Messages

11

General Issues / Questions / Re: WHY NO ACTION IS TAKEN AGAINT DANISH?

« on: August 08, 2006, 09:56:36 PM »

Myr:I will just tell one thing to all the members who do not believe in the Quran and in the ONE who revealed it.  There are plenty of other forums for you where you can express your "spirituality" if any.

Hear, hear.

Danish isn't here to 'express his sprituality'. He's here to defecate and urinate upon the beliefs of others. He has no other place to vent.

I feel sorry for the admnistrators/moderators, I realize they are not that different from the way the Arab league operates or the UN, bureacracy and hierarchy that produce no action, nothing.  In fact, they are even not up to the mission of free-minds described on the site.  Very sad. 

One difference. The UN is a paper tiger while our mods have the power. They just choose not to use it. In my view, the Quranic response would be to eliminate troublemakers (defined as ppl who are out to insult and mock without ever having discussed anything) from this forum.

12

General Issues / Questions / Re: WHY NO ACTION IS TAKEN AGAINT DANISH?

« on: August 08, 2006, 09:50:03 PM »

The specific ayat (10:92) doesn't mention Firaun by name. Another error. Have you yourself read this ayat?

Nice try, Everwhine. Too much 'dung sura' readings has clogged your brain. Why don't you try actually reading it instead of the misreading you usually do? From 10/90, who is being spoken to ? 10/92 addreses ONE person, not many , a fact you'd no doubt know if you're reading was 1/10th as good as your flatulent posting.

13

Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: Fat forbidden for the jews,was it realy?

« on: August 08, 2006, 11:25:46 AM »

S2S:Allow me to rephrase my statement. It is my opinion that Bro Simple is making up new meanings for this aya that is not based on metaphor. According to Bro Simple himself, he uses the dictionary to find another meaning to the same words. Therefore, he's not using the same definitions, only using them metaphorically instead of literally - he is using a whole new set of definitions. In other words, he's not saying cow symbolizes something else... he's saying cow isn't even the right definition.

Right, I take your point here and sadly I lack the linguistic resource to answer you.

Finding metaphors and mithaal like you stated, is 100% fine and I have no problem with it. If he told me he believes the cow symbolizes something else, all of my posts would be totally different. He's telling me the word Al-Baqar is a verb that means to cut.

Right, clearly it's not a verb but a noun. You're right once again.

I may be completely wrong in my original hypothesis that this aya is talking about Jews and their dietary laws. But the only way to discuss it is thru looking at the words and the grammatical structures of them. This is why I asked for his definitions of those two crucial words. And when we established that these 2 words are not verbs but are nouns, then according to him the quran was modified. That basically ends the debate with me, because we both must take the quran to be without error as a given for us to discuss anything in it. Or else anything I say will just be thrown out as a modification. It's completely fine if this is his belief. I would have liked to see a more fruitful discussion breaking down all the words in the aya instead of stopping at just those two... but it's better to leave it alone if it has the potential to create bad feelings between folks.

AQ lays out the groundwork, if you like, as a prelude to the exercise of understanding. 'Alladhina haadu' isn't used in AQ anywhere as a religious sect during the time of Musa. Further, to typologise such people according to their heritage is contrary to teachings of AQ.

I consider AQ error-free and if one's understanding is incorrect, contradictions will appear. Such has been the case with much of my understanding over the years in salaat, zakaat, hajj etc.

I will try to work on Simple's explanation once I obtain more linguistic resources.

shukran wa salam.

14

Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: Fat forbidden for the jews,was it realy?

« on: August 08, 2006, 10:28:34 AM »

Enquirer :Easy peoples. I must say that simples' method of translation is one of the better methods on the forum...(relatively speaking.) Taking the quran literally results in many contradictions and problems...The chopping of hands,whippings and sticks turning into snakes are just a few examples of what happens with literalism...Sticking to literalism is a very perilous and harmful position... see 17:36

Show the contradictions. You've started a whole thread about this before, the believers totally rebutted you and now you're up with your lies again.

When i first heard of people reading the quran without hadith

25 years ago, don't forget.

i was unconvinced,then later when folks interpreted quran without 'literalism i was again unconvinced,

It's difficult to be convinced when you don't think about it.

now im at the stage where i dont even feel we need a book or god to be decent people.....

A decent person actually doesn't accuse without evidence, or is that ok in your book?Of course, once one gives up Allah, one can do as one pleases. Please don't keep up the pretense of being decent, its nauseating.

pps; i feel the excessive use/reliance upon grammer,linguistics and verbal forms can distort the message of many books...

Excessive LACK of knowledge is dangerous too.

15

Questions/Comments on the Quran / Re: Fat forbidden for the jews,was it realy?

« on: August 08, 2006, 10:23:03 AM »

Salaamun alaikum,

AB:bro the Quran is not about finding new conspets for the verses and I can see that is what you only do really

You're right. It's not about finding new concepts for the verses. It's about finding out original concepts of AQ and this is what Simple is doing. I may not agree with all of his conclusions, but he's asking some very deconstructive questions.

S2S:I apologize if this sounds harsh, but you really can't just pick an aya that doesn't make sense to you, and instead of trying to understand it, make up things. This is really not how deen works at all. If there are issues you have with quran I would suggest you try to research thru the real meaning, because there is a big danger in attributing falsehood to God's Word.

Respected sister, Simple's not making up things. What he's doing is rejecting the presupposed notions many of us take into AQ in our quest to understand it. Lets not forget that Allah doesn't disdain from using mathalan to teach us lessons (2/26).

These were dietary laws for the Jews in order to test them. Much like their test with the she-camel. Much like their test with the cow. It is to discern the faithful from the hypocrites.

The only way for us to corroborate this is through history, a big no-no when it comes to Quranic study.

Kyle:The God does not expect us to blindly believe some commandment, PROOF is required for all that we do. Why would the God command only a section of mankind to not eat the fat of an animal? What about the NON jews of that time period? Was the God condoning sectarinism?

Quite right. 'jew' is an interjected sunni term. AQ is about our lives now, not about a religious sect thousands of years ago.

16

General Issues / Questions / Re: WHY NO ACTION IS TAKEN AGAINT DANISH?

« on: August 08, 2006, 05:12:29 AM »

Pink:Another angle to consider is...does he force one to think about the issue, educate themselves further and serve a purpose in this manner?  On the other hand, is this the manner in which people want to have to think of these issues or has it become a nuisance?

Speaking for myself, I say force shouldn't be needed to think about an issue. An issue as important as this - giving our loyalty to an external entity - is heavy and so needs heavy thought. My loyalty to this deen isn't blind and is open to criticism. But yes, the manner with which he levels his criticism, that's the problem. 

Personally, I'd like to see progress. Danish is anti-progress. He works on the broken record m.o. He cannot have a meaningful exchange and move on because it then nullifies his whole purpose of being here : to vent.

17

General Issues / Questions / Re: WHY NO ACTION IS TAKEN AGAINT DANISH?

« on: August 08, 2006, 01:25:39 AM »

Well put discussion, AB. Shows that 'budn' is not the same as 'nafs'. If it was 'bi nafsika' it would indeed be a contradiction.

18

General Issues / Questions / Re: WHY NO ACTION IS TAKEN AGAINT DANISH?

« on: August 08, 2006, 01:18:20 AM »

Are you afraid of my criticisms or your book? If you are afraid of your book, then all you need is to discuss my criticisms presented.

Either this person is completely deluded or he's quite a liar.  Danish has given criticisms of AQ in the past but has *never* stood up to respond to responses. I now realise that to call him an 'intellectual eunuch' is wrong because there's nothing intellectual about him. He's simply a psycho who needs a place to be psychotic. And thanks to the graciousness of this forum, he's found it.

Danish:Are you willing to discuss this matter with me along with other Moses's tales?

I'm willing to discuss anything with you on the condition that you discuss instead of running off whenever your criticism's been answered. Ok, so you don't believe in Allah, that's your affair but do you not also believe in DECENCY? Is it 'decent' to provoke answers but run when answers have been given.

19

General Issues / Questions / Re: WHY NO ACTION IS TAKEN AGAINT DANISH?

« on: August 07, 2006, 11:59:44 PM »

Salaamun alaikum Myr,

I applaud your straightforwardedness about Mr Everwhine here. The guy tries to play innocent by pretending to ask sincerely what you mean but of course it's all pretense.

Everwhine's tactic is as follows:

1. Coming in with the most rubbish, second-rate critiques which he can get off the net.

2. Having sincere believers answer him.

3. Completely ignoring them or changing the subject.

I'll show you evidence of this:

Danish:According to the Quran, was Firoun and his troops drowned (2:50, 28:40, 17:103) or were they preserved (10:92)?

Look at the syntax of this..'was Firaun and his troops drowned OR were they preserved'.

Why is it 'OR' ? Why can't it be 'subsequently' ?

Secondly, did Everwhine actually read 10/92? If he did, why did he think Firaun's troops were preserved in body? The ayat only mentions Firaun.

Well done Myr, but your complain will fall on deaf ears.

20

Discuss Latest World News / Re: muslim in space and salat

« on: August 06, 2006, 12:11:56 AM »

It is not 'Allah' that is protecting the Muslims, but the Muslims protecting their 'Allah'.

This comment was for Shamsul's other posting about God being on the side of USA and Israel but it still exposes once again the sheer ignorance of Everwhine.

Allah is with al-muttaqeen, as-sabireen but never with a people because of their name. 'The muslims' in the world today have , in my experience, shackled AQ and this is the consequence.

But don't bother telling Everwhine, leave him to his rants.