We do not exist besides God, anything else would be the association Muslims are so obsessed about.

Bold Someone who was a true acknowlegder of The Creator knew Allah/God (SWTAY) wasn't like that stupid false deity as you described. That was a lot of people unfortunately think of because of some bigoted douchebags, both religous and atheists made The Lord of the Worlds/Universe.

To me the word God has nothing to do with any pagan or some weird things. It's a modern english title of The Divine Infinite Creator (SWTAY)
I pretty sure calling Allah (SWTAY) God is nothing horrifying because it wouldn't be fair you get in trouble for that.

If God is derived from the Indo-European "khud-a" then you may be correct. For whatever it means, it is a reference Persians used for the phenomenon called "God" in English.

Anyways, what the ancient Persians were referring to is that the power of God shines out from the self, it is called or summoned from there. The idea about absolutely no association is a later invention, for God allows people to be associated for as long as it is being associated with Him.

Be well
Qarael Amenuel

https//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuda

Please read yourself how it is perceived in mainstream understanding.

Personally, I take the word to be derived from "self" which is how the letters khuwd are used in modern Persian, e.g. "yourself". That is in line with the real meaning of allah as well and the "I am who I am" from the Bible.

Once upon a time there must have been someone who knew "God" is just not an angry jealous skyman sitting on a throne on the Moon and is angry because people wish to ascend and take space.

Be well
Qarael Amenuel

It may be possible "God" is a linguistic perversion of the Persian "khuda" which is in line with the Indo-European heritage. The ancient Persians did have a prominent influence on the world around them. Why it fell to "G" may be due to the pronunciation of kh is not all too easy in foreign languages.

There are indications that there may have been a similar pronunciation further back in etymology and it may even have been with an "a" sound in the end.

Source http//www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god

Observe that the hypothesis about khuda is not on that etymology site but it is my logical assumption and the etymology reference is to show examples of used syllables.

Of course jafar can believe what he wants and you can do the same.
I am saying,as far as my understanding of Qoran goes,I disagree with him
.And I disagree with what you are saying as well. The Arabic text is free form tempering and remains original.
GOD bless.
Peace.

We can agree to disagree then.

Peace jafar.
This is always going to be your excuse for not studying and checking Qoran yourself?,Quote
It think it's more of the Quran worshipper CLAIM that it was written/authored/inspired by God..

I am saying the Qoran,(read it) claims that is is the words/authorship of the Lord of the universe!!!! Common, you can read it or do you want me to state where and what it says?

You are making "hay" with humans interpretation of Qoran ,and like those before you who tried it,you are going to have to check it and analyse it properly yourself?!!!
Your argument about religions may be valid at times ,but the one about Qoran looks bare and stale. In fact it shows a lot of ignorance about the book.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

I think that Jafar is entitled to his opinion and I can understand that he does not believe Quran to be supernatural in origin due to how the writing presents itself and how primitive it sounds. In that I also share his opinion and if it was not because I found that someone simply inserted their own (flimsy) interpretation which had nothing to do with what was written above the innocent text, I would also not have anything to do with Quran these days and I would probably be studying a whole great deal more on the Biblical Gospels and other texts.

However, thanks to the patience I had with Quran I know more than I would have ever done without it and I can understand the linguistic problems with the Biblical phrasings such as "son of man" and "son of god" which sound like that because they are a little poorly translated and on top of that misinterpreted. No one is the biological/bodily offspring of God, but they can shape (tune in) their mind into being alike God's and so they can be advanced beings.

Be well
Qarael Amenuel

Well, if it is an egg miraculously fertilized in a woman by a supernatural manipulation of the subatomic and/or energy structure of the universe, then no other prerequisite has to be fulfilled. However, the miracle would have a difficulty working today since we have made methods of fertilizing female eggs artificially and probably no one would anyways have believed Miryem today due to that.

However, like I said, Eysua's birth is no big deal to us today and I would be more concerned about the teaching of his, of not being attracted to the worldly vanity and driven by the instinct of the body.

Be well
Qarael Amenuel

I doubt that 3isa spoke inthe cradle. Maryam said what she was told to say by the voice that she had made a vow not to speak and pointed to the baby.

They baby did not speak, but the baby was the thing to understand. You do not have to question a woman why she has a baby, the baby does not need any explanation. Any baby is born because God said be and it is.

When a baby is int he world, what is there to question? The baby itself is all the answer you need. If you need more and hear that he is going to be a great man or something like that is that going to change anything at all? No God is the Ruler of the arham, of the wombs and there is no questionning why anyody was born. That is what 3isa ibnu Maryam s saying in the cradle while not needing to say a single word, that is what Maryam points at and that is what the voice to told her keep mum wants us to know.

Motherhood is beyond human protocols, beyond human conventions, it is directly tied to God, it is not subservient to any convention. Subhannallah, subhannallah, subhannallah

Salaam

I doubt it too. But then I doubt most of what the traditional rendition of Quran says, it is simply not credible.

And I put forth arguments on the word at hand which was lashes. Now probability is included in logic and how seriously would you take a sentence with so many problems. I could discuss it further, but I have no interest in doing it with you.

As for rendering the passage I will not do here and your show of attitude suggests a person of people I am not interested in. Flawed behavior is an imperfection, so come back when you have made the step ahead of it.

It was not an attack really, it was more to make HP_TECH reflect on what he was saying in response to that women who are raped should keep the rapist's child in the uterus. Now I cannot rape HP_TECH and make him pregnant can I, unless he can surgically insert a uterus into his male body or in some other way become a female. However, others were apparently taking it emotionally including HP_TECH who did not respond on the moral aspect of the analogy.

But logical fallacies I have not, I have made sure I am not logically incorrect through much contemplation before I open my mouth. My whole life I pressure hard on a high level of logic.

However, I think you should somehow get involved in the discussions using logic instead of some stupid understanding from the 7th century and use your intelligence.

Also I gave my input on the verses in discussion previously.

We are talking about chapter 24. Please read it if you haven't and then repeat what you just said. No offence, but what you or huruf have just said have zero logical or textual basis in accordance with the chapter full of punishments and also verses on following the messenger.

Logic my ass...

As for an eye for an eye verse then that is verse 545 and it is an ultimate test for the believer as the verse also talks about forgiving in charity (zakat) as an option, which most people won't abide to but would rather punish someone or demand retribution in turn.

You are somewhat correct, but just because something allegedly says a thing does not mean it has any truth in it. I give a damned about what some writing says if it is against logic. Logic prevails over what some sources say.

I gave reasons for why it is stupid to require four witnesses among other things. The traditional interpretation is stupid. It is stupid why you should punish an adulterer with lashes when the old law said eye for an eye.

Except they had no such forensic knowledge or skills back then.

There are verses about mandatory chastity in regards to guarding one's private parts and glances to remain modest, so obviously rape and fornication are forbidden. But there is no punishment prescribed for possible rape.

There is however an allaged punishment of 100 lashes for adulterers, who I suppose are married.

Well, she can say she did not commit adultery but instead it was rape, as many women often tell nowadays, as pointed out by progressive1993. How in such case one is to be judged and who will be judged?

Punishments in Qur'an are so vague and ambiguous, I am almost certain they are of translational bias and one certainly "needs" "sunna", "hadith" and the "sharia" in order to prescribe punishments.

That is why it is more logical not to punish physically at all if someone commits adultery. No one is physically hurt by an adultery and the old law says "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", meaning the punishment for the adulterer should be mental since the suffering is mental for the victim. It is because of the victim(s) of the adultery there is a reason to punish at all if it is a must.

If you are raped, it is possible to often find traces of sperm in a woman and analyze it and track it to the rapist. In that case no other testimony than the woman is required to convict the rapist, but of course having additional witnesses help in determining the sinister motive of the rapist.

Even in the past, requiring more than one additional witness is just illogical and where the four witnesses come from is not consistent.

Be well
Qarael Amenuel

But for rpe there is no need to find four witnesses, that is a crime, like murder or theft.

It would not be a loophole it would be a complete rebellion against justice and the Qur'an and for which any other means of evidence is admissible.

In that case it is not a natural difficulty but an act of corruption all right. The question then would nto be the Qur'an but the state of a society for which justice simply is not such but another means of oppression. That is a rotten society.

Salaam

Absolutely right.

Are you mentally ill? I asked for your definitions and your views. I almost expected a deranged answer from you. You dont know me. Alas, you will get judged - I will not get caught up with you.

What kind of answer is that? Huruf answered it quite well.

There is also the option of using the mind and apply sound logic.

I do not see how anything points at all to a virgin birth. I just do not see it. But I see that we have all been indoctrinated into thinking it a virgin virth and therefore we tend to insert everything we read into that set up. We are nto unconditioned. If we get rid of tha preconception I honestly cannot see that anything points more to a virgin than to any other possibility.

But like what you yourself admit, we are left in darkness about how the conception came to happen, which corroborates the fact that that is of no importance whatsoever nor serve us for any purposed. Therefore it is of no consequence and a waste for us, because the lesson is not there.

Salaam

It ought to be a virgin birth, I am not a sexist but in Semitic tradition you do not refer to the mother when you refer to a child but the father and so if Eysua had a father it would have been Eysua ibn . Why is because basically a man and woman become as one body upon marriage and they take the same name (much like the tradition of the woman taking the man's last name). So if you refer to the wife you say wife much like Mrs in English.

It is not necessary to take the man's name though, but either they can take a completely new name together or even take the woman's name, but the point is this is because of the ancient law of "man and woman created He/She them and they shall cleave together and become as one body/flesh".

But in the case of Miryem, she is most probably the sole parent in this case being in reference alone as "ibn Miryem", unless her husband took her name as family name and it was a kind of ancient feminist gesture. The probability is unfortunately relatively low, however I like if there is focus on the women for I deem them as powerful if not more powerful than men in many cases and many men speaking of women should be ashamed of themselves and their being.

Nevertheless, to us it does matter extremely little whether Eysua was conceived supernaturally or not, that is not at all the important matter of his coming but his being as a living example of a pure person is.

Be well
Qarael Amenuel

"Hateful rape speech", well, there was no hate in that, just saying if you can think in case you were raped and how you would feel then and if you would reason the same way and if you would wish to keep the child from which egg I, the rapist, fertilized with my sperm.

Shirk means to be associated, and the word can be used positively as well as negatively. It is not necessarily wrong being Mushrikeen depending on in what context.

Be well
Qarael Amenuel