U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-24-2015, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Ali is now an agnostic. It is only natural his opponents will say all sorts of negative thing about him to discredit him. I do not see this is an issue unless there is clear cut proof the person is really a con, even then I am not so concern about the person but rather the actual texts.

I read a lot of Ali Sina's articles and debates earlier on. Sina may have his own interpretations but what he has done intellectually is to bring forth a very wide subject matters from the Quran, Hadiths and Sira which a non-Muslims are not aware of at all if not for him some years ago. I may not agree with his views, e.g. that Aisha was "raped" but the fact that a 50+ years engaging with a 6-9 years old is very telling from a psychological point of view regardless of whatever the excuses. Not every one has such neural circuits even 1500 years ago the average person do have a sense of basic moral compass.

Regardless of what Ali Sina's personal interpretations and views he may have, the critical point is he brought forth the original verses verbatim from various quran and hadiths. I don't think he changed them deliberately to suit his point.

Anyway, at his point I have done my own thorough readings [6 months of full time] of the Quran with detailed analysis thus I do not have to depend on others to quote me verses from the Quran but I am still interested in various perspectives.
I do not know what is in Ali Sinas heart or why he is so vindictive towards Islam. But He has very wrong understnding about Qur'an, Ahadith, Sunnah and Sira. Like many he assumes Sira means Ishaq's sira. He does not Seem to have much understanding about Reliability and Authenticity of Ahadith and assumes they are commands, I find he has little or no knowledge of Sunnah and his understanding of the Qur'an seems to be based upon English language translations.


Part would be understandable if he is truly Iranian, most iranians do not speak Arabic they speak Farsi, the Qur'ans in Iran are almost always in Farsi. The Shi'ite do not accept the same Ahadith as sunni and have no mention of Muhammad(saws)'s marriage to Aisha they believe Aisha was a jewish womand that fabricated the stories about Muhammad(saws) and she was an old woman that fabricated the stories . Shi'ite have different sources of Sunnah and Sira than what Sunni follow.

During my Christian era especially during my excursions to the Mideast and North Africa I did at least 20 years study of the Qur'an, in Arabic and was very convinced it was a book of hate and violence.

It then took me nearly 20 years of Atheism to eventually understand I was wrong about Islam.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's

Last edited by Woodrow LI; 06-24-2015 at 09:50 AM..

 
Old 06-24-2015, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,581,295 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
I do not know what is in Ali Sinas heart or why he is so vindictive towards Islam.
Every religion in the world has their opponents, 'anti-' and rational critique. However there are degrees in their counters and views.

One of the most aggressive anti-religions are those who has been abused by Christian priests and when they convert out the condemned Christianity for the personal bad experiences.
In other cases, those who condemned a religion may have some sort of negative experience from that religion.

As for Ali Sina, he may have his personal reasons, however they way he voiced his views against Islam can be shared by anyone because the facts, evidences and proofs of acts, by SOME Muslims acting from their Quran, Hadiths, Sira, & others, he provided can be verified by anyone via personal experience and reliable reported news.

Most Muslims will never view this objectively because of personal bias and confirmation bias due to their very heavy dependence on the soteriological weightage.

Another question you need to ask yourself objectively [hopefully you can remove the bias for this occasion] is to ask, Why is it that it is Islam [in part by SOME Muslims] the major religious related problem around the world and received the most condemnation in the present. Why there is contrasting and relatively so little condemnations of other religions?

Quote:
But He has very wrong understanding about Qur'an, Ahadith, Sunnah and Sira. Like many he assumes Sira means Ishaq's sira. He does not Seem to have much understanding about Reliability and Authenticity of Ahadith and assumes they are commands, I find he has little or no knowledge of Sunnah and his understanding of the Qur'an seems to be based upon English language translations.
You are guessing here, thus your point has little credibility.
Sina may have quoted from the Sira but he did mention the existence of other biographies of Muhammad. I have seen many of his quotes from the Hadiths of the Sunni. I am sure Sina understood how the credibility of the Hadiths differ from that of the Quran and the Sira [stories] are less reliable.

Quote:
Part would be understandable if he is truly Iranian, most iranians do not speak Arabic they speak Farsi, the Qur'ans in Iran are almost always in Farsi. The Shi'ite do not accept the same Ahadith as sunni and have no mention of Muhammad(saws)'s marriage to Aisha they believe Aisha was a jewish womand that fabricated the stories about Muhammad(saws) and she was an old woman that fabricated the stories . Shi'ite have different sources of Sunnah and Sira than what Sunni follow.
From what I read, most of his hadiths verses were quoted from the Sunni's because he is well aware Sunni are the majority.
I have read the critiques of Aisha from Sh:tes and if it is true, it is really terrible. They claim Aisha via her Hadiths insulted the prophet and and Islam. Note Sheikh al-Habib videos on Youtube [I have listened to most of them]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6-KgmCbp40

Quote:
During my Christian era especially during my excursions to the Mideast and North Africa I did at least 20 years study of the Qur'an, in Arabic and was very convinced it was a book of hate and violence.
It then took me nearly 20 years of Atheism to eventually understand I was wrong about Islam.
I believe this is because your theological and soteriological mind override your rational/objective mind.

It is obvious there is a correlation between Islam [in part] within the terrible evils committed by SOME Muslims around the world. The correlation could be low but the impact is very critical and significant to humanity.

I am sure you are very familiar with the Problems of Perception in psychology, e.g. the picture where there is a very beautiful lady and an old ugly maid. Some can only see the beautiful lady but not the ugly maid, even after hundred of attempts. They can only see it when it is highlighted. There are similar examples, like the Rabbit-Duck picture. The point is both are valid truths.
It is also a case of the half-empty and half-full glass, both are truths, it is just a matter of perspective.



In the case of religion, believers are blinded [attentive blindness] and compel to see only what serve their very uncompromising soteriological needs. Anything else or negative do not catch their attention.

As you admitted in your earlier phase 'I was very convinced it was a book of hate and violence.' Even you have by-passed them up, the fact is those verses of hate and violence still exists in the Quran, Hadiths and Sira, and the ethos of Islam. The difference is just a matter of perspective from different people. There is no such situation with Buddhism, Jainism and other Eastern religions.

With the reality of the Problem of Perception, Cognitive Blindness, Confirmation Bias as demonstrated in the example of the Beautiful young lady and ugly hag, there will inevitably be some % [20% = 300 million] who will spontaneously and naturally [not their fault by because of their psychological made up] be inclined to those verses of hate and violence. The terrible acts by SOME Muslims catalyzed by negative verses is so evident.

Thus from the humanity point of view, without bias and objectivity, the reality [psychological, theological, philosophical, etc.] of the correlation between Islam and Violence must be raised for consideration and resolution. We just cannot pretend it is not there. What we need to raise is the issue of respecting basic human dignity and moral compass.

I believe Ali Sina [a pioneer] has done a good job in opening up a can of worms to the world more than 10 years ago. If he has made any misrepresentations that can be corrected objectively and transparently as we have a more efficient and reliable internet contents these day and it is still improving.

Btw, what about your comment on the article by Ali Sina I proposed you counter.

Last edited by Continuum; 06-24-2015 at 10:09 PM..
 
Old 06-25-2015, 08:24 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 6,085,728 times
Reputation: 4527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Every religion in the world has their opponents, 'anti-' and rational critique. However there are degrees in their counters and views.......

........tents these day and it is still improving.

Btw, what about your comment on the article by Ali Sina I proposed you counter.
You made such good arguments here I've been waiting to see the response. This is certainly kicked up this thread significantly as far as intellectual integrity is concerned. I look forward to more of the same.
 
Old 06-25-2015, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
All translations obviously has their limitations.

Btw, there is an issue with the Arabic used in the Quran and the Arabic used in the current Quran was not the one used during Muhammad's time. There are ongoing debates on this issue. There are also issues of whether the historical Muhammad existed or not.

What is critical imo is not the language but rather the equation of the Quran [& related texts], Muslims and their impact to humanity in the future. To understand this equation effectively what is relevant is the hermeneutical approach using a wide range of knowledge. I have found a model-pattern and system to facilitate the reading and understand the Quran from an objective perspective.

For example, if you understand the digestive system, nutrition and its related system you can easily understand food consumption anywhere in the world regardless of how they grow, prepare and eat their food. This is because there is are generic system and neural circuitry related to issues that are common to all humans.

Thus as far as the Spirituality-Religion is concern what we need is to understand the generic system within humans to understand all spiritualities and religions in the world. So I have no issue understanding Islam, the Quran, Muhammad and its related matter from this perspective.

I have a reasonable foundation is the studies of spiritualities and religion, philosophy (Western and Eastern) Science - many types and has special interests in neuroscience and psychology related to spirituality and religions plus many other fields of knowledge. I am not a Buddhist per-se but I have very extensive knowledge on Buddhism and it is the English translations that has helped me. As not an expert in language learning the original language of the Sutra would be a hindrance.

As such these knowledge would cover the gap for not knowing French and Spanish.
At the moment just answering this one part
Quote:
Btw, there is an issue with the Arabic used in the Quran and the Arabic used in the current Quran was not the one used during Muhammad's time. There are ongoing debates on this issue. There are also issues of whether the historical Muhammad existed or not.
There is no evidence that Muhammad(saws) or anyone else has ever spoken Qur'anic Arabic. The Qur'an is the only example of Qur'anic Arabic that exists. No one has ever been able to construct as much as one original Arabic in Qur'anic Arabic.

Yet oddly a reader of any Arabic Dialect can understand Qur'anic Arabic. I speak the Arija Arabic of Morocco. A person From Saudi can not understand a word I say and I can not understand the spoken Saudi dialect. but I can understand the oral Qur'anic Arabic.

There is no evidence anyone has ever been able to use Qur'anic Arabic as a conversational language.It has a very small vocabulary consisting of only 1800 or so root words and all of them having been used in every possible logical configuration in the Qur'an.

World wide the Hafiz recite the same Qur'an. The oldest continuous line of Hafiz are those in China and they are also the ones that have existed the longest with no Arab contact. They still recite the same words as all other Hafiz. Which are the exact same words found in the Uthman Qur'an, the oldest existing Qur'an

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarkand_Kufic_Quran

Arabic only developed a written form shortly before the Birth of Muhammad(saws)

Here is a lesson on Qur'anic Grammar, I think a cursory glance will give you some concept of how Qur'anic Arabic differs from Arabic.

Quranic Grammar - Verb Forms
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
 
Old 06-25-2015, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Every religion in the world has their opponents, 'anti-' and rational critique. However there are degrees in their counters and views.

One of the most aggressive anti-religions are those who has been abused by Christian priests and when they convert out the condemned Christianity for the personal bad experiences.
In other cases, those who condemned a religion may have some sort of negative experience from that religion.

As for Ali Sina, he may have his personal reasons, however they way he voiced his views against Islam can be shared by anyone because the facts, evidences and proofs of acts, by SOME Muslims acting from their Quran, Hadiths, Sira, & others, he provided can be verified by anyone via personal experience and reliable reported news.

Most Muslims will never view this objectively because of personal bias and confirmation bias due to their very heavy dependence on the soteriological weightage.

Another question you need to ask yourself objectively [hopefully you can remove the bias for this occasion] is to ask, Why is it that it is Islam [in part by SOME Muslims] the major religious related problem around the world and received the most condemnation in the present. Why there is contrasting and relatively so little condemnations of other religions?

You are guessing here, thus your point has little credibility.
Sina may have quoted from the Sira but he did mention the existence of other biographies of Muhammad. I have seen many of his quotes from the Hadiths of the Sunni. I am sure Sina understood how the credibility of the Hadiths differ from that of the Quran and the Sira [stories] are less reliable.

From what I read, most of his hadiths verses were quoted from the Sunni's because he is well aware Sunni are the majority.
I have read the critiques of Aisha from Sh:tes and if it is true, it is really terrible. They claim Aisha via her Hadiths insulted the prophet and and Islam. Note Sheikh al-Habib videos on Youtube [I have listened to most of them]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6-KgmCbp40

I believe this is because your theological and soteriological mind override your rational/objective mind.

It is obvious there is a correlation between Islam [in part] within the terrible evils committed by SOME Muslims around the world. The correlation could be low but the impact is very critical and significant to humanity.

I am sure you are very familiar with the Problems of Perception in psychology, e.g. the picture where there is a very beautiful lady and an old ugly maid. Some can only see the beautiful lady but not the ugly maid, even after hundred of attempts. They can only see it when it is highlighted. There are similar examples, like the Rabbit-Duck picture. The point is both are valid truths.
It is also a case of the half-empty and half-full glass, both are truths, it is just a matter of perspective.



In the case of religion, believers are blinded [attentive blindness] and compel to see only what serve their very uncompromising soteriological needs. Anything else or negative do not catch their attention.

As you admitted in your earlier phase 'I was very convinced it was a book of hate and violence.' Even you have by-passed them up, the fact is those verses of hate and violence still exists in the Quran, Hadiths and Sira, and the ethos of Islam. The difference is just a matter of perspective from different people. There is no such situation with Buddhism, Jainism and other Eastern religions.

With the reality of the Problem of Perception, Cognitive Blindness, Confirmation Bias as demonstrated in the example of the Beautiful young lady and ugly hag, there will inevitably be some % [20% = 300 million] who will spontaneously and naturally [not their fault by because of their psychological made up] be inclined to those verses of hate and violence. The terrible acts by SOME Muslims catalyzed by negative verses is so evident.

Thus from the humanity point of view, without bias and objectivity, the reality [psychological, theological, philosophical, etc.] of the correlation between Islam and Violence must be raised for consideration and resolution. We just cannot pretend it is not there. What we need to raise is the issue of respecting basic human dignity and moral compass.

I believe Ali Sina [a pioneer] has done a good job in opening up a can of worms to the world more than 10 years ago. If he has made any misrepresentations that can be corrected objectively and transparently as we have a more efficient and reliable internet contents these day and it is still improving.

Btw, what about your comment on the article by Ali Sina I proposed you counter.
Reference to the last line

"Btw, what about your comment on the article by Ali Sina I proposed you counter."

This thread has moved ahead faster than I could keep up with. Believe it or not I do not live online. At least 3 days a week I am traveling and have no access to the internet.

Would you remind me as to which comment by Ali you wanted me to counter?
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
 
Old 06-26-2015, 01:14 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,581,295 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
At the moment just answering this one part

There is no evidence that Muhammad(saws) or anyone else has ever spoken Qur'anic Arabic. The Qur'an is the only example of Qur'anic Arabic that exists. No one has ever been able to construct as much as one original Arabic in Qur'anic Arabic.
I don't think you will dispute the Quran stated Allah sent a perfect Quran in phases in Arabic via Gabriel to Muhammad.
Surely this communication must be in the specific Arabic at that time of communication.
I call this the oral Quranic Arabic [A], i.e. the original language it was communicated from Allah to Gabriel to Muhammad and to followers of Muhammad. The Quranic Arabic [A] may not be spoken by the common folk but restricted to those with some religious inclinations.
Therefore we can infer [no evidence needed] Gabriel, Muhammad and his followers MUST have spoken Oral Quranic Arabic [A].

Just as English and other language has evolved and changed over time and location, the original Oral Quranic-Arabic [A] must have evolved over time and location till it became standardize in written form as the Uthman Quran [b].

Note there is a gap of 200+ years between the Oral Quranic Arabic [A] and the Uthman Quran [b]. As with any language and communications [note Chinese Whisper, etc.] there is a great possibility of corruptions within the oral and written communications.

Quote:
There is no evidence anyone has ever been able to use Qur'anic Arabic as a
conversational language.It has a very small vocabulary consisting of only 1800
or so root words and all of them having been used in every possible logical
configuration in the Qur'an.
As I had proven above, whilst the Oral-Quranic-Arabic [A] was not the common conversational language it was nevertheless used by Gabriel in 'speaking' to Muhammad, and Muhammad expounding them to his follower and others.

Quote:
World wide the Hafiz recite the same Qur'an. The oldest continuous line of Hafiz are those in China and they are also the ones that have existed the longest with no Arab contact. They still recite the same words as all other Hafiz. Which are the exact same words found in the Uthman Qur'an, the oldest existing Qur'an

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarkand_Kufic_Quran

Arabic only developed a written form shortly before the Birth of Muhammad(saws)

Here is a lesson on Qur'anic Grammar, I think a cursory glance will give you some concept of how Qur'anic Arabic differs from Arabic.

Quranic Grammar - Verb Forms
Language is a very dynamic process. What is recited by the Hafiz could by then be a corrupted Quran since there are no means to verify to what was spoken by Gabriel to Muhammad.

If you are familiar with the philosophy of Language, reference and referent, semiotics and the likes, you would have understood there is a natural problems with language and written words especially through a reasonable length of time. So the communication of the Quran via orally and subsequently in written form is very vulnerable to corruptions of various kinds.

The clergy are the worst in the objective communications of the holy texts for the have a personal soteriological bias.
The most rational basis of understanding the Quran is thus through the hermeneutical approach and supported by all other relevant knowledge from various fields, .e.g. Science, philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, etc.

Even without written and other documentary evidences we can understand the nutritional factors of human a million years ago, i.e. from their poops, teeth, bones, and other physical evidences. This is because humans has certain generic properties that are constant [within the DNA] over millions of years.
Take sexuality for example, one can produce document evidences and whatever fanciful stories about sexual matters of the ancients. However because sexuality is also generic and constant in humans we can use current knowledge of sex to filter out all the fictions and imaginations to get to the truths and its limit.
As is the same of any other human variables where there is not sufficient evidence for verification.

Therefore as with religions we have no problem differentiating the myths from the truths. It is the same for Islam. Using the hermeneutical approach, we can understand the truths of the Quran reliably.

Based on my assessments, whatever the language factor, the evil laden elements in the Quran that has caused so much terrible evils and violence around the world is human-made. Thus they should be seriously reviewed and steps taken to prevent them from simmering in the psyche to Muslims, especially those who are prone to violence.
 
Old 06-26-2015, 01:24 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,581,295 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
Reference to the last line

"Btw, what about your comment on the article by Ali Sina I proposed you counter."

This thread has moved ahead faster than I could keep up with. Believe it or not I do not live online. At least 3 days a week I am traveling and have no access to the internet.

Would you remind me as to which comment by Ali you wanted me to counter?
The link I provided earlier is Ali Sina's exposition of Chapter 47 from his perspective. It is a short article, so I think you can review and counter the whole article.

Note my point about the Problem of Perceptions.
As per the YoungLady - OldMaid case, there are two truths depending on one's perspective.
Example Only: you may be inclined to see the 'OldMaid' while Sina view the 'YoungLady'.
Your inclination is compelled by your soteriological drive.
Sina's perception is driven by the terrible evils committed by SOME Muslims.

Your inclination to see [confirmation bias and attentive blindness] EVERYTHING in the Quran and positive is to serve your own personal soteriological needs and those you think need it.

I don't see Ali Sina had blatantly twisted the meanings of Chapter 47 from his perspective. As such recognizing the truth from this perspective will enable a path to the resolution of evils by SOME zealous Muslims.

So what is your comments on Ali Sina's commentary of that article from his perspective?
 
Old 06-26-2015, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The link I provided earlier is Ali Sina's exposition of Chapter 47 from his perspective. It is a short article, so I think you can review and counter the whole article.

Note my point about the Problem of Perceptions.
As per the YoungLady - OldMaid case, there are two truths depending on one's perspective.
Example Only: you may be inclined to see the 'OldMaid' while Sina view the 'YoungLady'.
Your inclination is compelled by your soteriological drive.
Sina's perception is driven by the terrible evils committed by SOME Muslims.

Your inclination to see [confirmation bias and attentive blindness] EVERYTHING in the Quran and positive is to serve your own personal soteriological needs and those you think need it.

I don't see Ali Sina had blatantly twisted the meanings of Chapter 47 from his perspective. As such recognizing the truth from this perspective will enable a path to the resolution of evils by SOME zealous Muslims.

So what is your comments on Ali Sina's commentary of that article from his perspective?
To be certain we are talking about the same thing. I believe you are refering to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Woodrow,

Here is an article from Ali Sina making extensive references to the Quran.
Can you counter him on this on his usage of the verses?

Who is Deaf, Dumb and Blind? | Faithfreedom.org

In reading the Article the first concerns I arrive at are

1. Ali Sina is a bit inclined at truncating and making ayyats match his own concepts.


for example Where he quotes 47: 8-9 (“All the good deeds of the non-Muslims are in vain. (47:8-9) He has pretty much butchered 47: 8-9 to suit his own agenda

Here are the 2 ayyats using 4 different interpretations

47:8 (Asad) but as for those who are bent on denying the truth, ill fortune awaits them, since He will let all their [good] deeds go to waste:
47:9 (Asad) this, because they hate [the very thought of] what God has bestowed from on high and thus He causes all their deeds to come to nought!

47:8 (Y. Ali) But those who reject ((Allah)),- for them is destruction, and ((Allah)) will render their deeds astray (from their mark).
47:9 (Y. Ali) That is because they hate the Revelation of Allah. so He has made their deeds fruitless.

47:8 (Picktall) And those who disbelieve, perdition is for them, and He will make their actions vain.
47:9 (Picktall) That is because they are averse to that which Allah hath revealed, therefor maketh He their action fruitless.

47:8 (French) Et quand à ceux qui ont mécru, il y aura un malheur pour eux, et Il rendra leurs oeuvres vaines.
47:9 (French) C'est parce qu'ils ont de la répulsion pour ce qu'Allah a fait descendre. Il a rendu donc vaines leurs oeuvres.

Isn't it quite logical that if a person does not believe in Allaah(swt) they should not expect to be rewarded by Him?



2. He does not appear to have been a Muslim as he claims. If he had been a Muslim he would be aware that the name of a Surah is not related to the topic. The purpose of a name is a bit of a mneomic to serve as a key to refresh memory as to what Surah is being recited. Keep in mind for most of the History of the Qur'an the primary preservation of the Qur'an has been memory. While today there are only a few million Hafiz (a person who has memorized the Qur'an) in the past every Muslim family had at least one member who was Hafiz. The Qur'an was taught in the home by the parents and not in madrassas or by clerics.

3. He seems to have an agenda of presenting Muslims in the worse light possible. His Web site does not seem to be geared towards "converting" Muslims, although he claims it is to help Muslims It impresses me as being a venue to stir up fear, suspicions and hatred by non-Muslims.

Some more examples of how he is using erroneous interpretations of Surah 47

They are like cattle and will have for their dwelling hell fire (47:12)

Which actually says

47:12 (Asad) Verily, God will admit all who attain to faith and do righteous deeds into gardens through which running waters flow, whereas they who are bent on denying the truth shall have - even though they may enjoy their life [in this world] and eat as cattle eat - the fire [of the hereafter] for their abode.

47:12 (Y. Ali) Verily Allah will admit those who believe and do righteous deeds, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow; while those who reject Allah will enjoy (this world) and eat as cattle eat; and the Fire will be their abode.

47:12 (Picktall) Lo! Allah will cause those who believe and do good works to enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; while those who disbelieve take their comfort in this life and eat even as the cattle eat, and the Fire is their habitation.

47:12 (French) Ceux qui croient et accomplissent de bonnes oeuvres, Allah les fera entrer dans des Jardins sous lesquels coulent les ruisseaux. Et ceux qui mécroient jouissent et mangent comme mangent les bestiaux; et le Feu sera leur lieu de séjour.

The saying they eat as cattle eat, is not calling them attle. it essentially means they take with no thanks for what they are given

Another tactic is he adds in unrelated ayyats from other Surat (Plural of Surah) This article is presented as a critique of Surah 47 but he adds in

Muhammad said the unbelievers are the worst animals, (8:55) hated by God and fuel for hell.
while Muslims are the best people (3:110)

Which to me is not only insulting Muslims but is portraying Muslims as being arrogant and self Righteous.
8: 55 actually says:
8:55 (Asad) Verily, the vilest creatures in the sight of God are those who are bent on denying the truth and therefore do not believe. [58]

8:55 (Y. Ali) For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.

8:55 (Picktall) Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe;



8:55 (French) Les pires bêtes, auprès d'Allah, sont ceux qui ont été infidèles (dans le passé) et qui ne croient donc point (actuellement),


3:110 acually says:
3:110 (Asad) YOU ARE indeed the best community that has ever been brought forth for [the good of] mankind: you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and you believe in God. Now if the followers of earlier revelation had attained to [this kind of] faith, it would have been for their own good; [but only few] among them are believers, while most of them are iniquitous:

3:110 (Y. Ali) Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

3:110 (Picktall) Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.

3:110 (French) Vous êtes la meilleure communauté qu'on ait fait surgir pour les hommes vous ordonnez le convenable, interdisez le blâmable et croyez à Allah. Si les gens du Livre croyaient, ce serait meilleur pour eux, il y en a qui ont la foi, mais la plupart d'entre eux sont des pervers.
It's basic message is:
The Muslims have been instructed to learn lessons from the history of the people of the Book and also to guard themselves against their machinations, and to prepare and train themselves to establish virtue and eradicate evil. 102 - 120
Syed Maududi's Commentary for Surah #3

In my opinion for his own reasons Ali Sina has an agenda of fostering hatred of Muslims by non-Muslims and uses his Web-sites and forums to suit his purposes. His biased opinions, in my opinion greatly reduces the reliability of what he writes.




,
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
 
Old 06-26-2015, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,609 posts, read 4,112,066 times
Reputation: 1399
I don't know much about the cultural history of Ramadan, but is stuff like this pretty common during the Ramadan celebration?

Day of terror: Islamist attacks around world follow ISIS' Ramadan message | Fox News
 
Old 06-26-2015, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The link I provided earlier is Ali Sina's exposition of Chapter 47 from his perspective. It is a short article, so I think you can review and counter the whole article.

Note my point about the Problem of Perceptions.
As per the YoungLady - OldMaid case, there are two truths depending on one's perspective.
Example Only: you may be inclined to see the 'OldMaid' while Sina view the 'YoungLady'.
Your inclination is compelled by your soteriological drive.
Sina's perception is driven by the terrible evils committed by SOME Muslims.

Your inclination to see [confirmation bias and attentive blindness] EVERYTHING in the Quran and positive is to serve your own personal soteriological needs and those you think need it.

I don't see Ali Sina had blatantly twisted the meanings of Chapter 47 from his perspective. As such recognizing the truth from this perspective will enable a path to the resolution of evils by SOME zealous Muslims.

So what is your comments on Ali Sina's commentary of that article from his perspective?
I made my response regarding Ali sina in my above post.

You seem to be assuming I have an agenda to convert others toIslam. I am not that nice. It is no sweat off my nose if a person does not choose to be Muslim. I believe every person has to search on their own and no person can compell or coerce another person to accept a religious belief. I very much dislike blatant proselytizing and evangelizing by anyone including Muslims. A person's religious beliefs are not to be forced, they must be by choice and from an individuals own investigation.

By the same token no one nor any organization is going to make a material gain because a person accepts Islam.

I accepted Islam from my own searching and without input from any Muslims. For my own reasons I came to the conclusion the Qur'an is true. That was on my own and I began my search with the intent to justify my then dislike of Muslims.

I am still very much an isolationist and avoid personal contact with all people to the best of my ability. Going out only for Doctor appointments and buying necessities. Although between my wife and myself we have recently been having about 3 doctor's appointments every week and since the VA is a 3 hour drive one way, we have been spending about 3 days a week on the road. Next week it will be Mon, Tues and Wed.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top