Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mquran

Pages: 1 ... 255 [256] 257
General Issues / Questions / Discrepancy Between 39:53 and 4:48?
« on: September 26, 2003, 08:51:50 PM »
Dear Dr No,

I thought we're supposed to be the backward followers of a 7th century charlatan and you're meant to be the rationalist helping us see the light of truth about religious charlatanry.

Yet so far, all I can see are whines about we are mimicking tactics of bible apologists. Why not salvage your credibility by actually diving into the issue and counter-refuting us. I have personally given an answer in this thread. Prove that Im wrong.

General Issues / Questions / Discrepancy Between 39:53 and 4:48?
« on: September 25, 2003, 10:37:55 PM »
Salaamun alaikum,

Firstly, we need to see the meaning of 'ghfr'. 'ghfir' is usually translated as 'forgive', but this is inaccurate. The more accurate understanding is 'protect' or 'shield from harm'.

Please see this url :

the word in 39/53 is 'dzunub'. Allah will 'ghafr' all dzunub. Does the Quran say 'shirik' is a dzunub ?

Shirik rather is the SOURCE of dzunub.

So as long as you have shirik in you, Allah will not protect/ghafr you from dzunub. But if you are Allah's servant , as 39/53 calls to, then Allah will protect you from all dzunub.

Don't let the translations get in the way, guys. Look at the transliterations if you can, and you will see that translations are rather callous works sometimes.

thanks and peace.

General Issues / Questions / Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
« on: September 25, 2003, 10:24:33 PM »
Salaamun alaikum Afdhere,

It is hard to explain things to people like you... because you split hairs to find doubts  
In Arabic, when God says "tabi`iin" -- the ARABS of that time, as well as those who are living today... Understand it. Actually, tabi'iin doesn't mean follower but "FOLLOWS AROUND" ...
As for the Hadith, the woman is uncovered in the house with the dude, the Prophet and her brother. And he was talking to her brother.  
BY the way, the Hadith -- like many -- has variations... and one that Aishah narrates says "A man used to enter upon us... " (i.e, he didn't have to knock... )

Split hairs? Look, people split more hairs when they go prospecting for a house or car to buy! This is my eternal fate here, so if I split hairs , I think I'm justified. I don't want to end up with Shafiee or Bukhari on J-day.

So this hadith has many variations? And you're comfortable accepting something which your compilers cannot even agree what actually happened ?

No, actually, most of the stories are told to Muhammad -- to strengthen his belief. It has nothing to do with us. And many times, the ones that concern us... really deal with allegories.
That said, every time I refer to something that predates Muhammad, I try to find the source in that genre.
For example, I study the Bible and Jewish History every sunday  And, of course, it is not so I can become Jewish or Christian.

So the stories in the Quran HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH US ? Wow, amazing. I find it funny that you liberalise yourself in order to reconcile your homosexuality with Islam yet your liberalisation stops dead when it comes to reading the Quran for itself.

12/111 says that in thier story-relationships are archetypes FOR ULIL ALBAAB. You mean to tell me there are no ulil albaab now ? The last ulil albaab was Muhammad ?

Oh, LORD  Are we talking about the Qur'an or just Islamic History since the Qur'an? The Qur'an is the Qur'an everywhere in the Muslim world, with very little varience...

Anyone can write a book and call it 'the quran' thus creating a variance. Az-zikr, the one in eminence, rememberance will always be the ones coming from the mother of cities.

And, no, Fatwas of different jurisprudence schools are so because they disagree on the interpretation. Homosexuality is a good example. Certain schools treat it as Zina... and the non-married Homosexuals don't get stoned.... while others treat it specail and whether muhasan(married) or not, you get stoned to death. That has nothing to do with anything else.

Interpretation ? Go ask a Hambali scholar about his view of qiyaas and ijmaa ? He will tell you that's bid'aa because Hambalites don't believe in this. The very SOURCES of sharia are in dispute by these 4 schools.

Look, I do not read people's hearts. All I know is there aren't many Muslims in the Muslim world who have physical idols. And I'm not going to assert anything beyond that. My job is to get along with folks... and not accuse them of anything unforgivable as that...

There's a big difference between being alladhina-yashraku/those who have shirik and 'al-mushirikeen/those ppl whose shiriks have led them to create mischief on the earth'. The latter people are mentioned in sura 9.

Everyone has a measure of shirik in them unless they become like Ibrahim who was in submission fully to Allah alone. He became imam to mankind and his order was an establishing point for mankind and a place of safety. (2/124-125)

'muslims' today are nowhere near this. Physical idols or lack thereof mean nothing if the idol is a piece of art. It's the 12 non-physical idols we need to worry about.



Science / Chemistry in the Quran: Elements & Temperature
« on: September 25, 2003, 09:48:56 PM »
* First of all since i am not a muslim and we are talking about the quran, not your particular sect or whatever. Then please understand that for fairnes' sakes I cannot just ignore the overwhelming ancient majority in favor for for a new teeny weeny disorganized group of radical muslims like yourselves.

Dear Sir, 'for fairness sake', why don't you give us ONE example from the Sunni law which comes from Al-Quraan ?

Do you call yourself objective by judging the Quraan through what people WHO CLAIM to follow it do ?

* Secondly according to muslims the Christians and Jews are far more severe in NOT acting according to the islamic Scripture. So how come those folks are generally living a more blessed life than the folks who claim to possess & follow the uncorrupted words of Allah? It just doesnt compute. The simplest explanation would be that they are following a far better system than the muslims. The theistic explanation would be that they are the ones in favor of God. And the muslim's prayers are falling on nothing but an invention of a 7th century visionary.

Wow, more of your gargantuan objectivity here once again. So the people in the west are Christians and Jews, are they ? Funnily enough, Christianity has long since ceased to the pan-power structure of Europe yet you still deem them so.

The west has achieved ascendency on the earth because they have conquered the forces of nature to an extent. They have progressed in science and technology. Coincidentally, this is what Al-Quraan commands mankind to aspire to. Sadly, the 'muslims' think fulfilment of religious duties is participating in rituals.

If you want an objective analysis of Al-Quraan, analyse AL-QURAAN.

Science / Chemistry in the Quran: Elements & Temperature
« on: September 24, 2003, 03:05:29 PM »
Peace Joe,

Hey man, its not our loss. We can only point thing out, right?

General Issues / Questions / Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
« on: September 24, 2003, 03:04:06 PM »
Salaam Afdhere,

Oh, brother. OK, so in your opinion, an old guy who can't get aroused (but still gets sexually stimulated inside) is exempt here? I bet you think her father and all of these other men lack sexuality for her, physically, too, right, although they are capable physically... as is the case with the unbelievers or the sick ones amongst the believers? :roll:

Sexually stimulated inside ? How does one do this ?

It has nothing to do with physical. It has to do with psychological. A gay man cannot -- psycologically -- be roused by a woman. So, no matter how much her physical body shows... it means nothing to him, though he is very much capable physically (as the case with some gay Muslims who get married to women, for reasons other than love or sexuality.)

Are eunuchs necessarily gays ? If not, then wouldnt they be included as well ?

ALSO... the verse talks about "THEIR ATTENDANTS .... AMONGST THE MALES"(wa al tabi`iina ... min al- rijjaliThe Hadith, and other historical records, whether "limitting" or not, show who these attendants were.

Im afraid I dont have the arabic original of that hadith but it never says there that the effeminate male was an attendant. 'tabiin' is simply a follower, not necessarily an 'attendant'.

Oh Lord... :roll: Are we talking about the Book of anybody else or the one sent to Muhammad? When I refer to Books sent to other people, I use their life stories (Hadith/Sunna or whatever they call themI'm only for the Hadith of Muhammad when discussing the Qur'an or the Book sent to Muhammad. If you see me referring to his Hadith when I'm talking about the life of Moses, or Jesus, you can tell me :))

The book sent to Muhammad mentions Muhammad by name only 4 times. Most of it is devoted to talking about Musa, Ibrahim, Nuh and Isaa. So by ur logic, u need to be a great bible scholar.

Well I don't look at the text as 'dead' ... but there are some of it that should just stay in the 7th century. I personally don't understand the need for camels today :-P but people all over the place... cling to such old things :)
On a more serious note, if your understanding of certain aspects in the Qur'an changes, it has to do with your own pre-disposed BS from cultures, etc ... not the true understanding of the Qur'an. And another thing your views may change is like I was saying before, if certain terms are not translated correctly (which people don't most of the time,) it can be a difference of day and night :(

No doubt it's to do with my predisposed BS. However, what inspired me to that knowledge was Allah himself. Allah's changing of the ayat in my life brought illumination to the ayat in the Book.


Have you ever studied the history of why Hadith was put in paper? By the way, for the generations living during Bukhari's time, certain names might be "different" to them but not the Hadiths. People grew up with these oral traditions... and somebody just decided to put them in paper... because it was becoming evident that people were just starting to see them as "family tales" even though it was oral history that transcended families.

The same is true for all histories in most of the world. A really good example is the Jewish Historian, Josephus, who put down all the oral history fo the Jewish people... during his lifetime.

And even my own people -- who did not write until the 1970s -- have been ever since recording our own history in paper.

By the way, most of the Hadiths are the same ... both sides (shi'ites and sunnis) ... who were enemies and fought for centuries. Why do you think that is? :shock:

Look, when it comes to your oral history etc, who can say anything against that. But Im talking about GOD'S BOOK here, Afdhere.

Do you know why there's a difference between fatawa of different jurisprudence schools ? Because certain hadith didn't reach them on time. Is this how God treats the thing which explains his revelations ? Come on, man.

This is completely untrue. While I disagree with most Muslims on most subjects, I still recognize they are Muslims. A Muslim is one who submits to God and no one else. This means there is no physical idol in their presence... and they believe in God alone as the sustainer without partners. That definition is from the Qur'an, and it is the same in the Hadiths and their crappy mullahs. I have never met a Muslim who advocates we should worship anyone beside God.

Anything after that is just a bunch of details... which I don't really care about... since God assures me that God forgives anything but idolworship.

So in the 'muslim world' there's no idolworship ? The only one in the quraan who said to be 'wa maa kaana min al-mushrikeen' is Ibrahim. He fulfilled God's kalimaah and became imam to mankind. THe 'muslim world' have imams of rituals. Not the same thing, Im afraid.

My assertion : the 'muslim world' has as much , if not more , shirik as a place on earth.

:roll: Check 24:32 where the word "`abd" or slave is used ... Sometimes I think God mentions certain words that are offensive... just to make sure some folks don't come around making trouble lol.

Ok, so when you say they are not slaves, do you think God says we can have sex with people under our house? Who, like guests? :shock: Sometimes, we are told we cannot be naked in front of anyone except our mates and those whose our right hand posses (see 23:5-6, for example.) The words "who guard their private parts" -- i.e, who do not have sex :-P

'house' here doesnt mean a roof and four walls. It could mean a lady who offers herself to you in marriage and live under your dominion.

sorry if there's an inadequacies in my replies.

thanks and salaam.

Science / Chemistry in the Quran: Elements & Temperature
« on: September 24, 2003, 02:31:28 PM »
Peace Dr No,

About the promise of the Quraan for those who follow its teachings, You wrote:

The miserable and unpeaceful Islamic nations proves that the promise does not work. So no.

Do you consider yourself an objective researcher, I wonder ? The fact that you related 'islamic nations' with Al-Quraan's teachings shows that you completely missed the point of the forum.

General Issues / Questions / Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
« on: September 23, 2003, 08:52:43 AM »
Salaamun alaikum Afdhere,

Since u seem to be swamped with replies, do take your time with yours to me. Im back at work tomorrow and so have not much time to continue.

What about the Hadith in Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 162 -- which talks about Umm Salamah and her "gay" attendant who shows too much not-so-faggy feelings? 24:31's "male attendants" without that Hadith (and other historical records) is like... uhm... so confusing. Hey look just in this thread :lol:

The phrase in 24/31 is simply 'ghair ulil irbaah', or 'not those with sexual vigour' . Whether this vigour is physical or psychological isn't stated. Therefore, this hadith actually limits the application of the ayat. This isn't unusual for hadith.

The history of human al-muslimeen began when Allah said 'I will place a khalifa in the earth' (2/30). Your definition of 'muslim' is Arab-centric. You know what I mean. I'm talking about the people who believed in Muhammad, hence Muhammad and after. Besides, nobody calls themselves Muslims but those people... so...

I know what you mean and I wasn't trying to be pedantic, either. The problem is, this arbitrary label of yours keeps spilling onto your discourse as well. You seem to be for the hadith of Muhammad (so-called) to be included in the Islamic corpus, yet the hadith of other civilisations be excluded. I rather the hadith of Confucian China be included if we need hadith at all. It makes much more sense than the hadith of Muhammad.

And funny ... about your mentioning of asking the questioning when the Qur'an is revealed. I don't think I hear anybody revealing any Qur'an now :) Besides, people were questioning like "What is ROUH? What does it look like?" Much like some of the people in this thread who want to know if the Angels are women :lol:

That's the problem. You look at the Quran as a dead text, a text whose time has passed. No, Al-Quraan is a living text. It gives the prediction of humanity from the beginning to the end.

Revelation is happening ON (alaa) us (3/84) through our understanding of Al-Quraan. Just last year, I had a major revelation about al-hajj and related concepts. This year, it was al-kitaab and ahlul-kitaab. Alhamdulillah. This is a living book.

Now surely you don't think all the thousands of different narrators in all the different hadith books (six main ones, with tons of smaller ones)... have all come together to plot a "way" of thinking? Isn't that a little bit too paranoid? Come on now...

You don't see the thousands of different narrators. All you see are thousands of different NAMES. Names which funnily enough people can easily appropriate for themselves. All they had to do was find a good isnaad and when Bukhari came lookin, just quote it to him. He wouldnt know it from atom.

If I follow your logic, I must disbelieve in all of history and call it satanic. With that kind of logic, no wonder we have people who live in the seventh century :roll: We have people exactly like you in the Muslim world... they are just on the opposite side "All history is corrupted by the bad, bad Jews and Chrsitians" :lol:

You got it upside down. The problem with the people in the world who call themselves 'muslims' are that they take thier definitions from an extra-quranic text. They may be 'muslim' in the sight of bukhari, but in the sight of Allah, not necessarily. They are trying to return to an imagined utopia when in fact the book is speaking to them here and now.

And you didn't get my point about certain parts of the Qur'an being frozen in certain times... unless people keep it alive (like Camels :lol: )

Hadith weren't made up yesterday. The Prophet wasn't riding a mini cooper. THis is where the aql element comes in.

Yes, these ladies could be 'maa malakat aimaan'.
No, that can never be azwaaj :) Why? Because it is not permenant. If the person chooses to become Muslim, they automatically become free. Or if someone else frees them :shock: Then... it is "bye, bye" :(

I don't believe maa malakat ayman are slaves. I believe they are ppl who are righteously under one's dominion or house. These people can have non-love based relationship with that person.

Right... but that is because God mentions "love" in that verse. As I mentioned before, we only got one heart ... as God says :)

One heart, yes. For HIM not for anyone else (33/5).

Well, it is certainly more than the genders, that is for sure. Because you will see in instances where "among"/"from" is used for certain males and females (24:60 is a good example.)

Good point. I would also point out phrases like 'nisaaul muminaat' in 48/25. 'al-muminaat' by itself would have been sufficient.

thanks and salaam.

General Issues / Questions / Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
« on: September 22, 2003, 02:49:23 PM »
Salaamun alaikum again Afdhere

On the other hand, those who look at the Hadith as complete "Satanic" are also on a dangerous route.

Well, I didn't want to focus on this, but as a brother pointed out, not answering can be tantamount to admitting ones mistake, I will answer.

Please tell me a single hadith which, if I consider to be satanic, will affect my understanding of al-quraan.

As far as I'm concerned, the Hadith are the history of early Muslims, begining with Muhammad. It is Human history, which means it is full of errors. But it should be noted that there are most certainly stuff in the Qur'an that God mentions in passing (like all the wrong things Muhammad does, for example) ... where the Hadiths lays out in detail.

The history of human al-muslimeen began when Allah said 'I will place a khalifa in the earth' (2/30). Your definition of 'muslim' is Arab-centric.

As a human -- and a being that is naturally 'curious' -- I wanna know what "wives" made the dude see something lawful as unlawful. I wanna know what "wife" he was supposed to take after Zaid. I wanna know--- well, you get the picture ;-) What can I say.... I love drama lol.

Well, lets see what the Quraan says to that:

O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, God will forgive those: for God is Oft- forgiving, Most Forbearing. (33/37)

As for drama, surely Dallas or Dynasty will suffice ?

When people like Bukhari went around collecting the Hadith, they didn't intend to collect another Qur'an (though that is certainly the case now with many Muslims... sigh... ) but rather for people like me who had NO idea what the world was like for Muhammad -- the man who recieved the Qur'an -- to understand his life... his times... how people thought, etc.

How people thought or how whoever related that hadith WANTED US TO BELIEVE how they thought ?

Manipulated perceptions come in real handy. Ask the Christian polemecists when they use hadith. They LOVE Bukhari.

You must understand, the Messengers of God are nothing but humans like you and me. God would NEVER communicate with them on a different level. And, believe it or not, I'm far intelligent today than Muhammad was... as a man, as you are... as the next dude in today's world is. If the Qur'an was revealed to you or me or someone else living today, it would be totally a different Qur'an. If nothing else, you would see lots of lawsuits in the Qur'an :lol:

Actually, the Quran IS being related on us today itself (11/120, look out for the phrase 'naqussu ala'). The problem is, there's an extra-quranic corpus of text blocking that organic process. Historicising the Quran, as it were.

Yes, it does. There is no point in 'subjegating' women in that time. They already were. It was the men that were humiliated and abused.

Sorry, Im not getting this. I will reread your article again.

I'm sure you mean 'romantic' love. And, yes, there are relationships without love. For example, Muhammad was asked to marry a woman... to make a point. It had nothing to do with love. Also, men are allowed to marry up to four wives, though God tells us that a man cannot love more than one since God only gave him one heart. As mentioned above, there are scholars that argue those 3 other women are supposed to be the mothers of orphans (as was the case with the early Muslims) ... which certainly means they were not in love with them at all. Just to be fathers to those children... and/or to give them more children.

Yes, these ladies could be 'maa malakat aimaan'.

That said, certainly zawj applies -- i said before -- to anyone who is a significent other to you, wheter you love them or not. Zawj is the consenting [romantic] relationship between two beings.

Im beginning not to think so now. I think zawjiyya is related to a one-one relationships only. Please see 30/21 where the word 'ilaiha', a singular form is used despite plurals being used throughout.

My humble suggestions are also to look up rijaal and nisaa usage in the Quraan. I do not believe these are related to physical gender alone.

thanks for your input.

General Issues / Questions / Islam, Homosexuality & the People of Lot
« on: September 22, 2003, 05:08:50 AM »
Salaamun alaikum Afdhere,

Sorry for my late reply. Work commitments, Im afraid.

Yes, I remember you. What I have always said is that the Hadith are not as perfect as the traditional Muslim makes..... nor is it as whacked ('satanic') as all these new forces claim. Like always, the answer is more moderate; the Hadith contain a lot of true and false narrations and it is up to the human being to decide, with the Quran's help.

No problem there, as usual I respect your view. To me, hadeeth is a hindrance in the path towards understanding al-quraan.

To answer your question, because Lot was offering "love" and that was not what they were after. They were after power and subjegation.
The word azwaaj/mates demonstrates that they already were happy, as mate is the natural source of romantic happiness (i.e., significent other.)

So the gender of the offered 'daughters' doesn't come into it ?

If zawj is the word denoting a 'love-based' partnership, is there a partnership in the Quraan which isn't love-based ?

Could you elaborate further please ? I think you're on to something here but at this point, I cannot decipher it.


Pages: 1 ... 255 [256] 257