Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 ... 10
That's what I believe also and shafi's debate seems to show that people didn't do salat everyday. They had no rakah either.

Salaam reel

Do you have a link for his debate? Thank you
Quranic Divinity / Re: Quran and Women & Patriarchy
« Last post by Makaveli on Today at 07:28:02 PM »
Only females?????

Explain me, also if you can you may combine your response with your reasoning of a defensive war, just saying, how can a woman take a man-slave without having another man (her master/provider/chief/lord/husband/caliph/sultan/you name it) give her a slave? How is it biologically possible for women to take other men as "their right hand possess"? Unless we talk about lovers outside of marriage and not war bounty, then please also explain the inconsistency of no sex before marriage.

Joking. Don't bother. I know you are not good at sectarian apologetics.
Introduce Yourself / Re: Peace be upon you.
« Last post by The Artis Magistra on Today at 06:41:22 PM »
Wow! I love hearing about the spiritual evolution and progress of people. For me, I think maybe all that I do is what I enjoy or believe might gain me in merit as well, or to try to do good and justice out of a natural urge to help regardless but with a hope for reward now and later too, but something about praising Allah via the truth is a rewarding experience at least for me since I seem to keep doing it.

I think disliking certain things can be ok or important. I've seen people become sort of twisted in two ways, both in extremes of unreasoned opposition and tolerance or support. I just recall the Qur'an saying that hatred of certain evil is sort of the natural state of the believers. I really dislike when people are bad to animals or people for example. Its really almost like a persons deep reactiom to certain things, like some people can stomach things I can't. Speaking of which there have been articles linking gut bacteria and flora to different personality traits which can apparently be changed, they even traced it to being potentially connected with homosexual behavior. Weird stuff that Allah is ultimately making up and doing and people barely even know what is going on. I enjoy your writing and wouldn't mind to see more about your story, journey, moments of major changes or realization, and progress or evolution and tips, which I think can help you and everyone to write about if you wish.
Quranic Divinity / Re: Quran and Women & Patriarchy
« Last post by Makaveli on Today at 05:47:33 PM »
Is the Quran a patriarchal text? Why are women spoken of often in terms of their sexuality in the Quran? (eg. Mariam is described as good for being "chaste"; dress code for women (and slave women?); the issue of "whom your right hand possesses", genderless Allah always being referred to as He etc etc)

Please share your thoughts, it's something I am really struggling with, unpicking the patriarchal interpretations from what the actual text is saying.

Thank you

They fail to define Allah or Qur'an as a whole. One thing is iblees, sectarians claim it is a devil like dude who is refered as al-kafiirun (2:34), when he is clearly not one of them, at all. There are gazzilion of inconsistencies in the Qur'an and everyone is trying to impose his/her opinion on the subject and use their primitive apologetics, like in this thread, whereas the text itself is highly nonsensical. Such as there are 4 possible spouses mentioned in 4:3, but what (if at all?) does it have to do with the orphans? All wives are orphans? And why the same text repeats itself in 35:1 when talking about the angels?

Traditional interpretation of Qur'an is patriarchal one way or the other. It talks about executing authority and maintenance of hierarchal servility, which is always a patriarchal notion. And it 'promises' certain 'companions' for devoted ones, which are hinted to be females. It also constantly mocks those that it defines as al-kafiirun, and promotes the established of a fascistic regime (which is always patriarchal), where blind slaves like Gerrans will persecute and mock those they define as al-kafiirun. Any attempt at reasoning with these people, however, leads to them parroting certain dogmas like "if God wills he will guide you" while they blatantly fail to back their claims by the text itself. Funny thing they actually claim to be "open-minded", "thinking for themselves" and "non-sectarian".

One who uses (mostly female folk here) the he/she argument (i.e. no gender specified) without properly [re]understanding the Qur'an altogether (i.e. using traditional interpretations) is basically a blind liar, he has no basis to use he/she in verses when they are clearly attributed to men.  :ignore:

However, it is not that simple with the Qur'an. You have to look deeper, unless you want to remain in the dogma.
Anyways, first you use the manual called Quran and get the result. Only then we will go over your questions or if God wills he will lead you to answers without anyone's help. You need to meet him. He can explain things better. At this point, you seem to be thinking that Islam from Quran must be as same as Talmudism and Bukharism. Trust me, things don't work like that.

So apparently you've used your intelligence capacity to the maximum but could not explain to the slightest bit the meaning of the "defensive war" , which you apparently found in the book, which, as some may claim, contains all the answers? Well, once again, who will execute the punishment? Which political regime or ideology does Qur'an advocate? Democracy? Authoritarian liberalism/Libertarianism? Socialism? Who is going to execute the 100 lashes to one of the spouses who commits adultery? By the way, how many spouses can a person have and how many wings are there in angels (35:1)? Who are you going to protect yourself from [as a community]? Do you think the biblicians or the tanakh'ists will fight side by side with you as the "people of the Book"?

Don't be silly. I asked a simple question, how is it that the so-called "defensive war" is made 'lawful' and who will decide on the war-time policy i.e. when to attack, or when to defend? Don't tell me to "trust the book", if you are sincere when you say you "understand" the message of the Qur'an, please tell me what is "defensive war" and how is the community going to 'practice' it in case of a warfare? Just one example. Were the U.S. Iraq or Afghanistan or even Syrian missions "defensive"?

Also funny to see how you moved away from the answer by shifting to the parroting argument "if God wills". If you understand the Qur'an better, tell me [God willing]. 

And please quote where I said anything about the Talmud or Bukhari. It is you who needs gazzilion of "acts and regulations", without which I do not see how your "Qur'anic system of governance" can work.

When Quran is applied

Means never? Give me your vision (not a step-by-step guide, since I assume you have no clue what you are talking about, or what you 'believe' in) of how are you going to destory all of the cultures so everybody will accept a single Book as their primary guidance? This is getting ridiculous already, try to impress me.

You will know it if you actually follow the Book.

Oh, I do know, regarding the fighting part as you already mentioned. I want you hear your reasoning, my sole purpose here is to grasp how can you defend your own arguments.
^^^ nonsensical is taking أبى (aby) root ء ب ي‏
which means أَبَى  يَأْبَى‏‎ to refuse
to mean "father" in below verses...

Once again, who is ibless when in fact this word has its concrete meaning in the lexicon (to be broken/blurred)? What is ibless? Just give me one concrete definition. Why call it an arabic word, when you can tell it in English. Why is 'he' refered as kafiirun when it clearly is not a case as I already explained (2:8-19)? What is etymology of iblees and why, compared to satan, it has no occurances in other Semitic languages?

Who told you iblees is a noun? The sectarian/tafsiir interpretation? How are you even different? 

Remove the hamza diacritic and your verb argument is destroyed.

Lane's Book I, p. 12. ابى is used as relationship to fathership, the relationship of a father.

You can't say ابى to mean just a father, that is true, but in combination with ابليس it becomes clear as relationship to a father, i.e. broken/blind/confounded/perplexed to a father.

Also answer my theological questions first.

How about you prove the country can be run on Qur'an alone? If you believe your state is ran by Qur'anic laws and/or regulations, make it clear. Freedom of religion is in every culture, so why Qur'an?

And how are you going to run the state based on Qur'an alone?

I personally don't care about the police, you do. So, where in Qur'an is it? Will you rely on reason instead? Then why do you need Qur'an?

More important, who will execute the 100 lashes punishment provided that most couples cheat at least once?  :bravo:

I don't need a manual to point out an obvious logical flaws of yours (and some others here). Define me a definsive war first. Then, if you can define it, list me Quranic system which somehow can be used to establish militia, training programs, armed forces et cetera. In case your "defensive war" implies shooting with bows at armed soldiers :D, then I guess we can discuss this too. If you can't explain the defensive war based on Qur'an alone, you will rely on the side literature, that's clearly what you did in your post. But again, the key question you should contemplate on is, why Qur'an while you obvoisly rely on "acts vs regulation" and a ton of other legal imprints?

Oh, in Bender's way:

Ah, after reading this, no Quran for me, the retarded PUAD. But forgive me, US is not the only one and the list in this link has not yet been updated

Anyways, first you use the manual called Quran and get the result. Only then we will go over your questions or if God wills he will lead you to answers without anyone's help. You need to meet him. He can explain things better. At this point, you seem to be thinking that Islam from Quran must be as same as Talmudism and Bukharism. Trust me, things don't work like that.

When Quran is applied, even defensive war isn't necessary.

You will know it if you actually follow the Book.


Weaning = 24 months
Pregnancy + weaning = 30 months
Pregnancy (while conscious) = 6 months

Thus, that which is in the womb is not a conscious being/nafs within the first 3 months.

Peace, the above is bad math; look up solving simple inequalities.

p = pregnancy time (variable)
w = weaning time (variable)

w < 709 days {31:14 24 x (lunar months / day) = 708.73416 days}

886 - p < 709 {46:15 30 x (lunar months / day) = 885.9177 days}

p = 177+ days

not about conscious/unconscious in wombs rather babies  born early require more weaning etc...

preg | wean    
mts  | mts
6     24
7     23
8     22
9     21
10   20

^^^ nonsensical is taking أبى (aby) root ء ب ي‏
which means أَبَى  يَأْبَى‏‎ to refuse
to mean "father" in below verses...

2:282  ولا and not ىاب yaba/refused كاتب scribe
2:282  ولا and not ىاب yaba/refused الشهدا the witnesses 

2:34 الا except ابلىس Iblis ابى refuse
15:31 الا except ابلىس Iblis ابى refuse
20:116 الا except ابلىس Iblis ابى refuse

9:8 وتابى and refuse (f/s)
9:32 وىابى and refused
20:56 وابى and refuse

17:89 فابى so refuse
17:99 فابى so refuse
25:50 فابى so refuse
33:72 فابىن so refuse they (f/p)

likewise father no prefix/suffix is never written with ya ...
12:78 ابا father 
33:40 ابا father
Quranic Divinity / Re: Quran and Women & Patriarchy
« Last post by huruf on Today at 12:14:51 PM »
Yes it is patriarchal. Women are never spoken to directly, it's always in the 2nd/3rd person. Even when it comes to their menses, it's the men who are instructed to keep away.
The Quran doesn't empower the women in they way you are thinking. You will not find a verse like "O' women tell your men to refrain from touching you when you are menstruating. That is better for them".  That would be an empowering verse. They are instructed to do things but they are not given direct control. The control is with men.

Also, curiously, other than Mary no female character is mentioned by her name. It's always wife/woman of Lot/Pharoh/Adam etc.
I really found it odd that the Bible has many female characters named and the Quran has none (other than Mary). 
Seems deliberate rather than accidental ... I have not yet figured out why.

No that would not be an empowering aya. It is God speaking and He is ordering something, not to women but to men. He is telling them what to do or rather what no to do, that is, pester their wives.

Why should He tell the women to tell the men "do not pester me? They do not need God to tell them that, they can say it by themselves just like that, no instructions needed. But what if men or some men they just don't care and still pester them. He does not get any far telling the women than men should not pester them. Is He not God? so go God and tell you them, may be they will listen to You.

And youhave Got it wrong, God does not address the men, He tells the prophet to tell them this or that, God does not address them. He does with the same as with women. He tels the Prophet to tell them.

As to that women are never spoken to directly? Just as about as much as men, because there are most ayas which are addressed to the believers or to the people without distinction of women or men. As to telling men what they should do to women, it is always duties, so if He es imposing duties on them, He better tell them. He is the authority. And he is not addressing men.

AndGod is not addressing women in terms of their sexuality any more than men. Maryam is not addressed in terms of her sexuality and It is not saying she is chaste, although that is taken for granted since she is good and good men and good women are chaste, and the Qur'an at no time expects more chastity from women than from men. If you "ay" say so, quote please.

Keep chastity is expressed as HfaDH farj(pronoun) not as ahsana. The term employed is Maryam is no HafDH but ahsanat.

Pages: [1] 2 ... 10