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 03-11-2016, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Different words (awliyya, khalil, bitanah) for different situations rather than the same word for different situations!!!
Again you got it wrong.
What I meant was same substance/essence in different forms where applicable.

Quote:
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?
We interpret the meaning in relation to the context.
My point there are context where "awliya" is more aligned with the concept of friend that guardian in certain context.

Quote:
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.
As I have argued it is the nature of the believer to be befogged rather than be objective.

Quote:
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.
It is objective in accordance to the Quran.
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.
As I had stated there are many other verses that support the above in various forms.


Quote:
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.
Where did you get your information from? The Quran.
If it is not from the Quran, i.e. words of Allah, it cannot be reliable.
By the time of Muhammad in 600AD, Christianity was already 600 years old and Judaism much longer.
I don't have the facts, but one can infer surely [after 600 years] there were Christians and Jews who live in Mecca or at least stay there to trade and do business. In addition the Quran mentioned the Jews and Christians so prevalently in the Quran itself.

Quote:
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.
This again demonstrate your shallow and narrow knowledge of human nature.
Before Muhammad experienced his altered stated of consciousness there was no psychological impulse in him to preach his message. Being a simple trader, it is not likely he will be a serious trouble maker in terms of religious matters. This is very common knowledge!


When Muhammad experienced his altered states of consciousness, he was spontaneously driven and compelled to voice out his message.
He may not have done it immediately but he will not hold on to his compulsion for long.
Note this is typical with cult leaders who suffer from similar altered states of consciousness.
Such behaviors have been researched by from the perspective of psychology, anthropology, neuroscience, psychiatry as supported by real life examples. Note the examples of Rev Jim Jones, Koresh, and others.


Note there are stories of the Meccan warning Muhammad not to be a trouble maker to their existing religion.


There is no way the Meccan could predict what Muhammad could do.
The Meccans could only start when Muhammad made the first move by making noise and starting to trouble the Meccan's state of mind.

Quote:
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?
I claimed Muhammad was the person who started by preaching his message to the Meccans and in the process insulted the religion of the Meccan.


Are you suggesting Muhammad did nothing at all?
Real research have shown that such people who experienced those kind of altered state of consciousness will have a strong compulsion to tell the world they have special relation with God.
Therefore it is very likely for Muhammad to be compelled to voice out his relation with a God.


Note I have linked this many time to support my point:
Suggest you listen to this and do some research to counter my views if you can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg



Quote:
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?
You are wrong.
Again your thinking is narrow and shallow plus you are incompetent with root cause analysis.


1. If SOME Muslims have not committed terrible evils and violence around the world in the name of Islam, Allah and Muhammad, then the 'charlies' would not have draw cartoons of Muhammad. They did not draw the cartoon of the Buddha?
2. If Islam is so good, it would have facilitate to control the impulse of those Muslims who retaliated.
3. If Muhammad has not experienced his altered states of consciousness, then there would be no Quran with evil laden elements to influenced evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils and violence around the world as in point 1 above.
4. If no 3, the "charlies" would not have drawn cartoons of Muhammad.


Therefore the root causes are the evil and violent elements in the Quran and the ultimate root cause was Muhammad's altered states of consciousness.

Quote:
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.
Again your thinking is shallow and narrow.


The current [none in the past] laws in non-Muslims countries against hate crimes arose for complains of Islamophobia* by Muslims all over the world to the extent "free speech" is restricted in most countries.
The liability of this restriction of criticisms to humanity is those 20% of evil prone will have a passport to spread their evil behind the scene. This is because there is restriction on the criticism of real hate and evil elements in the Quran.
* Islamophobia is a false concept as 'fear of Islam [in part]" is real not irrational.

Last edited by Continuum; 03-11-2016 at 11:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2016, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
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:
I understood this after reading the Quran more than 50 times. I don't have it now. I'll get back to you on this later.

The point that you asked me this question indicate you are ignorant of this point in the Quran.



Here are a few verses: in [] = mine
29:47. In like manner We have revealed unto thee [Muhammad] the Scripture [Quran], and those unto whom We gave the Scripture aforetime will believe therein; and of these (also) there are some who believe therein. And none deny our revelations save the disbelievers


19:58. These [of high status] are they unto whom Allah showed favour from among the Prophets, of the seed of Adam and of those whom We carried (in the ship) with Noah, and of the seed of Abraham and Israel, and from among those whom We guided and chose. When the revelations of the Beneficent were recited unto them, they fell down, adoring and weeping.


4:46. And verily We sent Moses with Our revelations unto Pharaoh and his chiefs [infidels], and he [Moses] said: I am a messenger of the Lord of the Worlds.


11:96. And verily We sent Moses with Our revelations and a clear warrant.
The "scripture" and "revelations" refer to the "Quran" Allah recited unto them.


Note there are many verses which directly and indirectly supported the point Allah sent the "Quran" to prophets, messengers and his agents before Muhammad.

Last edited by Continuum; 03-12-2016 at 01:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2016, 01:20 AM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,035,813 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
As I have argued it is the nature of the believer to be befogged rather than be objective.

This again demonstrate your shallow and narrow knowledge of human nature.

You are wrong.

Again your thinking is narrow and shallow plus you are incompetent with root cause analysis.

Again your thinking is shallow and narrow.

* Islamophobia is a false concept as 'fear of Islam [in part]" is real not irrational.
I am going to try and ask drug companies to create a drug that can cure Islamophobia without any side-effects. There is real and urgent need for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 03:01 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
In addition to 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.
Here is another unfriendly attitude from Islam toward non-Muslims even if they are their fathers, sons, brethren or clan;
58:22 [part] Thou wilt not find folk [Muslims] who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those [infidels] who oppose Allah and His messenger: even though they [infidels] be their fathers or, their sons or their brethren or their clan.
.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 03:42 AM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,035,813 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
In addition to 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.
Here is another unfriendly attitude from Islam toward non-Muslims even if they are their fathers, sons, brethren or clan;
58:22 [part] Thou wilt not find folk [Muslims] who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those [infidels] who oppose Allah and His messenger: even though they [infidels] be their fathers or, their sons or their brethren or their clan.
.....
The reason for not making friends with those described in the bold in the first verse. The verse does not say, "kill them all" but do not make such people your friends and protectors.

In the second verse, once again it is not "kill such unbelievers" but the believers will not be loving such people who oppose the message of the Qur'an. Oppose here means active opposition such as waging war on Muslims just as Meccans at the time did against the Muslim relatives. Muhammad's and Ali's own uncle did so. Muhammad's son in law also did so by taking part in attack on Muslims at Badr but lost. He was not killed but captured and then freed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 04:01 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
The reason for not making friends with those described in the bold in the first verse. The verse does not say, "kill them all" but do not make such people your friends and protectors.

In the second verse, once again it is not "kill such unbelievers" but the believers will not be loving such people who oppose the message of the Qur'an. Oppose here means active opposition such as waging war on Muslims just as Meccans at the time did against the Muslim relatives. Muhammad's and Ali's own uncle did so. Muhammad's son in law also did so by taking part in attack on Muslims at Badr but lost. He was not killed but captured and then freed.
Btw, I did not imply 'kill such believers' in this case.

To topic, the verses support the point in general Muslims should not befriend non-Muslims [Jews, Christians, idolaters and other non-Muslims].
"Oppose Allah and his messenger" extent to those who do not accept and believe in the revelations of Allah i.e. they are disbelievers.

The problem here is the difficulty in identifying what we meant by oppose Allah and his messenger and drawing the line between the different types of disbelievers.
As a result of the terrible evils and violence by SOME Muslims who are evil prone, almost all non-Muslims over the world is aware of such evils and violence. These non-Muslims will express all sort of negative [mild to extreme] views against Islam and Muslims in general. Such expression of negativity is interpret as opposing Allah and his messenger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 05:22 AM
 
3,166 posts, read 1,035,813 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Btw, I did not imply 'kill such believers' in this case.
Not in this case but you have 'implied' so in the past. You can put the record straight here if you say that the Qur'an does not want Muslims to kill all non-Muslims.

Quote:
To topic, the verses support the point in general Muslims should not befriend non-Muslims [Jews, Christians, idolaters and other non-Muslims.
When you add "in general", you are impling ALL non-Muslim by giving impression that Muslims wil not be friends of any non-Muslim. That is not the case. I have had several non-Muslim friends. Nond of them have actively oppose my religion.

Quote:
"Oppose Allah and his messenger" extent to those who do not accept and believe in the revelations of Allah i.e. they are disbelievers.
No. It is not "who do not accept" but "who oppose". When someone does not accept the Qur'an, s/he is not trying to make it extinct but when actively opposing it, by attacking Muslims as in a war for their rligion, it is active opposition to Allah and His messenger. The diference is clear. Not acepting is fine as there is no compulsion in religion either way. Hostility towards the Qur'an is more than not accepting it.

Quote:
The problem here is the difficulty in identifying what we meant by oppose Allah and his messenger and drawing the line between the different types of disbelievers.
The difference is clear in the Qur'an as described in the verse 60:9.

Quote:
As a result of the terrible evils and violence by SOME Muslims who are evil prone, almost all non-Muslims over the world is aware of such evils and violence. These non-Muslims will express all sort of negative [mild to extreme] views against Islam and Muslims in general. Such expression of negativity is interpret as opposing Allah and his messenger.
That is steriotyping. Just as the Qur'an identifies violent ones towards Muslims of the unbelievers and peaceful unbelievers towards Muslim, non-Muslims can Identify the violent of the Muslims and peaceful of the Muslims. Today's problem is sterotyping all by each group. Both are wrong when they go that far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Not in this case but you have 'implied' so in the past. You can put the record straight here if you say that the Qur'an does not want Muslims to kill all non-Muslims.
I have never stated the Quran command Muslims to kill non-Muslims directly.
I have always stated the Quran present a dualistic two-truths state, i.e. where some verses are Duck-Rabbit scenario.
The fact is SOME evil prone Muslims perceived 'Duck' elements as the words of Allah and the consequence is they commit terrible evils and violence on non-Muslims with the confidence they will go to Paradise.
You can take the above as my record.

Quote:
When you add "in general", you are impling ALL non-Muslim by giving impression that Muslims wil not be friends of any non-Muslim. That is not the case. I have had several non-Muslim friends. Nond of them have actively oppose my religion.
I was stating the Quran in its general context conveyed the message that Muslims should not be friendly to non-Muslims because they are evil people in general.
I did not imply Muslims as normal human beings will not befriend non-Muslims.
When Muslims befriends non-Muslims they are not doing it as a truer Muslim in line with the ethos of the Quran, but as a normal human being who is in general sociable.

Human beings has evolved to be social and friendly to each other for good reasons for the progress of humanity. This impulse is supported by neurons in the brains [mirror neurons] and neurotransmitters, i.e. oxytocins in the brain to do the job. This bonding process is a quality of being a better and better human being to facilitate co-operation that will produce synergy.

The Quran on the other hand has tons of verses that suppress the above friendliness between Muslims and non-Muslims.

When Muslims are genuinely friendly they are doing that on their own human initiative and not in accordance to the Quran as a Muslim-proper. The Quran do not promote friendliness with non-Muslims instead it condone contempt and abhorrence to non-Muslims in more than 55% of its 6,236 verses.

Quote:
No. It is not "who do not accept" but "who oppose". When someone does not accept the Qur'an, s/he is not trying to make it extinct but when actively opposing it, by attacking Muslims as in a war for their religion, it is active opposition to Allah and His messenger. The difference is clear. Not accepting is fine as there is no compulsion in religion either way. Hostility towards the Qur'an is more than not accepting it.
'Not accepting' is fine to you but not to those who are naturally born with evil tendencies.
The Quran in its general context promote the 'us=good versus them=evil" impulse and thus in general those evil prone Muslims will perceive those who do not accept Islam as 'them=evil.' Thus these evil Muslims being influenced by the various verses re not befriending Muslims will have contempt for non-Muslims and will not befriend them.

Quote:
The difference is clear in the Qur'an as described in the verse 60:9.
Yes, 60:9 is very clear, i.e. do not befriend non-Muslims who warred against you specifically in terms of religion.
60:9 mentioned specifically 'religion' and not war due to other reasons [politics, land, etc.].

'War' in terms of religion need not necessary mean physical fighting but doing any thing that is negative to the religion and to the extent of disbelieving.

Quote:
That is stereotyping. Just as the Qur'an identifies violent ones towards Muslims of the unbelievers and peaceful unbelievers towards Muslim, non-Muslims can Identify the violent of the Muslims and peaceful of the Muslims. Today's problem is stereotyping all by each group. Both are wrong when they go that far.
What I have stated is a fact.
Because of the terrible evils and violence committed SOME [not all] Muslims who are evil, it is only natural non-Muslims will have some degree of negativity against Islam and Muslims [with some exceptions]. Such views are natural but I agree this is a bad logic of generalization [as you said stereotyping].
Thus those who generalize need to be educate to understand how to apply logical thinking. Do you think this is possible with all non-Muslims around the world?

This is what I meant by prevention is better than cure.
If the people [one or a group] who authored the Quran were really wise they should not have included evil elements in the Quran to trigger the inevitable natural existence of desperate evil prone Muslims.
Then these natural evil prone Muslims will not be exposed to stimuli from the Quran that trigger their evil impulses.
This is what the author of the Buddhist sutras did by not including any leading evil laden elements to trigger the naturally existing evil prone Buddhists to commit evil in the name of Buddhism and the Buddha.

The difficulty is there cannot be a cure to the problem of evil laden elements in the Quran because the perfected words of God are immutable, i.e. cannot be edited, changed or removed. That is the eternal dilemma faced by Muslims.
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