Also if you wanna understad why logically only the God as laid out in Eastern Orthodoxy allows one to make sense of existence i.e. trancendental argument for the Orthodox CHristian God u may wanna hear out a top Orthodox apologist by the name Jay Dyer
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3ssbjb3Xs

Hello,

Im not sure if you've looked into the Providence of God i.e. God can use the texts or events from a false religion to lead people to His Truth. So no i dont have to believe anymore the quran is true in as much as i dont need to believe that the sunni majority fighting off the mutazila successfully in the past makes them true BUT YET there is a KERNEL of truth in such that the Word of God is UNCREATED the difference being that Word is Christ and NOT the quran.

Peace "Badr",

Yeah, some insifignant details made/prescripted/said by the one who was only a "walking quran" and had only "extraordinary moral standards" and was chosen only by God himself just to transmitt what is revealed to him during about only 20 years (or more) witnessed but only tousands of people who were only amongst the most trustworthy muslims of all times.

JK- Where in the Quran was he termed "walking Quran"? As for his moral standards, sure they were great and probably better than most or possibly even all people at HIS TIME. As for the witnesses I think I already showed you how realiable eye wtiness accounts are, or didn't you see the video and trustworthiness has nothing to do with it. OUR human brain is made like that. GOD Bless!

Peace again,
ALSO i forgot to mention that the NUMERICS of the currency plays a VERY IMPORTANT factor. The fact that omnce a product is offered at a certain price PEOPLE'S MINDS FIX THE NUMERICAL VALUE int heir minds and then nobody wants to ever pay above that again except in a very few limited cases. Thius no company can afford to raise prices of their products without lsoing customers except in very few limited cases. This also speaks against any hyper inflation in case the government just issued money(ofcourse there'd be an agreed upon limit set for every month by the people as to how much they can issue) without taxing people as they do by reducing their numerical currency. GOD Bless!

Peace "Abdun Nur",

Salaam jonny,

the first modern example of universal income tax was established by the private company, the bank of England, who demanded its establishment to pay the interest on the fractional reserve loans it issued to the English government around 1796 to fund the Napoleonic wars, initially at 8% but reduced to 3%, the terms of the loan were that the principle sum was not to be repaid only the interest, and over 200 years later 3% of personal income tax goes to pay the interest on that loan.

A similar story in America, before 1913 there was no taxation by the American government, and the government had a surplus in its coffers, taxation was introduced against common law with the legislation to establish the private company the Federal Reserve, who began lending fractional reserve notes as money, and as in England, debt and taxation built hand in hand.

The problems we face do not stem from taxation alone, it is just a symptom of a disease, the disease we as modern humanity suffer is sovereign thought, through social engineering and culturally established practice imposed through the ages, and more recently through the media, people only think in terms of sovereign based systems, these systems are fundamentally the reason the world is in the terrible state it is, and the reason it is getting worse. Sovereignty is a slave master organisation, it exists everywhere today, in business with the boss and the workers, a pyramid of power, in government, in education, in religions, in law, in finance, in the class system, in expert opinions, all sovereign systems.

Until people realise Allah is the ONLY sovereign, and we all take personal responsibility for our selves, and refuse sovereignty, by installing the Islamic societal models of Allodial ownership, polycentric community, common law and human energy economics, humanity will suffer greater and greater hardships.

JK- As far as i know they had taxes in ancient Rome as well. At that time it made sense because production was fairly limited so if more people, coz of not having thir spending power cut whilst more money flows into the system, jumped onto the products it would cause hyper inflation. Thus people's spending power had to be cut and the government only spend that cut amount. In other words they had to make money flow as if it were something objective. With today's free market, great competition and practically unlimited production such is unnecessary. GOD Bless!

Peace "Abdun Nur",

Salaam,

it seems you want me to teach you physics, which is a bit too much for a thread on a forum, why don't you prove Einstein is correct and then I'll tell you why its not true.

JK- I've been watching many videos on free energy. Most of them make no sense and are obviously fakes but some actually made some sense i.e. the possible extraction of vacuum energy(zero point energy) by a German Physicist Prof. Dr. Claus W. Turtur. However he's been heavily criticized on a conference where the rest of the physicists say that what he showed is merely the Biefeld-Brown effect. Furthermore the effect he shows with his magnetic rotor is very small so I can't say anything yet. Listened to his lecture in German yesterday here where he also tries to refute some of the criticism levelled against him
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2I3EJyYcfc
I've written him an email and am waiting for a reply. Might visit him sometime and check the device for myself.
I've also heard claims equating ZPE with Dark Energy which physicists accept is there. However it's extraction for useful work here on earth is not caimed to be possible so far.
Another thing which makes more sense is this
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcCLIwlbhLc

BUT even if this is true it doesn't mean Einstein was completely wrong JUST LIKE Newton wasn't enitirely wrong either since the latter still applies for all practical purposes in classical mechanics with perfectly satisfying results for everyday use here on earth. MOREOVER the above concept of free energy does not violate conservation of energy BECAUSE the energy DOES COME FROM SOMEWHERE AFTERALL i.e. THE VACUUM.
GOD Bless!

Peace "Badr",

it is not, for the reason i previously stated.

JK- It is not making a distinction when you consistenly name one messenger's name only in the shahaada? No independent inquirer other than those who already beleive would agree with that.

I think we reached a conclusion right here and your theory start to fall apart. The quran is in a big part, almost all of it is translated according to hadeeth. You may think that what is translated according to hadeeth cause trouble wich is from what I've known from this forum almost every thing ; the shahada, the salaat, the hajj, punishments, relation of the couple etc... so the hadeeth is used to translate almost all the book, I did not force you to confess it. Thats why hadeeth and quran are indivisible.

JK- You're equating hadith with an Arabic dictionary which is BS to say the least. Much of how the Quran is translated relies on the Arabic language from independent dictionaries. Example the terms Hamd, Azeem, Rabb etc all have menaing sin the language itself. NOW the hadith may restrict them to certain menaings, sure, but that is exactly the point we're arguing against. We have to derive the meaning of a word, with mutiple menaings, with logic and reason as to what makes sense within the Quran and that'sd excatly why we have and want nothing to do with hadith followers and their biases.

funny how (quran) is between () in the three verses, it says everything. if it was only quran it would have been clearly said but no, why? because it is more general than "quran alone".

JK- It maybe that Muhammad in his time delivered particular local stuff which was only for that time. That much I can agree with HOWEVER whatever GOD meant to preserve as to what He delivered is only in the Quran and hence LOGICALLY only that could be meant for all time.

you answered your question by the verses you posted.

Case closed!

JK- I#m getting tired of repeating myself now. The verses above do not say in anyway that Muhammad delivered a method for salat, zakat. If this was true THEN AT THE VERY LEAST GOD woudlve said so clearly in the Quran BUT HE DIDNT. Case CLOSED! GOD Bless!

Peace "Abdun Nur",

Salaam jonny,

Tesla created over unity systems a hundred years ago, but if the sovereigns worshipped by the masses had allowed those very masses to use the abundance of Allah, they would have no long be any sovereigns still operating in the modern world, this is also the reason they buy and sell the abundance of the earth as if they owned it, because Muslim haven't got the brains Allah imbued an ant with, and clear guidance presented simply and clearly within the Qur'an confuses and mystifies them, to the extent they blindly follow sovereign jinn wherever they are led, they join in with the usury and the hoarding of Allahs property, buying and selling stolen goods as if it was acceptable.

JK- To be honest the cocnept of infinite energy even seemed problematic for me in view with GOD creating the universe in all the thing sin it. Coz if we can derive infinite energy from any pt in the vacuum, whats the whole fossil fuel GOD made in the earth for, what's the sun for with it's vast energy and the stars and so many other palces in the universe that have so much energy if we can just tap into the vacuum and get it? Could you offer me a good explanation for that?

Science proves many things, because many things are fundamental, it's these fundamentals that conventional physics rejects and attempts to cover in a blanket of deceit.

JK- CAn you give me example of some of these fundamentals and how they are proven?

If you reject the establishment as telling the truth and begin to look at the evidence of experimentation, a new picture of reality begins to emerge,

JK- But experimentation showed things like Einstein's general and special relativity to be true so far with no exceptions.

a richer, deeper and simpler understanding, the main reason people do not understand physics is is makes no sense, they have turned it into gibberish intentionally, this scares people away from investigation at any level, beyond superficial acceptance of scientific dogma. The media reiterate lies endlessly, 'energy cannot be created nor destroyed',

JK- Lets first define this. When you say energy can be destroyed, you probably mean that it disappears from our human observation, right? Coz in the absolute sense it doesnt make sense to say energy vanishes. it has to go somewhere like say into another dimension. If you agree on that , then I'll say that although this happens on the quantum level, I have not yet seen any reason to accept this can happen at the macro level too. ALSO it would make even less sense in relation to GOD, coz then why did GOD create a universe with laws and the things in it all follow laws and are stable, if everything is open?

for science, 'Einstein is a genius' for a jewish superiority, a man who was wrong on everything here stated, and will be shown as so in the end;

JK- So your saying relativity is wrong too?

'only two certainties in life death and taxes', both these ideas are lies, you cannot die in the conventional sense and taxation is a modern invention for the majority of the peoples of the earth, and as Islam demands all taxation must be refused and rejected Muslims must be at the forefront of that refusal, establishing common law as the true foundation of Islam, refusing sovereigns, corporations, legislations, taxations, usury and establishing reason, education as the corner stone of community.

JK- I agree with you on the tax issues. In the modern world of mass production taxation doesnt make any sense. Taxes were there to cut people's spending power so that the government could pay to establish public services WIHOUT causing inflation. HOWEVER in todays world even if demand increases, supply would also increase drastically. Thus the government could be given permission to print money and in the name of the people give it to the people whod be working for the general public plus even give every single indivdual arnd Eur 1000 or so tht everyones basic needs be fulfilled and they wld work happily to gain more luxury. That wld be a much better system and their wont be any inflation. The warnings of tht this wld cause inflation is wht i see as the actual fraud. Also just cause the middle class wld have 40% more money, all public service agents receiving eruql sums as before too, STILL the former wldnt start buying more vital stuff than they actually need. At best theyd buy a bigger car but as i said car companies are always happy to increase their supply should demand go uo coz of so much competition so there wont be any inflation. GOD Bless!

Peace "Badr",

You earlier stated that it is not bothering you but I BETTER say and quran is book of allah.

JK- Don't remember that I said such. Anyways it does bother me because I see this is in direct violtion to a Quranic commandment.

Try to understand that phrase

the quran you are reading is translated from arabic to your language according to hadeeth.

JK- This is partly true for some verses and not for others. Thats why we have a lot of work to do coz those very verses which are interpreted based on hadith are mostly the ones which cause trouble i.e. make little sense. Most of the Quran is translated using classical arabic dictionaries based on independent classical Arabic. Arabic existed long before hadith came into the picture.

So you assume he didnt fulfill his duty ?

JK- He fulfilled his duty TO DELIVER THE QURAN AND WARN PEOPLE THEREBY and he did so
You have NO duty EXCEPT delivering (Quran)" (424
"Your ONLY duty is delivering (Quran), while We will call them to account." (1340)
"The messenger has NO function EXCEPT delivering (Quran) and God knows whatever you declare, as well as whatever you conceal. Say, 'The good and the bad are not the same, despite the abundance of the bad.' Therefore, you shall observe God, O you who possess intelligence, that you may succeed." (599-100)

Should be clear enough. Nowehere do we find that Muhammad was to teach people how to perform salat,zakat or any other term in the Quran, outside of the Quran. GOD Bless!

Peace "Badr",

You call it correcting itself, I call it misleading.

JK- You have to give yourself the benefit of the doubt even viewing the history of "scholars" you accept they all had many differnet opions on one subject. This shows that no one can claim absolute truth and it would be disastrous if someone gets imprisoned or killed just coz of a view which later turns out was correct after all.

I answered the points you stated (wife beating, propaganda, ...) from what sunni/orthodox islam say and you called me a taqiyi/yan/yer = a lyer. Each case is different and theres not a general rule so you can't say all hadith is bad.

JK- I agree each case can be different but with shariah I havnt seen anything that practically makes much sense. ALSO i never said all hadith is bad in mch the same way that no religious scripture or general text written by anyone for that matter is all bad. The pt is it is not relibale enough to portray the details of what are to be our rellgious duties.

Theres so much for us to learn from the prophet and from hadiths like "when three people are together, two of them souldnt whisper between themselves as the third can be saddened".

JK- As I said if any statements in the hadith are backed up with archaelogical evidence, then we can take those hadith into account and say that they, and ONLY those, portray a genuine picture of what actually happened at tht time. Until now we dont have any.

You are totally wrong Islam did promote equality, is indeed a religion of peace and nobody's trying to hide the truth. I don't know who gave you that idea or what people you listened to but you're going the wrong route.

JK- You must have a very confused understanding of equality then. HOW is it equal when a woman cannot do hajj without a Mahram or go out alone more than a certain defined distance without a male mahram(one she cannot marry), or that she has to obey her husband as long as he doesnt command anything against shariah but the reverse need not be the case, or that her husband reserveds the right to beat her, however lightly and with whatever small stick, but she doesnt, or that a woman's witness is HALF that of a man's, or that a woman can only inherit half of that what a man does, or that a woman is curesed by angels if she doesnt please her husband but the reverse is not true, etc etc? HOW is that equality? Next what is peaceful about when you are allowed to use violence to inhibit critique of the system of "islam"? by no definition can this be called peaceful other than your own self made up definition of these terms.

Of course it is according to written sayings and ahadith about the prophet lifetime.

JK- 1st as i said there is no evidence linking them to the Prophet. 2ndly your interpretaions thereof. many "muslims" even understand various hadith differently.

This is the law of god, no need to take a poll.

JK- YOU made the claim that women wont find this embarrassing so I asked lets find out by asking them. ALSO that this is GOD'S law is said by YOUR group of "muslims" NOT GOD Himself. You think He did. At least admit tht much.

I nowhere said its mostly women but we are talking about the women and a particular case that YOU suggested. So dont try to twist it and show yourself like the great women's defender. It's useless, I'm not here to please anyone, I give you the truth if you dont want it and like to call me a liar do as you please I will sleep exactely the same tonight.

JK- I'll defend women whenever I want, wherever I want and however I fel appropriate. IS THT CLEAR? NOW you don't need to please anyone but so far your arguments DO NOT MAKE ANY SENSE and people will judge this by reading our discussion. As for you giving us the truth it makes me laugh. We claim that we are much closer to the Truth than you could ever be.

I will chop his neck ! (just kidding)

I will send him in intensive care. (too)

I will ask the woman to have sex with him when he is tired and not in the mood. (seriously ))

I will cut his dick.

JK- So you will punish him? Ok fine but can you justify that with shariah? I don't think you can because the husband has a right to do so. There is no rule against marital rape in hadith "islam".

;D

This is history man, it's not my personal view, europe only left the dark ages because they were in contact with islam (through Andalusia and the Ottoman empire and all the orientalists etc...).

JK- Didn't I just give you an example as to why this doesn't make sense? At best what codulve happened is that some scientists, who happened to be "Muslims(whether hadith followers or not is not clear)", contributed to the scienctific community in general. Thats it. Nothing to do with shariah. That didnt enlighten anyone and ive explained why CLEARLY.

No they do it even with only speculations, especially when it comes to islam.

JK- GET REAL. hadith "Islam" is currently enjoying the greatest proterction from the governments. They blame anyone who criticizes "islam" coz they say "it can put ppls lifes oin danger". Whilst "muslims" can say anything they like. I know this because there are so many hadith "muslim" grps here who talk loudly on the loudpeakers as well as in the UK shouting they want shariah with all the laws of cutting hands etc included and nobody jails them. Your turning things around here 180 degrees. GOD Bless!

Peace again "abdun nur",

Also if this (http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBzGJLKrnFM&feature=player_embedded) were possible we shoudlnt require any electricity at all to run it after the initial spark COZ if there is always 70% or 1.7X timesd more out than in, you can say start with X KJ electrical energy, convert it to mechnical energy plus 70%= 1.7X kJ mechnical energy out, then use 0.7X kJ of that energy for useful work as desired and the X kJ for driving an electric generator again producing X KJ of electrical energy which is lead back to the initial input of the machine and so on. So no more electrical input required from any external force and you should get more and more energy forever. GOD Bless!

Peace "Abdun Nur",

Salaam jonny,

many things are proven in science, however not the things that stand against physical reality,

JK- Can you tell me anything that is "proven" in science?

the theories that are describing a process that does not act according to the description, the universe demonstrates an open energy exchange, it doesn't matter that conventional physics says that is impossible, it is still a reality.

JK- At the quantum level we do observe particles coming in and going out but the overall statistics or their doing such plays out on the macro level so that we don't get an infinite amount of energy just out of nothing. Some have claimed we can get this energy from the vacuum BUT NEVER has such a device been demonstrated. But as I said im open to see it.

As I said you would not believe the tests done on the device in the example, because the establishment you worship has refuted through its intentional perversion and corruption of truth it being possible, so you conclude it must be wrong, without investigation.

JK- Forget the establishment. 1st tell me Have YOU tested the device?

Over unity systems have cropped up again and again over the past century, I just found a simple example to demonstrate you're deep indoctrination and subjugation to sovereign authority, it is not important if I have personally investigated this device, many devices have demonstrated the same over unity attribute, even universities have done so, in the 90's a university developed a water splitter that produced 8000% over unity, fully tested and established by many many others, even reproduced by other universities, why is this not transforming physics, because physics in its conventional and widely publicised understandings, is complete and utter bull shit.

JK- SHOW ME. Where has this been done. I need to see this. For the time being give me a rough explanation of how that device worked. Did the water get used up i.e. was the energy taken from the H2O atoms by collapsing them?

But of course these university professors, who are based in chemistry, one of the few areas that the bankers cannot corrupt, because its a physical science, are confused, is that right, yes, you would need to test there device yourself, have you found a physicist, they would not be so fast to refute a magnet endlessly produces energy, a good physicist would just look at his shoes, a bad one would make up a lie.

JK- By producing energy we mean work that can be brought onto the macro sphere. AT the quantum level i already agreed that particles come and ago in and out of our dimesion but never has it been shown that we could use an infinite no of them at any point in spoace and use them to peform work on the macro level. BUT like i said if this has been done i want to see it.

I have begun making a system but I have run out of money, I was working on a water splitter to run house boiler, with the idea of freeing people from the enslavement of the corporations, but no one is willing to help, and I'm not very well off.

JK- Please give me a rogh outline where the energy comes from. Does it come from the water molecules which then collapse and the heat from their collapsing is then used to cause motion? GOD Bless!

Peace "Badr",

Again one can see from this how hadith came via the influence from Christianity as they believe simialrly that Jesus will return but "COINCIDENTALLY" this very important story, IF it were true, has not been mentioned in the Quran, NOT EVEN TOUCHED UPON.
PLEASE read the following article for more such indications that hadith is undoubtedly due to the influecne of Jews and Christians(AND I MEAN MOSTLY THE ONES TERMED "SAHIH&quot
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598105.0

GOD Bless!

Peace "Badr",

If if it wasnt justified I don't see how it could bother you.

JK- Don't thinks which you consider unislamic bother you? in the same way if i see something as contradicting the Quran and thus Islam by it bothers me too.

Yes it is a belief, it may be true and it may be false, it is obviously false because you need hadith whether you want it or not, each time you read a translation of Quran theres a huge amount of hadeeth in it and you dont seem to be aware of this. NOBODY ever translated quran without referring to hadith.

JK- We believe this based on reasoning after analysing the various relevant verses in the Quran ofcourse. hence we're convinced that it is true. And again your use of the word "obviously false" comes off as very offensive and would make us fire rtight back. WE DONT NEED HADITH to understand Quran. Period. We need independent study of history backed by archaelogy to understand some stories in the Quran that I can agree, just like we needed scientific invetigation to udnerstand 2130. Hadith couldnt do that. It is totally useless WORSE it is harmful and misninterprets the Quran.

You're not obeying the messenger by skipping how he teached salaat etc...

JK- DIDNT I MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE DONT ACCEPT HE EVEN TAUGHT IT? GOD Bless!

Peace "Badr",

I really don't know I must find myself in this position and look at the fors and againsts, I can say I would emprison him or obligate him to quit the territory but maybe if I was really in the position I would act otherwise. If it becomes a menace to the security of the state I would put the general interest above the private one. I really don't know. Maybe I am not fit to rule the islamic world ;D

JK- We can rule out security issues since there is no physical harm done. He's expressing his opinion as to why in his view the system is flawed. Thats the point. It is insanity to imprison someone for that because it bars society from correecting itself via revision COZ as I said even if you have divinely isnpired scriptures you could have still misinterpreted them and there is no guarantee that any society will ever understand anything in them completely. This alone should make you think on this point.

it is a lie plain and simple, I never heard a single scholar talking about it.

JK- You are right in terms of the usage of the term itself in sunnism. They call it "idtirar" and it is to conceal the faith to protect ones belief. Although sunnis claim they cannot use this to hide the truth, they do for example when they call their "islam" a religion of peace where men and women have equal rights etc BUT when one studies the details this is not the case and they know it.

No I'm not "taqaying" I'm really telling you what I know from the prophet sayings and acts.

JK- Again what you and your group thinks it knows. "know" is a word reserved for things you get to know without any religious/ideological bias.

for the embarrassement ; I would obligate him to stop. But I don't think the women on whom this is applicable feel embarrassed,

JK- Lets take a poll with the women who have not been indoctrinated with this view and see how many will not feel embaraased kwnoing that their husbands acn discipline them with whatvever small stick, whilst they dont have the right explicit right to do the same.

the "beating" is when the woman push it faaaaar away by been infidel and riculising her husband and doing all what it is not permissible to do even with our standards nowerdays (muslim and non muslims standards).

JK- What if the husband went that far? Do you know that most women would feel embarrased by the very statement you made which implies it's mostly women who stray as comapred to men? If not make a poll and ask some of the women right here on this forum who once were sunnis.
According to todays standards ridicule in private btw husband and wife is not punshable at all as long as it's not physical. 2ndly what you're implying is that it's the woman whos most likely to do the ridicule and this embarasses women.

Of course it is not OK to have sex when the woman is not in the mood, this is non sense. I can't understand how you can ask such a question, do you really expect me to say "yes the man is allowed to have sex anytime he wants and the woman must shut her mouth" ????

JK- Well I've not heard of any sunni school of thought who would punish a man for doing such except if she has her period and other times laid out by the sharia as ive mentioned. They all say, to my knowledge, a man can have sex with a woman when he desires, exceptions excluded, and she has to come to him "even if shes at the stove" as one hadith states
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwlW9Qq_zEc
SO what would you do to a man if a wife came to you complaining about this and you were the ruler?

Says johnny B.

JK- You can go to any secular court or the majority of rational thinkers world wide and most of them, if not all would agree with me on this point. So NO it's not just me.

Middle ages kings only left the dark ages after their contact with islam (orthodox islam not quran-aloner islam).

JK- I don't agree with you because it makes logically no sense by definitioon. Think of it dark ages= killing apostates for 1. coming out meant abolishing this law first and formost. orthodox hadfith islam promotes the same as a fundamental to guard it's faith so how could it make them come out? Think my man.

But as soon as it is a menace to the security they allow their police and secret services to do every thing.

JK- Though Physical security is something different even there they have to be very careful not to violate the 1st amendment and laws are being revised accordingly. Critique of religion or political ideology cannot be condemned by the law under any circumstances. At best they can condemn by law if someone threatens to kill someone or give away government secrets, NEVER can they do so for cricizing any of the political ideologies laws or even the constituion itself without them being forced back by the 1st amendment, the core principle which guaratees freedom of expression for anyone in public.

I'll check it.

JK- Ok. GOD Bless!

Peace "Badr",

You have a mind that you claim is superior to most people who studied Quran, you can use it to see if the commandment contradicts the quran or no.

JK- And I've shown you how in my understanding and that of almost all Quran Alone Muslims it does contradict the Quran because you're thereby making a distinction of GOD's messengers if you insist on his name being inserted ion the Adhaan and Shahaadah and exluding all other messengers.

If you are able to decypher such little details in Quran it would be easier for you to compare the commandment of the hadeeth with what have been brought in the quran.

JK- Quran Alone Muslims believe that the Quran's verses should be used to explain other Quranic verses and not hadith. Infact we Muslims say that the Quran specifically uses the term "hadith", whilst it couldve used many others if it just meant stories/sayings, and condemned any after GOD's revelations to be of any religious value.

What is the rest ? it's all you have to know, and starting from that you can say if he commanded such or such commandment.

JK- There is nothing else. Whatever is commanded in the Quran is also commanded by the messenger technically since it came from his mouth. Plain and simple. Infact nothing is commanded by Allah directly hence there is a verse in the Quran which says that if you obey the messenger you've obeyed GOD and in effect you'd have done so. GOD Bless!

Peace "Badr",

You must be proud to belong to the muslim world and not to back your claim with what the secular world think.

JK- But i don't want to belong to the hadith "muslim" world. Havnt i made this clear? If not let me tell you I consider the hadith followers the most corrupt and vile people of all. As for the Quran Alone Muslims we have a lot in common with secular people. They're much closer to us. Even enlightened Chrisians are closer to us. Hadith followers are like those in the dark ages. Nothing to be proud of in our understanding.

Not all the time, I think it's a coincidence and you pushing it too far to prove your point if you only contradicted it by saying not all the hand.

JK- If you think it is a coincidence the argument here is over. I can't convince you then with this point but you admitted that one can cut fingers and thus not necessarily the whole hand.

) funny question, and why other parts? why not this part ?

JK- That was just an additional fact I pointed out. The MAIN argument is that the verse shows what "cut hands" can mean and it clearly shows it is not restricted to "cutting the entire hand".

if it was a small knife cut you will argue why a cut anyway why not a sting then why not a poke etc....

JK- Yes one can argue this and if the claimer has good points to justify then I can accept this. For now I take whatever I best understand of what constitutes a cut i.e. starting from the smallest possible mark that observably tears the skin using a sharp object.

"ny type of "Islam" proves itself in secular court" ??? do you read what you type ?

JK- by "Any type of "islam" i meant that any of the various schools of thoughts who all claim to be "islamic" and many call the others unislamic. To rephrase just substitute by "any group of people who claims to be the true Muslims and following true Islam". GOD Bless!

Peace "Badr",

In an islamic state he most probabely won't do it but if he does he will be considered as a revolution setter. If I was the ruler (and nowerdays) I would probabely talk with him and keep him from turning the people against the government by reasonating him. I wish I will never be a ruler of the islamic world, what a responsability !

JK- Ok but what if he insists on his views? Would you keep on reasoning indefinitely, if he doesnt use physical force at any time but also keeps on insisitng with his reason?

I dont know what is taqiya, all I know is that it is something for shiia but the exact explanation no idea. I'll check it tho.

JK- No sunnis apply it too. It means when they are not in a position of power they deliberately lie or hide many of the elemts they think secular or nonreligious people would consider violent and thus not make them accept "islam" if they heard them at the outset.

Of course in no way a man must beat a woman, if you follow hadeeth when the prophet have been asked about the beating verse, he said with a siwak stick and lightly on the hand, wich is like nothing. He forbid to beat animals on the face so let alone women, what these people who beat their wives do is wrong all day. They dont understand islam.

JK- Ok but if the man insists that a husband should not be allowed to even embarass his wife by hitting her physically with somehting as small as a siwak? ALSO what do you say about a husband having the right to have sex with his wife, even if she's not in the mood or just doesnt want to, at any time except those particularly laid down by sharia? As far as I know none of the "scholars" would accuse such a husband of rape even if the wife feels violate after the husband has forced himself upon her without her consent.

"only" a hadeeth sahih.

JK- Which is not evidence by any standard other than the religion's grp itself.

Not necessarily.

JK- It is. Perhaps you should study the middle ages in Europe. In that Era Church rulers had similar power. After the enlightenment people came out of these dark ages. What you're suggetsing will lead us right back into them.

You allow a president to do it with all its fluctuation.

JK- Western secular values do not give the president the right to put anyone in jail just by his decision alone, let alone by anything what he says. Infact leaders in the western world can be harshly and openly criticized, satiric pictures of them being drawn without them having the authority to imprison or even so much as to fine them. People have moved out of this. It maybe that some remnants of such laws are still leftover in the system but they'll also fade away sooner or later coz they're not compatible with the main pillar of the secular world i.e. freedom of expression.

Sharia must be capable but people are biased, especially nowerdays.

JK- Why shoudl people be biased now when there is much more competition now than ever before when people used to live in groups and vastly employed group thinking? Also this again sounds like leading upto the "no true scotsman fallacy". Many religions use it. Go and google it. GOD Bless!

Peace "Abdun Nur",

Salaam jonny,

almost nothing has been proved in conventional physics,

JK- I made it clear tnat NOTHING is ever PROVEN in science. All we have is evidence to back claims up and conventional physics has been verys good at that for all practical purposes.

it's at best a pseudo-science, but more accurately a directed and intentional fraud, I realise you will refuse to accept any evidence that rejects the conventional establishment views, just like some still think 911 was Muslim terrorist plane hijackers, a person that subjugated could never be expected to come to a rational conclusion based on evidence.

Here is a 2 minute video that breaks the law of conservation of energy, which is a ridiculous concept to begin with, but if you can explain this, I expect you'll say the tests were wrong, which is the standard answer of the indoctrinated, anyway enjoy.

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBzGJLKrnFM&feature=player_embedded

JK- Have you tested this device and made sure it works like it is being claimed? Nobody has yet been able to demonstrate that any of these oveunity devices actually work under controlled condition. They always turn out to be frauds and the fraudsters run away with peoples money. BUT IM willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. If you have enough money or know someone or have a group who can pay for it together, get such a device and actually test it out. See if the energy you get out is actually more than you put in without any part of the system collapsing over time. GOD Bless!

Peace "Badr",

I was first denying it but now I am totally convinced , you have a problem with prophet Muhammad in particular, of course you won't follow his sayings, it's obvious now, even if someone gives you all the juridiciary proofs you need you won't be convinced because it's more simple than all that, your problem is with Muhammad plain and simple.

JK- Stop your now accusing me of somehting which is NOT TRUE A ALL. I respect and love Muhammad just as any other messenger or inspired person of GOD. NOW IF you had such evidence, and you don't and most probably never will, I would readily accept many of the hadith other than Quran actually coming from the Prophet Muhammad and commanding something. HOWEVER at the same time I would also need independent evidence from the same indepedent source suggesting that no Quranic injunction contradicts the following of those commandments outside of it and/or that it is actually mandatory.

If you are blind to see what he did for you (as well as other prophets) you aint going nowhere.

JK- I see very well what he did for us. He brought the Quran to us, gradually in his time which is an incredibly GREAT JOB. Also technically this means he explained previously delivered Quranic verses with the ones following after them, coz they all came through his mouth, also all now in the Quran. Apart from that i can imagine that he also must have been a generally humble and very nice man. BUT the rest is all speculation. GOD Bless!