Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do no passages of the Qur'an, in your view, contradict other passages of the Qur'an?
Not as I understand it, no. Are you going to post something or not?
I'm sorry that responding to your posts isn't one of my foremost priorities.No reply from Kalam? Damn. I hadn't even called him Malarky today.
This is the type of simple-minded literalism that the Qur'an specifically warns against in 3:7 -Can Allah be seen and did Muhammad see his Lord? Yes [S. 53:1-18, 81:15-29], No [6:102-103, 42:51].
Angels are subservient to Allah and things that they "cause" are due to this subservience; not to their free will.Can Angels Cause the Death of People? The Qur'an attacks those who worship anyone besides God (e.g. angels or prophets) because those can neither create, nor give life, nor cause anyone to die. Yet, the Qur'an explicitly states that one angel or several angels are causing certain people to die [Sura 4:97, 16:28, 32, 32:11].
The Qur'an distinguishes clearly between those Christians and Jews who believe and those who transgress. It's the former group with whom marriage is permitted.To Marry or Not to Marry? The Qur'an forbids believers to marry idolatrous women [Sura 2:221], and calls Christians idolaters and unbelievers [9:28-33], but still allows Muslims to marry Christian women [5:5].
Abrogation has already been addressed, including the two specific verses (2:106 and 16:101) to which you refer.[How about the doctrine of ABROGATION itself!?]
Abrogation? "The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice; there is NONE who can change His words." [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34 and 10:64. But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some of them for "better ones" [Sura 2:106, 16:101]. And it is not for ignorant people to question Allah because of such practices!
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 Quran? 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.
No wonder.answering-islam.org
I see Qur'anic passages that refer to the commencement of revelation during Ramadhan, but none that say the Qur'an was revealed in its entirety at that time.Even HOW Allah sent the Qur'an down to man is a matter of self-contradiction
I'm sorry that responding to your posts isn't one of my foremost priorities.No reply from Kalam? Damn. I hadn't even called him Malarky today.
I'd been away from the computer and hadn't refreshed the page. Shall I beg for your forgiveness?But impatiently WAITING for me to post when I had already posted about half an hour BEFORE you asked IS one of your priorities, evidently.
I'll strive to make my posts more action-packed and entertaining for you in the future.I will get back to the remainder of your insipid response soon.
I'd been away from the computer and hadn't refreshed the page. Shall I beg for your forgiveness.But impatiently WAITING for me to post when I had already posted about half an hour BEFORE you asked IS one of your priorities, evidently.
I'll strive to make my posts more action-packed and entertaining for you in the future.I will get back to the remainder of your insipid response soon.
I'll keep that in mind.There's no charge for begging.
I wasn't actually planning on it. I may be insipid, but I can also be sarcastic.You do tend to the insipid, as your last post just reaffirmed, but no need to change your style.
That's good to know...That you AT LEAST are willing to address the questions at all is actually one of your more redeeming qualities.
I'll keep that in mind.There's no charge for begging.
I wasn't actually planning on it. I may be insipid, but I can also be sarcastic.You do tend to the insipid, as your last post just reaffirmed, but no need to change your style.
That's good to know...That you AT LEAST are willing to address the questions at all is actually one of your more redeeming qualities.
This is the type of simple-minded literalism that the Qur'an specifically warns against in 3:7 -
He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive -- they are the basis of the Book -- and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (false) interpretation. And none knows its interpretation save Allah, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none mind except men of understanding.
The Qur'an makes use of parables that should not be interpreted literally:
And certainly We have set forth for men in this Qur’an every kind of parable. And if thou bring them a sign, those who disbelieve would certainly say: You're naught but deceivers. - 30:58
.
Could someone please translate this gibberish for me?I'm asking for some one to proves equivocally using Islamic scripture that none muslims are innocent.
"His trembling court assemble, which consists of his great officers, the alcaydes, blacks, whites, tawnies and his favourite Jews, all barefooted...
"He is...known by his very looks and motions; and sometimes the colour of the habit that he wears, yellow being observed to be his killing colour; from all of which they calculate whether they may hope to live twenty-four hours longer...
"Sometimes when he goes out of town...he will be attended by fifteen or twenty thousand blacks on horseback, with whom he now and then diverts himself at (by throwing) the lance...
"His travelling utensils are two or three guns, a sword or two, and two lances, because one broke once while he was murdering;
"His boys carry short Brazil sticks, knotted cords for whipping, a change of clothes to shift when bloody, and a hatchet, two of which he took in a Portuguese ship, and the first time they were bought to him, killed a man without any provocation, to try if they were good."
An account of Sultan Moulay Ismail, A Journey to Mequinez (Meknes), written by John Windus and published in London, 1825
That sounds like being nice to the innocent.
An account of Sultan Moulay Ismail, A Journey to Mequinez (Meknes), written by John Windus and published in London, 1825
That sounds like being nice to the innocent.
And this has what to do with Islamic scripture?
There's nothing meaningless about true Islam.
Well, being the great grandson of Muhammad and being a Muslim you would think that he would be a good example of the teachings his great grandfather bestowed upon him.
There's nothing meaningless about true Islam.
And this?
"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106
"When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." Surah 16:101
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 Quran? 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.
Maulana Muhammad Ali is entitled to his opinion. He is a heretic
Ahmadiyya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
