What is happening dear Edip? Why is it that I feel like talking to an answering machine? You have completely neglected my questions and like all your fellow co-religionists resorted to copy-pasting. Where are the answers to these questions:
1- How can Muhammad�s character be irrelevant to his claim? How can we be sure that he was not a liar? What if he lied for the same reason Jim Jones and thousands of other charlatan, impostor cult leaders lie manipulate and control the foolhardy?
2- Muhammad made so many bogus claims about being the best of the creation, and a perfect example to follow. How can we verify these self adulating claims? And how are we supposed to follow his examples as Allah asked us to do in the Quran if we are not allowed to read his history or believe it? You reject his biography in its entirety (except the part that is not incriminating) so can you tell us how else can we know him to comply with the Quranic injunctions and follow his examples? Or are you saying those verses where he said follow my example and I mentioned before are all later day fabrications? Are we supposed to take those verse and the verse 33:21 that says "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)" seriously or not?
3- I asked you to explain the meaning of Sura 111 and Sura 38:41-44 without referring to hadith, tafseer and Sira, by merely trying to decipher their meanings from the Quran. Can you do that? These are just two examples. Most of the Quran is incomprehensible without hadith and tafseer and I will keep pointing them out as we touch them.
4- We also talked about the Quran's claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine (5:60) and said �Be ye apes� (2:65, 7:166). These are not metaphors. No scholar has understood them as metaphors because the texts make it clear that they are not metaphors. Can you explain to us how this absurdity is possible? How come such an amazing phenomenon was not recorded in any book prior to Muhammad saying such thing? How can such a ridiculous statement be compatible with science? Remember, it was you who said �We will get to the scientific accuracy� of the Quran�. Explain this please scientifically.
5- You claimed Muhammad wrote the Quran with his own hand. I asked how do you know that. Where is your source? Why should we believe you when he himself claimed to be illiterate and unable to read. 7:157 , 6:22
6- You made the claim that ummi does not mean illiterate but gentile. I quoted the verse 2:78 were Muhammad alludes to the Jews and calls them ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ because they can�t read their book. What is your response?
7- We talked about sura 33 and I said this sura is not self explanatory. I asked you to tell us who are the �confederates� mentioned in verse 20 and from where they did not withdraw. Explain that without any reference to hadith or tafseer.
Guys, these questions are not answered. if you can answer please, write here so that Ali Sina finds his way :laugh:
Peace Freemind0,
As typical of all other 19ers, when cornered logically and intellectually, Edip is accustomed to use their strategy to either hypocritically remain silent or throw insults on those who question him.
Yours truly,
K.Vivekanandan
Quote from: Freemind0 on September 03, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
What is happening dear Edip? Why is it that I feel like talking to an answering machine? You have completely neglected my questions and like all your fellow co-religionists resorted to copy-pasting. Where are the answers to these questions:
1- How can Muhammad�s character be irrelevant to his claim? How can we be sure that he was not a liar? What if he lied for the same reason Jim Jones and thousands of other charlatan, impostor cult leaders lie manipulate and control the foolhardy?
2- Muhammad made so many bogus claims about being the best of the creation, and a perfect example to follow. How can we verify these self adulating claims? And how are we supposed to follow his examples as Allah asked us to do in the Quran if we are not allowed to read his history or believe it? You reject his biography in its entirety (except the part that is not incriminating) so can you tell us how else can we know him to comply with the Quranic injunctions and follow his examples? Or are you saying those verses where he said follow my example and I mentioned before are all later day fabrications? Are we supposed to take those verse and the verse 33:21 that says "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)" seriously or not?
3- I asked you to explain the meaning of Sura 111 and Sura 38:41-44 without referring to hadith, tafseer and Sira, by merely trying to decipher their meanings from the Quran. Can you do that? These are just two examples. Most of the Quran is incomprehensible without hadith and tafseer and I will keep pointing them out as we touch them.
4- We also talked about the Quran's claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine (5:60) and said �Be ye apes� (2:65, 7:166). These are not metaphors. No scholar has understood them as metaphors because the texts make it clear that they are not metaphors. Can you explain to us how this absurdity is possible? How come such an amazing phenomenon was not recorded in any book prior to Muhammad saying such thing? How can such a ridiculous statement be compatible with science? Remember, it was you who said �We will get to the scientific accuracy� of the Quran�. Explain this please scientifically.
5- You claimed Muhammad wrote the Quran with his own hand. I asked how do you know that. Where is your source? Why should we believe you when he himself claimed to be illiterate and unable to read. 7:157 , 6:22
6- You made the claim that ummi does not mean illiterate but gentile. I quoted the verse 2:78 were Muhammad alludes to the Jews and calls them ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ because they can�t read their book. What is your response?
7- We talked about sura 33 and I said this sura is not self explanatory. I asked you to tell us who are the �confederates� mentioned in verse 20 and from where they did not withdraw. Explain that without any reference to hadith or tafseer.
Guys, these questions are not answered. if you can answer please, write here so that Ali Sina finds his way :laugh:
Peace,
Respectfully.
1. 69:40-47 This is the utterance of an honorable messenger. It is not the utterance of a poet; rarely do you believe.
Nor the utterance of a soothsayer; rarely do you take heed. A revelation from Lord of the worlds. And had he attributed anything falsely to Us. We would have seized him by the right. Then, We would have severed his life-line. None of you would be able to prevent it.
2. Can you provide evidence from The Quran where any messenger/prophet said that he is the best of creation or messenger/prophet Muhammad for this case?
3. Chapter 111 is easy and simple to understand, what is it that you don't understand about it, if i may ask?
Same goes for 38:41-44. What exactly you don't get, if i may ask?
4. Read The Quran carefully.
5. Messenger/prophet Muhammad was illiterate but then The Exalted God The Most Merciful taught him to write and read, have you read chapter 96?
6. I think you should find the word hadith in The Quran and see how The Exalted God has used it and then look at the volumes and volumes of "sahih" hadith by some people who claim to be named Bukhary nand this other fella who claims to be called Muslim, right, nice, how conveniant.
I might change my name into honest person or a truthteller.
Glory be to our God, The MOST Merciful.
Peace.
Freemind,
I cant speak for Edip, but perhaps he did not respond to these questions because they are nonsensical?
Quote from: Freemind0 on September 03, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
What is happening dear Edip? Why is it that I feel like talking to an answering machine? You have completely neglected my questions and like all your fellow co-religionists resorted to copy-pasting. Where are the answers to these questions:
1- How can Muhammad�s character be irrelevant to his claim? How can we be sure that he was not a liar? What if he lied for the same reason Jim Jones and thousands of other charlatan, impostor cult leaders lie manipulate and control the foolhardy?
2- Muhammad made so many bogus claims about being the best of the creation, and a perfect example to follow. How can we verify these self adulating claims? And how are we supposed to follow his examples as Allah asked us to do in the Quran if we are not allowed to read his history or believe it? You reject his biography in its entirety (except the part that is not incriminating) so can you tell us how else can we know him to comply with the Quranic injunctions and follow his examples? Or are you saying those verses where he said follow my example and I mentioned before are all later day fabrications? Are we supposed to take those verse and the verse 33:21 that says "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)" seriously or not?
3- I asked you to explain the meaning of Sura 111 and Sura 38:41-44 without referring to hadith, tafseer and Sira, by merely trying to decipher their meanings from the Quran. Can you do that? These are just two examples. Most of the Quran is incomprehensible without hadith and tafseer and I will keep pointing them out as we touch them.
4- We also talked about the Quran's claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine (5:60) and said �Be ye apes� (2:65, 7:166). These are not metaphors. No scholar has understood them as metaphors because the texts make it clear that they are not metaphors. Can you explain to us how this absurdity is possible? How come such an amazing phenomenon was not recorded in any book prior to Muhammad saying such thing? How can such a ridiculous statement be compatible with science? Remember, it was you who said �We will get to the scientific accuracy� of the Quran�. Explain this please scientifically.
5- You claimed Muhammad wrote the Quran with his own hand. I asked how do you know that. Where is your source? Why should we believe you when he himself claimed to be illiterate and unable to read. 7:157 , 6:22
6- You made the claim that ummi does not mean illiterate but gentile. I quoted the verse 2:78 were Muhammad alludes to the Jews and calls them ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ because they can�t read their book. What is your response?
7- We talked about sura 33 and I said this sura is not self explanatory. I asked you to tell us who are the �confederates� mentioned in verse 20 and from where they did not withdraw. Explain that without any reference to hadith or tafseer.
Guys, these questions are not answered. if you can answer please, write here so that Ali Sina finds his way :laugh:
Even if Ali Sina is right and the Quran is bogus....his ways is fruitless.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the claims in the Quran. It is take it or leave it.
So trying to prove or disprove and going all forensic will end up in failure.
Quote from: Wakas on September 03, 2009, 08:39:41 AM
Freemind,
I cant speak for Edip, but perhaps he did not respond to these questions because they are nonsensical?
Peace :
It is the commonest reply rather master key reply if one does not have answer for ANY QUESTION.
"It is useless ,sensless question"
Have this master key and apply it to thousands of questions of any subject.What an easy scholarly approach it is .
Regards
Believing in the Quran is a philosophical leap.
God KNOWS that we have no evidence for what the Quran says.
We trust in God blindly.
It is our logic and reason that made us eat from the tree.
The most dangerous knowledge is an incomplete one.
peace QS,
You could be right, but then again, you may not be. So how does a
person of logic determine which is right? Quite simply, they weigh the evidence. So, let us select the first question in the list to see if it is nonsensical or not. It should be noted, that by "nonsensical" I mean "illogical".
I will separate it out as it contains several questions:
QuoteHow can Muhammad's character be irrelevant to his claim?
I assume by "claim", Muhammad's messengership/prophethood is being referred to, i.e. his claim to have delivered a divine book. Firstly, the truth/validity of a statement is not determined by the author/messenger for that statement. This is a well known logical fallacy called "ad hominen":
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
If I may provide an example, so a
person of logic may understand this: if Hitler were to say "humans need to eat and drink to live and grow". Is this statement incorrect because he was a tyrant and committed unjust deeds on a mass scale?
Of course not. A
person of logic will recognise the fallaciousness of this type of argument.
There is also crossover into this fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html), and this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) one.
But let's say, for sake of argument that someone's character is relevant to one's claim. Then the people who are debating must agree upon the source(s) being used to determine the character. If Ali Sina for example used Traditional Ahadith, then Edip does not agree to their authenticity, thus they simply cannot be used. Or if they are used, it proves nothing because Edip would not agree. If, on the other hand, Ali Sina used The Quran, then these would have to be dealt with.
QuoteHow can we be sure that he was not a liar?
He may well have been, but how does one verify a truth? Or determine the likelihood/validity of a statement?
The very first descriptive word used to describe 'al quran' (apart from a writ/kitab) is 'hudan', a guidance, a direction. That is its purpose, plain and simple.
How does one verify a guidance? If you buy a desk with assembly iinstructions, how does one verify the guidance received with the desk is correct/truthful? Like most books, like most truths, it is its contents that determine its integrity. It stands on its own, and it can only be defeated on its own.
QuoteWhat if he lied for the same reason Jim Jones and thousands of other charlatan, impostor cult leaders lie manipulate and control the foolhardy?
Classic Red Herring fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
But also see:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html
########
All is needed is for a
person of logic to carefully read and analyse each question to determine if they are nonsensical or not. Of course, this requires a pre-requisite of having logic.
Quote
1- How can Muhammad�s character be irrelevant to his claim? How can we be sure that he was not a liar? What if he lied for the same reason Jim Jones and thousands of other charlatan, impostor cult leaders lie manipulate and control the foolhardy?
I'm not Yuksel, but I'd like to hazard some replies for my own benefit. I don't think Muhammed's character is irrelevant. I'd like to hear the answer to that as well. However, judging someone's character after 1,400 years based on a convoluted mess of tradition is impossible. Heck, judging the character of a living politician is a shot in the dark. Perhaps the Quran itself should be the only reflection of character (though it was supposedly not composed but 'received').
Quote2- Muhammad made so many bogus claims about being the best of the creation, and a perfect example to follow. How can we verify these self adulating claims? And how are we supposed to follow his examples as Allah asked us to do in the Quran if we are not allowed to read his history or believe it? You reject his biography in its entirety (except the part that is not incriminating) so can you tell us how else can we know him to comply with the Quranic injunctions and follow his examples? Or are you saying those verses where he said follow my example and I mentioned before are all later day fabrications? Are we supposed to take those verse and the verse 33:21 that says "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)" seriously or not?
The problem is there are Hadith that are self-adulating and others that are profoundly modest. Which to believe? If picking only the 'nice' ones is dishonest, then so is focusing on the incriminating ones.
Quote3- I asked you to explain the meaning of Sura 111 and Sura 38:41-44 without referring to hadith, tafseer and Sira, by merely trying to decipher their meanings from the Quran. Can you do that? These are just two examples. Most of the Quran is incomprehensible without hadith and tafseer and I will keep pointing them out as we touch them.
Again, I'm not Yuksel, but not only can't those verses be interpreted without assistance, they can't accurately be interpreted WITH outside commentary. Tafsir would just be speculative (as it always is).
Quote4- We also talked about the Quran's claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine (5:60) and said �Be ye apes� (2:65, 7:166). These are not metaphors. No scholar has understood them as metaphors because the texts make it clear that they are not metaphors. Can you explain to us how this absurdity is possible? How come such an amazing phenomenon was not recorded in any book prior to Muhammad saying such thing? How can such a ridiculous statement be compatible with science? Remember, it was you who said �We will get to the scientific accuracy� of the Quran�. Explain this please scientifically.
Since Yuksel rejects tradition I can't imagine he'd be bothered by the fact that no orthodox scholar interprets those verses figuratively.
Quote5- You claimed Muhammad wrote the Quran with his own hand. I asked how do you know that. Where is your source? Why should we believe you when he himself claimed to be illiterate and unable to read. 7:157 , 6:22
He never claimed (outside Hadith) to be illiterate and there are verses in the Quran that suggest otherwise. But I don't know how much emphasis Yuksel puts on the claim that Muhammed wrote the Quran himself.
Quote"6- You made the claim that ummi does not mean illiterate but gentile. I quoted the verse 2:78 were Muhammad alludes to the Jews and calls them ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ because they can�t read their book. What is your response?"
There's no indication (within the Quran itself) that it refers (only or at all) to Jews. It refers to believers which could easily include gentiles. In fact, 'illiterates' is an awkward term considering the context.
Quote from: Wakas on September 03, 2009, 02:39:22 PM
peace QS,
You could be right, but then again, you may not be. So how does a person of logic determine which is right? Quite simply, they weigh the evidence. So, let us select the first question in the list to see if it is nonsensical or not. It should be noted, that by "nonsensical" I mean "illogical".
I will separate it out as it contains several questions:
I assume by "claim", Muhammad's messengership/prophethood is being referred to, i.e. his claim to have delivered a divine book. Firstly, the truth/validity of a statement is not determined by the author/messenger for that statement. This is a well known logical fallacy called "ad hominen":
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
If I may provide an example, so a person of logic may understand this: if Hitler were to say "humans need to eat and drink to live and grow". Is this statement incorrect because he was a tyrant and committed unjust deeds on a mass scale?
Of course not. A person of logic will recognise the fallaciousness of this type of argument.
There is also crossover into this fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html), and this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) one.
But let's say, for sake of argument that someone's character is relevant to one's claim. Then the people who are debating must agree upon the source(s) being used to determine the character. If Ali Sina for example used Traditional Ahadith, then Edip does not agree to their authenticity, thus they simply cannot be used. Or if they are used, it proves nothing because Edip would not agree. If, on the other hand, Ali Sina used The Quran, then these would have to be dealt with.
He may well have been, but how does one verify a truth? Or determine the likelihood/validity of a statement?
The very first descriptive word used to describe 'al quran' (apart from a writ/kitab) is 'hudan', a guidance, a direction. That is its purpose, plain and simple.
How does one verify a guidance? If you buy a desk with assembly iinstructions, how does one verify the guidance received with the desk is correct/truthful? Like most books, like most truths, it is its contents that determine its integrity. It stands on its own, and it can only be defeated on its own.
Classic Red Herring fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
But also see:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html
########
All is needed is for a person of logic to carefully read and analyse each question to determine if they are nonsensical or not. Of course, this requires a pre-requisite of having logic.
Peace :
The problem is not if the questions can be answered or not. I was talking about the "MASTER KEY ANSWER " which unfortunately I have seen many times on this forum.
This "MASTER KEY ANSWER " (The question is sensless, it is not a relevant question,it is not essential to know,the context determines it etc) appears only when one becomes answerless. I have seen this even from Sunnis.
No matter who he is ,this is a sign of lack of knowledge.
The other very common reaction is "the responder starts slandering either the questioner or the lexicographer just to hide one's own ignorance."
Such things can statisfy one's ego but the readers take very bad impression.
Another very common sign of ignorance is "Conradiction". In one post one goes on quoting "Lisan ul Arab" but in other posts starts Slandering it. In one post one starts quoting Asad , Omar Abdul Mannan but in other posts starts slandering other Mufassirines.
It happens when "Lie has no legs to stand on"
Regards
Peace
Quote from: Freemind0 on September 03, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
1- How can Muhammad�s character be irrelevant to his claim? How can we be sure that he was not a liar? What if he lied for the same reason Jim Jones and thousands of other charlatan, impostor cult leaders lie manipulate and control the foolhardy?
As Wakas has already pointed out, your above arguements are fallacious.
I just wanted to add:
68:1 N, the pen, and what they write.
68:2 You are not, by the blessing of your Lord, crazy.
68:3 You will have a reward that is well deserved.
68:4 You are blessed with a great moral character.
Quote from: Freemind0 on September 03, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
2- Muhammad made so many bogus claims about being the best of the creation, and a perfect example to follow. How can we verify these self adulating claims?
Good question. Hadiths are not reliable.
Quote from: Freemind0 on September 03, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
And how are we supposed to follow his examples as Allah asked us to do in the Quran if we are not allowed to read his history or believe it?
It's IN (yes IN) the Quran. There is an article on free-minds that deals with this. I cant find it right now, sry.
Quote from: Freemind0 on September 03, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
3- I asked you to explain the meaning of Sura 111 and Sura 38:41-44 without referring to hadith, tafseer and Sira, by merely trying to decipher their meanings from the Quran. Can you do that? These are just two examples. Most of the Quran is incomprehensible without hadith and tafseer and I will keep pointing them out as we touch them.
Edip-Layth - End Note 1 (111:1)
The expression Abu Lahab means the "father of flame" or provocateur. Traditional commentaries tie this description to Muhammad's uncle Abd al-Uzza bin Ab al-Muttalib. Even if the first person who was implied by this verse were Muhammad's uncle, the chapter by using a metaphor rather than a proper name, refers to all despots and their allies who oppress people because of their ideas and convictions. In this chapter, the wife has two different roles: either she is supplying more fuel for her husband in support of his bigoted campaign against muslims, or she is supplying fuel for her husband who is burning himself with flames of hatred. Some of the followers of the hadith and sunna, who consider the name to be only a proper name, present this chapter as evidence for the divinity of the Quran, by arguing that Abu Lahab could have falsified the Quran simply by professing Islam after hearing these verses about him. This assertion is the product of poor thinking. If the Quran was the product of Muhammad, Muhammad would never accept his conversion to Islam, and would continue condemning him with additional accusations, such as, him being a lying hypocrite. And Muhammad would be right (not necessarily in his claim of the origin of the Quran) regarding Abu Lahab, since he could never honestly acknowledge the truthfulness of a book condemning him to be a misguided loser; his conversion would create a contradiction. In other words, such a claim cannot be falsified, and thus cannot be used as an example of prophecies.
Quote from: Freemind0 on September 03, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
4- We also talked about the Quran's claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine (5:60) and said �Be ye apes� (2:65, 7:166). These are not metaphors. No scholar has understood them as metaphors because the texts make it clear that they are not metaphors.
So you're the one who decides what is to be taken metaphorically and what is to be taken literally?
Quote from: Freemind0 on September 03, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
5- You claimed Muhammad wrote the Quran with his own hand. I asked how do you know that. Where is your source? Why should we believe you when he himself claimed to be illiterate and unable to read. 7:157 , 6:22
It's God who claims this:
25:5 Waqaloo asateeru al-awwaleenaiktatabaha fahiya tumla AAalayhi bukratan waaseelan
25:5 They said, "Mythologies of the ancient people; he wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening."
Quote from: Freemind0 on September 03, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
6- You made the claim that ummi does not mean illiterate but gentile. I quoted the verse 2:78 were Muhammad alludes to the Jews and calls them ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ because they can�t read their book. What is your response?
2:76 When they come across those who acknowledge, they say, "We acknowledge!", and when they are alone with each other they say, "Why do you inform them about what God has said to us? Then, they would use it in an argument against us at your Lord. Do you not reason?"
2:77 Do they not know that God knows what they conceal and what they declare?
2:78 Amongst them are Gentiles who do not know the book except by hearsay, and they only conjecture.
2:79 So woe to those who write the book with their hands then say, "This is from God," so that they can seek a cheap gain! Woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have gained.
2:80 They said, "The fire will not touch us except for a few number of days." Say, "Have you taken a pledge with God? If so, then God will not break His pledge. Or do you say about God what you do not know?"
2:81 Indeed, whoever gains a bad deed and his mistakes surround him; those are the people of the fire, there they abide eternally.
Is this enough, or do you need further elaboration?
Quote from: Freemind0 on September 03, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
7- We talked about sura 33 and I said this sura is not self explanatory. I asked you to tell us who are the �confederates� mentioned in verse 20 and from where they did not withdraw. Explain that without any reference to hadith or tafseer.
33:20 They thought that the opponents had not yet mobilized. If the opponents do appear, they wish that they were out in the desert, seeking out news for you. Even if they were among you, they would not have fought except very little.
Muhammad's Exemplary Courage in the Battlefield
33:21 Indeed, in the messenger of God a good example has been set for he who seeks God and the Last day and thinks constantly about God.
33:22 When those who acknowledge saw the opponents, they said, "This is what God and His messenger have promised us, and God and His messenger are truthful." This only increased their faith and their peacefully surrender.
33:23 From among those who acknowledge are men who fulfilled their pledge to God. Thus, some of them died, while some are still waiting; but they never altered in the least.
33:24 That God may recompense the truthful for their truthfulness, and punish the hypocrites if He so wills, or accepts their repentance. God is Forgiver, Compassionate.
Edip-Layth - End Note 5 (33:21)
Those who idolized Muhammad have taken the verse out of its context and have abused it to justify volumes of stories presented as Muhammad's actions (sunna). The verse refers to Muhammad's bravery and constant remembrance of God during the war. The Quran refers to some other good leadership qualities of Muhammad (3:121, 159; 9:40) as well as some of his weaknesses (33:37; 80:1-16). Those who deserted the Quran (25:30), instead of following the progressive teaching of the Quran, extended this good example to irrelevant individual or cultural behavior. They introduced numerous rules to be mimicked, such as Muhammad's clothing, diet, toothbrush, beard, walk, sleep, and even urination. They sanctified growing beards and wearing turbans, ignoring the fact that the Meccan idol worshipers, such as Abu Jahl and Walid b. Mugiyra also had long beards and wore turbans. They adopted a whole concoction of medieval Arabic, Jewish and Byzantine cultures as God's religion. They regressed to monkeys like previous generations (2:65; 5:60; 7:166). What is worse, the actions and words ascribed to prophet Muhammad have depicted him with a character that is far from exemplary. The Hadith books portray the prophet as a phantasmagoric character with multiple personalities. That character is more fictitious than mythological gods and goddesses, such as Hermes, Pan, Poseidon and Aphrodite. He is a pendulous character, both bouncing up to deity, and down to the lowest degree. He is both wise and a moron. He is sometimes more merciful than God and sometimes a cruel torturer. He is both perfect and criminal, humble and arrogant, chaste and a sex maniac, trustworthy and a cheater, illiterate and an educator, rich and poor, a nepotistic and a democratic leader, caring and a male chauvinist, a believer and a disbeliever, prohibiting Hadith and promoting Hadith. You can find numerous conflicting personalities presented as an exemplary figure. Choose whichever you like. This peculiar aspect of Hadith collection is well-described by the prophetic verses of the Quran (68:35-38). Furthermore, a similar statement is made about Abraham: "A good example has been set for you by Abraham and those with him" (60:4, 6). If verse 33:21 requires Muhammad's hadith, then why would the verses 60:4,6 not also require Abraham's hadith? Which books narrate hadiths from Abraham? Obviously, the only reliable source for both examples is the Book of God, which narrates the relevant exemplary actions. It also warns us not to repeat the mistakes committed by Muhammad (33:37; 80: 1- 10). See 3:18; 3:159; 60:4. 42:21.
17:41 We have cited in this Quran (all kinds of examples), that they may take heed. But it only augments their aversion.6:38 There is not a creature in the earth, or a bird that flies with its wings, but are nations like you. We did not leave anything out of the book; then to their Lord they will be summoned.25:30 The messenger said, "My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran."
peace QS,
QuoteThis "MASTER KEY ANSWER " (The question is sensless, it is not a relevant question,it is not essential to know,the context determines it etc) appears only when one becomes answerless
Incorrect. It can also appear when the question one is being asked to respond to is fallacious. As proven in this very thread.
QuoteNo matter who he is ,this is a sign of lack of knowledge.
Not necessarily. On the contrary, it can sometimes be a sign of knowledge, as the person being asked the question recognises the fallacies within the question (even if the questioner does not) and therefore chooses not to respond to them. Personally, I tend to respond to fallacious arguments to the extent of pointing them out. If a person persists in bringing logical fallacies to the table, I will ignore them.
If readers see this non-response as a sign of Ali Sina or whoever has got the upper hand, then this just means they also cannot recognise a fallacious argument when they see one.
QuoteAnother very common sign of ignorance is "Conradiction". In one post one goes on quoting "Lisan ul Arab" but in other posts starts Slandering it. In one post one starts quoting Asad , Omar Abdul Mannan but in other posts starts slandering other Mufassirines.
It depends on if you understand what a "contradiction" is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions
Therefore quoting Lisan ul Arab in one post to support one's view, then slandering it in another post is not necessarily a contradiction. It depends. It would be a contradiction if it were as follows "Lisan ul Arab is correct all the time, thus I will post evidence from it to support my view" then in another post saying "Your evidence from Lisan ul Arab does not matter as it is not always correct".
Of course, only a
person of logic can understand these differences. A site I recommend:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
A site I refresh myself with from time to time.
Quote from: Wakas on September 03, 2009, 05:06:18 PM
peace QS,
Incorrect. It can also appear when the question one is being asked to respond to is fallacious. As proven in this very thread.
Not necessarily. On the contrary, it can sometimes be a sign of knowledge, as the person being asked the question recognises the fallacies within the question (even if the questioner does not) and therefore chooses not to respond to them. Personally, I tend to respond to fallacious arguments to the extent of pointing them out. If a person persists in bringing logical fallacies to the table, I will ignore them.
If readers see this non-response as a sign of Ali Sina or whoever has got the upper hand, then this just means they also cannot recognise a fallacious argument when they see one.
It depends on if you understand what a "contradiction" is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions
Therefore quoting Lisan ul Arab in one post to support one's view, then slandering it in another post is not necessarily a contradiction. It depends. It would be a contradiction if it were as follows "Lisan ul Arab is correct all the time, thus I will post evidence from it to support my view" then in another post saying "Your evidence from Lisan ul Arab does not matter as it is not always correct".
Of course, only a person of logic can understand these differences. A site I recommend:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
A site I refresh myself with from time to time.
You can say because you use all these methodologies.
Regards
Quote from: Q_student on September 03, 2009, 05:21:06 PM
You can say because you use all these methodologies.
Regards
Thanks for demonstrating the following logical fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
Quote from: Wakas on September 04, 2009, 08:16:50 AM
Thanks for demonstrating the following logical fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
Peace
instead of these www.blablabla
try to get guidance from the Quran.
Regards
Quote from: Q_student on September 04, 2009, 08:19:46 AM
Peace
instead of these www.blablabla
try to get guidance from the Quran.
Regards
:rotfl:
Yeah, It's not like the quran asks you to use logic or anything...
As I said to QS before:
When reason is against a man, the man will soon be against reason. ~Hume
Quote from: TheJoker on September 04, 2009, 02:45:35 PM
:rotfl:
Yeah, It's not like the quran asks you to use logic or anything...
Hahaha lol.
Logic is a gift from The God. Some people just want to live blindly with their fallacies.
PEACE
Quote from: Prince on September 05, 2009, 12:24:58 PM
Hahaha lol.
Logic is a gift from The God. Some people just want to live blindly with their fallacies.
PEACE
Peace :
You are absolutely right.But Logic + Knowledge is a boon.Otherwise one falls in the trap like person who caught a fly and put it on the table and said ,"Go".The fly flew away. He repeated the action second time. The third time when he caught hold of another fly and plucked out its feather and said ,"Go". The poor fly could not fly away .He concluded :
IF THE FEATHERS OF THE FLY ARE PLUCKED AWAY ,THEN THE FLIES CANNOT
LISTEN.It is the result of LOGIC without KNOWLEDGE.
Regards
Quote from: Q_student on September 05, 2009, 07:11:36 PM
Peace :
You are absolutely right.But Logic + Knowledge is a boon.Otherwise one falls in the trap like person who caught a fly and put it on the table and said ,"Go".The fly flew away. He repeated the action second time. The third time when he caught hold of another fly and plucked out its feather and said ,"Go". The poor fly could not fly away .He concluded :
IF THE FEATHERS OF THE FLY ARE PLUCKED AWAY ,THEN THE FLIES CANNOT LISTEN.
It is the result of LOGIC without KNOWLEDGE.
Regards
It could still 'hear' with it's second wing (a fly doesnt have feathers, fyi). :laugh:
I get your point though. But this doesnt negate the fact that logic is a great gift from God and that it should be used frequently, if not all the time?
Quote from: Q_student on September 05, 2009, 07:11:36 PM
Peace :
You are absolutely right.But Logic + Knowledge is a boon.Otherwise one falls in the trap like person who caught a fly and put it on the table and said ,"Go".The fly flew away. He repeated the action second time. The third time when he caught hold of another fly and plucked out its feather and said ,"Go". The poor fly could not fly away .He concluded :
IF THE FEATHERS OF THE FLY ARE PLUCKED AWAY ,THEN THE FLIES CANNOT LISTEN.
It is the result of LOGIC without KNOWLEDGE.
Regards
No, it is the result of fallacious logic, but not actual logic:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/questionable-cause.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
Although, it doesn't surprise me you cannot tell the difference.
Quote from: Wakas on September 06, 2009, 08:44:33 AM
Although, it doesn't surprise me you cannot tell the difference.
Oooh lol!!
Edip Yuksel didn't Answer Ali Sina
3 September 2009
QuoteWhat is happening dear Edip? Why is it that I feel like talking to an answering machine? You have completely neglected my questions and like all your fellow co-religionists resorted to copy-pasting. Where are the answers to these questions::
I spent about a month debating with Ali Sina; he was too eager to feed himself and others from piles of literary garbage called hadith. Our debate is posted at www.19.org and soon it will be published in a book together with my debates with other islamophobic warmongers such as Robert Spencer. If you read my debate with Ali Sina you will learn that Ali Sina lost the arguments repeatedly.
Quote1- How can Muhammad's character be irrelevant to his claim? How can we be sure that he was not a liar? What if he lied for the same reason Jim Jones and thousands of other charlatan, impostor cult leaders lie manipulate and control the foolhardy?
It is relevant, but it is not necessary, which I will briefly explain below. A first hadith books that tell us stories about his character were collected and written more than two centuries after Muhammad's departure. In other words they have no credibility. Second, if you still wish to use those sources to engage in character assassination as your guru Ali Sina had attempted, you must also believe that he had the sexual power of 30 men (a strange yet a miraculous feat!), that he split the moon into two pieces and one piece fell in Ali's backyard, etc. No, if you tell us that you will only pick the trash you like from those piles of hearsay reports, then I will tell you have it and eat it too. Now let me explain why hearsay reports about Muhammad's character is not necessary. The Quran itself, through its scientific accuracy and numerical structure is a living proof for its divine nature. So, instead of evaluating verifiable and falsifiable evidence, I will not indulge in digging historical garbage cans.
Quote2- Muhammad made so many bogus claims about being the best of the creation, and a perfect example to follow. How can we verify these self adulating claims? And how are we supposed to follow his examples as Allah asked us to do in the Quran if we are not allowed to read his history or believe it? You reject his biography in its entirety (except the part that is not incriminating) so can you tell us how else can we know him to comply with the Quranic injunctions and follow his examples? Or are you saying those verses where he said follow my example and I mentioned before are all later day fabrications? Are we supposed to take those verse and the verse 33:21 that says "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)" seriously or not?
First, you have no evidence that Muhammad claimed to be "the best of the creation," except hearsay reports where you can find all flavors of Muhammad. As for Muhammad being an example... Instead of looking too far, if you paid attention the context of the verses you would realize that it was about his bravery in defending the men, women and children who were attacked and killed by polytheist religious bigots and aggressors. If you are attempting to use the Quran to justify your invitation to dig hadith books, then you must be consistent in your using the Quran. The same Quran mentions Abraham too as a role model. It is obvious that the Quran was not advocating its readers to find collections of hearsay reports about Abraham. You should respect the context of the text you are quoting.
Quote3- I asked you to explain the meaning of Sura 111 and Sura 38:41-44 without referring to hadith, tafseer and Sira, by merely trying to decipher their meanings from the Quran. Can you do that? These are just two examples. Most of the Quran is incomprehensible without hadith and tafseer and I will keep pointing them out as we touch them. :
I have answered that in the endnote of the Quran: a Reformist Translation. You may read it at www.quranix.com. I cannot repeat and rewrite the same thing over and over for every person who has the same question. Since you are specifically addressing me and accusing me of not answering some questions, then you should know about my most relevant work for your question: QRT. But, like many critics with little attention span, you choose not to read the ideas of people you are so passionate to criticize. "Edip I have not read your translation of the Quran; but you did not answer this or that person's questions about this or that verses of the Quran" How does it sound? If you had done this several decades ago, I would not be able to criticize you this way. But, now you have electronic versions of the book freely available at your fingertips. On top of that you do not even need to read the entire book to check whether I have answered your question; all you need is to pick a key word and click on the "search" function of Microsoft Word, PDF, or google.
Quote4- We also talked about the Quran's claim that God transformed the Jews into apes and swine (5:60) and said 'Be ye apes' (2:65, 7:166). These are not metaphors. No scholar has understood them as metaphors because the texts make it clear that they are not metaphors. Can you explain to us how this absurdity is possible? How come such an amazing phenomenon was not recorded in any book prior to Muhammad saying such thing? How can such a ridiculous statement be compatible with science? Remember, it was you who said We will get to the scientific accuracy of the Quran. Explain this please scientifically.:
The Quran contains numerous metaphors and I believe that the verses you are referring to are using metaphors. Here is the related discussion from the Quran: a Reformist Translation:
002:065 Turning to monkeys and swine is most likely a metaphor indicating their spiritual and intellectual regression since verse 5:60 adds another phrase, ?Servants of the aggressor?, which does not depict a physiological transformation. Also see 7:166. Jesus likens his own people figuratively to swine and dogs (Matthew 7:6; 2 Peter 2:22). Swine was regarded as the most filthy and the most abhorred of all animals (Leviticus 11:7; Isaiah 65:4; 66:3, 17; Luke 15:15-16). See 5:60; 7:166).
Quote5- You claimed Muhammad wrote the Quran with his own hand. I asked how do you know that. Where is your source? Why should we believe you when he himself claimed to be illiterate and unable to read. 7:157 , 6:22 :
I have discussed this issue numerous times. So, do not expect me to write it AGAIN or paste it here. You can easily find my reasons for my claims by visitng www.quranix.com and it will take you only one click to find the article in the introductory section of QRT. Besides, you can find the older version of it at: http://www.yuksel.org/e/books/rtq.htm which will take you only one click, perhaps less than a calorie :) Again, is it too unfair to expect from my critics to read my work before accusing me of not answering a particular question?
Quote6- You made the claim that ummi does not mean illiterate but gentile. I quoted the verse 2:78 were Muhammad alludes to the Jews and calls them ummayoon ْ أُمِّيُّونَ because they cant read their book. What is your response?:
So far, this is the only novel question I read. Whoever came up with this criticism, I acknowledge that it has merit since its context is indeed about Jews. However, I would like to remind you that the word Ummy is contrasted to the People of the Book and Jews are considered to be the People of the Book in general. Ummy does not describe inability to read, but lack of knowledge of divine books. Meccan Arabs were called Ummy, not because the Quran was referring to their illiteracy per se, but their lack of knowledge about Torah and Injeel.
Quote7- We talked about sura 33 and I said this sura is not self explanatory. I asked you to tell us who are the confederates mentioned in verse 20 and from where they did not withdraw. Explain that without any reference to hadith or tafseer. :
It depends what you expect from the Quran. If you are expecting it to be a history book; it is not. You might have similar questions for every history book, since you could still have questions about more details and more details. I have no problem in understanding the message of the chapter 33 without knowing those irrelevant details. Tell me my friend: what it would change in my understanding of the points made in those verses if I knew the name of confederates?
QuoteGuys, these questions are not answered. if you can answer please, write here so that Ali Sina finds his way :laugh::
If you are visiting his website drop him this news: 17:91 and