Does the Quran Prohibit Killing
To demonstrate that Islam does not promote violence Muslims often quote a part of the quranic verse 5:32. “Whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he has saved the life of all mankind.”
That sound pretty good. The problem is that it is not a teaching of Muhammad. It is a quote from Judaic scriptures.
“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.” Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)
Killing one person is not the same as the genocide of all mankind. It only makes sense in its context. It is related to the mythology of Abel and Cain. Since these two brothers were the only men at that time, killing one of them would have prevented his offspring to be born and humanity would not come to exist.
Actually despite Muslims’ claim Muhammad did not say this is his own teaching. The complete verse is as follow:
“On account of this, WE prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; –unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land– and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.”
Muhammad is quoting a biblical fable. How can Muslims claim credit for it?
The problem does not end there. Talmud is not considered to be the word of God. It is the recorded teachings of Sanhedrin, the high council of rabbis.
So why Allah says “WE prescribed for the Children of Israel…”?
The god of the Quran is claiming ownership of something he never said. This leaves us with few options.
1- Allah has plagiarized the teachings of the rabbis.
2- He was confused and had forgotten that those words were not his.
3- This verse is not from God. Muhammad admitted that sometimes Satan came and whispered some verses to him that he thought were from God. Could this verse be one of those satanic verses?
4- Muhammad lied. The Quran is not the word of God.
I cannot think of another option to explain why Allah claims ownership of a verse that he never said. The quote is not in the Bible; it is from Talmud and Talmud is not considered to be the word of God.
Now, this verse emphasizes that killing is bad. But Muhammad told his followers that waging war, fighting and killing are the best commerce, which will have the highest reward.
“O you who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives… (Q .61:10-11)
So he had to make a disclaimer. While quoting the Talmud he inserted “unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land” in the verse. This disclaimer does not exist in the original text of the Talmud.
With this disclaimer his followers were left free to raid and to kill non-Muslims. Those who resisted Islam and opposed it were considered to be spreading mischief.
The word mischief is the translation of the word “fitnah”, which means dissension, opposition, sedition. If you dissent Islam or oppose it you are causing sedition and spreading mischief. You are considered to be waging war against it. This war does not have to be violent. Your mere disagreement with Islam is the same as waging war against it. If you criticize Islam or preach a faith other than Islam to Muslims you are causing sedition. All these are mischief.
What is the punishment of those who spread mischief? He prescribes it in the verse 5:33, just one verse after he quotes the Talmud, which Muslims never read or like to point out.
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
So the only verse that Muslims oft quote to claim Muhammad prohibited killing is from Judaism, is wrongly attributed to Allah and it contains a disclaimer, which allows Muslims to kill all those who don’t agree with Islam.
It is funny how Muslims quote the verse 5:32 totally out of contest and attribute it to their prophet when not even he made such a claim and fail to read the one that follows it. To what shall we attribute this willful blindness?
But Eternal is much longer than a human life and it is an irreversible judgement. So this punishment is much worse than just a father disciplining his child.
And the difference is about believing or not! In a improbable story from a much less educated and informed time. Believing is not just choosing to follow rules, Shoopsy. Like a child is better off if it follows the rules it's father gives him to follow.
Believing is much more, it is also saying a story, in this case the story of Mohammed, is 100 % true and that exactly that happened as the story says that happened. And on the authority of someone who said it was a message from God, for which he never provided proof.
So in your analogy, the child is only TOLD by an intermediary what it is that it's father wants the child to do and to believe. And the child HAS to trust in and believe the intermediary completely.
And even if the intermediary were indeed a true messenger you still describe a very unjust father, telling his child not just to obey good rules, but also to believe every word of one story the father tells, without checking, without the possibility of arguing, without the possibility of presenting any facts or any logic contradicting that story.
But all the intermediary really offers the child is a gamble; If Islam is true, a believing child get's reward in heaven and avoids hell, but if it is not true, the believing child get's nothing like heaven, but has wasted his life on a lie. Is this really (all) what an Omniscient Omnipotent God offers humans?
//"If Allah ordains that we should do good deeds and people end up doing wrong things without saying sorry or repenting and Allah decides to punish them , does that mean he hates them.?"//
Shoopsy, those verses Juste mentioned, they were also noticed by Bill Warner, who also showed that huge parts of Quran-Hadiths-Sira were about UN-believers and negative, in the sense that they were wrong and would end up in ETERNAL Hell whereas the Muslims go to eternal heaven.
Do you perhaps believe that like a father loves a child, but hates it's bad behavior or lack of good behavior, that "Allah hates the sin, but loves the sinner"?
Because that principle is also the principle of a part of the Counterjihadists (like Geert Wilders); they also "hate the sin, following Islam's bad teachings", but still love the "sinner", the Muslim, a complex human being.
@Shoopsy
//If he disciplines the child, does it mean he hates the child?//
Well, if the father is omniscience, then it always knew that some children are going to go astray. Quran also says that this particular father leads some of His children astray!! Also consider that what this disciplining amounts to. This father asks, some of His other children, to kill the child, rape his wife and sell his children to slavery!!
//Allah decides to punish them , does that mean he hates them.? //
1. If Allah's decision to punish them is through the intervention of other human beings then he is weak and not deserving of being called Omnipotent.
2. If he is omniscient then He already knew that some people will go astray. Instead of giving the realization of good and bad to every person, if He decides to communicate only via messenger, it defies the logic.
@ JUSTE.
If a father warns his child not to do something, he gave and taught the child how to be good and the child decides to go astray .If he disciplines the child, does it mean he hates the child? If Allah ordains that we should do good deeds and people end up doing wrong things without saying sorry or repenting and Allah decides to punish them , does that mean he hates them.?
LETS US TAKE A LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF THE SECOND ONE.
It is you who has done the pathetic type of reading. very pathetic. .Seems you have a little problem with the way the one the of the greatest thinkers of those times composed his words.Here is the context
"In wakeful nights, as one may fancy, the wild soul of the man, tossing amid these vortices, would hail any light of a decision for them as a veritable light from Heaven; any making-up of his mind, so blessed, indispensable for him there, would seem the inspiration of a Gabriel. Forger and juggler? No, no! This great fiery heart, seething, simmering like a great furnace of thoughts, was not a juggler’s. His Life was a Fact to him; this God’s Universe an awful Fact and Reality. He has faults enough. The man was an uncultured semi-barbarous Son of Nature, much of the Bedouin still clinging to him: we must take him for that. But for a wretched Simulacrum, a hungry Impostor without eyes or heart, practicing for a mess of pottage such blasphemous swindlery, forgery of celestial documents, continual high-treason against his Maker and Self, we will not and cannot take him."
We can see clearly that it's a NO NO for those who think he was a Forger and Juggler. He even said the kind of heart he had cannot be found in that of a Juggler. He continued an said he has FAULTS ENOUGH. Thomas Carlyle said this so that people won't be thinking that he's perfect or divine. He made sure he spoke about this nature as a man and not just a miraculous being. He said "The man was an uncultured semi-barbarous Son of Nature, much of the Bedouin still clinging to him: we must take him for that."
Now let us look at the words he used carefully:
Uncultured: (of persons) lacking art or knowledge . [dictionary reference: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language , Collins English Dictionary ]
Barbarous: a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. a person without culture, refinement, or education .[dictionary reference: Collins English Dictionary]
Bedouin ; A member of a nomadic tribe of Arabs
He brought out some truth about the nature of a man who is not perfect . Just like before Moses was chosen, he killed someone and yet he was chosen for a mission afterward, when Jesus Christ began his mission too, he made a statement " For those my enemies who will not that I should rule over them, bring them hither and slay them before me".If you want I'll give you the verse. Another verse showed how Jesus beat the people out of the temple with a scourge and overthrew the changes money table. Should we then admit Jesus as a violent person?.Another verse showed how Jesus told his disciples to sell their garments and buy swords and they said master we have two already. he said that's enough.Should we say Jesus also intend to shed blood? The meek and gentle Jesus as they call him.
.The environment they grew up before or during their mission is an important thing to stress out so that people will understand they were among common types of persons, regular type of persons. Thomas Carlyle said we must take him for that.( Muhammed). Thomas Carlyle continued and said "…But for a wretched Simulacrum, a hungry Impostor without eyes or heart, practicing for a mess of pottage such blasphemous swindlery, forgery of celestial documents, continual high-treason against his Maker and Self, we will not and cannot take him".
Meaning we can take him for his nature as an Arab but as for the above allegations ,we will not take him for that.
NOW EXPLAIN YOU COULD TRY TO DECEIVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT READ THOMAS CARLYLE'S BOOK INTO THINKING THAT HE SAID DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT PROPHET MUHAMMED WHEN IN ACTUAL WRITING HE SAID NOTHING OF SUCH.HE EXPLAINED WHAT WE CAN TAKE OF THE MAN AND WHAT WE SHOULD NOT.
@Angel. I just checked 64-67 on Thomas Carlyle's book.
what you quote is not what he meant about the Quran.You did not understand his English.You were reading into the words he used like confused, rude human soul e.t.c. Let us take a look at the context before and after , shall we?
"I do not assert Mahomet’s continual sincerity: who is continually sincere? But I confess I can make nothing of the critic, in these times, who would accuse him of deceit prepense; of conscious deceit generally, or perhaps at all;—still more, of living in a mere element of conscious deceit, and writing this Koran as a forger and juggler would have done! Every candid eye, I think, will read the Koran far otherwise than so. It is the confused ferment of a great rude human soul; rude, untutored, that cannot even read; but fervent, earnest, struggling vehemently to utter itself in words."
Thomas Carlyle wrote beautiful things and attributes of Prophet Muhammed www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/carlyle/heroes.pdf
. He spoke so much about how true he was than how fake the critics claim. From the quote above, "… every candid eye , I think, will read the Koran far otherwise than so. It is the confused ferment of a great rude human soul; rude, untutored, that cannot even read; but fervent, earnest, struggling vehemently to utter itself in words".
Here, he wasn't talking about the Quran , he was still talking about the prophet that every candid eye [Candid means Openly straightforward and direct without reserve or secretiveness] will read the Quran far otherwise than so. Take not of FAR OTHERWISE THAN SO. before someone can use FAR OTHERWISE THAN SO, he must have said something about what he's talking aboout before making that statement and what he said before about the Quran before using THAN SO is the upper line in the quote which said "… who could accuse him of deceit prepense;…….. Writing this Quran as a forger and juggler would have done." In one line what he means is that who could accuse him as a forget or juggler of the Quran when every candid eye (without prejudice) can read the Quran and see far otherwise than what they've claimed. Still speaking on this situation, he called it the confused ferment of a great rude human soul; meaning people deemed the Quranic revelation as confused ferment of his rude human soul because he is untutored, he cannot even read.
islamisthelie, I agree that the Biblical God is markedly different from the quranic god.The Former created man in His likeness and breathed into man the breath of life. That is why HE commanded;"THOU SHALT NOT KILL". To HIM life is sacred and must not be wasted. The quranic god knows absolutely nothing about creation and for that reason it has no respect for life. It appears you have problems because of the human nature attributed to the Biblical GOD.It is only with that nature that good is distinguished from evil. That nature makes one to appreciate that inflicting pain on the other person is wrong. So that same God further commanded that you should not even covet what belongs to your neighbor who you should love as you love yourself.
As for picking bones that God is assigned human features, it goes to show that you are not familiar with the quran where allah's anthropomorphism is clearly displayed. Thus in the quran it is said that allah has a face, it has hands, it sits on the throne and in the hadiths Muhammad even saw it/him in paradise praying.All these are attributes of man. If by your reckoning the Bible is wrong to describe GOD in the way that it does, what makes the quran better? Muhammad was a very poor plagiarist. In an ill fated attempt to sound original, he committed several blunders.Yet muhammadans are so blind that they cannot learn their lesson.
Chuck, you are quite right. Revisionism will never allow the muhammadans to either see or acknowledge the truth, no matter what. They cling tenaciously to their lies or ignorance.Their stock in trade is to revise history to suit their purpose in the same way that Muhammad revised the stories he heard from others and presented them as 'revelations'.
Even his first wife, Khadija, was a Christian. She was a first cousin to Waraka ibn Nawfal. Also unlike how Muhamad like to portray these days, Arabia was a land of great influx and had trade relations far and wide. Indeed Muhamad himself was a trader who had traveled outside Arabia and may have picked up different traditions, folklore etc.
denialisnoproof, in addition to Warraka, there were the two Christian slave boys, who taught Muhammad the earlier scriptures. To show the truth of this, the quran makes a denial at some point about the opinion in circulation at that time which indicated that Muhammad was taught . Why was that rebuttal necessary if there was no truth? Besides, Muhammad had access to Christian monks and Jewish rabbis on his trading trips and some of the ideas in his book were obtained from those sources. It is futile to argue that a man like Warraka, who translated the New Testament into Arabic and who encouraged him on the road to his self proclaimed prophethood, did not teach him the Bible. Deceit is in the DNA of muhamadanism. So the muhammadans will deny everything except what coincides with their perverted views.
Tushar, you quoted Sa'id bin Jubayr who said that 'TO SHED THE BLOOD OF A MUSLIM, IS LIKE HE WHO ALLOWS SHEDDING THE BLOOD OF ALL PEOPLE-". Then you went on to say "HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD RESPECT THE SANCTITY OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS".
There is nothing in the earlier quotation to justify the conclusion in the second one. To all of you muhammadans, the only life with sanctity is that of a muhammadan. Other than that no life is worth preserving. Ibn Kathir in the same 'authoritative' tafseer commented that "KILLING UNBELIEVERS IS A SMALL MATTER TO US".
Allah, or whatever you call him/it, has only made hell fire the abode of those who kill muhammadans. He/it has no punishment for muhammadans who kill the 'infidels'. Instead, he/it rewards them with endless eroticism in his/its paradise. Do not forget how the same allah pronounced that the filthiest thing before him/it is the unbeliever. On what ground would he/it lift a finger to protect or punish those who kill' things' which are filthy in his/its sight?
The tragedy for the muhammadan is that when he dwells on lying, just as Muhammad did, he forgets that non muhammadans are intelligent and cannot easily be deceived.
Try spinning another lie. But you will get nowhere except with like minded ones as you.
Chuck, desperate people resort to desperate tactics. That is what muhammadans do when they are bereft of ideas and arguments. Thanks, buddy.
Amit, I have visited India and did not find what you are talking about. I have no problems with the Hindus although they sometimes exhibit anti Christian attitudes. But such are not as widespread as those of the muhammadans. Do not seek to open your own front. Let us face a common enemy who will stop at nothing to eliminate you.
Fools quote without knowing where from they are quoting. We see a lot of it from Shabeer vis-a-vis Hindu texts.
Luke: Parable of Money Usage
11While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.12So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.13“And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back.’14“But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’15“When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.16“The first appeared, saying, ‘Master, your mina has made ten minas more.’17“And he said to him, ‘Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.’18“The second came, saying, ‘Your mina, master, has made five minas.’19“And he said to him also, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’20“Another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;21for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.’22“He said to him, ‘By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?23‘Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?’24“Then he said to the bystanders, ‘Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’25“And they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas already.’26“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.27“But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.”
Visit India only then you guys (Christians and Moslims) will understand real religion. you are illusioned
bustingmuhammadanism, so who were those enemies who were killed wand where were they killed? You are an incomprehensible fool.
Slave mentality, your offer to dump the quran should it be proved that there are provisions saying that the earth is flat is not worth anything. Being a muhammadan, you are more slippery than a snake and should not be taken to mean what you say. Allah and its/his prophet said that a muslim can rescind a promise or treaty at his convenience. You are quite capable of doing the same.
But for whatever it is worth, here are some quranic verses which allude to a flat earth.
Sura 15:19 "WE HAVE SPREAD THE EARTH AND SET UPON IT IMMOVABLE MOUNTAINS".
Sura 50:7 "WE SPREAD OUT THE EARTH AND SET UPON IT IMMOVABLE MOUNTAINS".
Sura 51:48 "WE BUILT THE HEAVENS WITH OUR MIGHT, GIVING IT A VAST EXPANSE, AND STRETCHED THE EARTH BENEATH IT. GRACIOUS IS HE WHO SPREAD IT OUT".
Sura 71:19 "HE HAS MADE THE EARTH A VAST EXPANSE FOR YOU".
Sura 78;6 "DID WE NOT CREATE THE EARTH LIKE A BED AND RAISED THE MOUNTAINS LIKE PEGS?".
When something is spread it means that it is on a flat surface. Similarly, 'cradle' and 'bed', which are some of the words used by allah in some of the verses mean flat surfaces. Even though unimaginable things happen in muhammadanism, there can be no running away from the fact that all beds and cradles are meant for comfort and to achieve that they must be flat.
It is amusing when you attribute the idea of 'flat earth in the quran' to non-believers and misinterpretation. You may be well educated, but when it comes to the interpretation of the quran, there is no doubt that you pale into insignificance when compared to the knowledge acquired by the highest religious authority of a country like Saudi Arabia.
On this same issue, Sheik Abdul ibn Abdulaziz, at that time the highest religious authority of the muhammadan kingdom, declared: "THE EARTH IS FLAT. WHOEVER CLAIMS IT IS ROUND IS AN ATHEIST DESERVING PUNISHMENT".
Would you say that the sheik was an unbeliever or ignorant of the quran?
Another muhammadan scholar, this time an astronomy researcher, Fadhel Al Sa'd said on Iraqi Al Fayhaa television on October 31,2007, that the earth is flat because of the quranic verses.
You will go ahead and display the typical muhammadan behavior of denouncing them or calling them ignoramuses. But the fact remains that when it comes to academic credentials, whether secular or religious, yours cannot be compared to what these people have. Yet, as it is evident, those two islamic scholars know nothing about science. Since both of them based their arguments on the quran, this proves what a fake the author of the quran was, for the true God will never fail to know the things that HE created.
If for once, you choose to be a human being by keeping to your words of discarding the quran on prove that it refers to a flat earth, do not fail to contact Dr Ali Sina. But I have my doubts.
Sounds like Pascal's Wager, which is; "If I believe and it's untrue, I lose nothing" but " If I do not believe and it's true, then I lose a great deal". But this was in 17th century, and then it may have been a reasonable gamble due to lack of knowledge. Nowadays we know a 100 times more facts and science and it is a very bad gamble, like winning the lottery. AND COUNTING ON IT.
And although God gave you brains, and Internet, to check and think hard, you only gamble, despite all the available proof of the fallabilities of Quran.
IMO Islam should not be chosen because of convenience, because family and community demand it and are nice to you if you do, but get ugly and violent when you change your religion, in effect blackmailing you with their love and support.
And Islam should not even be chosen because you like it. It should only be chosen for searching for the highest truth you can find, with the greatest brain effort you are capable of, as long as it takes.
Remember, if you are just taking the easy way out, gambling on Islam, that does not make Islam true, and it does not quarantee you heaven.
And if you gamble wrong, you perpetuate this wrong gamble that much longer for a big part of mankind, while all the while there is a higher truth out there, which you and many future humans will miss.
But it seems to so many people do not care at all about finding the highest truth they can find, with science, fact-searching and logic, which nowadays is abundant available and learnable. That is allowed in democracy, but why don't people openly admit it?
Hi Slave of Prophet, this is a horrible lie. The truth is that your mad unrepentant slave driver lied all his life and even on his deathbed. The truth is that he is now in hell and not in Heaven. So, the truth is that all those who follow him will all end up in hell. Are you one of those braindead zombies?
@ex-Muslim
Bro, we have not substantial proof from Quran which prove earth is flat. This is just an Idea of non-believers or misinterpretation of Quranic verses.. If anyone can give me, I am ready to discard Quran.
Slave mentality, I congratulate Abdel for deciding to abandon the falsehood called islam. In addition to what he posited in proving Muhammad to have been a liar, it has to be acknowledged that Muhammad himself proved that he was a liar. After Zayyanab of Khayyabar had given her reasons for poisoning the evil fool, he responded:" ALLAH WILL NOT GIVE YOU THE POWER TO DO THAT". He was dead wrong for allah empowered the good young woman to achieve her objective. Three years down the road, when the poison had taken its toll, Muhammad would complain to whoever cared to listen that his tribulation came from the poisoned food had eaten. He died, according to the quran, as an evil man who was not saved from the "agony of the tribulation of death".
He had lied that 'allah would not give' the brave woman the power to kill him. This was one in the series of lies he constantly told. WHAT A NUMBSKULL.
nofil warakka translated some of the verses to muhammad.
Mohammed lied. He said the earth is flat and that the sun turns around it. Islam and mohammed is a fraud.
@Agracean
The truth is all the christian, Hindu, Jew and other non-believers in prophet Muhammad would be in hell while all-believers in prophet would be in heaven. This is the simple and clear truth told by holy prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Dear Mr Iftekhar, I can't help laughing at your above pathetic heartfelt comments. How on earth can you believe in a religion that has no answer at all about your identity and leaves you dangling in the air for the rest of your earthly life, or should say for eternity, ever wondering where in the world did you pop out from? Are you satisfied from being nonchalant, indifferent or care less about the absolute truth while you are alive on earth and would prefer to wait until the day that you finally die and then, lo and behold, the truth that you've been deceived by a mad prophet?
I am a muslim and I know very few about Islam. But I maintain all the rules and regulations of Islam. I respect all the prophets and believe that they had done their duty for a great reason.
Now, I don't know from where I have come and also I don't know after death where I will go. But the truth is I have to die.
So, my suggestion is don't fight to prove who is right and who is wrong. You obey your religion and I will obey my religion. After death we all come to know the truth. If your religion is true, you win, but if my religion is true than I win. Thats all.
Here's what Tafsir Ibn Kathir, perhaps the most popular tafsir, says about 9:5 :
This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.''
Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented:
"No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi Al-Akhir.''
Quite right,Chuck. Even their eminent scholars confirm that the so-called peaceful verses have been abrogated.
@I-HATE-ISLAM,
They are quick to forget that the Verse of Sword Q:9-5 abrogates most of the humane sounding goody goody verses….worst is they all know it and still resort to these lies.
Hi Chuck,
The answer is:"BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM". It is not difficult to see who the 'brain dead zombies' are. The likes of Slave mentality, Shabby, Bakari, Khidaramari and others whose grey matter has been completely destroyed by constant brainwashing.
Khidaramari, just to debunk your hypocritical claim that every body is free to follow the religion of his choice, I want you to read the article titled:"IS SHIA KAFIR" on Allahuakbar.net. At the foot of that page the writer, who in all probability is a sunni, says:"HATE FOR SHIA IS THE PROOF OF IMAN. LOVE FOR SHIA IS KAFIR". A kafir is an infidel who is the worst creature in the sight of allah. If a fellow muhammadan is called a 'kafir', how is it possible for everyone to choose his religion freely? We see shiites being killed in their dozens daily. The fate of a non-muslim is far worse than that. STOP SPREADING LIES EITHER OUT OF IGNORANCE OR SHEER DECEIT.
@I-HATE-ISLAM
Good job. I saw somebody use the phrase Brain dead zombies! Guess who fits to the bill?
This is the worst garbage to be spewed on this website so far. What about all the verses in the quran which command the killing of unbelievers until the religion of allah is established or nobody worships any being but allah? Muhammadans are adept at falsehood and that is precisely what you are doing here. Those who know muhammadanism cannot be deceived by this amateur tactics.
Bakari read
Bukhari "–O AISHA! I STILL FEEL THE PAIN CAUSED BY THE FOOD I ATE AT KHAIBAR–I FEEL AS IF MY AORTA IS BEING CUTOFF FROM THAT POISON-"'.
Abu Dawud:"HE THEN SAID ABOUT THE PAIN OF WHICH HE DIED:'I CONTINUE TO FEEL PAIN FROM THE MORSEL WHICH I HAD EATEN AT KHAHBAR. THIS IS THE TIME WHEN IT HAS CUT OFF MY AORTA"'.
If you are ignorant about your own religion, then blame yourself. Your heinous 'prophet' died miserably having been degraded by allah because he lied.
Excellent Ahki..
Being as though HADITH'S are Not the word of Allah.Where did you get your info. pertaining Prophet Muhammad Complaining of his "AORTA" ???
Salaams Khidramai,another Excellent post.
Salaams Excellent Bro. Khdiramari
"–MUHAMMAD DID CHANGE THE MESSAGE OF THE QUR'AN YET WAS NOT KILLED-". Allah did say that if Muhammad changed his message he(allah) will cut his aorta. It is reported that after he was poisoned at Khyabbar,Muhammad would complain about his aorta burning like coal on fire. He died as a result of that. This proves that he was a false prophet even to allah, his invented god. I have equally read it somewhere that Muhammad admitted imputing to allah what the latter had not said. So allah was Muhammad and vice-versa.
On killing, there is nowhere in the quran where allah said that the instruction given to the children of Israel was binding on muslims. The so-called disclaimer you talked about only applies to muslims. Spreading rumour in the land means saying anything against islam, muhammad and in modern times, the imams. Islam offers protection to non-muslims on the stiffest of conditions which often border on inhumanity.
Ali said:
With this disclaimer his followers were left free to raid and to kill non-Muslims. Those who resisted Islam and opposed it were considered to be spreading mischief.
The word mischief is the translation of the word “fitnah”, which means dissention, opposition, sedition. If you dissent Islam or oppose it you are causing sedition and spreading mischief. You are considered to be waging war against it. This war does not have to be violent. Your mere disagreement with Islam is the same as waging war against it. If you criticize Islam or preach a faith other than Islam to Muslims you are causing sedition. All these are mischief.
What is the punishment of those who spread mischief?
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
So the only verse that Muslims oft quote to claim Muhammad prohibited killing is from Judaism, is wrongly attributed to Allah and it contains a disclaimer, which allows Muslims to kill all those who don’t agree with Islam.
POINT 4:
Ali, is misled and has distorted to ayat believing that Muslims were free to raid and kill non Muslims. Any one who resisted Islam and opposed Islam were considered to be spreading mischief this is totally false.
First off, Allah says:
"There is no COMPULSION/FORCE in deen: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allah has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allah is all hearing and all knowing." Sura 2/256
There is no compulsion in the deen of Islam we can't force people to become Muslims or to accept Islam. Every one has the right to believe in what they will and we learn from the Qur’an that in this world, there will people with all kinds of faiths and that they will be created the way they are in their destiny providentially:
"We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had Allah willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to Allah and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed. Sura al-Ma’ida/48
In another verse of the Qur’an, Our Lord says the following to the Prophet Muhammad (saas):
"[Say]: “You have your deen and I have my deen.” Sura Al-Kafirun/6
Had Allah wanted all of humanity to believe Allah would have made it so:
"If your Lord had willed, all the people on the earth would have come to believe, one and all." Sura 10/99
Right to defend ourselves and fighting doesn't always mean physical:
"And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Haram, unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.And fight them until there is no more Fitnah. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun " Sura 2/190-193
Any who believes in Allah and the Last Day will have a reward:
"Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Nazarenes, and sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Sura 2/62
"Surely, those who believe, and those who are the Jews and the sabians and the Nazarenes, – whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Sura 5/69
"Verily, those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the sabians, and the Nazarenes, and the Majus, and those who worship others besides Allah, truly, Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Verily! Allah is over all things a Witness." Sura 22/17
None of the above ayats says that ONLY Muslims are going to get a reward clearly any who believes in Allah and the Last Day will have a good ending and who does righteous deeds. So these ayats above refutes any of Ali's claim that the Qur'an condones the fighting and killing of any who don't agree to what the Qur'an says.
Ali said:
3- This verse is not from God. Muhammad admitted that sometimes Satan came and whispered some verses to him that he thought were from God. Could this verse be one of those satanic verses?
4- Muhammad lied. The Quran is not the word of God.
I cannot think of another option to explain why Allah claims ownership of a verse that he never said. The quote is not in the Bible; it is from Talmud and Talmud is not considered to be the word of God.
Now, this verse emphasizes that killing is bad. But Muhammad told his followers that waging war, fighting and killing are the best commerce, which will have the highest reward.
“O you who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives… (Q .61:10-11)
So he had to make a disclaimer. While quoting the Talmud he inserted “unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land” in the verse. This disclaimer does not exist in the original text of the Talmud.
POINT 3:
"And so We have appointed for every Prophet enemies – Shayatin (devils) among Nasi/Adamites and Jinn/Gentiles, inspiring one another with adorned speech as a delusion. If your Lord had so willed, they would not have done it; so leave them alone with their fabrications." Sura 6/112
"And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan [Satan] made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise." Sura 22/52
Its clear that Allah says all of the Prophets are given enemies and Allah warned Prophet Muhammad not to change the Qur'an or invent sayings since Allah would punish him:
"And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us say, 'Bring a Qur'an other than this, or alter it.' Say: 'It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.' Sura 10/15
"And they indeed strove to beguile you away from that wherewith We (Allah) have inspired you, that thou shouldst invent other than it against Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend. And if We had not made thee wholly firm thou mightest almost have inclined unto them a little. 75 Then had We made you taste a double (punishment) of living and a double (punishment) of dying, then hadst thou found no helper against Us." Sura 17/73-74
"it is the speech of a noble Messenger. It is not the speech of a poet (little do you believe) nor the speech of a soothsayer. A sending down from the Lord of all Being. Had he invented against Us any sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would surely have cut his life-vein." Sura 69/40-46
Now thus consider how harsh these warnings are… Allah threatens to kill Prophet Muhammad if he dared to concoct statements in his Allah’s name or change the inspiration which supposedly came to him.
These threats become all the more intriguing in light of the fact that, according to some of these non Muslim views, Muhammad did change the message of the Qur'an yet was not killed.
Ali says:
“On account of this, WE prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; -unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land- and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.”
Muhammad is quoting a biblical fable. How can Muslims claim credit for it?
The problem does not end there. Talmud is not considered to be the word of God. It is the recorded teachings of Sanhedrin, the high council of rabbis.
So why Allah says “WE prescribed for the Children of Israel…”?
The god of the Quran is claiming ownership of something he never said. This leaves us with few options.
1- Allah has plagiarized the teachings of the rabbis.
2- He was confused and had forgotten that those words were not his.
POINT 2:
Again, Prophet Muhammad never quoted a Biblical fable at all the Torah is not a fable its from YHWH, ALLAH, the Most High. Prophet Muhammad was of the same lineage, from Bani Israel sent with a confirmation of what came before in terms of the Divine Scriptures.
The Talmud came centuries LATER and the Torah came FIRST. It seems that the Rabbis studied the Torah. The Most High who revealed the Qur'an indeed claims OWNERSHIP of something he sent to the previous Prophets. There is no plagiarism in Qur'an at all. The Torah/Qur'an are from Allah so how can YHWH/ALLAH'S WORDS be plagiarized?
LIFE FOR LIFE KILLING:
Allah says:
"And do not Kill anyone whose Killing Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is Killed wrongfully, We have given his heir the authority. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life . Verily, he is helped" Sura 17/33
"And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)." Sura 2/179
"And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun." Sura 5/45
What does the Torah says:
Exodus 21:22-25
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound."
Now Ali has truly confused the issue in regards to what is from the Most High and what is from man. There is a big difference between YHWH Books and man books.
Point 1 UNJUST KILLING IS FORBIDDEN:
Ali Sina says, "To demonstrate that Islam does not promote violence Muslims often quote a part of the quranic verse 5:32. “Whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he has saved the life of all mankind.”
That sound pretty good. The problem is that it is not a teaching of Muhammad. It is a quote from Judaic scriptures.
“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.” Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)"
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ali, doesn't know that the same ayat from Sura 5/32 came from the same SOURCE
"And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." Genesis 9:5-6
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder."
Leviticus 24:17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 5:17 "You shall not murder."
Allah says in Qur'an about the unjust KILLING:
"It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you with truth, confirming what came before it. And He sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)," Sura 3/3
"And whoever Kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the Wrath and the Curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him." Sura 4/93
"Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone Killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he Killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidence, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits in the land!" Sura 5/32
Now are the Mishnah Talmduic Hadith from YHWH the Most High? No!!!!! These books are divided into six sections called sedarim. Each seder contains one or more divisions called masekhtot (in English, tractates). There are 63 masekhtot in the Mishnah. Approximately half of these masekhtot have been addressed in the Talmud.
1. Zera'im
2. Mo'ed
3. Nashim
4. Nezikin
5. Kodashim
6. Toharot
So the Talmud Mishnah Hadith ARE NOT from YHWH at all. YHWH already indicated that killing innocent people are forbidden in the Divine Scripture. No where does it say that Moses received the Talmud Mishnah Hadith.
Its no 100 ayats expressing ar Rahman's Hate for disbelievers
Its Association of Partners with Ehad, just like in Torah!
There is no God! Stop fighting.
i cant believe how damn wrong you all are. i actually feel sorry for you. if only you knew…
The writings I could care less about…what I'd like to know is what, if anything, in Islam permits parents to throw acid all over their child and kill that child "for the sake of honour"…that is abhorrent and downright medieval thinking!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3eJKDmyXrk
9 But theLORD God called to the man,"Where are you?"Compare with the Qur'ân 6:3.AndHe is God in the heavens and on earth.He knoweth what ye hide, and what ye reveal, and He knoweth the (recompense) which ye earn (by yourdeeds).Like a human being, God is depicted in theBible as being sorry for some of His decisions,the implication being that he was eitherignorant of the consequences or that He issubject to whimsical moods.Genesis 6:6 6The LORD was grievedthat he had made man on the earth, and hisheart was filled with pain.and Exodus 32:14.14 Then theLORD relentedand did not bring on his people the disaster hehad threatened.
[002:255] God!There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting,Eternal.No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in theheavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except asHe permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before orafter or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledgeexcept as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and theearth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He isthe Most High, the Supreme (in glory).God walks in the garden and a man can hidehimself from Him and to seek him out fromhis hiding place, God has to search for him.Isit God is all-knowing and all-wise?….Genesis 3:8.8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of theLORD God as he waswalking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORDGod among the trees of the garden.
7 The Biblical concept of God is quite different from the Qur'ânic one. In the Bible, God is described in a human form: Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let us makeman in out image, afterour likeness', or Gen. 9:6, 'for God made man in his own imageCompare these passages with the Qur'ân which says:"Say: He isGod,the Eternal the Absolute. He begets not, nor is he begotten. Andthere is nothing like God." Qur'ân, 112:1-4or"there is nothing comparable to Him" 42:11.Michalengelo’s imagination about God’s face.This is not God!!"there is nothing comparable to Him" Quran 42:11He is depicted as one who gets tired and needsrest: Genesis 2:22 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so onthe seventh dayhe rested [a]from all his work. 3 And God blessed theseventh day and made it holy,because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.Compare with the Qur'ân 2:255
6 Firstly,The Bible is not one book but a collection of at least 66 booksaccording to the Protestant version or 75 according to the Roman CatholicDouay versionwritten by at least 40 authors.Secondly, the Bibleis a mixture of both divine statements and humancommentaries of later followers. See for example Luke 1:1-4, and I Corinthians7:25. The Qur'ân has no such commentaries, even the words of Muhammad(P)are not part of the Qur'ân.Thirdly, the New Testament's four gospels teach about Jesus(P), his life andmission. The Qur'ân is not a biography of Muhammad(P)written by hisfollowers.Fourthly, theBible has several books written many years after the death of those Prophets sometimes not in the original language of those Prophets thusgiving rise to a number of difficulties in analysis. The entire Qur'ân was writtenduring the lifetime of the Prophet(P)and it was memorised by hundreds of people in the original language.Fifthly, thefour cannonised gospels were not the only gospels, the decision of what should be in the Bible and what should not is left to human judgement. InIslam there were no conferences to determine which chapter should or shouldnot be in the Qur'ân.
3The first Arabic version of the Old Testament and New Testament appeared afew hundred after the death of Muhammad(P).4 Similarity between any two compositions or books does not in itself constitutesufficient evidence that one was copied from the other, or the latter from theearlier one. Both of them could be based on a common third source. This is precisely the argument of the Qur'ân. There are certain portions of the Biblethat might have remained intact and if God is the source of both revelations thatshould explain the existence of parallels.5 A close examination of the two texts would clearly show that the idea of borrowing is at best flimsy:
10Ways To Prove That Quran in Not Copied From The Bible 1 Nabi Muhammad said that the Qur'ân came from God and we have alreadyattempted to show that from historical reasons Muhammad(could not havecopied the Qur'ân from the Bible.2Muhammad(P)was illiterate. He could not have studied and selected from previous scriptures without the ability to read and write.
Religions are peaceful but become problematic and risk for peace when we divide human beings and multiply gods through different so-called divine interpretations. I think to rule like a 'master' on peaceful and simple human beings, some 'masters' divided the human into sects, race, and color and multiplied the God into gods. My message is PEACE FOR ALL. http://www.facebook.com/peacefulbeings
Exellent!!
Ali Sina is a plain liar!!
Kudos to farzan and zitouni
Islam=Stupid, Lazy, Rubbish, Problem, Lie, Barbarian, Dirty, Ugly, Noisy, Crazy, Oppress, Violent, Behead, Horror, War, Boom, Politic, Womanizing, Polygamy, Fanatic, Evil, Terrorist
Now I reveal the ''MERCY'', ''LOVE'' and ''PEACE'' at its peak by their FAKE god.
''But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me." LUKE 19:27
I don't see the peace they all claim these days!!!! These ignorant cunts dont even know their own bible. They are a breed brought up with lies by media. They claim to be peaceful n loving but they are NOT. Hate is the only thing they know.
Assuming this claim is true (which it isn`t), how does this prove koran is from God? Indeed if it is true it means it cannot be from God, Allah has a body, a tongue to speak arabic? Indeed Allah would be nothing but a finite being a alien, such a entity is not God.
Dear Mr .Ali sina,
some social sites contains the topic "i converted muslim after wathing this video ".this video contains scientific documentary where how to determine sex of the baby .It revealed that in qauran ,it is said that only male can detrmine the sex of the baby.
is that true ?please explain
It’s funny to see a person who wrote “who care” so many times just to answer the opponent. It reflects your own mind and behavior.
You wrote, “who cares what motivated them still they are gulity . are you trying to say just because they did not have eternal doctrine therefore it is ok to kill black and enslave them. Church considred in those days that black were not human. You have not done your research on the subject”
You really have a reading problem. I, for instance, never said they were innocent, that’s why I called it “eternal doctrine”. If they had the doctrine they would hate the black for eternity and would feel proud and justified to kill them. The term “racism” and equality of blacks would never be born.
You are full of hate, you didn’t even read my post correctly. The core of my point is “the present” and “changeable”. Black nowadays don’t undergo anything like that again in USA, they are successful and enjoys equal rights. Can this happen if the eternal doctrine comes around?
Church considered what? Do you think I don’t even know what racism in the past? Of course the churches were nothing more than political move and it didn’t have any base in Christianity. 2 wrongs won’t make 1 right, especially when the second wrong is fixed.
You wrote, “In discussions of Church teaching, “slavery” is defined by some Catholic writers as the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person.”
Mark your own words, “the church teaching” and remember it well. Slavery was common in the past and Muhammad also did that so why shouting to another place while your prophet condoned it? Slavery was erased not by Muhammad but by the west. Basic human rights was not born at Muhammad’s time nor at any time in the past too. Now, the eternal doctrine comes in again and makes slavery as legal so the view of “human property is legal and not a sin” will remain forever in the mind of muslims.
You wrote, “Oh yes after they were reduced from 100% to 1% population in USA”
So were minorities in muslim countries, no to mention the Arab peninsula. This is worse than native American because they are safe now and the past is the past. Eternal doctrine will keep supplying muslim with hatred. You are missing the point entirely.
Nope, it was written by jonmc, not me. You should deal with him and prove it in FFI.org straightly. Calling it ignorant is not going to answer him. Nowadays, people love to use this excuse to get away.
You know, I thought you can give me any answer but you re just the same with other muslims. Your answer is typical.
Ah, when the likes of you failed to answer you chose to use personal attack. The one that you should deal is the answer not my mind or how I think.
You wrote, “First you have no authority to interpret koran because you are Tafsir ignorant secondly I have sent you a link that talks about war and verse 929 was revealed during those days”
First, I don’t regard any authority based on faith and fan. Islamic scholarship is one sided and can’t be verified by common people so you have to analyze it logically. Second, I didn’t even have to be an authority because I used the authority of the muslims themselves, at least, to know what they think about it.
Tafisr itself is not divine and don’t have its sanction in the Quran. You are the one who are ignorant of Allah’s claim. Yeah, the link about the war doesn’t have anything to do with the verse in the first place. The war itself is doubtful and disconnected with 9:29.
You wrote, “Who care what you say about Islam whether it is religion or not because only fool take ignorant people like you serious .”
You are so childish. You didn’t answer but ignored it. You didn’t even want to find any truth. I can say the same you know. Who care what you say about Islam and specifically verse 9:29? You didn’t bring any proof, the war is disconnected, the verse is unclear and too general, last but not least, Allah’s verse about how a tafsir should be is non existent. These holes are sufficient enough to know that this particular tafsir is a joke.
Ad hominem won’t answer my query.
You wrote, “no matter what was the purpose it was in those days and still today killing ambassador an act of war period .”
So this is an incomplete history and divine verse. In here, I notice 2 weaknesses:
1. Lacking of real reason as to why the ambassador was killed, from the historical POV, it is doubtful.
2. Lacking of real divine knowledge on Allah’s side
In short, no one knew why the killing happened, not even the all knowing Allah.
I didn’t even talk about “no human is perfect”. You are so silly changing course whenever you see fit. I talked about what the Quran and Islam think about the polytheist, the mushrikoon. Associating god with other gods are found too in Christianity and Judaism using Jesus and Uzair, so they were called like this too.
You wrote, “but it is not encouraged in Islam and thats the point that you should take note of”
Funny statement again, the fact that Allah ordered the religion of the polytheist to be destroyed and its faith to be considered as the “worst sin” is a form of encouragement. You didn’t know how to analyze, did you? Do you forget what Muhammad had done to the religion?
You wrote, “I read the link and it has nothing about Mushrikin , but you and Ali Sina read koran while you were drunk”
You didn’t read it, did you? Come on, read it again and tell me what the article is talking about. Also, the challenge page is clear. It talks about Muhammad’s crime and mind. My queries are, as always, evaded. So, you only responded the link, not the challenge nor my queries. What’s the matter?
If you read the history made by its obvious fan, you won’t be convinced either and the absent of the record by the other side is sufficient enough to say that the history of this event is doubtful. All you need is historical proof which is neutral and of course this is not interpretation but mere explanation of what is obvious.
I didn’t read? The problem from the very start is the verse not the site. You have failed to prove that the verse actually talks that way. I just used a very simple method, logic and proof. I don’t need to read any websites be it pro or con.
You had changed course again. If you can't answer this very simple question how do you answer the rest of my queries then?
Who am I? I am rational thinker, I used what was used by your own religion and analyzed it. I didn't say what "god should do", I said, " what a verse should sound if you wanted it that way". It was you who had the problem. You didn't even answer this obvious wrong meaning of the verse, you just complained.
It was very necessary to do that because that would be a very clear verse and didn’t even need any tafsir or created dissenting opinions which lead to conflicts. Quran had to be consistent in saying that its words were clear and easy to understand and by definition, it didn’t go running around with vague orders and rules.
The verse, if it dealt with particular group such as Christians who, again, specifically referred to Byzantine and its allies, should not created general impression of:
1. Christians, let alone the Jews
2. How you should treat them
3. Lacking of actual specified “reason”
You wrote, “Yes It is an act of war . You start now putting your silly interpretation of history which has no basis at all”
One thing you failed to understand is my position. I don’t care about interpretation because it leads to mere opinions. I just saw the raw words from the Quran and compared it to the tafsir and judged it. In here, we can see that even if I pretend you are right, Allah as a god had done a very poor explanation on his own words and needed human intervention. There are 2 possibilities:
1. You lied
2. Allah was a poor spoke person
Your choice is …
Everything you wrote about "Allah/Muhammad's view" should be backed by the Quran. Now, I demand again the verse that I'd asked before. Calling something you don't like as silly won't answer this. You also didn't answer "the fire before the smoke" and the logic behind the "act of war" because anything can be made like that. I suggest you read my other queries about other reasons that lead to "act of war". The standard you are using is silly because you have no reference.
Still didn't answer anything I'd posted. All I need is a verse from Allah to justify this view and if you didn't bring it that means you are creating your own deluded opinion influenced not by Islamic doctrine but common human rule.
The proof does the talking not this, let alone your ad hominem. :p
The truth is clear, in my posts and I want you to answer it. Simple, just click and click. Don't just judge, prove it.
If you are talking about this link .
http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/quran-koran/…
and I suppose you want to say you wrote it . I have read it and I can tell that you are Arabic ignorant therefore it just does not make sense to give it much importance .
Funny, you answered this one without Quran, what's the matter?
What are you talking about
So? It didn’t erase what Islam had done to India and Pakistan is persecuting minorities.
Muslims are not angels there may be some persecusion , but it is not encouraged in Islam and thats the point that you should take note of
The challenge of this site and if you want, my queries.
What is this queries
Nope, it applies to you who didn’t read anything including the queries.
I read the link and it has nothing about Mushrikin , but you and Ali Sina read koran while you were drunk
Whites in America didn’t have the eternal doctrine to kill the black and the black enjoys success now.
who cares what motivated them still they are gulity . are you trying to say just because they did not have eternal doctrine therefore it is ok to kill black and enslave them. Church considred in those days that black were not human. You have not done your research on the subject
In discussions of Church teaching, “slavery” is defined by some Catholic writers as the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person.
the native American is also fine now.
Oh yes after they were reduced from 100% to 1% population in USA
The Battle of Tabouk (also called the Battle of Tabuk) was a military expedition, which, according to Muslim biographies, was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad in October, AD 630 ……..
Not so convincing eh?
If you read interpretation of history by enemy of Islam you are not going to be convinced .
You did not read the link which I sent you this shows you just love to read anti Islamic website .
From the horse mouth :
The non Muslim scholar William Muir claims that one of the reasons Heraclius decided to go to War was that he wanted to prevent the recurrence of the Expedition of Ukasha bin Al-Mihsan against the Banu Udrah and military campaigns similar to it
to Muslim biographies, was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad in October, AD 630
Which Muslim biographies ????
You didn’t even respond to my explanation about the verse, you changed course.
First you have no authority to interpret koran because you are Tafsir ignorant secondly I have sent you a link that talks about war and verse 929 was revealed during those days
Now, who says that Islam is a religion, Islam is a state, a political disguised religion.
Who care what you say about Islam whether it is religion or not because only fool take ignorant people like you serious .
Why did he send ambassador? On what purpose? Why did they kill him? Surely, there is no smoke without fire.
no matter what was the purpose it was in those days and still today killing ambassador an act of war period .
Stilll didn’t answer the problem in the verse. It should say what I have proposed. We are talking about verse not history.
who are you to teach God how to reveal his book . In science of Tafsir we have something called Asbabo Nozool . It tells you why , the occasion and reason of revealation . It is not neccessary to put it the way you did .
Killing an ambassador was an act of war? They should just attack them suddenly just like Muhamamad did. Killing them would alert the enemy and not a smart move. So, the muslim was the attacker and as always, Muhammad found justification for his raid.
Yes It is an act of war . You start now putting your silly interpretation of history which has no basis at all
Dear, oh dear, I thought all is the same in the eyes of Allah and no caste system applied in order not to differentiate any muslim. It’s so easy, just replace the “fellow muslim” with “the ambassador/important muslim”. Now, I ask you a verse that indicates the difference between ordinary and ambassador.
are you ignorant or you play dumb with me ? . You know that killing government representative of a nation in any country by authorities of that country is an act of war . If it were done by criminals in that contry is something else .
"The Battle of Tabouk (also called the Battle of Tabuk) was a military expedition, which, according to Muslim biographies, was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad in October, AD 630. Muhammad led a force of as many as 30,000 north to Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of engaging the Byzantine army. Though not a battle in the typical sense, if historical the event would represent the opening conflict in the coming Byzantine-Arab wars. There is no contemporary Byzantine account of the events, and much of the details come from later Muslim sources. Noting this, as well as the fact that the armies never met, some Western scholars have questioned the authenticity of the details surrounding the event;[1] though in the Arab world it is widely held as historical."
Not so convincing eh?
Dear, oh dear, I thought all is the same in the eyes of Allah and no caste system applied in order not to differentiate any muslim. It’s so easy, just replace the “fellow muslim” with “the ambassador/important muslim”. Now, I ask you a verse that indicates the difference between ordinary and ambassador.
Stilll didn’t answer the problem in the verse. It should say what I have proposed. We are talking about verse not history. Killing an ambassador was an act of war? They should just attack them suddenly just like Muhamamad did. Killing them would alert the enemy and not a smart move. So, the muslim was the attacker and as always, Muhammad found justification for his raid.
You didn’t even respond to my explanation about the verse, you changed course.
Now, who says that Islam is a religion, Islam is a state, a political disguised religion.
Why did he send ambassador? On what purpose? Why did they kill him? Surely, there is no smoke without fire.
they did not kill a Muslim ignorant they killed the ambassador . Read this then I will reply to the rest you are really soooo ignorant about histroy of Islam
The hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad’s messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut’ah, was a defeat for the Muslims.
check this also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk
If that’s the context then the verse should say like this:
“Fight those who murder our fellow muslim no matter who they are, even if they are people of the book (why was he calling them like that?)”
And Byzantine is not Jewish so he should call them Christians and showed specific group who had done certain deed. He should leave the “those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth” part and stick to the “those who harm/kill our fellow muslim”. Again, the solution is hardly about the killing of one person,
“until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
The solution should be, “until they pay the blood money or compensation of our loss”. This is a case where Muhammad shouldn’t attack them because they didn’t attack him. No one wanted to attack him that’s why the battle never took place.
Here’s the reason:
Ibn Kathir:
Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)
Btw, the ally should not take the burden of what the other did and that's what Muhammad said earlier.
You wrote, “Muslims ruled India for hundreds of years today the Hindus in India have more territories and population that Muslims do . while whites in America exterminated entire population and you are silent”
So? It didn’t erase what Islam had done to India and Pakistan is persecuting minorities. Don’t just use the fallacy again, Whites in America didn’t have the eternal doctrine to kill the black and the black enjoys success now. The native American is also fine now. Funny, you answered this one without Quran, what's the matter?
You wrote, “which challenge”
The challenge of this site and if you want, my queries.
You wrote, “This applies on you and Ali Sina and I proved it .”
Nope, it applies to you who didn’t read anything including the queries.
You wrote, “You are not somebody who is looking for truth you just like to read anti Islamic propaganda thats all”
This is an excuse not an answer. The truth is clear, in my posts and I want you to answer it. Simple, just click and click. Don't just judge, prove it.
The Surah deals with both the polytheists and the people of the book. Read 9:29.
now you jumped to another verse . Verse 929 deals with Byzantine whose their allies Arab christians murdered Muslim embassadors in cold blood so the verse was revealed to Muslims to fight them .
There are many Hindus in this site so they should be killed too.
Muslims ruled India for hundreds of years today the Hindus in India have more territories and population that Muslims do . while whites in America exterminated entire population and you are silent
Do you think this simple and basic thing will refute the challenge?
which challenge
You didn't even read the entire Quran.
This applies on you and Ali Sina and I proved it .
Btw, I have queries about Islam, care to answer it?
You are not somebody who is looking for truth you just like to read anti Islamic propaganda thats all
Hi Ria,
Laziness factors into Muslim culture in two ways. The first is the "God willing" resignation, and the second is the concept that Muslims are too good to do menial work because their theology teaches them that slaves and dhimmis should be doing the work.
Look here:
A Lack Of Suitable Work http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/…
The Surah deals with both the polytheists and the people of the book. Read 9:29. There are many Hindus in this site so they should be killed too.
Do you think this simple and basic thing will refute the challenge? You didn't even read the entire Quran. Btw, I have queries about Islam, care to answer it?
Interesting article: http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/quran-koran/…
I do not think you or Ali Sina know Arabic , Islam and koran better than me . I can be your teacher as well as to Ali Sina . The reason I asked for the verse is to show you how ignorant you are about koran . Here is the verse
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Did you see where you have corrupted and changed the verse ??? You cannot fool me LOL . If you read koran in Arabic which I know you cannot like Ali Sina It says Mushrikin ( polytheists ) and not the kafiron ( unbelivers ) . In Islamic theology there is big diffrence between the two terms . Yes every Mushrik is unbeliever , but not every unbeliever is Mushrik for example Jew is unbeliever , but he is not considered to be Mushrik . Likewise every Colombian is latino , but not every lationo is Colombian . The person maybe Mexican or Dominican . This is new lesson for you in koran LOL as I promised you
Laziness does that factor in ?
Backgroung music should conspiracy theory UFO music….OOoooo OOOOoooooo
Thanks for your offer Zitouni. I don't take lessons from people with less education than me, but the procedure for you to issue a challenge is located on this page:
http://alisina.org/understanding-muhammad/
By the way, I'm surprised you don't know the Quran well enough to know the verse I quoted to you. Even Muslims who haven't read very much of the Quran would know it because you only have to read nine suras to know about it.
It's Sura 9 verse 5, also known as the Sword Verse:
"When the sacred months are passed, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them…"
quote the verse where it says that and from there I will teach you leson in koran
Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them was Muhammad's last command on the subject.
So the only verse that Muslims oft quote to claim Muhammad prohibited killing is from Judaism, is wrongly attributed to Allah and it contains a disclaimer, which allows Muslims to kill all those who don’t agree with Islam.
Ali Sina you are sooooooo stupid and ignorant . I advise the people who hired you to look for another person to fight Islam on their behalf because they are wasting their money and I advise you to look for another way to make money . Read this verse dummy
And do not kill anyone which Allâh has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is killed (intentionally with hostility and oppression and not by mistake), We have given his heir the authority [(to demand Qisâs, Law of Equality in punishment or to forgive, or to take Diya (blood money)]. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life (i.e he should not kill except the killer only). Verily, he is helped (by the Islâmic law )
Sanada brings good points. It also depends on what he means by "take care of". The entire paradigm is weak and shallow anyway because historians have already established that everything Muhammad wrote in the Quran was borrowed from other sources. There are only two new doctrines in the Quran. The first from the Mecca period is that Muhammad is Allah's messenger. The second from the Medina period is that if you do not believe him, you are liable to be killed.
On the issue of corruption of the Bible, I have these notes that I took from David Wood's video:
"Conversations with Muslims almost always go to corruption of the Bible. Most Christians don't know how to answer. Some can talk about textual criticism and history of manuscripts, but the standard response should be, 1st, why does the Qur'an say no one can corrupt the words of Allah, 2nd, why does the Qur'an say repeatedly that people still have access to the Gospel, 3rd, why does the Qur'an command me to judge by the Gospel? It's been corrupted according to you, and, finally, I can show you textual support for the Bible.
This is called The Islam Dilemma. There are only two options. If the Qur'an over and over again affirms the Christian scriptures, and the Christian scriptures affirm Islam is false, then Islam has a problem. Islam is false because it contradicts the Christian scriptures. If the Bible is not the word of God, then Islam is false because it constantly affirms the Bible is the word of God. So, if the Bible is true, Islam is false, if the Bible is false, Islam is false. Either way, Islam is false."
Go to the video to see the textual citations and slides (actually, chalkboard in this presentation): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKKNJ9tjo4Q
The problem with that is the fact that Talmud is not considered to be divine. Quran also didn't mention anything regarding Talmud or any rabbinical works. If you face muslim you should ask reference in Quran about anything he/she says. This will prevent any liar and tafsir expert wannabe.
Ask a simple thing first, "did Allah promise to keep the words through the same people who allegedly corrupted it, using the very same works they had?"
Try to demand proof like:
1. Real Torah or Gospel according to Allah's version, I mean, a complete one
2. Quranic verses about corruption and alteration, a literal one
3. Historical and archaeological evidence
Logical question: If the rabbis wanted to change the meaning or the verse why then they chose to make it another rule that had to be followed, why not erased it completely? Could it be called "alteration" when you had the same verse in different form therefore resulting to same situation?
I am debating with a muslim on this issue and he claims that the Quran promised that it will take care of the older holy books like Torah and Bible. He claims this to be proof that the same verse exists in the Talmud. Please help me help him see the truth.
So are the Christians in Pakistan, India, Indonesia n some African countries. Get the answers from "Islam watch org."
Because of islam that`s why. Get islam out of the constitution and guarantee freedom of religion, freedom from religion, the separation of religion and state and freedom of speech. If you are a egyptian coptic (and i am assuming you are) support secular parties as a secular state is the only one where you can be safe and protected by the law.
Why are the coptic Christians suffering and being killed over in Egypt can anyone answer this???
Yes, population explosion ( caused by polygamy ) n unequal distribution of wealth are causing critical problems too. The emphasis is not on creating wealth but on "religious sentiment n activities" which cannot fill hungry stomach.
Food shortages have been a driver too.
The pressing problem in these ME countries is the great numbers of youths who are jobless, poor n desperate for employment to secure for a better future. I doubt there is much hope coz there are little foreign investment n few factories there. The tourist indusries had vanished following the killings of tourists by some unruly elements in Egypt. These youths may easily erupt into violence, just like the mayhem caused just after the Tunisian election n the killings of Coptic Christians in Egypt.
I am not Ali Sina. If you had an education in Literature, you would be sensitive to differences in tone and style. I don't love you any less than Ali Sina loves you, but as an ex-Muslim he has far more patience to answer your comments than I do. Since we non-Muslims have not been where you are, we have less patience for it.
You are coward man Ali Sina why do not you debate under your name inseted of using John K .
You have proved nothing. All you are doing is saying the sun rises in the west when the facts plainly show that it rises in the east. Your repetitions and insistence cannot change the facts. I'm sorry, but we have read your books. Your Muslim cultures don't even have a knowledge tradition that can compare with Western academic standards and scholarly rigor. Your pouting is like the barbarians knocking at the gates of civilization.
That article doesn't say anything at all that supports your statement.
Have better judgment, my friend. Let us do a simple analysis country by country.
Pakistan ; Shitte n Sunni bombing n shooting each other / thousand of rape cases against the Christians / Taliban are fighting Govt. forces / Tribal warfares.
Afghanistan : Before US led invasion, Taliban was running the country with cruel Sharia Laws, burning girls' schools, destroying places of entertainment n killing whoever opposed them. Whipping n stoning are common forms of punishment / Tribal n Shitte & Sunni warfares.
Iraq : tribal as well as Sitte & Sunni warfares.
Arab Spring should be called Arab revolutions against their tyrannical rulers in the ME countries. Their people are oppressed, poor desperate n angry with these corrupt tyrants. They wanted their govt. to change to democracy rule.
All the above turmoils had little to do with the CIA. Show me the proof if u think otherwise.
What`s that got to do with islam and muhammed? CIA is a terrorist group therefore all islamic terrorism is okay, is that what you`re saying?
Read this link and see what CIA has done to many nations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States…
CIA is causing turmoiol through out the world and not just in arab world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States…
You can try to fool somebody else and not me . You have a degree in deception . I am 45 yr old man and have been studying Islam for 30 yrs .
I have no respect for the liars and con man like Ali Sina even they are Imams.
YOU AND ALI SINA ARE ARABIC IGNORANT AND i PROVED IT . No one read koran in arabic and make that mistake that he made because there is no word FITNA IN THAT VERSE . you can only knows that if you read that verse in Arabic PERIOD. so I proved beyound shadow of doubt that Ali
Sina does not read koran in Arabic
The problem with u people is that u all cannot see things in the proper prospective n conveniently blame others. See how Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea n Japan are prospering peacefully under US influences. The Arab leaders try to co exsist with West to improve the livelihood of their people but they will be assissinated, like Pres. Anwar Sadat, when they are not careful. The fundamentalists are always plotting, bombing hotels n killing tourists, causing turmoil in the countries n making their own people jobless, poorer n backwards. Tell me why they are bent on killing any one not agreeable to them. They had hijacked your so-called messages ?
I would like to see your proof.
Disrespecting your elders again I see. Would you talk to your father or your Imam like this?
I do have a degree in Linguistics, so I think I am better qualified than you to evaluate a translation. Dr. Sina has read the Quran in Arabic, so what kind of smoke do you think you are trying to blow? You are just compensating for your own ignorance. You haven't actually said anything factual yet. I don't expect you to either since I don't really believe you have read the Quran and Sunna.
only dumb stupid and arabic ignorant like you think that Ali sina is world renow koranic scholar
Only an ignorant brain-dead Muslim can still be a bigoted supremacist and think they know everything when they know nothing.
Dr. Sina doesn't usually condescend to answering ignorant remarks. I should follow his example.
what caused turmoil are CIA puppets regimes
are you embarrassed that your mentor get humiliated
then you are just an another ignorant person like your mentor Ali Sina . He showed up here , but could not reply to my corrections I guess he has nothing to say .
🙂
It's about data volume. I have studied your materials as well as others, so I can say I know the essential information, but I have not been immersed in studying Islam all my life, so the volume of information and details is not the same as yours.
It's also about making a provocative statement to pull down the Muslim supremacist attitude to hopefully get them to consider that their ignorant points of view are not the only ones and don't fly in the Western knowledge-based society that has academic standards and criteria for knowledge evaluation.
I have read. I find your statements to be ignorant and provincial.
LOL. And why not? Anybody can learn anything.
I suggest read the rest of my post here before making such stupid comment . Your ignorant does not even know basic thing about Arabic and islam
I don't think you have a very good chance of ever knowing as much as Dr. Sina does about Islam even if you start today and study every day for the rest of your life.
Since it is so difficult to translate, no wonder the Shitte n the Sunni are fighting it out as to who had the true translation for centuries. But now in the 20th century they are using guns n bombs to achieve greater effects n to grab world news.
" fighting n killing are the best commerce, which will have the highiest reward ( including the raping of women of the defeated people)" this simply means "robbery" which included waging wars on unarmed people doing commerce.
Ali Sina said : The word mischief is the translation of the word “fitnah”,
You see when you stick your nose in area which is not your expertise and you read and interpret koran from English and this is the kind of result that you will get . Dumb interpretation . The Arabic word in verse which was translated as mischief is the word فَسَاداً ( fasadan ) and not Fitna dummy . The literal meaning for it will be corruption . Go and take some classes of elemantary Arabic . I think they have it for kids in local mosque do not be shy
Now, this verse emphasizes that killing is bad. But Muhammad told his followers that waging war, fighting and killing are the best commerce, which will have the highest reward.
oh my God 10 yrs old kid can know the difference between the verbe to kill and fight ( combat ) . You need to go back to elementary school – The word in the verse is combat when you combat somebody dummy your opponent is also armed and has intention to kill you this is not like to kill somebody becasue the person may not have or did not have the intension to kill you and he is not armed .
Definition of Banditry or declaring war on Allah ( Haraba )
Known as 'banditry' as the crime of robbery patency safe to terrorize and torment, or plunder their money, the striving for transcendence and oppression, or fraud, deceit, deception, treachery, or to kill them without looting money, a what is known as the 'killing gheelah' or for an attempt on their symptoms, and rape by force, called the 'banditry' name (grand larceny).
Anyone who does any of these crimes, or their combination is a 'warrior' to God and His Messenger and the Muslim community, whether individual or group, armed or unarmed, as long as the costly binding, and it proved to crime attested is beyond doubt, appointed by each of the warrior in any way, such as incitement, or agreement, or monitoring a shelter or other forms of help is when many scholars him a partner in crime, and carries burdens and even the opinion of Imam Shafi'i is not only a warrior direct Hrabh himself.
I do not see there disagreeing with Islam fall under haraba ( banditry ) does it ????
Learn idiot before you open your mouth
Ali Sina you are the biggest ignorant about Tafisr that I have ever met on liine . and you are so arrogant and stupid you do not want to study Tafsir you think you can interpret koran without education. Any book requires you some education to understsnd it . here the interpreation from the expert about mischief and declaring war againt God .
You claim that you are somebody who uses his mind better than Muslims . If Korean urge Muslims to kill non Muslim then how do you explain to me the existence of non Muslims in middles east such as Jews and christains. according to your ignorant interpretation the middle east should have been free fron non Muslims .Do you know we can still find non Muslims living in the Muslim world because the verse was not understood by Muslims the way you understood it .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmtLjst2_-A&fe…
That is what Mr. Anjem Choudhary an Pakistani Muslim Cleric in UK told in the TV interview. When it was stated that many innocent people died in London Bomb blast. He immediately replied Äccording to Islam who are not Muslim are not innocent". They have done criminal offense by not accepting Islam. So the Muslims who died in the bomb blast are innocent. Other non-Muslims who died were not innocent.
Is your knowledge of Islam so rudimentary that that is the only verse that you know?
If you had any kind of sophisticated knowledge, you would know about all the violent verses in the Quran and you would also know about the doctrine of abrogation.
Since you roll out the no compulsion verse and expect us to salute it, it shows either you are ignorant and don't read Islamic texts, or it means you are a liar hoping we haven't read anything.
As Patton said to Rommel, "I read your book!"
1. Say, `O ye disbelievers !
2. `I worship not as you worship,
3. `Nor do you worship as I worship.
4. `Nor do I worship those that you worship,
5. `Nor do you worship Him Whom I worship.
6. `For you your religion, and for me my religion.
Surat " Elkafiron " …
I think this chapter can answer you question about Islam being forced on people !
قال تعالى : {لا إكراه في الدين قد تبين الرشد من الغي} البقرة : 256
"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" Sorat elbakara 256
true enough !
for those who make lies about Islam … See you in Hell ! =)
Sina why don't you mention the human righst abuses in Israel? the legitimate sex slave trade? the veerses in the Bible about eating babies, peadohilia, incest or the Torahs view on Gentiles who are worse than dogs? No? didn't think so.
You don't have to worry. Dr. Sina's information is quite factual and founded on well-established knowledge as presented in Islam's primary texts. Anything you say cannot make the truth and the facts go away.
Now let me pose another contradiction in the Quran. There are plenty. Let us talk about intercession. Can Muhammad or anyone intercede on behalf of the believers and bargain with God to reduce their punishment?
جناب سینا
یکی از کلماتی که مخالفان اسلام بسیار زیاد از آن استفاده کرده و به زعم خود بر اسلام و خصوصا آیات قرآن ایراد وارد می کنند واژه “تناقض” است.
و از این طریق تنها بیسوادی خود را به رخ طرف بحث و مخاطب فهیم می کشانند و شما نیز از این قاعده مستثنا نیستید
تناقض یک واژه و اصطلاح منطقی که بار معنایی و تعریف خاص خود را دارد
تناقض را چنین تعریف کرده اند:
تناقض دو قضيه گونهاي از اختلاف ميان آنها است که ذاتا موجب ميشود يکي از آن دو درست و ديگري نادرست باشد.
جهت کسب اطلاعات بیشتر در مورد تناقض و تعریف و شرایط آن به آدرس زیر رجوع کنید:
http://www.pajoohe.com/fa/index.php?Page=definition&UID=33071
اگر به آدرس فوق رجوع کنید متوجه خواهید شد که جهت تحقق تناقض اموری باید جمع شوند و نبود تنها یکی از آنها باعث عدم اثبات تناقض می شود
در تناقضی که شما به قرآن نسبت دادید یکی از ارکان تناقض که وحدت در موضوع است مفقود است
موضوع آیاتی که نفی کننده شفاعت اند شفاعت استقلالی و بدون اجازه خداوند و به اصطلاح شفاعت در عرض شفاعت خداوند است و
موضوع آیات دسته دوم شفاعت با اجازه و ا ذن خداوند و شفاعت طولی است
همانطور که مشاهده می کنید به همین راحتی تناقض ادعایی رفع شده و اثری از آن باقی نمی ماند.
Mr. Sina
As I told before my English is not enough good to remark professional debates and I afraid to use English word falsely also to write a phrase in English takes a vast of my time therefore I suggested you to debate in a Persian forum, I think your Persian is more better than my English, do not worry about your site observers at first step you have to be confident of trueness of your opinions then offering them to others. My mistake does not detriment anyone because all of us will die in upcoming years and will return to the nature again but your mistake has irreparable recompenses, so you must be more careful to avoid harming others.
After all if reality is more important to you than your site observers we can continue our debates otherwise you can stay on your false position and battle with rationality, God, religion and reason are together so they will win defiantly.
Anyway let me answer your questions. You said:
“I don’t know how that is possible.”
1-اولا که بحث ما در مورد ممکن بودن یا نبودن وجود عالم برزخ و قیامت نبود بلکه بحث در متناقض بودن و نبودن مدعای قرآن و پیامبر خدا صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم در این مورد بود که نشان دادم تناقضی که شما مدعی آن هستید در قرآن وجود ندارد.
ثانیا درک چگونگی ساختار بسیاری از چیزها در همین دنیای مادی برای ما قابل فهم نیست منتها چون قانون آن را درک کرده ایم آن را به راحتی می پذیریم٬کدام عقل سلیمی قبول می کند که وجود موجود پیچیده ای مثل انسان سفر خود را از یک تک سلولی آغاز کرده و به اینجا رسیده باشد؟ خصوصا که قرار باشد هیچ مدیریت هوشمندی آن را هدایت نکند و کاملا به صورت تصادفی شده باشد مثلا دکتر علی سینا اما شما با استناد به یک تئوری یا قانون به نام تکامل این موضوع را قبول می کنید هر چند مدعیان تکامل هرگز نتوانند نقشه راه طی شده تکامل را از صفر تا صد برای شما ترسیم کنند اما شما آن را می پذیرید تنها به این دلیل که قانونی ثابت شده است و قانون تخلف ناپذیر است لذا هر چند قانون نتواند بعضی از مراحل تکامل را توضیح علمی و عقلی دهد اما شما آن را با اتکاء به یک اصل کلی قابل قبول می دانید.
این موضوع به اینجا ختم نمی شود بلکه در مواردی حتی اگر از درک علت پدیده ای عاجز باشیم اما آن پدیده عینی و غیر قابل انکار باشد حکم می کنیم که حتما دلیل و قانونی دارد که ما از آن بی خبریم به طور مثال در بحثی که با یکی از بیخدایان داشتم وقتی صحبت از پیشگویی و مکانیسم آن پیش آمد او مدعی شد که پیشگویی مکانیسمی صدرصد مادی دارد هر چند ما در حال حاضر از این نوع عملکرد مکانیسم آن اطلاعاتی در دست نداریم.
ما هم در مباحث اعتقادی دقیقا طبق فرمول فوق عمل می کنیم یعنی ابتدا خدا و یک سری کلیات دیگر را براساس قوانین خشک و غیر قابل انعطاف عقلی می پذیریم آنگاه در پذیرش جزئیات و فروعی که عقلا امکان وقوع دارند و وقوع آنها ما را منطقا با تناقض روبرو نمی کند انعطاف به خرج داده و با پذیرش کلیت مسئله در مورد جزئیات به نقل معتبر اعتماد می کنیم و این یک سیره عقلایی و کاملا مورد پذیرش است.
این که جنابعالی با حالت تمسخر و طعنه اشاره می کنید که برای فرد مومن هیچ چیز غیر ممکنی وجود ندارد نشان از ناآگاهی شما از دو علم منطق و فلسفه دارد در فلسفه ثابت است که تنها آنچه که امتناع عقلی دارد امکان وقوع ندارد ودایره ممکنات بسیار وسیع است؛ از آنجا که ذهن شما کاملا مادی زده است کاملا طبیعی است که همه چیز را با معیارهای مادی و علم تجربی بسنجید و حکم به ممکن یا ناممکن بودن بکنید در حالی که علم تجربی هرگز چنین قابلیتی ندارد و نهایت هنر این علم تحلیل واقعیت های موجود است.
جناب سینا
یکی از خصوصیات عقل این است که از درک جزئیات عاجز است آنچه شما به آن تفکر عقلی می گویید و فکر می کنید مبنایتان بر آن است تنها وهمیاتی (وهم منطقی نه لغوی) هستند که اساس آنها بر قیاس و استقرا ناقص است نه بر اساس برهان٬ و قیاس و استقراء ناقص هرگز ما را به حقیقت نمی رسانند٬ لذا
این اتهام شما که ما عقل را تعطیل کرده و همه چیز را ممکن می دانیم اتهامی کوچه بازاری است که در میدان منطق خریداری ندارد و اساس قضاوت واقع نمی شود؛ اگر ما در جزئیات و فروع دین از عقل کمک نمی گیریم به دلیل عدم کارایی عقل در این عرصه است؛ همین مقدار که در مرحله قبل کلیاتی چون توحید و معاد قابل اثبات عقلی باشد این احکام کلی عقلی عصای دست عاقل در جزئیات خواهند شد و او را از تاریکخانه جهل و نادانی خارج خواهند کرد.
2-در بحث تعلق روح به بدن همان طور که اشاره کردم این تعلق موقت و دارای زمان است و بعد از مدتی این تعلق از بین خواهد رفت و البته در بعضی از افراد ممکن است این تعلق سالها و گاهی هزاران سال ادامه داشته باشد٬ شما حتما داستانهای زیادی در باره اجسادی که بعد از سالها سالم مانده و به قول معروف هنوز آب غسل آنها خشک نشده است شنیده اید:
http://www.mersad.org/1388-06-17-07-37-44/2218–1…
ممکن است در بعضی ازموارد بشود دلیل علمی برای این موضوع پیدا کرد اما در مواردی با توجه به موقعیت خاص آن شکی در این که سالم ماندن دلیل مادی ندارد باقی نمی گذارد به طور مثال جنازه حر بن یزید ریاحی یکی از این موارد است:
http://www.azha.ir/showthread.php?tid=1024
3-اشاره کردید که فعل و انفعالات عالم قبر (برزخ) با معیارهای مادی قابل سنجش نیست بس باطل بودن آن آشکار و بدیهی است.
در کدامیک از آیات قرآن یا سخنانی که من ذکر کردم ادعا شده است که عالم برزخ دارای خصوصیاتی مادی است که شما به دنبال مقیاسی مادی برای سنجش باطل یا صحیح بودن آن هستید؟
عالم برزخ عالمی ورای عالم ماده است و هیچ سنخیت قابل تجربه برای انسان مادی بین آنها وجود ندارد و اگر گفته می شود که قبر باغی از باغهای بهشت یا حفره ای از حفره های جهنم است به این معنا نیست که اگر مثلا یک دوربین فیلمبرداری در قبر قرار دهیم می توانیم از این باغ یا حفره تصویری تهیه کرده و به دیگران نشان دهیم٬اصطلاح قبر کنایه از شروع مرحله دوم زندگی یک انسان در عالم برزخ است و مراد از قبر گودالی که بر روی زمین حفر شده و جنازه را در آن قرار می دهند نیست لذا جای این اشکال هم باقی نمی ماند که پس وضیعت کسانی که مثلا در اثر انفجار بدن آنها پودر می شود و از بین می رود به چه صورت است؟ یا کسانی که غرق شده و خوراک ماهیان دریا می شوند احکام قبر آنها چه می شود؟ یا هزاران مثال دیگر.
4-در روایات مربوط به مرگ و عالم بعد از مرگ عبارتی با این مضمون وارد شده که “من مات قامت قیامته” کسی که بمیرد قیامت او همزمان با مرگ آغاز می شود و اصلا خود کلمه قیامت مصدر قام یقوم و به معنای چیزی است که قائم و برپاست می باشد٬ اشکال شما ناشی از در نظر نگرفتن خالی بودن عالم برزخ از دو عنصر مکان و زمان است و غفلت از این موضوع برای کسی که لحظه ای نمی تواند خود را فارغ از زمان و مکان تصور کند امری کاملا طبیعی است؛ این واقعیت بارها در آیات قرآن مورد اشاره واقع شده که نمونه بارز آن داستان اصحاب کهف و عزیر پیامبر است وقتی از آنها سوال می شود “کم لبثتم” یا “کم لبثت”؟ چه مقدار درنگ کردید؟ جواب می دهند که “یوما او بعض یوم” یک روز یا یک نیمروز؛ کنایه از سرعت بسیار زیاد زمان یا عدم وجود آن٬ در حالیکه اصحاب کهف سیصد سال و عزیر پیامبر صد سال در حالت مرگ به سر برده بودند.
در مورد قضاوت روز قیامت و عذاب و پاداش برزخی و تناقضی که در نگاه اولیه دیده می شود نیز موضوع کاملا روشن است؛ بعضی از اعمال ما در همین دنیا مورد قضاوت واقع شده و جزای آن نیز معلوم می شود به طور مثال وقتی فرزند یکی از خلفای ظالم عباسی (یا اموی تردید از من است) به یکی از امامان شیعه مراجعه کرده و او را از نیت خود مبنی بر قتل پدر ظالمش با خبر می کند امام علیه السلام در جواب او می گوید کشتن پدر هر چند به حق باشد نتیجه آن جوان مرگ شدن است و او این عقوبت را پذیرفت و پدر خود را به قتل رساند و در جوانی هم از دنیا می رود.
آیا از این موضوع می توان نتیجه گرفت قضاوت و عقوبت در دنیای مادی منافات با عقوبت و جزای برزخی دارد؟
عالم برزخ و عالم قیامت هرچند دو عالم مترتب برهم اما کاملا مجزای از یکدیگرند و نوع عذاب و پاداش برزخی متفاوت از نوع آن در عالم قیامت است در برزخ جسمی وجود ندارد و تالمات و لذتهای آن صرف تالمات و لذتهای روحی است بخلاف قیامت که روح مجددا به جسم باز می گردد و تالمات و لذتها نه تنها دو برابر بلکه مقدار آن به بی نهایت خواهد رسید و در حقیقت می توان گفت وجود عالم برزخ لطفی است که شامل حال بندگان گناهکار شده و با تحمل مشقت های برزخی از شدت عذاب خود در قیامت کم کرده و مدت آن را کاهش می دهند.
نمونه این نوع عملکرد در رفتار ما انسانهای ناقص هم مشاهده می شود کسی که جرمی را انجام می دهد و دستگیرمی شود او را رها نمی کنند تا روز دادگاه او فرا برسد بلکه گاه تا سالها تا زمانی که نوبت دادگاه او فرا برسد در زندان و در بازداشت موقت باقی می ماند و سختی های زندان را تحمل می کند تا حکم نهایی در باره او صادر شود و اگر سیستم قضایی عادلانه ای باشد مدتی را که در حبس بوده از مجازات آینده او کم می کنند و از ناحیه پاداش هم به همین صورت است؛ کسی که مثلا جایزه نوبل را برده ممکن است او را از چند روز قبل از اهداء جایزه در یکی از بهترین هتل ها جا داده و بهترین پذیرایی را از او می کنند بدون اینکه از جایزه اصلی او چیزی کم کنند؛ در اینجا هم قضاوت قبلا انجام شده و اشخاصی که سزاوار دریافت جایزه اند مشخص شده اند نوع و مقدار جایزه هم کاملا مشخص است حال جای این سوال باقی نمی ماند که گرفتن مراسم رسمی و اعلام نام اشخاص و نوع جایزه آنها کار بیهوده ای است؟
بیان این مثالها فقط و فقط به قصد تقریب به ذهن و دفع و رفع تناقضات بدوی است و الا به قول شاعر
از قیاسش خنده آمد خلق را ——– کو چو خود پنداشت صاحب دلق را
یا
زلیخا گفتن و یوسف شنیدن ——- شنیدن کی بود مانند دیدن؟
Oh, my dearest Dr Ali Sina, I'm so thrilled to know that you do concur with me that Muhammad lied, Islam is a lie and the Quran is a pack of lies afterall. Do you know why this stubborn Mr Farzad refused to comment in English despite your many requests for him to do so? The reason is because Mr Farzad is a tortiste. He can only stick his head halfway out because he is afraid of Muhammad and his halal allah and fatwa. That's why he decided to communicate with you only in Persian language, thinking that only you know Farsi.
As you can read from Mr Farzad's comments of his reluctance to spread this very important message that Islam is a lie to all the human beings on planet earth by posting all his comments to you in Farsi, so let's help him to accomplish this great mission here by encouraging all your readers here to pay attention to all his Persian comments and all your comments. The day that he dare to stick his tortiste head all the way out and communicate with you only in English, will be the day of his deliverance from this religion of lies.
Mr. Farzad,
Debate with you is interesting but I hope that others also read it. When you write in Persian and I in English, very few people can read our debate. It is not a very efficinet way for me to spead my message that Islam is a lie.
Anyway, you responded by saying that the soul after death will enter Barzakh which is a barrier between this world and the next. It is fully aware and conscience stil connected to the body even though the body may no longer exist, turned into ashes or eaten by animals. I don’t know how that is possible. But to a man of faith nothing is impossible. Reason and facts mean nothing. He will believe in anything, He argues that Allah can do anything, therefore I will not use my brain.
You also said the grave can be like a pit of hell or the garden of paradise. The soul will stay in that state until the day of resurrection when the body of the dead will be recomposed and the soul will penetrate in it to receive its judgment.
The absurdity of this argument is self-evident. Has anyone seen any grave that is different from the way it has been constructed? Can you show me a grave that has been transformed into a garden of paradise or a pit of hell? Here we have verifiable evidence that the argument about the grave transforming into garden of paradise or pit of hell is false.
The second fallacy is the fact that the dead person receives punishment and reward before being judged? If the judgment is automatic then what is the point of the Day of Judgment? Something does not add up in Islamic scatology. Are people judged right after they die or will they be judged in the Day of Resurrection? It can’t be both. If they are judged right after they die then the Day of Judgment is redundant. And if they have to wait until that Day to receive judgment, how can they receive punishment and reward in the grave and in Barzakh?
Now let me pose another contradiction in the Quran. There are plenty. Let us talk about intercession. Can Muhammad or anyone intercede on behalf of the believers and bargain with God to reduce their punishment?
The Quran says yes and no.
The following verses say no one has the authority to intercede.
78:37-38, 2:48, 2:122-123, 2:254, 4:123, 6:51, 6:70, 32:4, 39:19.
All the above verses emphatically say that no bargaining and no intercession will profit the person who is standing in front of Allah and there is no helper beside him.
Yet, there are other verses that contradict the above verses and say that Allah can permit some people to intercede.
2:255, 10:3, 19:85-87, 20:109, 21:25-29, 34:23, 43:86 and 53:26
These are contradictory claims. Either intercession is allowed or it is not. The Quran contains several verses that ratify both. Which shows its author is not God but an impostor, who said whatever he wanted depending on the situation.
جناب سینا
تصور نمی کردم به این زودی و راحتی میدان را خالی کرده و روش دیگر مخالفان اسلام را که همان سکوت در برابر حرف حساب است را در پیش گیرید.
البته احتمال دیگر این است که در حال فکر کردن باشیدو من امیدوارم که چنین باشد.
I suppose you didn't flip through to pg. 64-67 of "On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History" where he writes the Qur'an is "the confused ferment of a great rude human soul", and that Muhammad was an "uncultured semi-barbarous Son of Nature," a "wretched Simulacrum, a hungry Impostor without eyes or heart", and "much of the Bedouin still clinging to him".
Of course you didn't. You've never read it have you? You simply took that quote from a dawaganda site (how pathetic).
Lots more quotes here: http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam…
Mr.sina
if my answer to your question was reasonable, please introduce next one.
1- اینکه بهشت یا جهنم الآن موجود است و خالی است و یا هنوز ساخته نشده اند تعبیرات دقیقی نیستند؛ بنابر آیات قرآن و روایات بهشت و دوزخ دو مکان مستقلی نسیتند که نیاز به ساخته شدن در بازه ای از زمان داشته باشند٬ بلکه آنها حقیقت اعمال انسانها هستند و هر عملی که انسان در دنیا انجام می دهد هم اکنون به صورتی دیگر در جهان دیگر جلوه گر می شود؛ به صورت بدون جسم در عالم برزخ
و همراه با جسم در عالم قیامت.
رَوَى حَمَّادُ بْنُ عُثْمَانَ عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ آبَائِهِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ ع قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ لَمَّا أُسْرِيَ بِي إِلَى السَّمَاءِ دَخَلْتُ الْجَنَّةَ فَرَأَيْتُ فِيهَا قِيعَاناً بُقْعاً [يَقَقاً] مِنْ مِسْكٍ وَ رَأَيْتُ فِيهَا مَلَائِكَةً يَبْنُونَ لَبِنَةَ ذَهَبٍ وَ لَبِنَةَ فِضَّةٍ وَ رُبَّمَا أَمْسَكُوا فَقُلْتُ لَهُمْ مَا لَكُمْ رُبَّمَا بَنَيْتُمْ وَ رُبَّمَا أَمْسَكْتُمْ فَقَالُوا أَمْسَكْنَا حَتَّى تَجِيئَنَا النَّفَقَةُ قُلْتُ وَ مَا نَفَقَتُكُمْ قَالُوا قَوْلُ الْمُؤْمِنِ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ وَ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ وَ إِذَا قَالَهُنَّ بَنَيْنَا وَ إِذَا سَكَتَ وَ أَمْسَكَ أَمْسَكْنَا.
2-How can the martyrs be in paradise when Muhammad said he would be the first to enter there?
اولا زنده بودن در عالم برزخ مختص به شهدا نیست و شامل همه کسانی که از دنیا می روند می شود منتها علت تاکید این موضوع در مورد شهدا یکی در جواب کسانی است که فکر می کردند کشته شدگان در جنگ دچار خسارت و ضرر شده و از بین رفته اند و دیگر اینکه نعمتهایی که شهدا در برزخ به آن مشغول اند در مقابل بهره دیگران قابل قیاس نیست و مانند این است که دیگران اصلا زنده نیستند. ثانیا روایتی که نقل کردید مربوط به زندگی اخروی و بهشتی است که در روز قبامت انسانها وارد آن می شوند و در آن بهشت پیامبران جزء اولین ها هستند که وارد آن خواهند شد و در صدر آنها پیامبر آخر الزمان صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم و اینکه پیامبر ص در سفر معراج پیامبران در بهشت ملاقات کرده اشاره به بهشت برزخی است نه بهشت حقیقی پس هیچ تناقضی وجود ندارد.
2-هیچ استثنایی در کار نیست و شهدا در بهشت روز قیامت حضور ندارند٬ همانطور که در بند اول اشاره شد بهشت و جهنم هم اکنون عملیاتی است اما نه به معنایی که در ذهن شماست٬ آنچه در احادیث از مشغول بودن انسانها به نعمت های بهشتی و عذابهای جهنم آمده تماما اشاره به بهشت و دوزخ برزخی است و این حقیقت توسط آیات و روایات به صورت مکرر بیان و تاکید شده است و هیچ تناقضی وجود ندارد.
There are many verses in Quran that contradict each other especially verses on hell & paradise, day of judgment, intercession,etc. Also, Quran contradicts Hadiths on many matters. It only shows that Muhammad said many things as the situation dictated and could not remember what he told earlier which was why he made contradictory statements.
Muhammad copied Catholic Christian beliefs in the entry of souls into purgatory after death, resurrection of dead bodies repossessed by souls released from the purgatory on the day of judgment and their final judgment. These are originally Zoroastrian beliefs which were probably borrowed by ancient Roman religion "Religio Romano" or Mithraism and crept into the beliefs of Catholic church when Rome embraced Christianity.
Muhammad copied Catholic Christian beliefs in the entry of souls into purgatory after death, resurrection of dead bodies repossessed by souls released from the purgatory on the day of judgment and their final judgment. These are originally Zoroastrian beliefs which were probably borrowed by ancient Roman religion "Religio Romano" or Mithraism and crept into the beliefs of Catholic church when Rome embraced Christianity.
Mr. Farzad
You wrote,
“According to the Quran the essence of man is his spirit without which the body is a چینش (I don’t know this word. I assume it means form). This form can appear in billions of shapes. With the separation of the soul from body death occurs, but the soul does not separate from the body completely. This connection of the soul and body after the death can be strong or weak. After the death the soul enters barzakh (an intermediary stage, a barrier) and will stay there until the Day of Judgment. In that day the body is recomposed to its original state and repossessed by the soul. At that time it will become ready for its eternal life. According to the Quran there are three stages to the existence of man: the physical world, the life in the barzakh and the eternal life. The soul in the barzakh is either being tormented or is at ease depending on how the person lived in the physical world.” You also quoted a hadith that says “the grave can be either as a hole in the hell or a garden in paradise. In this stage the believers will lose their sins to get ready for their life in paradise while the unbelievers will be prepared for their eternal torment in hell.”
Very good! So according to Quran hell and paradise are not operational yet. They are empty or not built. Those who are dead are all in this intermediary stage of barzakh (purgatory.) Does this include also the prophets? Yes according to this hadith.
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: “I shall be pre-eminent amongst the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession will be accepted (by Allah).” (Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5655)
The above hadith makes it clear that Muhammad and all the prophets are in barzakh. They will enter paradise on the Day of Judgment and Muhammad will be the first to enter.
But there is a problem. A verse of the Quran says, “And call not those who are slain in the way of Allah "dead." Nay, they are living, only ye perceive not. (Q. 2:154). Another verse says, “Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living. With their Lord they have provision.” (Q. 3:169)
How can the martyrs be in paradise when Muhammad said he would be the first to enter there?
Muhammad also claimed that he ascended to heaven and visited all the prophets. There is obviously a contradiction here.
There are more hadiths that confirm that paradise is already populated. In one hadith Muhammad said the souls of the martyrs enter green birds and roam freely in paradise. Allah will ask them what do you wish and they say nothing. Allah will ask them three times and eventually they say we’d like to go back and become martyr again. All these contradict your story of barzakh. Paradise seems to be very much operational and populated already.
Now you may say Allah has made an exception for the martyrs. This is not stated by Muhammad anywhere, but what else can you say. However, Muhammad said that even hell is fully operational. At the funeral of his alleged son Ibrahim he said that he visited hell and saw most of its inhabitants were women who had disobeyed their husband. [Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301] How can this be when the Day of Judgment has not yet come?
What happens to humans after they die?
از نوع سوال مشخص است که قصد دارید یکی از به اصطلاح تناقضات قرآن را مطرح کرده و صحت آن را به چالش بکشید.
طبیعتا به جواب من چندان نیازی نیست اما برای اینکه شما شبهه را مطرح کنید ابتدا به طور کلی عقیده خود که برگرفته از آیات و روایات است را بیان می کنم تا زمینه برای اصل بحث فراهم شود.
بر اساس قرآن انسانیت انسان به وجود روح است بدون روح آنچه امثال شما آن را انسان می پندارید چینشی است از چینش های ماده؛ چینشی که می توانست میلیاردها شکل دیگر پیدا کند٬با جدا شدن روح از بدن مرگ اتفاق می افتد؛ بعد از مرگ به یکباره روح تعلق خود به بدن را از دست نمی دهد و بسته به بعضی از شرایط این تعلق شدت و ضعف پیدا می کند٬ سپس روح وارد عالم برزخ می شود و در آنجا بسر می برد تا روزی که از آن به قیامت یاد می شود (وَ مِنْ وَرائِهِمْ بَرْزَخٌ إِلى يَوْمِ يُبْعَثُون)؛ در این روز دوباره جسم او باز سازی شده و به آن برمی گردد و آماده می شود برای زندگی ابدی.
انسان از نظر قرآن از یک دید کلی دارای سه مرحله از زندگی است عالم ماده٬عالم برزخ و زندگی در آخرت٬ دو عالم برزخ و قیامت تنها بازتابی از اعمال انسان در عالم ماده هستند٬ روح در عالم برزخ به نتیجه اعمال خود مشغول است؛ یا در عذاب است یا در راحتی و خوشی٬ در روایات آمده که َ الْقَبْرُ رَوْضَةٌ مِنْ رِيَاضِ الْجَنَّةِ أَوْ حُفْرَةٌ مِنْ حُفَرِ النَّار٬ قبر یا چاله از چاله های جهنم است یا باغی از باغ های بهشت؛ از این باغ و حفره به بهشت و جهنم برزخی تعبیر می شود و خاصیت اصلی آن از بین رفتن آثار گناهان مومنین و کسب آمادگی لازم جهت حضور در بهشت ابدی است و برای کافران و مشرکان نیز مقدمه ای است برای عذاب ابدی.
Whoa man. The Meccans did not break the treaty. It was Muhammad who broke it. Sura 9 does not have any reference with breaking of treaty. Who told you this nonsense? Refer Tafsir ibn Kathir. It has been clearly said that this sura was revealed after Muhammad captured Mecca. He forced all of them to accept Islam.
And sura 9:6 is saying that those who need asylum they should be given so that they will be a Muslim.
Mr. Farzad,
1-These words exist in Talmud. You say Muhammad was an illiterate and could not have read the Talmud. Yes he was illiterate, although probably he could barely read I doubt he read many books. It is clear that his knowledge was superficial and he learned them by listening to others. At young age he frequented the market of Okaz. Storytellers and preachers also set shop there. Muhammad was particularly fond of the Bishop of Nijran, Qais ibn Sa’da. In those days people learned everything by listening to storytellers. Muhammad’s knowledge of the Bible is rudimental. He made many mistakes about the Bible that we’ll talk about them later. It’s clear that his knowledge of the Bible was all anecdotal.
2-You argue that the versein Talmud may be a quote. Quote from where? Is it a quote from the Old Testament? No such verse exists in the Old Testament. So even if it is a quote, it still is not from the Bible and hence God cannot claim authorship of it. It is clear that Muhammad heard this verse, and narrated it as part of the story of the Bani Israel, but did not know the source of it is Talmud and not the Bible. This is a clear error in the Quran that shows this book or at least this verse is not from God.
3-You say the Quran says that Satan’s effort to corrupt the Quran was frustrated because God has promised to preserve his book. The claim is made in the Quran, so your argument is circular reasoning. If I ask what is the evidence that the Quran is not corrupted you cannot say the Quran says so. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.
4-You talk about the unique style of writing of the Quran as evidence that it is from God. The early verses of the Quran rhyme. Rhythmic writing is one of the symptoms of TLE. Also it is not difficult to write like the Quran. Here is one example. http://suralikeit.com/
5-You also claimed history shows that the religious minorities in Islamic countries enjoyed freedom. This is not true, but we will get to that in another discussion. It deserves its proper space.
Now I am going to ask you another question about the Quran.
What happens to humans after they die? Does their soul go straight to heaven or hell while their body becomes dust or do they remain in the grave in a suspended animation state until the Day of Judgment to be resurrected in body and then judged? What the Quran says in this regard?
جناب سینا
این اشکال و شبهه شما نیز مانند سایر مباحثی که مطرح کرده اید بی اساس و سست بنیان است.
1-شما قبلا ادعا و اعتراف کرده اید که محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم بی سواد بوده است و نزد استادی درس نخوانده است پس اثبات اینکه قبلا او این کلمات را در کتاب تلمود دیده است بسیار سخت است.
2-اگر نقل این جمله از کتاب تلمود ثابت باشد صرف وجود مطلبی در کتابی دلیل نمی شود که آن نوشته متعلق به خود نویسنده است کما اینکه در این متن شما مدعی هستید این جمله در قرآن از قرآن نیست و از جای دیگری نقل شده است٬ خیلی طبیعی است که تلمود هم جملاتی از کتاب خود را از جای دیگری نقل کرده باشد٬ بنا بر اعتراف شما درست است که تلمود یک کتاب آسمانی نیست اما یک کتاب مذهبی است و در آن آموزه های مذهبی آمده است و ریشه آموزه های مذهبی در گفتار و رفتار پیامبران خداست و در قرآن هم آمده است کتبنا علی بنی اسرائیل” نه اینکه “قلنا یا کتبنا فی التورات و الانجیل” کما اینکه در موارد مشابه این طور گفته است: “کتبنا فی الزبور من بعد الذکر ان الارض یرثها عبادی الصالحون”.”
3- اگر در قرآن آیه متشابهی مبنی بر تلاش شیطان در دخالت در وحی وجود دارد در مقابل آیات بسیار محکمی وجود دارد که بیان می کند تلاش شیطان به جایی نرسیده است “انا نحن نزلنا الذکر و انا له لحافظون”.
4-اگر قرآن نوشته محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم نبود با توجه به اینکه این نوع نوشته و سبک ادبی بسیار زود مورد توجه قرار گرفت و محبوب دل و نظر میلیونها و میلیاردها نفرشد٬حداقل باید یک نفر دیگر پیدا می شد که از سبک ادبی محمد صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم پیروی و تقلیید کرده و مطالب خود درا این قالب بیان کند اما هنوز چنین کسی را مادر نزائیده است٬ پس قرآن کتابی است که کلمات خدا را نقل کرده است.
5-تاریخ رفتار مسلمین با دیگر ادیان در مقابل ماست و به راحتی استدلالات پوچ و بی اساس شما را باطل می کند همواره و در تمام جوامع مسلمین اقلیت های دینی زندگی می کرده اند و تا زمانی که قوانین اسلام را در مورد خودشان رعایت می کرده اند در کمال آرامش به زندگی خود ادامه داده اند و هم اکنون نیز این سنت ادامه دارد و صد البته اگر جایی پا را از گلیم خود دراز تر کرده اند پای آنها را قلم کرده اند و فکر نمی کنم این موضوع بر خلاف قوانین عقلا باشد تعدی از قانون همه جا با مجازات روبروست حتی اگر تعدی کوچکی مثل عبور از چراغ قرمز راهنمایی و رانندگی باشد.
Translation: Doesn't make sense = I don't understand it.
Estimated Number of Non-muslim Deaths because of Islam:
*Christians;
1) The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million.
(David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10).
2) 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the 10 million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have 60 million Christians.
(Raphael Moore-History of Asia Minor).
60 million + 9 million = 69 million.
*Hindus;
An estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
(Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34).
80 million Hindus.
*Buddhists;
Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis; everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India.
(David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1).
10 million Buddhists.
*Jews
Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis of Islam and did not have geographic political power.
Well Seraj,
There are around 7 billion people in the world. So the other 5.4 billion are smart enough, understand reason, logic and empathy.
Please note that apostasy is a crime punishable by death in Islam. Yet, people leave Islam all the time. It’s amazing isn’t it?
Remind me again, what is "scholarship" in Islam and on what purpose it's made? Make sense to what? Seraj, there is a big difference between "sensing" and "believing".
You may add the secretary Muhammad had.
Ah, about that, I've done it in here. Sure, you can put all historical contexts in the entire Quran but that'll only do you nothing good. How about you discard all of these verses since all of it were supposed to be historical anyway. The entire Quran was historical and not valid in present day.
Also, don't forget the intention of Muhammad from the very beginning. I've shown you the verse and narration about that. What is the meaning of "innocent disbeliever" anyway?
Seraj,
About Waraqa ibn Nawfal, here are the facts:
-Many hadiths say that Waraqa ibn Nawfal had The Gospel written in Arabic in his possession.
-Muhammad and Waraqa ibn Nawfal knew each other.
-The Bible and Quran have similarities, although the Quran recognize Muhammad in which the Bible is not.
-Muhammad came to Ibn Nawfal, when he was having episodes of “prophet-to-be” for guidance.
-Hadith says Muhammad was illiterate. Somebody must have read the Gospel to Muhammad. The most likely person to read him the Bible was Ibn Nawfal.
-That is why Quran and Bible have discrepancies, because Muhammad was not reading, he was hearing. Therefore, Muhammad’s comprehension of the Bible is what we have now in the Quran.
Now please use your reason and put the two and two together and save you a lot of grieve.
Right. One of any number of excuses to kill them for violating the contract of dhimmitude.
Right. Those who have accepted the contract of dhimmitude are supposed to be protected in theory, but in practice they are killed on any whim of an excuse for suppossedly breaking the contract as you see in killings of Christians in Egypt, Iraq and other countries.
In Islam there are no innocent unbelievers because disbelieving is an offense to Allah.
Chapter 9 has to do with when the Meccans broke the treachery. It absolutely does not permit one kill innocent disbelievers.
"Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]."
[9:4].
"And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."
[9:6].
Thank you.
Actually John,
Even if they are either Christians or Jews, they CAN be killed if they refuse to pay jizyah:
“Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted”.
(Al Tabari, Volume XII) Umar ibn Khattab during the conquest of Basrah (636 AD)
Oh please, knock of with the lies and defending a medieval death cult. If you defend it, you are the same as those who kill, rob, and rape in the name of Islam.
Seraj,
Here’s the Origin of Christianity in Hejaz:
According to Ibn Ishaq and other sources, Christianity came to the Yemen through the preaching of ascetic wandering monks, notably Faymiyyun and his disciple Salih. Faymiyyun had been captured by the Arabs and sold as a slave in Najran, where it did not take him long to convert his master. A public contest with a sorcerer, plus Faymiyyun’s reputation as a healer and man who could not be killed by snake- bite, soon led to the conversion of the ruler of Najran (Abdullah b. Thamir) and most of his people.
(‘Book of the Himyarites’, ed. Axel Moberg Lund, 1924).
Well, actually the official answer is that Jews and Christians are offered dhimmitude in lieu of being killed. If you are not a Jew or Christian, you don't get this option.
On the other hand, this doesn't always happen in real practice, or dhimmis are killed on the slightest pretext for violating the contract of dhimmitude.
Q 9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Bukhari 1.24:
Narrated Ibn `Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
"The golden age of equal rights [in Spain] was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians." – Bernard Lewis
This means that the person referred in 5:32 is a believer i.e. Muslim. So killing Muslim is killing all people.
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Qur'an 9:5
This is that verse!
//The problem is, you're lying to yourself. Even the sirah and the hadith don't provide stories of Muhammad forcing people to convert or die. The Qur'an itself says more than thrice that there is no compulsion in what one wants to believe, so please, save me the embarrassment (embarrassing yourself, that is).//
Stop repeating nonsense and lies Siraj. Should I show you about how Abu Sufyan was converted to Islam by force? And please see historyofjihad.org, then you will understand how Islam spread by force.
And yes, Bernard Lewis argues that The Golden Age of Andalus was a myth created by Jews in 19th century. Both Jews and Christians had to live under status of dhimmah only.
Yes, the Qur'an makes sense to 1.6 billion people who consider it the infallible word of God, and by thousands of interpreters and professors who've researched all that Ali Sina and his likes said, yet still died baring witness to one Lord and Muhammad.
Which verse states you can kill an unbeliever for rejecting Islam again? Thanks!
Seraj,
Just caught a glimpse of this:
You said “Also, there’s a difference between forcing another into believing something, and yourself believing that they have a punishment awaiting them”.
My emphasis was on Allah hatred and how muslims justify themselves to kill unbelievers. The punishment is a result of your Allah’s hatred. Makes sense, Allah is a god of hate.
Here’s the logic:
You cannot enforce Islam on unbelievers, but you can kill unbelievers for rejecting Islam.
Really Seraj, does Quran makes sense?
Seraj,
Obviously those two rabbis didn’t know that around 4000 Jews were massacred by muslims in Al-Andalus at 1066.
Alright Seraj,
Ad hominem taken and set aside.
Please focus on our arguments here, shall we?
And you’re wrong, i don’t get intimidated.
On the contrary Seraj, i believe yours is going to hell. You live in a lie, you believe the words of mass-murderer and you worship Satan.
Now Seraj, i’ve been reading your links. And to my understanding your links trying to say that Muhammad never interacted with Christians and that they never set foot in Hejaz during Muhammad’s time. Do correct me if i’m wrong.
Are you serious?
Also, it's not what "Seraj says", it's what I quoted off two Rabbis I saw on a site asking about the Golden Age for Judaism. Do your research.
Juste,
LOL. So wait, your intimidated by a punishment you don't believe in? Lmao. Also, there's a difference between forcing another into believing something, and yourself believing that they have a punishment awaiting them. Yes, I do believe that your butt is going to hell. Why? Because you illogically follow this fraud and aren't verifying for yourself. I can only pray for you.
Seraj said:
“The Jews under Islamic rule in Andulus was the Golden Age for Judaism…”.
Juste says:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_mas…
This is what Seraj wants to believe:
“The Qur’an itself says more than thrice that there is no compulsion in what one wants to believe”,
This is what Seraj will most likely be denying:
There are over 100 verses in the Quran alone that speak of Allah’s hatred toward non-Muslims including the punishment that awaits them.
Thomas Carlyle in 'Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,' 1840
"The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only."
[016:125] 'Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.'
And Juste, here you go:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BB… – link #1.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BB… – link #2.
For a rational and logical mind, those two articles should be enough to at least prove that the Bible isn't the source of the Qur'an. However, for the illogical minds which I don't doubt I'll one day cross, there's much more.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BB… – The charge and its implications.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BB… – The prophet's Christian and Jewish wives teaching him the Bible?
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BB… – Waraqa Bin Nawfal teaching the prophet the Bible?
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BB… – What about Salman, the Persian Christian?
John K, after reading your comment, I think I'm convinced that you're Ali Sina. Literally. xD.
"1.6 billion Muslims are Muslims because your ancestors were told to convert or die…"
Exactly what Islamic conquest did the troops force the dwellers of the land to convert? Not one conquest forced the dwellers to convert. In Spain, for instance, a number of Rabbis are quoted as saying "The Jews under Islamic rule in Andulus was the Golden Age for Judaism…".
No, my ancestors weren't told to convert or die, my ancestors chose Islam. You have no idea what kind of background I'm from, nor most of the 1.6 billion Muslims. The problem is, you're lying to yourself. Even the sirah and the hadith don't provide stories of Muhammad forcing people to convert or die. The Qur'an itself says more than thrice that there is no compulsion in what one wants to believe, so please, save me the embarrassment (embarrassing yourself, that is).
Additional point to add here:
According to the highly respected Qur'anic exegesis of Ibn Kathir- early qur'anic commentator and Tabi'un, Sayid ibn Jubayr (who lived at the time of Muhammad, and was a companion of Aisha), had said:
[فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً]
…..Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people." In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,
Human Beings Should Respect the Sanctity of Other Human Beings
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Also reported by another Tabi'un and commentator of the Qur'an, Mujahid ibn Jabr (a student of Ibn Abbas; a paternal cousin of Muhammad) while commenting on verse 5:32:
He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.
Human Beings Should Respect the Sanctity of Other Human Beings
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Being a companion of Muhammad, Ibn Abbas was present around the time these verses were revealed. Together with ibn Jabr, he went through the Qur'an thirty times and memorised the meanings. Muslim scholars consider ibn Jabr to have the highest reliability.
Don't be afraid, Seraj. Come into the light.
We don't believe everything Dr. Sina tells us. We believe everything Islam tells us. Dr. Sina only quotes Quran, Ahadith and Sira. If you think Dr. Sina has been debunked, you don't know Quran and Sunna and you have a low.standard of proof.
Wow. You don't know about ummi? Maybe you would recognize the plural, Ummiyyiina. You only prove my point that Muslims are not knowledgeable about their religion. Apparently you are also unfamiliar with the term "lower textual criticism". The way you use it shows that you don't know what it means.
http://alisina.org/islam-is-fascism/
Your comment illustrates the point in the graphic:
Common elements of Islam with facism:
Histeria
Denial of reality
Thought control
Name Calling
Projection of guilt
It's worse than you think. You think 2.4 billion Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc are being lied to and deceived. But it's worse in Islam. 1.6 billion Muslims are Muslims because your ancestors were told to convert or die. So Islam is not even a religion they wanted, unless they were one of the greedy ones who wanted in on the looting, or one of the lustful ones who wanted in on the sex slaves. So why allow yourself to be shackled by this religion that was forced on your ancestors?
Seraj,
What do we have here?
I thought you said “I can prove to you that Muhammad never had or read the Bible, never met any Christians or Jews for the majority of his mission, and had no relations who knew of these prophets or their stories which strike an unbelievable similarity to the stories of the Bible,”
Now, get on with it. Evidence are abundant that Islam is a lie, now prove to us if Ali Sina is lying.
And on what authority are you believing everything Sina tells you? I'm afraid if you believe 1.6 billion people are being lied to and deceived, then perhaps we should agree that Ali Sina may indeed be lying your butts off and you lot are believing every single thing he says. His accusations have been debunked, debunked, and debunked (my favourite by Osama Abdullah of Answering-Christianity).
Since books of Islam 'are' (not 'is', my friend) absurd, then Ali's so called 'critical analysis' of them is pointless. Wow.. :D.
And John, no, ordinary Muslims aren't called ummi, and scholarship doesn't involve lower textual criticism. How's it you came to the conclusion of this? Because you don't agree with something means it's lower textual criticism?
islamicawareness.org
answering-christianity.com
bismikalamullah.org
I'm deeply distressed at how you've been lied to, deceived, and twirled into Ali's little finger. I won't be coming to this sad Ali-worshiping cult again ;).
We should Treat Muslim same way as Mohmmad treated non muslim his time(killing), then only truth will come out.
Dr Ali Sina, PLEASE POST THE CHALLENGE BOLDLY AND IN RED COLOR here as well as on faithfreedom.org Now the challenge is back for Gods sake, but please MAKE IT BOLD and proper. CRUCIAL PIECE OF SCHOLARLY articles are now hidden inside this website, with only news and superflous things on the homepage. There should be easy access to Islamic claims' answers, and FAQs must immediately be posted on the home page. The earlier site was excellent. The so-called revamped faithfreedom.org will only lose readers. Dr Sina, PLEASE POST THE CHALENGE BOLDLY IN RED COLOUR ON FAITHFREEDOM.ORG and make a catagory titled "EVIDENCE THAT ISLAM IS FALSE" Under which there should be 2 sections. Section 1- "Answering claims that Islam is true" and 2- Mistakes in the Quran. See this site has tried to do it like this, so that it becomes easy to answer Islamic claims. http://www.islaminindia.org/evidence-that-islam-i….
I expected that you will boldly paste the challenge on alisina.org just like faithfreedom.org But instead I find that the so-called revamped faithfreedom.org also has removed the challenge from its homepage! The challenge should be easily accessible, there should a clear catagory "Evidence that Islam is false" answers to all Muslimc laims should be easily accessible, and important debates and articles should be listed prominently. Dr Sina you will now lose 90 % OF THE NEW AND CASUAL AUDIENCE IF YOU USE THE REVAMPED FAITHFREEDOM..ORG . PLEASE POST THE CHALLENGE BOLDLY AND IN RED COLOR here as well as on faithfreedom.org
This is how one should propogate one's views: http://www.islamreligion.com
This is a must read article. One must frighten Muslims with Hell if they cant understand in other ways. http://www.islaminindia.org/who-will-go-to-hell
FOR GODs SAKE SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING AND GET DR SINA TO REVERT TO THE ORIGINAL SITE. WE CANT LOSE 90 % OF THE CASUAL AUDIENCE LIKE THIS. NOW FAITHFREEDOM.ORG SHOWS PAGES WHEN I click on any catagory- like say "Debates". It shows pages from 1 to 29, but after page 4 no page is opened. That means no one can read the debates from page 5 to page 29. 😡 Same is the case for all other catagories like Quran etc. After 4 pages no page is opened. My apostasy challenge to Muslims is also not readable- doesnt open. God's sake…please revert to the earlier site- and post a catagory easily accessible "Evidence Islam is false" under which you should answer all d claims of the site http://www.islamreligion.com This site http://www.islamreligion.com is very popular and advertized hugely. For Gods sake dont become a news site with news of whats happening somewhere in the world on Islam. Be different.
No Seraj. You are coming here with an intellectual vacuum in your brain. Islam didn't just fall off the truck yesterday. If you knew anything at all about academics and scholarship you would have an idea about what is known and not known about Islam. And yes, I do have degrees, and so does Dr. Sina.
Islam is one of the most knowable religions on the planet, if not THE most knowable for a variety of reasons. One is that Muhammad's life is not in ancient history. He comes along in the Middle Ages and his life is probably the most documented of any life we have. His biographies run in the thousands of pages as do his traditions, called the Hadith.
Another thing that makes Islam so readily accessible is Muhammad's low IQ. He wasn't very smart, and he was not educated, so his intellectual product is not very deep. Another thing that helps is that Islam is 64% political, so understanding Islam isn't much harder than understanding a political speech. In fact the Quran has a great deal of repetition precisely because because he traveled and spoke like a politician looking for votes and like contemporary politicians repeated the same things to different audiences.
Now your proposition is nonsense because scholars over the centuries have thoroughly analyzed Islam's texts and know precisely what was borrowed and from where. It is even known that much of what he borrowed was from psuedepigrapha and apocrypha rather than authentic texts. In fact, in Sura 14:9 he alludes to the legends of Ad and Themoud from the Books of Abraham, and when he found out it was a forgery in 616 AD, he never mentioned them again. Other than that, Muhammad's contact with Christians and Jews and his access to their texts are well documented. In fact, he himself acknowledged himself as having been a member of the Hanyfite sect, and their texts are known.
Another advantage of Islam being political in terms of ease of study is that it is also a very legalistic system, which has lent itself well to a stable legal tradition which is agreed upon by all variants of Islam in 75-80% of its content. So legal texts such as Reliance of the Traveller [sic] readily endorsed as authentic Islam and Sharia Law to this day. In fact, Al-Azhar University, the most authoritative Islamic body, has recently endorsed it.
Karen Armstrong, by the way, is a dhimmi and her work is worthless. The evil in the Quran makes it evident that it was not written by a real God. Read it yourself and see, or get Dr. Sina's book and see it in an orderly and systematic order. It will save you a lot of work.
Since Muslims assume the Quran to be the word of god and Muhammad to be his messenger, Islamic "scholarship" only involves lower textual criticism with no higher criticism at all. In Islam, the clerics are called the ulama, or learned, and the common Muslim is called ummi, or unlettered. Islam has no knowledge-based tradition the way we understand it in the West, so that's why most Muslims come here unable to talk intelligently.
Seraj,
“According to my knowledge Ali Sina is no scholar of Islam”.
How can you be sure again?
By all means Mr. Seraj Schoar of Islam, do share what you know that we don’t.
PS: The term “Scholar of Islam” is very confusing. Books of Islam is absurd. So, There is no “Scholar of Islam”.
I'm afraid I'm shaking my head as I scroll once again on the Comments section, it really disturbs me. Now, John and Juste, since you've got me here let's take a little challenge, shall we? According to my knowledge Ali Sina is no scholar in Islam, he's read a couple of books and papers but by no means has he filled out any Islamic courses concerning Political Islam, Islamic History or basic Qur'anic Teachings and Science of the Hadith. His articles rely on the reliability of "greats" who are by no means exempt from erring in their analysis and by no means have an authority over other Muslim scholars such as Karen Armstrong or Meryll Wyn Davis.
Now, my question is, you probably both believe that Muhammad got his stories from the Bible? The stories of Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, and other prophets – which were explained in detail, and sometimes more detail than even the Bible – are all unoriginal. Now, if I can prove to you that Muhammad never had or read the Bible, never met any Christians or Jews for the majority of his mission, and had no relations who knew of these prophets or their stories which strike an unbelievable similarity to the stories of the Bible, would you have to admit that the only source of these stories would then be the same God who sent down those previous prophets?
Either you are a liar or you haven't read your books.
Seraj,
Right!
BTW, still waiting for you to refute Sina. So everybody know once and for all who lied. Sina or Muhammad.
This is the first time I've scrolled on your site in a while, and I dropped by this article. How wonderful. How pitiful.
You just seriously don't know what to write anymore, so your resorting to arguments which make no point whatsoever. There's a million ways to refute this article letter for letter, but I'm not gonna bother until you address my rebuttals on other articles. I just have one message for your followers who consider you a "hero". Guys, can you not see how wonderfully he's twirled you into his little finger? He's your "hero", "Mr. Dr. Ali Sina sir"? Oh give me a break, and study Islam for yourselves. Not this liar.
Peace.
'But if the ignorant ones speak to you in an ill conduct, return to them saying: 'Peace!' ~ Qur'an [25:63].
Dear Mr. Duratma Gandhi,
Tariq Ramadan once said:
“We all cherish freedom of speech, but with a reasonable approach and a reasonable use of it. If we come to this, it is a debate. If not, then it is a power struggle. Who is going to win, the Muslim principles or the Western principles?”
I can not help but wondering:
so, in a sense, with regards to Mr. Ramadan, we all (including muslims) support freedom of speech, right? There would not be a case where oppositions of Islam demolished.
I would say facts speak for themselves, Islam does not cherish freedom of any kind (somebody correct me if i am wrong about this).
So i support you when you said:
“The problem with the current crop of pseudo-intellects (similar to the problem with gandhi-era idiots) is that they seldom look at the Quran or the Tafseer or the
Ahadith”.
Or..
“Without looking at the scripture, they simply look at how “humane & kind” the *PEOPLE* are”.
as if they have ever came up with one.
It actually permits killing the unbelievers
This is your strong area, Dr. Sina.
.
The problem with the current crop of pseudo-intellects (similar to the problem with gandhi-era idiots) is that they seldom look at the Quran or the Tafseer or the Ahadith.
.
Without looking at the scripture, they simply look at how "humane & kind" the *PEOPLE* are – and start terming anyone question such an approach Islamophobes. Being "phobic" about some entity that's caused some of the greatest losses to human life is not irrational – and yet idiots (like gandhi) continue to placate intolerance & barbarism (a.k.a Islam).
.
MN
A brilliant analysis. Let's see if any Muslim comes up with refutation.
May I propose that my dear hero, Dr Ali Sina, dig out all the lies found in the first page to the last page of the Quran, starting from Muhammad's horrible claim that his Allah is the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and right down to the last page of the Quran, especially the part which he lied about Jesus Christ and compiled it into a book, entitled "Muhammad Lied!". I strongly believe that it will sell like hotcakes.
…-unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land…
So this verse basically permits revenge killings.
Muhammad settle disputes with war and killings. That was all that he knew as a lawless Bedouin that he was. That’s why many ayahs prescribe killings. He forgot all this when he misquoted Qs 5:32. He thought the Talmud sounded so beautiful, he just had to copy that particular verse from Talmud to the Quran.
Muhammad heard things from somewhere and he misquoted it, and put in Quran.
He heard the story of Jesus died at the cross and he thought, no, this is not right. So, he was baffled. Either he was to refute Jesus as the Son of God or change the story of his crucifixion altogether. He could not refute Jesus so he decided to changed the story instead.
He heard the story of Moses created a well for the Jews in the middle of the desert in the Old Testament. He decided to make it more dramatic, so he came up with 12 wells instead of one. One for each tribe of Israel.
Not to mention all other silly misquotes regarding names/titles in Quran like referring Mary mother of Jesus as Aaron’s sibling.
These silly mistakes are immediately detectable if you use your brain reading the Quran.
Too bad muslims seldom use theirs.
It is rather unfortunate that when you show the Muslims the true picture, all they are left with are a few verses from the Quran. Other than this they also come back claiming the miracles and misquote a fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
Nothing else, yet they argue.
My sincere regards once again to you Mr. Ali Sina for clarifying and uncovering the truth behind one the most widely used argument by the Muslims yet again.
Sincerely
There is nothing scientific in the Quran. The Quran is a book of nonsense. Muslims interpret the obtuse verses of Muhammad in any way they like. Every day they find something new and interpret it to fit it with the Quran/ If the Quran had any scientific information, Muslims should have been at the the forefront of science. Yet we see the are the most backward people on the planet. The people who are most hated by Muslims, i.e. the Jews have acheived a thousand times more success than Muslims in science. This shows those who follow the Quran actually become stupid.