Gunny's Thread on Religion

[Avatar4321]

Religion is an anti intellectual way of making a reason for living.

Of course, because only idiots believe in God and follow faith. There isnt a single intelligent person who believes. Those guys like Newton and Einstien were morons. Just anti intellectual fools!

Why? Because The Illusion says so! We all must bow before your great insight and Intelligence. Or at least we would if we weren't so stupid.

Religion involves itself in many ways that it shouldnt. Take morals for example. A lot of people base their morality on religion when really, thats just an excuse.

Of course, why on earth consider that there might be some great truth on how to live a good life in the universe and try to live life better than the day before. That has nothing to do with God or beliefs.

They should be taking their morality from themselves..whether something is right or wrong. No religion should have to tell someone if something is right or wrong.. it should be that way regardless of religion.

So should I decide that lying is morally alright, it's somehow alright because I say so?

You have it absolutely backwards. Something is right or wrong regardless of what the individual thinks. Because if there is no moral truth, then there is no right or wrong. The words become meaningless.

Killing children becomes alright because I decide it? That's ridiculous. But then since when has being ridiculous stopped anyone on this planet?

Religion plays a good part in the lives of some people to keep them on track. Again, its used as an excuse (not in a bad way) to act properly towards other people and giving to society.

Or it could be a standard. A map to what is morally good and uplifting. A path to lasting happiness. The Joy of the Saints.

Nah, that cant be that. Cause the "intellectual" said so.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

.Scholars are recognized for their ability to contextualize the fundamental documentys that make up islamic fiqh.

Recognized by whom?

Are you calling yourself a scholar?

The recognized scholars are world renown for they knowledge of the Quran and sunna. Their collective works are essential reading for understanding the Quran.

You're incapable of understanding it with your own limited intelligence, or it's too convoluted and contradictory toi decipher without the proper dogma?

I do not consider myself a sheik. Im autodidactic as far as Islam where in intersects with non muslims and jihad.
I offer an alternative veiw from those who seek to deliberatly promote a whitewashed image of Islam.
Recognized within the community of Islamic scholars

Sheikh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whilst even a new Muslim can be called a sheikh if he is diligent in seeking the knowledge of Islam based upon the Quran and authentic Sunnah, he can be referred to as such to those he can teach. And usually a person is known as a sheikh when they have completed their undergraduate university studies in Islamic studies and are trained in giving lectures.[1].

The word sheikh under this meaning is a synonym of Alim, pl. Ulema, (a learned person in Islam, a scholar)[3], Mawlawi, Mawlana, Muhaddith, Faqih, Qadi, Mufti, Hadhrat or Hafiz.

I simply am unable to discern what you seem to be driving at yet are unable to articulate it in any meaningful way.
Please try again.

 

[Avatar4321]

I offer an alternative veiw from those who seek to deliberatly promote a whitewashed image of Islam.

There are too many people who dont like to see nuances. The like to see black and white. They dont try to understand things from someones point of view. They presume to tell others what they believe. I dont think you can have actual discussions with these type of people. Good luck with it though.

 

[Kalam]

You would still be wrong to do so. Condemnation is not warranted since they have scripture to base their opinions on.
Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

I have already shown that their beliefs and actions are out of accordance with scripture. See the post I linked to earlier.

 

[Man]

Fitnah will only continue to ignore any evidence you post, Kalam

 

[Kalam]

Yo, Beukema, talk to Gunny.

 

[Kalam]

I offer an alternative veiw from those who seek to deliberatly promote a whitewashed image of Islam.

There are too many people who dont like to see nuances. The like to see black and white. They dont try to understand things from someones point of view. They presume to tell others what they believe. I dont think you can have actual discussions with these type of people. Good luck with it though.

You were speaking to one of those people.

 

[AllieBaba]

The peaceful parts of the Koran were written by Mohommed when he was still struggling to find acceptance. The later writings completely negate the peaceful writings, and are the ones true followers of Islam adhere to.

If they don't, they aren't true Muslims.

 

[Kalam]

Remember, Babble, when I refuted that and you failed to respond as usual?

 

[AllieBaba]

I rarely respond to lies.

 

[Kalam]

I rarely respond to lies.

Yes, well, until you address this, I'm going to have to ask you to head back to the kids' table so the grown-ups can continue with their discussion.

There is no such thing as abrogation in the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself makes this clear in 4:82 - "Will they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Moreover, two of the three suwar I cited, al-Baqara and al-Anfal, were revealed in Madinah, after hostilities had already commenced between the Muslims and the persecuting Quraish. Al-Baqara in particular contains most of the Qur'an's guidance pertaining to dealing with enemies. The only verse I cited that was revealed in Makkah was one of the last revealed in that city, after the Quraish had been actively persecuting the Muslims there for some time. If any of the verses I referred to are "superceded" as you suggest, please show me the verses that supposedly take precedence over them. In 1936, Muslim leader and scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote the following on the subject of abrogation:

That certain verses of the Qur'an are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really, to the abrogation, not of the Qur'an but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth chapter (al-Nahl) - a Makkah revelation - and runs thus: "And when We change a message for a message, - and Allah knows best what He reveals - they say: Thou art only a forger" (16:101). It is a fact that details of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Qur'anic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Qur'an. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses in the Qur'an but because he claimed that the Qur'an was a divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: "Only a mortal teaches him" (16:103). According to them the whole of the Qur'an, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one revelation or one law taking the place of another.

The other verse which is supposed to lend support to the theory runs thus: "Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it" (2:106). A reference to the context will show that the Jews or the followers of previous revelations are here addressed. Of these it is said: "they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that" (2:91). So they were told that if a certain revelation was abrogated, it was only to give place to a better one. And there is mention not only of abrogation but also of something that was forgotten. The words "or cause to be forgotten" cannot refer to the Qur'an at all because no portion of it could be said to have been forgotten so as to require a new revelation in its place. There is no point in supposing that God should make the Prophet forget a verse and then reveal a new one in its place. Why not, if he really had forgotten a verse, remind him of the one forgotten? But even if it is supposed that his memory ever failed in retaining (which really never happened), that verse was quite safely preserved in writing, and the mere failure of memory could not necessitate a new revelation. That the Prophet never forgot what was recited to him is plainly stated in the Qur'an: "We shall make the recite, so thou shalt not forget" (87:6). History also bears out the fact that he never forgot any portion of the Qur'anic revelation. Sometimes the whole of a very long chapter would be revealed to him in one portion, as in the case of the sixth chapter which extends over twenty sections, but he would cause it to be written without delay, and make his companions learn it by heart, and recite it in public prayers, and that without the change of even a letter, notwithstanding the fact that he himself could not read from a written copy, nor did the written copies, as a rule, remain in his possession. It was a miracle indeed that he never forgot any portion of the Qur'an, though other things he might forget, and it is to his forgetfulness in other things that the words except what Allah pleases, in the next verse (87:7), refer. On the other hand, it is a fact that parts of the older revelations had been utterly lost and forgotten, and thus the Qur'an was needed to take the place of that which was abrogated, and that which had been forgotten by the world.



The message of the Qur'an is consistent throughout its entirety. As I said, all of the verses I cited were revealed after the worst of the persecution faced by Muhammad and his followers had begun. Your abrogation argument was proved false quite some time ago.

Guess what? The more recent books are not about peace, love and honor. They are about butchery, lying, and war.

Guess what? That, like most of your half-baked remarks, is untrue.

The next-to-last surah to be revealed tells Muslims to respect their alliances with disbelievers. The surah immediately preceding that tells us that if someone kills an innocent person, "it is as though he had killed all men." It also explains that all people who believe and do good, not just Muslims, will be rewarded. So much for "butchery, lying, and war." You don't know anything about Islam or the Qur'an; you merely regurgitate the ridiculous bullshit fed to you by ignorant Islamophobes.

 

[Ceasaro]

kalam, do you argue here because you're banned from real muslim sites for being a faker?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

abrogation

]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1383421-post622.html
Asked and answered.
Unless you are willing to kill over a billion muslims who disagree with you you will have to accept that there is more than one interpretation on the issue of nasikh/naskh.
Are you willing to kill over a billion people over Islam?

 

[Kalam]

abrogation

]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1383421-post622.html
Asked and answered.

Wrong. There is no part of that post that addresses the arguments I presented directly.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

abrogation

]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1383421-post622.html
Asked and answered.

Wrong. There is no part of that post that addresses the arguments I presented directly.

It is a direct contradiction of your opinion from the Grand sheik of Saudi Arabia .It is know you disagree, I have no interest in convincing you.
You are a tool I use.


[al-Tawbah 9:5]

He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”

[al-Tawbah 9:29]

And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.

The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”

[al-Anfaal 8:39]

“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.

And Allaah is the Source of strength.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1383421-post622.html

 

[Kalam]

It is a direct contradiction of your opinion from the Grand sheik of Saudi Arabia .

Generally one uses factual information to disprove an opinion based on factual information. I suggest you run off and collect some if your expect me to take you seriously. Opinions of Wahhabis mean nothing to me - they are heretical and oppress their brother Muslims.

It is know you disagree, I have no interest in convincing you.

You can't. I've already heard and dealt with all of the arguments you've attempted to use. You people are not what I'd call innovative.

You are a tool I use.

When are you going to start?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You can't. I've already heard and dealt with all of the arguments you've attempted to use. You people are not what I'd call innovative.

[

No, you are the innovator.

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/96231/Mu’talizah

Islam Question and Answer - If an innovator appears to be righteous, does that mean that his deeds and ‘aqeedah are sound?

Snip

If an innovator appears to be righteous, does that mean that his deeds and ‘aqeedah are sound?
If an innovator appears to be righteous and he regularly does good deeds and offers all the prayers in congregation, does that mean that his good deeds and ‘aqeedah are sound? What is his position before Allaah?.

Praise be to Allaah.
Undoubtedly the correct stance is that every invented bid’ah should be rejected and denounced, and it should be pointed out that this is a departure from the straight path. We should not take this matter lightly.

 

[Kalam]

No, you are the innovator.

Wrong.

Please provide passages from the Qur'an demonstrating that I am guilty of departure from its message. Mu'tazili beliefs are over 1,000 years old and are built atop a purely Qur'anic foundation.

 

[Yukon]

Kalam,

Is it true that the Prophet Mohhamed was sexually aroused by young girls and that he was married to a 6 year-old? I'm sure you can answer this question what with being an expert on Islam.

 

[Bootneck]

Kalam,

Is it true that the Prophet Mohhamed was sexually aroused by young girls and that he was married to a 6 year-old? I'm sure you can answer this question what with being an expert on Islam.

Lol! So says the ex-priest with a liking for young choir boys! Still using that rosary as anal love beads?