SoA,

While you make excellent points about consistency, and you have many valid points. I would like to bring some criticisms against "the scientific method", which you may not have considered.

I am sorry. I was not aware that you were using the word science to mean both "falsifiable evidence based methodology of discerning fact from fiction" and "unfalsifiable faith based methodology of rationalizing a belief".......2. You are wrong again about science. Science is a methodology, it isn't for or against atheism or religion. And please don't make it sound like I asked you to leave science out of it because you aren't an atheist. I explained well why you shouldn't bring science into the picture. The scientific method demands that you come up with falsifiable hypothesis which you then test and gather evidence. It does not rely on fuzzy feelings and faith. The scientific method will not allow you to make special pleading or argument from ignorance or argument from authority fallacies.

Now it would seem that you are in favour of this "scientific method" as highlighted above. Therefore, I ask Was this method itself determined to be true by a "falsifiable hypothesis which you then test and gather evidence"; that is to say, a "falsifiable evidence based methodology"? If you understand the nature of my question, then I believe you will see that if one were to answer "yes", it would be obvious that, by its very nature, it may be true or it may not be true. It might well be true today and false tomorrow, since it is conceivably falsifiable. In that case, it cannot be accepted as an epistemological standard. However, if the answer is "no" then it is not falsifiable and therefore contradicts its very premise.

However, if we are honest we can realize that this "scientific method" (in reality, empiricist/positivist method) is not propagated as a "possibly true" epistemology that may be false. Rather, it is promoted as an axiomatic epistemological truth, and thus is fundamentally contradictory to its very epistemological claims.

Religion is faith based and science is the opposite of that

Actually, both are based on axioms, as it stands "science" is based on a self-contradictory axiom. It cannot prove its own epistemological method to be based on the very epistemology it claims.

Genesis is ridiculed for it's absurdities. More so because of the creationist believers who promotes such fables as truth. If you are publicly promoting an idea/teaching that runs contrary to all reason and evidence, why do you think people won't laugh at it?

It may be that the people ridiculing and laughing do not understand their own presuppositions, axioms, or their lack of a coherent epistemology.

Thanks for the info, Yuliana.

It's very uncomfortable to know that there are so-called 'pious Muslim men' who wish to have a lot of voluptuous creatures in heaven... ) Their fantasies about houris are so horrible.

I wonder why the error occurred on 7833. ???

Regardless of whether such errors intentional or unintentional, still I choose to beware of this site.

Peace.

Hi Yuliana and JavaLatte,

I too have found this idea of "heaven" extremely scandalous, and I am sure it has been a major stumbling block for those who believe in the Bible. As such, you may find Muhammad Asad's footnote on this verse interesting

"For the above rendering of atrab, see surah 56, note 15. As regards my rendering of kawa?ib as "splendid companions", it is to be remembered that the term ka'b -from which the participle ka?ib is derived - has many meanings, and that one of these meanings is "prominence", "eminence" or "glory" (Lisan al-Arab); thus, the verb ka'ba, when applied to a person, signifies "he made prominent", "glorious" or "splendid" (ibid.) Based on this tropical meaning of both the verb ka'ba and the noun ka'b, the participle ka'ib has often been used, in popular parlance, to denote "a girl whose breasts are becoming prominent" or "are budding" hence, many commentators see in it an allusion to some sort of youthful "female companions' who would entertain the (presumably male) inmates of paradise. But quite apart from the fact that all Qur'anic allegories of the joys of paradise invariably apply to men and women alike, this interpretation of kawa?ib overlooks the purely derivative origin of the above popular usage - which is based on the tropical connotation of "prominence" inherent in the noun ka'b - and substitutes for this obvious tropism the literal meaning of something that is physically prominent and this, in my opinion, is utterly unjustified. If we bear in mind that the Qur'anic descriptions of the blessings of paradise are always allegorical, we realize that in the above context the term kawa?ib can have no other meaning than "glorious beings", without any definition of sex; and that, in combination with the term atrab, it denotes, "splendid companions well matched" - thus alluding to the relations of the blest with one another, and stressing the absolute mutual compatibility and equal dignity of all of them. See also note 13 on 5634"

Asad's translation with footnotes can be found here http//www.islamicity.com/quransearch/

Although I don't agree with many of his theological positions, his comments on grammatical/translation issues are valuable.

mer?cy (m?rs).......

In short the opposite of just and cold

This is exactly why I asked for your definition.

1. Mercy, as a category, is separate but not in itself inconsistent with justice.
2. Mercy is most definitely NOT the opposite of justice. The opposite of justice would be...well, injustice. So your "case against God" would be that he is unjust, not that he has contradicted his mercy.
3. You were asked for a definition that would result in a "problem of evil", no such definition was provided.

I completely disagree. Can you show where this is defined? I think it is the opposite.

The attribute of mercy/compassion requires an object, even if reflexive. God does not need/have mercy on himself therefore it does not apply to God ad intra, but only to creatures.

You or a being can only show mercy towards a living being. It has no bearing on anything super-natural.

Re-read my definition. You're basically saying the same thing.

No mercy has ever been observed or demonstrated on anything super-natural.

Define super-natural? Mercy can be shown only to a living object. Yet the subject must be rational in order for the act to be interpreted as "merciful/compassionate".

Unfortunately, the human-made attributes are a logical contradiction, as I have shown in my comment.

No such thing was shown, as I will demonstrate below.

If a human judge is just, that judge will pass the maximum punishment, the death sentence, for a heinous crime. If this judge adds a bit of mercy, the punishment will not be the death sentence.

1. The term "maximum" is ambiguous. The just Judge will punish to the extant that it is required by the law.
2. If the law demands death and the judge does not provide it, then he is no longer just. He may be compassionate and merciful, but just he is not. For justice requires that the criminal be punished to the extant that the law demands, in principle. If not, then it would be equally "just" to fine a murderer a 100$, when the law requires his life. I think so far we agree.

If a god is just, the punishment for sin is hell. If this god is merciful as defined above the punishment should not be hell. But hell exists. And the god is called merciful. A logical contradiction.

This presumes mercy (i.e. spared hell) must be provided to all. Whereas, if God spares only one, then he is merciful.

I am talking about humans assigning human attributes to a super-natural being, called anthropomorphising.

1. Notice the definitions you provided did not necessitate that one act as such with all persons, in all situations, and in all times. Therefore, you have gone beyond your own definition.
2. Your idea of "mercy" is not even human, since no one would qualify as "merciful" if he ever acted with justice. It would be the equivalent of saying If a man only loves his wife, and does not "love" every other woman in this way, then he is unloving. An obvious non sequitur.

Can you provide a justification for heaven and hell when people on Earth experience ups and downs?

1. Explain why it is relevant what people on earth are experiencing.
2. Hell is the punishment for being guilty before God. In this, God is glorified for his justice.
3. Heaven is the unmerited favour that God bestows on unworthy sinners, for whom he, out of pure grace and mercy, has provided a legal satisfaction for their sins, thus removing their guilt. In this, God is glorified for his mercy.
4. Unless you accept that all men born of Adam, by natural generation, are completely spiritually dead and inclined only to evil, then you will not accept my justification.
5. If you think men are born "tabla raza" as for instance Roman Catholicism and Islam teach, then you will not accept God's judgement as being just.
6. These latter issues relate to scripture, and whether you accept what it teaches.

Remember your initial claim was this

"So people here think that a merciful and loving god is loving and merciful by creating a human and then torturing that human here on Earth and then maybe torturing him again in hell? And that the expectation of a merciful and loving god to be merciful and loving is expecting too much? How exactly has that little boy chosen to be blind by being infected with this worm? I must have missed that.

You contrasted mercy with "torturing" people on earth and then in hell. Strictly speaking this is irrelevant to God, qua creator. It is not the office of a creator to be merciful, as you agreed. It is the office of a creator, to do whatever he pleases with his creation.

Nevertheless the God of scripture, is not God because he created. He would be God without any creation. Therefore, your complaint is without merit; however if you wish to discuss whether God is just, qua judge, that would be another issue.

Thus, as we have seen, you have defined mercy to be "the opposite of just". This is false, mercy is categorically not the opposite of justice. Rather, mercy can be considered generally inconsistent with justice; yet not absolutely and in principle. However, even then your contention is misplaced, for you ought to say that God cannot be merciful, as a just judge, not as creator. For, as I stated in point 4 above, God does indeed show that he is merciful and loving; though these attributes do not correspond to God, qua creator or even judge. Rather these attributes correspond to God qua God; that is, in his person.

So people here think that a merciful and loving god is loving and merciful by creating a human and then torturing that human here on Earth and then maybe torturing him again in hell?

And that the expectation of a merciful and loving god to be merciful and loving is expecting too much? How exactly has that little boy chosen to be blind by being infected with this worm? I must have missed that.

In another thread Ahmad Bilal raises the same issues. I answered him with this

1. You have failed to provide a definition of "omnibenevolence" or "mercy" etc, which would result in any "problem of evil".

2. The attribute of mercy has relevance only to an object; it presupposes creation and has no relevance to God ad intra. Thus, whatever your definition of "mercy etc" may be, it cannot result in God contradicting himself ontologically.

3. Categories such as mercy or justice have no relevance to God, qua creator. Therefore your objection falls away, as God, qua creator, "...does whatever he wills with the armies of heaven and earth, and none can stay his hand and all the inhabitants of the earth are esteemed as nothing." It would be like going up to an artist and saying your work is "unmerciful" or "unjust", such categories are irrelevant

Well, I will address here your accusation that I have never bothered to establish it exegetically and also your comment "If God does not "directly interfere" then it is either 1) Because He is incapable, or 2) It is because he is unwilling"

Yes this was one of my questions to you. However, you did not provide any exegesis of the texts you cited. All you did was prooftext them, as if your conclusions followed from what those verses are saying.

Firstly let me ask as an hypothetical question. We know salt has salty taste. It has salty taste because God wanted it so and made it so. If He had formulated salt to be with a sweet taste, it would have been sweet. Now my question, can Allah change the taste of salt from salty to sweet? The answer to that is Yes, He can but He won?t, because He has pledged NOT to make changes in laws He has established according to His will.

You said in bold "Yes He can but He won't" therefore he is unwilling according to you too!! This is the point!! It's really not important why, according to you, God is unwilling, all that matters is that you hold the same positon. So either you agree with the heathens cited in the various texts, or you are using the term "willing" in a different sense. In which you case you have just made my point for me!

According to me, whether these people believed themselves to be true or not, still their main contention in the verse is that, they are what they are not because of their choice but because God wanted them to be so. They put the responsibility on God which Quran strongly rebuts.

I will repeat the problem you have

1. If these heathens believed their own religious practices to be true and valid (hence their appeal to their forefathers).
2. Then, in their own minds, they are not doing anything wrong.
3. Therefore, they cannot be attempting to justify anything, as they are not doing anything sinful!!
4. This demonstrates that they are using the term "shaa/will" to indicate "Had God not been pleased with our religion, we would not be practicing it"

Without your gratuitous assumption that these heathens did not really believe in their religion it is impossible to deduce that they are "blaming" God or "justifying themselves" before God. They don't need to make God responsible for their practices, they are more than happy to take credit for them, since they believe them to be valid!

What's more, you admit that the distinction I have made with respect to the term "will/shaa" is correct; for you appeal to it when you say "Yes He can but He won't" thereby demonstrating that according to your own theology God wills not to "change the tase of salty to sweet". By which you mean that God has been pleased to institute "xyz natural laws" and not that he is incapable to "will" otherwise.

Here also the contention is clear. It is the will of God these people are poor.

As I showed above, this is also your contention. In other words, we all know what the text says, the question is what does it mean?

1. We both agree that God is capable of feeding those who are hungry, we disagree on why he has chosen no to; so this is not the issue.
2. These unbelievers err because they deny their obligation before God's moral law to feed the poor, etc.
3. Reading anything else into the text, apart from the sarcastic petulance of unbelievers, is incorrect. The text is not even addressing the issue of God's eternal decree; thus, the importance of exegesis.

Everyone can read the verse on their own, in its context.

It is clear they are justifying that they associating partners (ashrakna) with Allah is something what God had willed / intended/ desired for them to do.

1. You commit the fallacy of Anachronism "Shirk" as an Islamic theological concept would have meant nothing to these people. They would not have considered this "shirk" a sin/crime in anyway.

2. You implicitly admit that these heathens believed their religious practices to be false, even though you denied it previously.

As for me, it is clear that they knew they are doing wrong, but they are justifying their wrong action on pre-destiny/ fate.

That's exactly the presupposition which you previously denied, which you are now admitting! Namely, that these heathens do not believe in the very religious practices which they are "justifying". If they know they're doing wrong, then they don't believe that God has commanded them to do these things, therefore they don't believe their religious practices are true. All this is indefensible exegetically.

They wanted to follow the way of their forefathers blindly.

You just said that they were trying to "justify their wrong actions". If this is true, then they are not following "their forefathers blindly"; they knew and understood that their fathers were all in error. All of which makes their appeal to "being on their fathers' footsteps" completely absurd.

If they thought what they were doing right, I think, in that case, there is no logic in coming up with a justification of pre-destiny/ fate.

This is called circular reasoning. You're asserting the very conclusion, you're supposed to be proving.

Even assuming, not admitting they considered what they were doing as right, still the point I am highlighting is still valid.

No it is not! If you assume/admit this point, then your whole argument collapses. As your whole misinterpretation of these verses is 100% based on the false assumption that these heathens do not even believe their own religion/practices to be true!

They claim their actions are based on pre-destiny.

1. No they claim their actions to be in accordance with "God's will". There is no mention of "pre destiny" in any of these texts, as I keep telling you You have read this INTO the text, you have not taken it OUT of the text.

2. As you yourself admit "shaa" means to "will/intend/desire/wish"; therefore the question is What is meant by "God's will", his decree or his pleasure?

Allah counters them saying they are wrong and they are only following conjectures and indulging in speculations.

This is with respect to their practices, such as worshipping angels or prohibiting various animals for consumption.

I do not think this is a major issue to argue about and establish. We are deviating from the main discussion.

Huh?? How can the very foundation of your argument not be "a major issue"?? As I have said, once you take away this false assumption, that these heathens did not truly believe in their own religion/practices, then your whole argument collapses.

I don't think you understand the implications of the arguments you have put forth. Once your assumption, that these heathens believed their religion was false, is denied, then these verses are of no help to you, whatsoever. Your whole argument, from these verses, is based on this false premise, which cannot be defended exegetically.

For if you admit that these heathens really did believe in their religion, then "had God willed etc" would not refer to his eternal decree, but to his good pleasure. As in, "if God were not pleased with our religion, we would not be practicing it, for he would destroy us etc".

One last thing, you did not address my point #3 in my previous post. I assume you are conceding the fact that on your own view, God does not will to satiate all hunger either, and that you would also be using the term "will" ambiguously?

Let's look at it analytically. Allah placed a tree - according to the Bible, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" - in the garden that he built for Adam and Eve. Afterwards, he restricted Adam and Eve from eating, or even touching, this tree. Did he know that they were going to eat from it anyway? According to the Islamic scope of predetermination, he absolutely did! Yet, he still placed the tree in the garden, even though he knew that they'd fall victim to it... The question is Could Adam and Eve have avoided eating from this tree? Again, according to the Islamic scope of predetermination, they couldn't have prevented it at all, since Allah already knew that it would happen. In other words, their sin against him was unavoidable. If we stretch this idea along the line of a "timeless" deity, then we'd form the conclusion that Allah deliberately created Adam and Eve to transgress his commandment; he placed an object in their midst that he knew they'd fall victim to; he created Ibliys specifically for the purpose of defying his command (e.g. to submit to Adam) and becoming the tempting agent of humanity; he placed Adam and Eve in a garden that he knew they'd be ejected from due to their disobedience; he sent prophets to lands knowing full well that they'd be rejected, persecuted, and even killed by the residents; etc.

I agree with everything you've written, yet I am not scandalized by it.

This falls right in line with the 'problem of evil' concept. If Allah knew all of these factors beforehand, then he could've changed them. For example, he could've avoided the creation process altogether. Otherwise, he could've avoided creating a tree (and placing it in the garden) that he knew his servants would fall victim to. He could've warned Ibliys about his disobedience prior to it actually taking place. He could've told the prophets to give the people books and flee for their lives, etc... The problem? If God knew the future, he should've changed it (in the past), since the refusal to do so restricts him from being omnibenevolent, most merciful, etc. If he couldn't have changed it, then that restricts him from being omnipotent (all-powerful). If he didn't know those things would happen, then that would restrict him from being omniscient, etc.

1. You have failed to provide a definition of "omnibenevolence" or "mercy" etc, which would result in any "problem of evil".

2. The attribute of mercy has relevance only to an object; it presupposes creation and has no relevance to God ad intra. Thus, whatever your definition of "mercy etc" may be, it cannot result in God contradicting himself ontologically.

3. Categories such as mercy or justice have no relevance to God, qua creator. Therefore your objection falls away, as God, qua creator, "...does whatever he wills with the armies of heaven and earth, and none can stay his hand and all the inhabitants of the earth are esteemed as nothing." It would be like going up to an artist and saying your work is "unmerciful" or "unjust", such categories are irrelevant.

Insha Allah I will answer your comments point by points in different posts since it requires some explanation.

You are saying if Allah is Capable to feed the hungry and even then if people are hungry it would mean Allah willed people to go hungry. THIS IS COMPLETELY A WRONG CONCEPT AND IT HAS NO BASIS AND IT IS A FABRICATION.

aabdul, I have read through all your responses, and you are mixing together alot of issues. In addition, you did not answer my questions, you only continued making unsubstantiated assertions. For simplicity, let's break down your argument by points.

1. The texts you have cited where heathens are saying"...had God so willed etc" do not support your position (which is the traditional islamic position) that these heathens were justifying their crimes/sins, by citing God's decree. In order to understand the text in this way, one must presuppose that these heathens acknowledge that they're doing something wrong, which would imply they do not believe their own religious practices to be true. On the other hand, as I already demonstrated, these heathens do not acknowledge their religious practices to be false inventions (that's why they cite it as handed down from their fathers); to the contrary, they believe their practices to be legitimate and therefore when they say "had God willed..." they are saying "if God were not pleased with our religion, he would not have allowed us to practice it". This is because they do not see any of God's purposes in creation, but only their own.

2. Another problem that you have is with the word "will"; in itself it is ambiguous, it could refer to either God's decree, or it could refer to God's pleasure. As I said your interpretation of "God's will" meaning "God's decree" is unjustifiable exegetically.

Once it has been made obvious that your first point is invalid, then the whole structure you have built on it collapses.

Allah is CAPABLE for directly feeding the poor but He would not directly interfere in the affairs of the world and feed the needy

3. This, like so many other statements you have made, is gratuitous; you have never bothered to establish it exegetically. You admit God is "capable" yet there is still hunger in the world; the conclusion is inevitable. If God does not "directly interfere", according to you, then it is either 1) Because he is incapable, something you deny, or 2) It is because he is unwilling. You can play with words all you like, but according to your own beliefs God has chosen/willed not to "interfere". Notice, how here you have now equivocated on the word "will"; for now what you mean is Yes God willed/decreed not to "interfere", and there is still hunger, but this is not pleasing to God, because it is the result of man's sin/crime etc. This clearly shows that you understand the distinction that I made above, regarding the word "will".

Now if you will simply admit that your presuppositions are false, and that therefore these texts you have cited are of no help to you, then we can move on to those other texts which you have recently brought forward, allegedly teaching "free will".

You are putting the ultimate responsibility of all crimes on God. This is wrong.

All things owe their existence to God, including each sin that has ever been commited. If this is what you mean by "responsibility" then yes he is "responsible". If you mean the moral responsiblity of each sin, then that lies with those who commited them. They are responsible because 1) They desired to commit their sins, and are not compelled against their own wills. It is simply that they cannot will anything, but that which they do. 2) They are creatures subject to the natural dominion of their Creator. 3) Necessity does not absolve before the law. In other words, the fact that God had created all the sons of Adam with an inclination to do only that which is evil, does not make them any less culpable before his judgment seat.

You are completely contradicting Quran.

The citations you provide do not say what you're saying. None of those texts you cite below are of any help to you.

The attitude of ?I would not have sinned if You (Allah) had not wished so? is the line always taken by infidels and polytheists. They attribute their way of life to Allah?s will -- ?we are what we are because Allah wills so?.

1. These are not quotes from the scriptures. No where in the Quran will you find people saying "we would not have sinned...had it not been God's will".
2. They do not simply "attribute their way of life" they attribute the correctness of their way of life, to God's will. As we shall see below, in the text you have cited.

As it is said in Sura An?aam ?When you question their (erroneous) way of life, the polytheists will say - ?It is Allah?s will that we are, and our ancestors were, polytheists? (6149). Allah rebuts that statement with ?Whatever you say (and follow) is nothing but pure conjecture (and ignorance)?.

Again you are not citing the text! You have not even paraphrased the verse in question accurately. The text says "They will say, those who ascribe equals (to God), that not we, nor our fathers, would have ascribed equals (with God) if God had not willed, nor would we have prohibited anything. Thus lied those who came before them, until they tasted our punishment. Say Is there any knowledge with you, which you could bring forth for us? You do not follow anything, except conjecture, and you do not follow anything, but guesswork." Then the next verse says " Say With God is the most sufficient argument. If he willed he would have guided you all."

1. Are you claiming that these polytheists did not believe in their own religion? For this is the implication of your interpretation.
2. Where does it say that it is "complete guesswork" to ascribe to God's decree, all those things which happen in this world?
3. Is it not true that what "conjecture and guesswork" refer to, in this verse, are their religious practices?
4. If it's true that God did not decree the sins of these pagans then what sense does it make to say "if God willed he would have guided you all"?

In Sura Zakhraf, it says that when you (the Prophet) question them, they say ?We would never have prayed to these idols if God did not will it?. Allah said, ?this is just ignorance. They are nothing but conjectures.? (4320).

More poorly paraphrased texts, but similar questions apply.

1. So these pagans thought their religion was actually false? They believed that worshipping angels was false; why would they even bother defending their religious practices if they believed them to be false anyway?
2. "If the most Gracious had willed we would not worship them.." Does it sound like they were trying to absolve themselves of moral responsibility (as you claim)? Or that they thought that their religious practices, handed down from their fathers, were pleasing to God, and thus in conformity with his will?
3. 4321 "Or have we given them a book before this, to which they are holding fast?" This verse and v.22 make your interpretation impossible. For, what is the point of asking them by what authority they practice their religion, if these pagans are only appealing to God's eternal decree? In other words, if they got their practices from revelation or from their own made up traditions, it's all completely irrelevant to the argument which you claim they're making.

Sura Yaseen reports that when the rich are asked to let their wealth flown down to the poor, the infidels reply ?How can we enrich those who are poor by Allah?s will??. The Quran?s response to that is ?surely, you are in grave ignorance!? (3647).

Wow this is absolutely not what the text says. 3647 "And when it is said to them, spend out of what God has provided for you as sustenance. Those who reject say to those who believe Do you feed those who, if God willed, He could feed. Your are on nothing, but clear error." Nevertheless, I am happy you cited this text, for it completely demolishes your position.

1. In order to be consistent, please tell us whether God is capable or incapable of feeding those who are in need? If he is capable, and they are hungry, it is because he has willed it; that is to say, he has decreed it as such. If he is not capable, then he is not the God of scripture. This absolutely proves your interpretation to be false, since you claim that 3647 is to be understood as referring to God's decree and not his pleasure.

All of the texts you've cited are extremely simple to understand, and none of them are even remotely teaching the doctrine of free will. Those appealing to God's will, in these texts, are appealing to his pleasure. That is, he has willed it therefore it is pleasing to him. They do not even consider that God has decreed evil for the purpose of glorifying his justice. The idea that these texts are somehow promoting "free will" cannot withstand any serious scrutiny or exegesis.

Again your assumption Allah whimsically guides some and misguides some has no basis. Kindly read the following chapter;

The basis of his guiding and misguiding is his decree of election or reprobation.

Damon's view the ones doing the action of the verb "taba" in 43 are "an-nisa".
Wakas' view the one doing the action of the verb "taba" in 43 is most likely the one determining suitablity/pleasing

There can only be a few possibilities
the one determining suitability/pleasing (for nikah)
the people
the yateem
the nisa
or some other option

I always read the subject of "taba" to be the numbers 2, 3 or 4; while the object to be "ye" (lakum). So that it reads "Marry ye what it is pleasing to ye, from an nisaa, two three, or four". Thus, whichever of the numbers (2,3 or 4) is pleasing to ye (taba lakum), then marry (or marry off). I deduce this from the use of the preposition "ma" which is not used for rational beings, and therefore would not refer to "an nisaa", but would refer to the numbers cited.

I think this request of yours is reasonable "how 2nd person pronouns can perform a 3rd person verb or vice versa" - I haven't studied it, but we can look to Quran for examples or explanations. If not, is this explained elsewhere in grammar books for example.

This is resolved, I believe, if one sees "ma taba lakum" (that which is pleasing to ye) to be referring to the numbers, and not to an nisaa. Again Whichever number (2,3 or4) pleases ye, from an nisaa, then marry (or marry off).

I also asked a reasonable request of you which was "If Quran is your ultimate criterion, if you know of an example in it wherein the one doing a masculine singular verb is "an-nisa" please bring it forth." - again, we can look to Quran to see if it has such examples. If not, is this explained elsewhere in grammar books for example.

Would something similar be 517? "Certainly, kafara (3rd p. msc sing.) allathina (those who, a plural) saying Truly, God is Christ...."

Here the subject of kafara is the saying, not the people (allathina), where the object is implied (i.e. the truth/God etc). In other words "Certainly the saying "God is Christ..." is "kafara" (denial/suppresion of the truth). Meanwhile, "allathina qaloo" (those who are saying) are the instrument of this "kafara", and not its subject. Otherwise, we have a plural subject and a singular verb. There could be another grammatical explanation for this, though; as I think this type of construction is not unusual, in the Quran. That is "allathina" followed by 3rd p. masc. sing. verb.

I would also like to say that I too did not see in those grammar books cited what "Shirley" claimed. That is, I did not see those grammarians stating that if the subject of the pronoun is all male, it must be previously stated explicitly.

1988 And they said the Almighty has taken a son!
1989 You have come with a gross blasphemy.
1990 The heavens are about to shatter from it, and the earth crack open, and the mountains fall and
crumble.
1991 That they claimed that the Almighty had a son!
1992 And what need does the Almighty have to take a son?
1993 When all there is in the heavens and the earth will come to the Almighty as servants.
1994 He has encompassed them, and counted them one by one.
1995 And all of them will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection, all alone.

Peace all,
These verses are not directed to any one group in particular but as a blanket rule to all who say God has taken a son and as per Quran, Its a big/gross blasphemy, period.
Now, we human have no business to pin point others for that blasphemy as the Almighty have and is counting them all one by one.

Hello Masoomboy, just a couple of questions

1. I am wondering how you decided that "walad" means son here, considering that you admit that the context is ambiguous? There are plenty of examples of walad meaning offspring/children/child/begotten; how do we know that it shouldn't be rendered as "offspring"?

2. As well, how would you translate "ittakhatha"? It is not consistent with any Christian teaching to say that God took/made for himself a son; Christians do not believe that. The only possibility I can see is, perhaps, a reference to the doctrine of "eternal generation"; which would require a translation of "took from himself a begotten/offspring". Yet, this would change the "standard" interpretation of this text, so that it would have nothing to do with saying "son of God". Rather, it would be an objection to the claim that Christ is the son of God because God eternally begets him.

Nevertheless, I do not feel that there is any warrant to make this (and similar texts) about Christianity. It seems to me that 4171 is sufficient with regard to this issue; there "ittakhatha" is not found, and it is clearly, and contextually, a reference to Christian beliefs in that part of the world. I also believe that here "walad" should be translated as offpsring/begotten.

For the red highlighted above, the answer is NO. Because knowing is different than predestining.

How does God know infallibly?

And 7179 is wrongly quoted previously in this thread.

I assume you mean "wrongly" translated? If so, then...

1. It is not, see Lane's entry; it is synoymous with "kha lam qaf" (to create/to make).

2. What would your translation of "tha ra alif" be?

678 Then, when he beheld the sun rising, he said, "This is my Sustainer! This one is the greatest !" - but when it went down, he exclaimed "O my people! Behold, far be it from me to ascribe divinity, as you do, to aught beside God!

679 Behold, unto Him who brought into being the heavens and the earth have I turned my face, having turned away from all that is false; and I am not of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him."

So "I turned my face..." etc means "I did it all thanks to my own "free will" and God had nothing to do with it; even though two verses earlier I confessed that if God didn't guide me I would be among those in error". Nice! If that's the extent of your argumentation, then nothing else needs to be said.

Knowledge of God isn't dependent on any conditions from Africa to Saudi Arabia. The premise is we all have it and/or can come to it regardless of conditions. Abraham is the best example from the quran.

674 "And Abraham said to his father Do you make idols as objects of worship? Truly I see you and your people in clear error"

675 "And thus we caused Abraham to see the dominion of the heavens and the earth so that he would become of those who were certain"

676 "So when the night covered him, he saw a star; and he said "This is my Lord". But when it descended he said " I do not love those that descend".

677 "So when he saw the moon rise, he said "This is my Lord". So when it descended, he said "If my Lord does not guide me, truly I will be among those people who are in error"

We do not see Abraham trusting in his "free will" or saying that "he/anyone can come to the truth about God, if he/anyone feels like it". On the contrary, he proclaims his complete inability to know God truly, without His guidance. With this he refutes any pretext that men can will, or even have the capacity, to come to God, unless God draws him first with guidance.

Hoppean. The only conclusion you could possibly make is just that. Everything is pre-determined. Everything is conditioned.

God did make evil, did he not? Did he not make Satan with the foreknowledge that he would rebel and tempt us?

Did he not create suffering in the first place, when he had the choice not to?

Did he not make Hell, as well as condition many to be destined for it?

Would I not be a Muslim if God, before Creation, twisted it just a bit to where I was born and raised in say Saudi Arabia?

Many say to that, that there is a plan. But that can't be, because the plan is already fulfilled according to the Quran, by Gods knowledge of everything. There can be no plan. Only a movie, because God knows all.

While I do not disagree with anything written above, I am also not scandalized by it. For the scriptures say "At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ?What have you done?? (Daniel 434-35)

And "For the Lord has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes (the prophets), and covered your heads (the seers). And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, ?Read this,? he says, ?I cannot, for it is sealed.? And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, ?Read this,? he says, ?I cannot read.? And the Lord said ?Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men, therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.? Ah, you who hide deep from the Lord your counsel, whose deeds are in the dark, and who say, ?Who sees us? Who knows us?? You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay,that the thing made should say of its maker, ?He did not make me?; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, ?He has no understanding??

It comes down to this "Oh man who are you to answer back to God? Will the thing moulded say to the moulder, "why have you made me like this?" (Romans 920)

The problem you have (if indeed you have one) is that you do not acknowledge that God is God and we are nothing. God ordaining our fall, in no way excuses us, for "necessity" is never an appeal againt justice, in this life or the next.

I've never understood why knowing what's going to happen means people don't have free will.

I roughly know what will happen in my household tomorrow, does that mean no one has free will and it's all predetermined? No.

Your knowledge is speculative, not infallible. How does God know things infallibly? Because He decreed them.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8719.msg28485#msg28485

".....Going back to the "states" perspective, if you were a state in this massive state machine, you'd still have the notion of free will because you don't know all possible inputs; however from a godly perspective, since everything is known, your inputs and outputs are also known."

This type of argumentation is mere equivocation. In a theological discussion, "free will" refers to the will of man being independent of God's will. To argue that man's will is "free" from his own point of view, because of imperfect knowledge, is sophistry. God's knowledge is infallible precisely because He has willed the events in time to occur.

7179 "And truly we created for Hell many from "jinn" and men. For them, hearts with which they do not understand; for them eyes with which they do not see; and for them ears with which they do not hear. These are like cattle; nay, on the contrary they are further astray, these are they who are heedless."

Does this sound like God is passively guessing at what His creatures are going to do? Or rather that God has willed all things that happen for a purpose, including the state of those who will be in Hell indefinitely?

The issue is that if God decreed everything that happens in time then He is the final cause. That's the objection being made, by the one who started this thread, who I must admit, very skillfuly, sidestepped the issue of "free will". For, the latter is completely irrelevant, as long as you admit that God decreed everything, then, as far as I can see, the author's question stands unanswered.

I would take a different view. God created the conditions and we have free choice within those. If we can prove that the conditions for us could only allow one choice or however many choices all towards only one outcome throughout our existence, then we could be justifiably fatalistic. But we don't know that and free choice can exist. In the end, it would depend on what you think better explains us existentially.

I don't understand the relevance to the objection posed. You can have all the conditions you like, but if God created them knowing what would happen, then, according to the author of this thread, God is the cause of evil and is unjust. As I said above, no amount of supposed "free will" in the creature can answer this objection, so long as you maintain God's complete foreknowledge.

I saw this verse

"To God is what is in the heavens and in earth, and whether you declare what is in your souls or hide it, God will call you to account for it. He will forgive whom He wishes, and punish whom He wishes, and God is capable of all things." (2284)

And this has me scared....

Aryan Warrior,

Yes absolutely, God will hold all of us accountable for our deepest thoughts. You need to realize that God's law is not given so man may glorify himself in it, but to warn him. When a man sees himself in the mirror of God's holy and perfect law, all that will look back at him is death, condemnation and hell. You must flee to God's mercy, which is unmerited, and which He gives graciously and gratuitously; do not look to yourself for "righteousness" you will only find cause for condemnation, take hold of God's promise of mercy freely given. That is the good news promised, believe it and be saved. As an example see Pharaoh's magicians at 2651.

Peace

It is you who REFUSE to understand. I have given a very simple explanation. The fact is that you do not understand the intricacies of the Quranic system. To read the Quran from one angle is not appropiate. You interprete the Quran to your liking in order to deceive. What can we expect from a Bani Isreal, your forefathers have been doing that. Blood is much thicker then water. Seems to me that you smart alex bani Isreal, explain to me those verses.

Enough of this back and forth. This is not a joke, it is a serious matter, it relates to what God has or has not revealed. If you claim that those books called the Torah and Injeel today, are in fact corruptions/fabrications, then the burden is on you to explain the relevant Quranic verses. For your benefit, since you seem not to trust my own translations, I have posted below the verses in question, from three "reliable Muslim" translators.

Further, I will help you out with 541-43 The messenger is here told not to grive over hypocrites who eagerly devour evil and falsehood, even among the Jews. That he may judge equitably between them, if they come to him; however, he has no obligation to do so. Then the messenger is asked rhetorically Why should the Jews come to him when they have the Torah wherein is God's judgment? Yet they are turning away from it and therefore are not believers.

From these 3 verses alone it should be obvious that 1) At the time of the Quranic revelation, the Jews were in posession of a divine revelation, which God calls "Taurat" and 2) That the messenger's revelation (the Quran) did not in anyway supercede it. If it were not so, then the Jews definitely should have come to the messenger for judgment, which would make 543 meaningless and self contradictory.

I'll let you take it from here. Please remember to provide an explanation of each verse that is consistent with your belief that the Torah and Injeel, existing at the time of the Quranic revelation, were "fabrications". Also remember, it is irrelevant what you may think Torah and Injeel "really" mean, for you must interpret your definition, whatever it may be, consistently with the verses below.

005.041
YUSUFALI O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.
PICKTHAL O Messenger! Let not them grieve thee who vie one with another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths "We believe," but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk who come not unto thee, changing words from their context and saying If this be given unto you, receive it, but if this be not given unto you, then beware! He whom Allah doometh unto sin, thou (by thine efforts) wilt avail him naught against Allah. Those are they for whom the Will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts. Theirs in the world will be ignominy, and in the Hereafter an awful doom;
SHAKIR O Messenger! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.

005.042
YUSUFALI (They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring anything forbidden. If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If thou decline, they cannot hurt thee in the least. If thou judge, judge in equity between them. For Allah loveth those who judge in equity.
PICKTHAL Listeners for the sake of falsehood! Greedy for illicit gain! If then they have recourse unto thee (Muhammad) judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction. If thou disclaimest jurisdiction, then they cannot harm thee at all. But if thou judgest, judge between them with equity. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable.
SHAKIR (They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allah loves those who judge equitably.

005.043
YUSUFALI But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them?- therein is the (plain) command of Allah; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith.
PICKTHAL How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them)? Yet even after that they turn away. Such (folk) are not believers.
SHAKIR And how do they make you a judge and they have the Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers.

005.044
YUSUFALI It was We who revealed the law (to Moses) therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.
PICKTHAL Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered (unto Allah) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests (judged) by such of Allah's Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto were they witnesses. So fear not mankind, but fear Me. And barter not My revelations for a little gain. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed such are disbelievers.
SHAKIR Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allah) judged (matters) for those who were Jews, and the masters of Divine knowledge and the doctors, because they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allah, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers.

005.045
YUSUFALI We ordained therein for them "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.
PICKTHAL And We prescribed for them therein The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed such are wrong-doers.
SHAKIR And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust.

005.046
YUSUFALI And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him We sent him the Gospel therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
PICKTHAL And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
SHAKIR And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).

005.047
YUSUFALI Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
PICKTHAL Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed such are evil-livers.
SHAKIR And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.

005.048
YUSUFALI To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;
PICKTHAL And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.
SHAKIR And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;

005.049
YUSUFALI And this (He commands) Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.
PICKTHAL So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee. And if they turn away, then know that Allah's Will is to smite them for some sin of theirs. Lo! many of mankind are evil-livers.
SHAKIR And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors.

I have already explain to MM with regards to AQ05-41-49. It is on this page 5.

No you did not. In fact your "interpretation" was so self evidently contrary to the text, I thought it best not to comment. You are wrong that 543 is addressing Jews and Christians, it is addressing Jews only, try reading 541-42 while following the pronouns. This is the only point I could gather from your confused writings, at the end you conclude that the "gospel is incomplete or fabricated", if that is so then tell us how can God command people to follow a gospel which is "incomplete and fabricated" see 547?? Conveniently, you left that verse out of your "analysis"!! I maintain my request for exegesis of 541-49, post each verse sequentially and explain their meaning. Cutting up the Quran into little pieces to suit your fancies is not exegesis! Jumping in and out of various contexts to string along an incoherent theory is not exegesis!

Furthuremore the translation of 0303-04 is inappropiate, should be-

0303 Sent down to you the book in truth confirming what is between your hands and sent down The Torah and The Injeel

0304 Before this was a guidance to men and HE sent down The Criterion......

There is no "your" hands at 33, it is bayna yadayhi between his/its hands; "hi" is 3rd person singular. Further, "wa" is not always equivalent to "and" in modern english, it can also serve as a clarifying preposition, and that is how I have translated it.

The Criterion is The Quran. Please check 02185 and 2501

Finally, the Quran is NOT exclusively referred to as "al furqan". 253 and 2148 tell us that Moses and Aaron received the Furqan as well, it is you who are denying that this Furqan given to Moses and Aaron still exists within the Torah of today. Yet 33-4 contradicts you completely!