Edip Yuksel didn't answer Ali Sina

[Freemind0]

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

[vivek]

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

[Alen]

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

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.

[Wakas]

Freemind,

I cant speak for Edip, but perhaps he did not respond to these questions because they are nonsensical?

[Rami]

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

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.

[Q_student]

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

[Rami]

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.

[Wakas]

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:

How 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, and this 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.

How 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.

What 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.

[Cushan]

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').

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

Since Yuksel rejects tradition I can't imagine he'd be bothered by the fact that no orthodox scholar interprets those verses figuratively.

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

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.

"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.

[Q_student]

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, and this 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