Um, good one I guess? For a third time, stupid thread. Waste of bandwidth, just like your sig.