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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2016, 05:57 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,581,295 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
One would also need to understand how wali was used in daily usage at the time. It was a title used primarily for government leaders and in today's MSA equates to Governor, Chief or President.

In the common concept of "Friend" Saddig or variations thereof are used.
How do you know that?
Anyway that is irrelevant.


The point is the Quran [Muhammads'] is supposed to the final revelation to be referred by all humans till eternity.
Since Allah is all powerful and all knowing, Allah should not have left such an IMMUTABLE holy texts with so many messy semantics issues for humans to grapple with.


This proves the Quran is MOST likely to have been authored by human[s] with messy linguistics skills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2016, 06:25 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
How do you know that?
Anyway that is irrelevant.


The point is the Quran [Muhammads'] is supposed to the final revelation to be referred by all humans till eternity.
Since Allah is all powerful and all knowing, Allah should not have left such an IMMUTABLE holy texts with so many messy semantics issues for humans to grapple with.


This proves the Quran is MOST likely to have been authored by human[s] with messy linguistics skills.
The message of the Qur'an is "There is only one God(swt) and only he is to be worshiped." That is the message of the Qur'an and what came before. The Qur'an is the final time we will be told it.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2016, 07:41 AM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,036,278 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
My point is to show you I have done very extensive analysis to understand the Quran.
The listing of Chapter 3 is merely an example.
I have done the same analysis for the whole of the Quran to get the full picture.
Therefore I am able to extract* all the verses in the Quran on the same subject.
* able but quite tedious for me to do so at present.


Here is 3:118
3:118. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Take not for intimates [friends] others [infidels] than your own folk, who [these infidels] would spare no pains to ruin you [Muslims]; they [infidels] love to hamper you [Muslims]. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their [infidels] mouths, but that which their [infidels] breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you [Muslims] the revelations if ye will understand.
Where did 3:118 implied "intimacy" of secrets.
Friends are not mentioned here. No awliyya and no khalil. Even if you disregard intimacy and call them just intimates, why should anyone be intimate with those who are uttering hatred from their mouths? This is not hatred against them but warning for anyone making them intimate when they hate us, want to ruin us, cause us pain and worse have even more serious designs against us in their hearts. Who is going to make friends of them? I am sure you won't if you were honest.
This verse too is against those who are haters of Muslims and who want to ruin Muslims. It is not about ALL infidels.

Quote:
The Muslims are exhorted not take non-Muslims as intimate [close, bosom] friends because they will go out to ruin any Muslim. This is followed up with the condemnations against the non-Muslims, i.e. hamper you, has hatred in what they say, and worst intentions in the mind.
Muslims are instructed to take their own folk, i.e. Muslims as intimate [close, bosom] friend.
Are you suggesting that it is wrong for me not to befriend infidel guys who are showing hatred against me openly with their mouths and want to ruin me? Hell, nobody in his right mind would like me as a friend if I showed hatred against that person. Perhaps it is wrong of a Muslim not to befriend someone who hates him but it is fine for the rest of you to befriend a Muslim who utters hatred against you!!!

Quote:
Note this point of not befriending non-Muslims is supported by many other similar verses in the Quran with an overriding mood of hatred for all non-Muslims [infidels, kuffar, kafara, apostates, idolaters,].
Overriding verses are 60:8-9 that make clear why you can and you can't do it. Basically, Yes with those who are not hostile towards us but No if they are hostile towards us.

Quote:
In 3:118 it was not Muhammad but Allah who know what was in their hearts.
Allah is all knowing so Allah should know and such a claim is repeated many times in other verses in the Quran.
Yes it was Allah who knew that the Jews in MADINA not only were uttering hatred against Muslims but had worse designs in their heart against them which did come out in the open during the next attack on Muslims in Madina from " confedrates". Muslims were forewarned about it in 3:118. Muhammad could not have known what they were planning at the time of Uhad battle. But of course Allah knew it.

Quote:
Look at the chronological perspective. In the Meccan phase Allah [actually Muhammad] was very angry with the Jews for changing the words of Allah and the Christians for being astray with the concept of Jesus as son and trinity.
Most non-muslims who criticize Muhammad believe otherwise than you do. They say that Muhammad was nice in Mecca but became aggressive only in Madina. Funny how you all "believe" something even opposite to each other without any proof.

Quote:
I believe Chapter 1 is the first chapter of the Medina Phase and Chapter 2 is a summary of the Meccan phase with some Medinian elements.
Completely wrong!
Chapter 1 is the major part of Muslim Salat. Without this chapter (7 verses), no prayer (salat) is even valid. Did Muslims begin to pray after 13 years of revelation? Chapter 1 is one of the very first revelation of revelations of the Qur'an. Chapter 2 is mainly Islamic laws from both Meccan and Madina verses.

Quote:
It is by default believers [you] must be bias and follow the Quran with a one-track mind otherwise Islam will not work for them.
I have demonstrated I approach the Quran and Islam objectively from many perspectives including stepping into the shoes of a Muslim.
You simply cannot do it unless you believe as Muslims believe. Pretending to get into my shoe is just pretence.

Quote:
3:28 mentioned disbelievers. Jews and Christians who believed the corrupted texts are in a way disbelievers, i.e. not Muslims.
3:100 implied friend-awliyaa as guardian and obeying the Christians as guardian -awliya thus 'friend'.
All Jews had believed what was with them. You are looking at the wrong reason for each aspect. There were two differences: One party of Jews in Madina was hostile to Muslims and the other, even though minority, had believed what was revealed to Muhammad. They were all still Jews.

Quote:
I give 'not befriending' a higher weightage because all over the Quran, Allah hate non-Muslims [disbelievers, apostates, idolaters, etc.].
Only the hostile ones!
Your reason is the number of verses and not the real reason.
Quote:
There are thousands of verses that condemn, 'hate', dehumanize non-Muslims in the Quran in comparison to the few verses that say any thing positive. It is like 10 +ve against 3000s -ve.
I suggest you reread the Quran again.
You need to understand why we can befriend Christians and Jews and why we can't. There is reason involved in each case that is made plain in the Qur'an. You needto understand the Qur'an without having your mind befogged.

[☆QUOTE]I have done very extensive analysis of the Quran with over 300++ subjects and the full picture in context is Allah 'hate' and despise non-Muslims.[/quote]Your analysis show verses in differnt category as well as mixed categories. Where these verses 'contradict' in your mind, find the reason behind the opposite view on the same subject of the verses. The reason will be in the Qur'an, the aspect that is not a part of your analysis. You will find that you had come to the Qur'an with your own reasons for such verses rather than accept the reason described in the Qur'an.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2016, 08:11 AM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,036,278 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
The message of the Qur'an is "There is only one God(swt) and only he is to be worshiped." That is the message of the Qur'an and what came before. The Qur'an is the final time we will be told it.
Exactly!

There was Old Testament.
Hear O Israel: Your Lord our God is one Lord. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

There was New Testament.
Jesus answered: The first is, "Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." (Mark 1)

And of course there is the Last Testament.
Say: He, Allah, is one. (The Qur'an 112:1)

All praise is for Allah/God the Lord of the worlds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2016, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,581,295 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
The message of the Qur'an is "There is only one God(swt) and only he is to be worshiped." That is the message of the Qur'an and what came before. The Qur'an is the final time we will be told it.
This is very obvious and self-explanatory because the general principle is the Abrahamic religions are monotheistic [mono = one only], i.e. belief [worship] in only ONE GOD.


Now the truth is God cannot exists as real.
God only exists in the minds of theists to deal with an inherent existential psychological dilemma within the human mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2016, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,581,295 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Friends are not mentioned here. No awliyya and no khalil.
Even if you disregard intimacy and call them just intimates, why should anyone be intimate with those who are uttering hatred from their mouths? This is not hatred against them but warning for anyone making them intimate when they hate us, want to ruin us, cause us pain and worse have even more serious designs against us in their hearts. Who is going to make friends of them? I am sure you won't if you were honest.
This verse too is against those who are haters of Muslims and who want to ruin Muslims. It is not about ALL infidels.
The default in relation to intimate is 'friend' in the case of friendship.
The other meaning relating to intimate is sexual intercourse with reference to spouses which definitely is not applicable to this verse.
Therefore "intimate" in this verse can only be related to friendship with others.


While in 3:118, hatred from the mouth of disbelievers is mentioned, there is a general contempt of disbelievers and non-Muslims in general throughout the Quran.
Non-Muslims are condemned and dehumanized in general like 'sh:t', e.g. apes, asses, cattles, worst of creatures, etc.


The point here is it is natural to avoid people who are very negative towards us. This is common sense. The danger is such a common sense advice need not be put in a holy texts together with condemnation of non-believers in general and in the name of God.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that it is wrong for me not to befriend infidel guys who are showing hatred against me openly with their mouths and want to ruin me? Hell, nobody in his right mind would like me as a friend if I showed hatred against that person. Perhaps it is wrong of a Muslim not to befriend someone who hates him but it is fine for the rest of you to befriend a Muslim who utters hatred against you!!!
As I mentioned above it is naturally for any one to avoid odious people. This is common sense. The danger is such a common sense advice need not be put in a holy texts together with condemnation of non-believers in general and in the name of God.
The resultant is SOME evil prone Muslims will be very stern [as advised in the Quran], aloof and apprehensive of non-Muslims and show no hesitations to oppress and commit evils & violence on non-Muslims as proven by the glaring evidence that has happened in the past, happening now and will happen in the future.

Quote:
Overriding verses are 60:8-9 that make clear why you can and you can't do it. Basically, Yes with those who are not hostile towards us but No if they are hostile towards us.
From my analysis the number of verses that direct contempt against non-Muslims are very much greater than verse that indicate any thing positive to non-Muslims.
You may not be influenced by these evil laden elements but the fact is the evil prone Muslims from the very large potential pool of 300 million [20%] will be influenced not to befriend non-Muslims.
This is a reality which you can observed in many Muslims [not you] around the world.

Quote:
Yes it was Allah who knew that the Jews in MADINA not only were uttering hatred against Muslims but had worse designs in their heart against them which did come out in the open during the next attack on Muslims in Madina from " confedrates". Muslims were forewarned about it in 3:118. Muhammad could not have known what they were planning at the time of Uhad battle. But of course Allah knew it.
It was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat when he first became very angry with the Jews for changing the words of Allah re the Quran-of-Old.
When Muhammad started to preach his message and he insulted and offended the Meccans, Jews and Christians.
What the Meccans, Jews and Christians did subsequently was in response to Muhammad's initial insults and attack.
If Muhammad had not started his preaching and remained a trader, none of the insults and counter attacks would have happened.
So we cannot blame the "confederates" from Mecca wanting to get rid of Muhammad because he was the initial trouble maker.

Quote:
Most non-muslims who criticize Muhammad believe otherwise than you do. They say that Muhammad was nice in Mecca but became aggressive only in Madina. Funny how you all "believe" something even opposite to each other without any proof.
Muhammad was 'nice' was Mecca is relative of the very violent aggressions and his martial imperialism in Medina.
Muhammad was not violent in Mecca but he was the one who initiated the trouble when he insulted the religions of the Meccans out of nothing except his altered states of consciousness. The Meccans did warn Muhammad not to insult their religion.




Quote:
Completely wrong!
Chapter 1 is the major part of Muslim Salat. Without this chapter (7 verses), no prayer (salat) is even valid. Did Muslims begin to pray after 13 years of revelation? Chapter 1 is one of the very first revelation of revelations of the Qur'an. Chapter 2 is mainly Islamic laws from both Meccan and Madina verses.
Note there is a lot of controversy whether Chapter 1 in the way it was presented was even from Allah. It was more like a prayer, and it looks like Allah words were praying to Allah itself. That cannot be.
Chronologically chapter 96 [Read!] is most likely the first chapter.
Muhammad and the earlier Muslims could pray in any form in worshipping Allah.
Chapter 1 was likely to be compiled by a group of people and placed as the first chapter in the present Quran.


Quote:
You simply cannot do it unless you believe as Muslims believe. Pretending to get into my shoe is just pretence.
Cannot do what?
Cannot be objective?
There is no way a believer can be objective with his religion, i.e. faith = beliefs without proofs nor reason.
Stepping into the shoes of others is an essential quality of a good communicator and person who is objective. This is a very common expectations of wise people.

Quote:
All Jews had believed what was with them. You are looking at the wrong reason for each aspect. There were two differences: One party of Jews in Madina was hostile to Muslims and the other, even though minority, had believed what was revealed to Muhammad. They were all still Jews.
It is likely there were Jews who were "Muslims" but there is no way one can determine who are they and where is the Quran-of-Old they are relying on.
Therefore at present, there are no Jews who are "Muslims" at the present.
Give me solid proofs if you insists.
The current Jews are accused in the Quran as relying on corrupted versions of Allah's revelations-of-Old and therefore cannot be "Muslims".

Quote:
Only the hostile ones!
Your reason is the number of verses and not the real reason.
You need to understand why we can befriend Christians and Jews and why we can't. There is reason involved in each case that is made plain in the Qur'an. You need to understand the Qur'an without having your mind befogged.
One can read the 'befriending' verses in various contexts. Note Duck-Rabbit.
You may read it in one context [Duck] and it is right.
Other evil prone Muslims may read it in another context [Rabbit] and they are also correct.
It is not wrong for the evil prone to denounce all disbelievers as not worth to be their friends.


Note this verse 5;51 which I believe 'awliya in this case refer to friend in general;
5:51. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They [infidels] are friends one to another. He [any Muslim] among you [Muslims] who taketh them [infidels] for friends is (one) of them [i.e. infidel]. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
Quote:
I have done very extensive analysis of the Quran with over 300++ subjects and the full picture in context is Allah 'hate' and despise non-Muslims.
Quote:
Your analysis show verses in different category as well as mixed categories. Where these verses 'contradict' in your mind, find the reason behind the opposite view on the same subject of the verses. The reason will be in the Qur'an, the aspect that is not a part of your analysis. You will find that you had come to the Qur'an with your own reasons for such verses rather than accept the reason described in the Qur'an.
There is nothing wrong with mixed categories that is the fact.
Show me why I am wrong.
I try to as objective as possible and you can argue why you disagree.
The problem is by default as a Muslim, you cannot be objective but has to be subjective.
To be subjective is only a self-conviction but cannot be evident of the truth of reality.
E.g. that God exists is subjective and cannot be true in reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2016, 03:21 PM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,036,278 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The default in relation to intimate is 'friend' in the case of friendship.
The other meaning relating to intimate is sexual intercourse with reference to spouses which definitely is not applicable to this verse.
Therefore "intimate" in this verse can only be related to friendship with others.
No. God uses different words for a reason. For example, in the Qur'an, God sometimes uses the word "messenger" for Muhammad and sometimes "Muhammad" for Muhammad. Why didn't God use only "messenger" or only "Muhammad" every time? Why did He say, "obey Allah and obey His messenger" several times but never "obey Allah and obey Muhammad"?

The same reason is involved here in this verse. God did not use either "awliyya" or "khalil" but "bitanatan". Why "awliyya" wasn't used here too. Because "bitanah" does not mean "friends" but "personal advisors" or "consultants" that you take advise for personal, secret (as in state secrets), internal and domestic matters in confidence/secretly.

The situation is still in Madina and aftermath of the Uhad battle in which these personal adviors did so much damage to Muslims.

Quote:
While in 3:118, hatred from the mouth of disbelievers is mentioned, there is a general contempt of disbelievers and non-Muslims in general throughout the Quran.
This verse is identiying specific people in Madina who were spewing hatred from their mouths (people were aware of such hatred from their mouth when the verse was revealed). The verse also reveals that their designs against Muslim were even worse than uttering hatred from their mouths, which was proven true during the battle of Trench. You can't understand this verse because of your already clouded mind that the whole Qur'an has general contempt for non-muslims. If you begin with such picture in your mind, you will not see anything else but the same picture.

Quote:
Non-Muslims are condemned and dehumanized in general like 'sh:t', e.g. apes, asses, cattles, worst of creatures, etc.
My point has been proven true immediately. Why do these non-muslims have contempt for Muslims, torture Muslims for their religion, expell them from their homes, follow them if the Muslims go hundreds of miles away, wage wars on them wherever the Muslims go, hatred is spewed from their mouths and have designs in their hearts to kill all Muslims?

Quote:
The point here is it is natural to avoid people who are very negative towards us. This is common sense. The danger is such a common sense advice need not be put in a holy texts together with condemnation of non-believers in general and in the name of God.
It was advice in a particular situation for a particular people at the time and against particular people there. Perhaps you can't see it that way but I can. I do have non-muslim advisors today who are not spewing hate against me from their mouths and have no intention to ruin me. It is so because the situation is different today than in Madina 1431 years ago.

Quote:
As I mentioned above it is naturally for any one to avoid odious people. This is common sense. The danger is such a common sense advice need not be put in a holy texts together with condemnation of non-believers in general and in the name of God.
Don't you want God to advise Muslims that their advisors have designs to kill them all?

Quote:
The resultant is SOME evil prone Muslims will be very stern [as advised in the Quran], aloof and apprehensive of non-Muslims and show no hesitations to oppress and commit evils & violence on non-Muslims as proven by the glaring evidence that has happened in the past, happening now and will happen in the future.
With your mind befogged, you see it violence only against non-Muslims. Why?

Quote:
From my analysis the number of verses that direct contempt against non-Muslims are very much greater than verse that indicate any thing positive to non-Muslims?
Positive verses are the ,general ethos of the Qur'an in relation to general non-muslims. The rest are for particular non-muslims who are in action against Muslims or conspiring against Muslims at the time of the revelation. Your analysis of numbers is useless.

Quote:
You may not be influenced by these evil laden elements but the fact is the evil prone Muslims from the very large potential pool of 300 million [20%] will be influenced not to befriend non-Muslims.
This is a reality which you can observed in many Muslims [not you] around the world.
I can observe the opposite too. Does that mean that evil laden elements against non-muslims are justified even today?

Quote:
It was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat when he first became very angry with the Jews for changing the words of Allah re the Quran-of-Old.
Actually it ws G-d who got angry with them. If it had been Muhammad, G-d would have punished Muhammad. Instead, G-d was on Muhammad's side all along.

Quote:
When Muhammad started to preach his message and he insulted and offended the Meccans, Jews and Christians.
What the Meccans, Jews and Christians did subsequently was in response to Muhammad's initial insults and attack. If Muhammad had not started his preaching and remained a trader, none of the insults and counter attacks would have happened.
So we cannot blame the "confederates" from Mecca wanting to get rid of Muhammad because he was the initial trouble maker.
You are just as ignorant about Muhammad as you are igorant about "confederates".

Quote:
Muhammad was 'nice' was Mecca is relative of the very violent aggressions and his martial imperialism in Medina.
Muhammad was not violent in Mecca but he was the one who initiated the trouble when he insulted the religions of the Meccans out of nothing except his altered states of consciousness. The Meccans did warn Muhammad not to insult their religion.
Actully, Muslims had kept their religion secret from Meccans for several years because they knew thst the Meccans are going to be angry if they find out.

Quote:
Note there is a lot of controversy whether Chapter 1 in the way it was presented was even from Allah. It was more like a prayer, and it looks like Allah words were praying to Allah itself. That cannot be.
No wonder you can't understand the Qur'an!

Quote:
Chronologically chapter 96 [Read!] is most likely the first chapter.
Not the whole chapter but only the first 5 verses.
Quote:
Muhammad and the earlier Muslims could pray in any form in worshipping Allah.
Is that your imagination or you have any evidence in support of your claim here?

Quote:
Chapter 1 was likely to be compiled by a group of people and placed as the first chapter in the present Quran.
Another proof that you haven't understood the Qur'an and are merely looking in it what you WANT to see in it. Big mistake!

Reference to the chapter 1 is given in the Qur'an outside the chapter 1. Didn't you find it in your first 50 readings?


Quote:
Cannot do what?
Cannot be objective?
There is no way a believer can be objective with his religion, i.e. faith = beliefs without proofs nor reason.
Stepping into the shoes of others is an essential quality of a good communicator and person who is objective. This is a very common expectations of wise people.
Step into my shoes and tell me where the chapter 1 came from?

Quote:
It is likely there were Jews who were "Muslims" but there is no way one can determine who are they and where is the Quran-of-Old they are relying on.
Therefore at present, there are no Jews who are "Muslims" at the present.
Give me solid proofs if you insists.
The current Jews are accused in the Quran as relying on corrupted versions of Allah's revelations-of-Old and therefore cannot be "Muslims".
You've lost me here. Which Qur'an of old are you talking about? Please keep in mind that neither Muslim are Muhammadan nor they believe in only he Qur'an or only Muhammad as messenger of Allah.

Quote:
One can read the 'befriending' verses in various contexts. Note Duck-Rabbit.
You may read it in one context [Duck] and it is right.
Other evil prone Muslims may read it in another context [Rabbit] and they are also correct.
It is not wrong for the evil prone to denounce all disbelievers as not worth to be their friends.
If they do that, as you do, then they don't take he context of the verses and the Qur'anic context into account. The real rabbit is in the context and my grandson is playing with the duck in the bath.

Quote:
Note this verse 5;51 which I believe 'awliya in this case refer to friend in general;
5:51. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They [infidels] are friends one to another. He [any Muslim] among you [Muslims] who taketh them [infidels] for friends is (one) of them [i.e. infidel]. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

Not in general but to specific Jews and specific Chritians. Check out the context in this chapter. The reason is identified too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2016, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
How do you know that?
Anyway that is irrelevant.


The point is the Quran [Muhammads'] is supposed to the final revelation to be referred by all humans till eternity.
Since Allah is all powerful and all knowing, Allah should not have left such an IMMUTABLE holy texts with so many messy semantics issues for humans to grapple with.


This proves the Quran is MOST likely to have been authored by human[s] with messy linguistics skills.
Addressing:
Quote:
How do you know that?
I should have answered that, it is a fair question,.

As my spoken Arabic is not much good for conversational Arabic (I speak the Moroccan Darija, which is seldom understood outside of Morocco and Algeria) I began studying MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) using BYKI and Rosetta Stone. I soon learned that alderman, magistrate, and councilman translate into Arabic as Wali.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 12:46 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,581,295 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
No. God uses different words for a reason. For example, in the Qur'an, God sometimes uses the word "messenger" for Muhammad and sometimes "Muhammad" for Muhammad. Why didn't God use only "messenger" or only "Muhammad" every time? Why did He say, "obey Allah and obey His messenger" several times but never "obey Allah and obey Muhammad"?

The same reason is involved here in this verse. God did not use either "awliyya" or "khalil" but "bitanatan". Why "awliyya" wasn't used here too. Because "bitanah" does not mean "friends" but "personal advisors" or "consultants" that you take advise for personal, secret (as in state secrets), internal and domestic matters in confidence/secretly.
A agree God used different words for various reasons. This is where I have argued re 'believe' in various circumstances, e.g. 2:285, 49:14 and elsewhere.


Here is an analogy:
At present the North Korea regard the USA as their arch enemy.
Whatever terms the North Korean leader used against the Americans, the general default policy when addressed to the public is no North Korean shall take any American as a "friend". [any exceptions ignored in this case].
'Friend' in this case would refer to as a casual friend, and from that obvious not close or intimate friend nor as partners for whatever purposes.


Similarly whatever term "awliyya" or "khalil" but "bitanatan" and other synonyms, the general default is Muslims are not to befriend non-Muslims as supported by the overall context of the Quran.




Quote:
The situation is still in Madina and aftermath of the Uhad battle in which these personal adviors did so much damage to Muslims.
As I stated the general default policy in the context of the whole Quran is the Muslims are not to befriend non-Muslims.
Even before any actual battles, Muhammad had already hated the non-Muslims when his message was rejected and he found out the supposed prophesy of him as a messenger was changes or omitted from the scriptures of the Jews and Christians.

Quote:
This verse is identiying specific people in Madina who were spewing hatred from their mouths (people were aware of such hatred from their mouth when the verse was revealed). The verse also reveals that their designs against Muslim were even worse than uttering hatred from their mouths, which was proven true during the battle of Trench. You can't understand this verse because of your already clouded mind that the whole Qur'an has general contempt for non-muslims. If you begin with such picture in your mind, you will not see anything else but the same picture.
It is an objective inference the whole Quran has a general contempt for non-Muslims due to reasons [in blue] I mentioned above.
I suggest you need to read the Quran at least 50 times and you will get the point.

Quote:
My point has been proven true immediately. Why do these non-muslims have contempt for Muslims, torture Muslims for their religion, expell them from their homes, follow them if the Muslims go hundreds of miles away, wage wars on them wherever the Muslims go, hatred is spewed from their mouths and have designs in their hearts to kill all Muslims?
We have argued this point many times.
It was Muhammad who started it all when he started to preach and insulted the religions of the Meccans who were living peacefully with the Jews, Christians and others before Muhammad started preaching his message.
It is was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat that blew out of proportion.
Within the brewing tit-for-tat we cannot blame only one party, the root cause is the one who started it in the first place.
If Muhammad had not experienced his altered-states of consciousness [a psychological issue] and convinced to be the Messiah by his wife and others, the non-Muslims would not have retaliated after their warnings were not heeded by Muhammad.

Quote:
It was advice in a particular situation for a particular people at the time and against particular people there.
Perhaps you can't see it that way but I can. I do have non-muslim advisors today who are not spewing hate against me from their mouths and have no intention to ruin me. It is so because the situation is different today than in Madina 1431 years ago.
It that was advice for "a particular situation for a particular people at the time and against particular people there" then the Quran cannot be applicable to people of the present and all over the World.
If it was written by an all-knowing God, then God should have qualified those elements were only applicable 1431 years ago.


My point is, a good and religious book should only include generic principles that are applicable for all times and all conditions, and it must exclude any evil elements [e.g. killing, revenge, fighting, wars, retaliations, murders, and other evil elements] as much as possible and at all costs.
This is what efficient religions like Buddhism, Jainism, and others did.

Quote:
Don't you want God to advise Muslims that their advisors have designs to kill them all?
There is no need for God, especially, to give such advice. It is very natural, there is an inborn instinct in all humans to be wary of people who are a threat.
Ultimately, God do not exists as real.

Quote:
With your mind befogged, you see it violence only against non-Muslims. Why?
It is your mind that is befogged. By default, all Muslims has to be befogged from the reality of any negativity from their religion.


My views are inferred from actual evidences.
How can you deny the glaringly evident of evils and violence committed by SOME Muslims against non-Muslims in the real word since Islam emerged till the present and will surely be going on in the future.
As a responsible citizen of human, it is an onus to study, research, analyze and to understand the ultimate root causes.

Quote:
Positive verses are the general ethos of the Qur'an in relation to general non-muslims. The rest are for particular non-muslims who are in action against Muslims or conspiring against Muslims at the time of the revelation. Your analysis of numbers is useless.
Note the two truths, Duck-Rabbit scenario.
You may see otherwise, but you cannot insist the naturally born 20% evil prone Muslims must see it your way.
The 20% evil prone will not dare to go against the words of Allah in the Quran and they will do what is necessary [including complying with the evil elements] to ensure they will get to paradise.


Quote:
I can observe the opposite too. Does that mean that evil laden elements against non-muslims are justified even today?
Obviously they are justified from the point of view of the evil prone.
They are justified because for a Muslim to strive for the cause of Allah with one's wealth and life when Islam is under threat will bring forth great rewards, especially if they are martyred. These conditions are in the Quran.

Quote:
Actually it ws G-d who got angry with them. If it had been Muhammad, G-d would have punished Muhammad. Instead, G-d was on Muhammad's side all along.
This is one proof where you only view reality from one narrow perspective.
I view reality from many perspective in relation to the context.


In this case, I argued that the Quran was actually authored by Muhammad from his personal experience. Muhammad claimed Allah spoke to him via Gabriel was a scam and what he wanted was the power to control his followers.

Quote:
You are just as ignorant about Muhammad as you are igorant about "confederates".
You are merely speculating without any basis at all.
My inference is based on reality and human nature.

Quote:
Actually, Muslims had kept their religion secret from Meccans for several years because they knew thst the Meccans are going to be angry if they find out.
How many years is not critical in this case.
What is critical is when the Meccans were informed of Muhammad's intentions to start a new religion.

Quote:
No wonder you can't understand the Qur'an!
You are fond of merely expressing opinions without any basis nor explanation. Note there are many controversies and discussion of Chapter 1.

Quote:
Another proof that you haven't understood the Qur'an and are merely looking in it what you WANT to see in it. Big mistake!


Reference to the chapter 1 is given in the Qur'an outside the chapter 1. Didn't you find it in your first 50 readings?
Do you deny my proposal can be a possibility?
Can you prove my proposal is 100% impossible.


I stated Chapter 1 is compiled by a group of people.
I did not say they invented Chapter 1 from their own views.
Obviously I meant they compiled it as a main summary from verses from the Meccan phase.

Quote:
Step into my shoes and tell me where the chapter 1 came from?
I can step into your shoes as a Muslim and believer in God.
As a Muslim and by default you must be befogged from all negativity against your religion.
Thus wherever you think Chapter came from [arranged by Allah, etc.] it must suit your psychology, i.e. no negativity against your religion.

Quote:
You've lost me here. Which Qur'an of old are you talking about? Please keep in mind that neither Muslim are Muhammadan nor they believe in only he Qur'an or only Muhammad as messenger of Allah.
In the Quran, Allah claimed "Quran" were sent to prophets and others before Muhammad.
I refer to these so-called "Quran" as "Quran-of-Old" to differentiate them from the present Quran re Muhammad.

Quote:
If they do that, as you do, then they don't take he context of the verses and the Qur'anic context into account. The real rabbit is in the context and my grandson is playing with the duck in the bath.
You do not seem to understand the principle of two truths -Duck-Rabbit.
If the two-truths exist than either one will be true in the eyes of Allah.

Quote:
Not in general but to specific Jews and specific Chritians. Check out the context in this chapter. The reason is identified too.
Here is an example,
Supposed some North Koreans were friendly to some Americans in a restaurant and they were caught and punished as traitors.
If the North Korean leader later proclaimed,
'Do not befriend Americans' he is not imply specific Americans but rather it would apply to Americans in general as command.
Definitely the above proclamation do not apply to the context of 'in a restaurant' but refer to all occasions in general.


It is the same with the Jews and Christians.
Regardless of the context in this case, the proclamation of not to befriend Christians and Jews is effective in general in accordance to the general ethos of the Quran and not to the specific case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2016, 02:40 PM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,036,278 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
A agree God used different words for various reasons. This is where I have argued re 'believe' in various circumstances, e.g. 2:285, 49:14 and elsewhere.
Different words (awliyya, khalil, bitanah) for different situations rather than the same word for different situations!!!

Quote:
Here is an analogy:
At present the North Korea regard the USA as their arch enemy.
Whatever terms the North Korean leader used against the Americans, the general default policy when addressed to the public is no North Korean shall take any American as a "friend". [any exceptions ignored in this case].
'Friend' in this case would refer to as a casual friend, and from that obvious not close or intimate friend nor as partners for whatever purposes.

Similarly whatever term "awliyya" or "khalil" but "bitanatan" and other synonyms, the general default is Muslims are not to befriend non-Muslims as supported by the overall context of the Quran.
Each of these three words have different meaning. Only one of them means "friend". Only one of them means "advisors or cosultants" and only one of them means "guardians". Therefore, each word of Arabic is used by Allah purposefully as it was the only and the best word to be used in a particular verse. Allah chooses His words perfectly and for a reason. Therefore, where "awliyya" would not be approprate word to be use, "khalil" is used, and where khalil or awliyya is not appropriate, "batanatan"is used. For example, Allah chose Abraham as His wali (singular of "awliyya") would alo mean Allah chose Abraham as His guardian. Can you see why Allah chose different words? No? What's stopping you?

Quote:
As I stated the general default policy in the context of the whole Quran is the Muslims are not to befriend non-Muslims.
Even before any actual battles, Muhammad had already hated the non-Muslims when his message was rejected and he found out the supposed prophesy of him as a messenger was changes or omitted from the scriptures of the Jews and Christians.
Wrong!
60:9 is the general policy according in the Qur'an. Don't let your preconceived idea get your mind befogged and render your project lopsided.

Quote:
It is an objective inference the whole Quran has a general contemporary for non-Muslims due to reasons [in blue] I mentioned above.
Absolutely not objective inference!
No way it is an objective inference unless that is all you were looking for in the Qur'an as an objective.

Quote:
We have argued this point many times.
It was Muhammad who started it all when he started to preach and insulted the religions of the Meccans who were living peacefully with the Jews, Christians and others before Muhammad started preaching his message.
There were no Christians or Jews in Mecca at the time. There wasn't even one church or synagogue in Mecca at the time. Any Christian or Jew asociated with Mecca was there only for business interest. There would have been no business left if the had been honest with Meccans about their own religion.

Quote:
It is was Muhammad who started the tit-for-tat that blew out of proportion.
Muhammad never tried to kill anyone in Mecca for over fifty years he was here. The Meccan infidels tried to kill him as soon as his uncle died. Not tit for tat there but pure evil against him.

Quote:
Within the brewing tit-for-tat we cannot blame only one party, the root cause is the one who started it in the first place.
Killings were started by infidels; not Muhammad. If you carry on with your such silly idea, you will advertently condone killings of right charlies in Paris. Do you really want to argue with me on this point?

Quote:
If Muhammad had not experienced his altered-states of consciousness [a psychological issue] and convinced to be the Messiah by his wife and others, the non-Muslims would not have retaliated after their warnings were not heeded by Muhammad.
If the right charlies had heeded the warnings, from Muslims, in their altered state of consciousness (a psychological disorder) against Muhammad, the Muslims would not have retaliated. Does that fit in with your "objective" thinking?

Quote:
It that was advice for "a particular situation for a particular people at the time and against particular people there" then the Quran cannot be applicable to people of the present and all over the World.
If it was written by an all-knowing God, then God should have qualified those elements were only applicable 1431 years ago.
First, you need to understand the siuation at the time and then, second, understand why the advice was given at the time. If the same situation arises today, the same advice is the same for ALL. Even the non-muslims will react the same way if hatred is spewed, say, by any group of Muslim. There are now laws even in non-muslim countries against spewing hatred hy Muslims. Even if someone has designs to cause terrorism, he will be prosecuted. So yes, the advice applies even today in same situation.

Quote:
My point is, a good and religious book should only include generic principles that are applicable for all times and all conditions, and it must exclude any evil elements [e.g. killing, revenge, fighting, wars, retaliations, murders, and other evil elements] as much as possible and at all costs.
This is what efficient religions like Buddhism, Jainism, and others did.
It is not evil to get advice against your enemies not to regard them your friends, advisors, guardian or secret agents.

Quote:
There is no need for God, especially, to give such advice. It is very natural, there is an inborn instinct in all humans to be wary of people who are a threat.
Ultimately, God do not exists as real.
Then no need to moan about such an advice!

Quote:
It is your mind that is befogged. By default, all Muslims has to be befogged from the reality of any negativity from their religion.
Stereotyping Muslims is no better than stereotyping non-muslims.


Quote:
My views are inferred from actual evidences.
How can you deny the glaringly evident of evils and violence committed by SOME Muslims against non-Muslims in the real word since Islam emerged till the present and will surely be going on in the future.
As a responsible citizen of human, it is an onus to study, research, analyze and to understand the ultimate root causes.
I have, and it is the human potential to do evil acts regardless of any religion.
Before Muhammad, in Mecca, they were burying their female babies when still alive. It was because of the Qur'an through Muhammad that this evil practice was stopped.

Quote:
Note the two truths, Duck-Rabbit scenario.
You may see otherwise, but you cannot insist the naturally born 20% evil prone Muslims must see it your way.
The 20% evil prone will not dare to go against the words of Allah in the Quran and they will do what is necessary [including complying with the evil elements] to ensure they will get to paradise.
Nowhere in the Qur'an they read that they will go to paradise if they kill non-muslims. Otherwise I would have been first in the queue to go to paradise.

Quote:
Obviously they are justified from the point of view of the evil prone.
They are in need of Islamic education in the West where many of them are born and/or educated. With current hate against Islam fueled by the politicians, there is no hope of them learning about real Islam from professional educators.

Quote:
They are justified because for a Muslim to strive for the cause of Allah with one's wealth and life when Islam is under threat will bring forth great rewards, especially if they are martyred. These conditions are in the Quran.
No. There is no threat against Islam idenified in the Qur'an. Quote the verse(s) that say so, if you have read the Qur'an 50+ times.

Quote:
This is one proof where you only view reality from one narrow perspective.
I view reality from many perspective in relation to the context.
All you have to do is quote the verses, and not imagine the "reality".

Quote:
In this case, I argued that the Quran was actually authored by Muhammad from his personal experience. Muhammad claimed Allah spoke to him via Gabriel was a scam and what he wanted was the power to control his followers.
With that kind of preconcieved idea about Muhammad in your mind, you will never understand the Qur'an properly.

Quote:
How many years is not critical in this case.
What is critical is when the Meccans were informed of Muhammad's intentions to start a new religion.
Then the reason was his religion than him insulting their religion. You had just made it up that it was him insulting Meccan religion that they reacted against him. They began to torture the very weak first (not Muhammad). Thy were neither preaching nor insulting Meccans before being subjected to torture.

Quote:
You are fond of merely expressing opinions without any basis nor explanation. Note there are many controversies and discussion of Chapter 1.

Do you deny my proposal can be a possibility?
Can you prove my proposal is 100% impossible.

I stated Chapter 1 is compiled by a group of people.
I did not say they invented Chapter 1 from their own views.
Obviously I meant they compiled it as a main summary from verses from the Meccan phase.
Reference to chapter 1 is in at least two different verses of the Qur'an. You have failed to identify even one of those verses. What does that tell me about your Qur'anic knowledge?

Quote:
I can step into your shoes as a Muslim and believer in God.
As a Muslim and by default you must be befogged from all negativity against your religion.
Thus wherever you think Chapter came from [arranged by Allah, etc.] it must suit your psychology, i.e. no negativity against your religion.
Proof enough that you do not know when this chapter was revealed, who gave it and who arranged it!!!

Quote:
In the Quran, Allah claimed "Quran" were sent to prophets and others before Muhammad.
I refer to these so-called "Quran" as "Quran-of-Old" to differentiate them from the present Quran re Muhammad.
There isn't even one verse in the Qur'an in which Allah claimed that the "Qur'an" was sent to prophets and others before Muhammad.

Quote:
You do not seem to understand the principle of two truths -Duck-Rabbit.
If the two-truths exist than either one will be true in the eyes of Allah.

Here is an example,
Supposed some North Koreans were friendly to some Americans in a restaurant and they were caught and punished as traitors.
If the North Korean leader later proclaimed,
'Do not befriend Americans' he is not imply specific Americans but rather it would apply to Americans in general as command.
Definitely the above proclamation do not apply to the context of 'in a restaurant' but refer to all occasions in general.

It is the same with the Jews and Christians.
Regardless of the context in this case, the proclamation of not to befriend Christians and Jews is effective in general in accordance to the general ethos of the Quran and not to the specific case.
Your example is pathetic. The Qur'an tells us who, where, why and not all. Your example is only what is glued to your mind; a one dimensional view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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