There is no other sura in the whole koran that says only muslims are to enter mosques or indeed idol worshippers are not allowed in mosques, muslims the world over observe this ruling, yet you are sitting there adamant that this is not a law or a ruling. The only one you are deceiving is yourself.
what a Muslim says or does to be a Muslim are "religious laws". If a Muslim never in his life "disallows" a polytheist from entering a Mosque, is he still a Muslim? Could he be the best of Muslims? Yes. That's what a religious law is, it's either obligatory to fulfill one's religion or it isn't. A similar ruling is that not only do you need to give alms, but SOMEONE has to collect them and distribute them. Does every single Muslim have to distribute the alms? No. Does every single Muslim need to disallow a polytheist from entering a Mosque? You tell me.
Like alms givng is the only law I pointed at.
So what else did you claim was a new religious law that you brought up?
What you are failing to comprehend or even acknowledge because it will ruin your whole precept of your belief is this: If the writers of that hadith wanted to convey the message that only the qurra of the koran would be lost, they would have said " a large part of the qurra will be lost in other places" or "a large part of the reciters of the koran will be lost in other places" ..."hence we will lose a large part of the qurra, why did they convey the message " a large part of the koran itself would be lost "
I am afraid that there will be some casualties among the Qurra at other places, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost
Notice it never says a large part of the qurra will be lost but of the quran itself
Yeah when did I even mention that it was a large portion of the recitors and NOT the Qur'an itself that is in question?
Remember:
Large, small, or even a word. The gravity would be the same. Haha, basically you'd like the dialogue to go as follows:
"…a large portion will be lost…"
"large? Exactly how large, because if it's not TOO much we can handle that"
"it's pretty large, bro"
Losing a single word of the Qur'an is infinitely more grievous than losing a memorizer of the Qur'an in battle.
It is an A4 size page I will more than happy to read it, paste it let us all read your tafsir (have you ever taken into consideration the reason why I asked you the question was because I had already read the tafsir), learning from your tactics this few posts the reason why you will not do it is because you know it is making an irrational argument given the hadiths and the koran itself, in other words it would make you look very foolish to post it. I dare you to post that tafsir let everybody read it.
Ok, here it is again:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=66&tid=54321
I don't understand why you're getting so angry.
Imagine someody asked me about John 3:16 and I said here "www.google.com" go read. Or someone asked me about killing the amalekites their old and their young and I said here "
www.google.com" go read, or someone asked me about Paul and how his messages differ from the original teachings of Jesus and I said here "www.google.com" go read
I don't tell you to google anything, I relay reliable links to you. I only suggest what's reliable.
Now if I asked you a question, there's no shame in linking me to a Christian's website.
Not so fast
sura 4:24: And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess
Your explanation paraphrasing from memory "God has made it ok to have relations with captives in jihad that oppose God and his apostle"
now you are telling me the verse really means all married women are forbidden unto you for use as servants ( let me guess they get a monthly salary and pension too?)
No married woman, or woman that is pregnant, can be taken as a captive from the attacking party.
Pls!!! Mohammed had sex with the woman while a man stood guard outside of the tent hours after having her husband decapitated, her father killed, her uncle killed and several relatives killed all sanctioned by Mohammed, and to add insult to injury he later had his allah inspire him with a sura condoning it.
Now you are contradicting your very explanation to get out of an uncomfortable situation, I will be blunt " MOHAMMED RAPED THAT WOMAN AND YOU KNOW IT"
Wow, man, rape? You're officially in competition with Believer over here to see who can slander the Prophet most. There is no lawful rape in Islam. Rapists are stoned.
An answer that totally contradicted your stance that the muslims were being killed and starved en mass.
Sure, I admit that the Muslims weren't being killed and starved EN MASS, but it did happen to Muslims in general.
It looks like you finally read it, after pasting it for you twice I wasn't going to paste it anymore.
Yeah, there's no shame in conceding to a more knowledgeable party. And the understanding Islam team know more than me.
It looks like we are going in circles, the HADITH PLS? ( If you recall this is what I asked you for)
Seerat ar Rasool, the Prophetic Tradition, the Story of the Prophet, where do you think these come from? I don't think I can find them on a Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim because those only record authentic hadiths regarding religion, not history.
You proceeded to answer the challenge since it is parroted by your imams and mullahs it must be true the onus is on you to show me those hadiths
If you're waiting for a Bukhary/Muslim reference you're not going to find one. When do Bukhari and Muslim ever contain a hadith that doesn't have a jurisprudential ruling behind it?
Your stance even when you are bordering on the ridiculous is impressive ( are you from the school of never admitting you are in error?)
Wow bro, I'm telling you this IS the exegesis for that Surah. I can't find any more online exegesis, why don't you go to your local mosque and ask them about the tafsir of Surah 66 for God's sake?
If you believe a wife gets upset with her husband because he drank honey you are more gullable than I thought
Didn't you read the tafsir, the wives weren't angry because they smelled honey, they were jealous that he had been with another wife and the honey was the indication. Afterwards they decide to "contrive their plot" to make him go by an oath he kept just to satisfy them (this is the Prophet of God remember).
I am very worried for you if you believe the con man was speaking for God
I just feel sorry for you that you've cursed him so much.
What does praying have to do with this, your tafsir came to it's conclusion using omitted hadiths, in other words it tricked and swindled it's reader by concealment it tells them something and omits others so the reader never sees the bigger picture this is not good from an alledged religion from the Almighty, but then your koran says " allah is the best of deceivers"
Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and God too plans; but the best of planners is God. (Qur'an 8:30).
Also, this exegesis isn't some secret you just uncovered, the WHOLE SURAH was revealed around this oath taking. If you're not satisfied, go to a mosque for a proper answer, that's your right.
For the fourth time, what people was Adam a prophet to?
"A prophet (nabi) or messenger (rasul) of God is a human being to whom God gives His guidance and whom He charges with the task of conveying that guidance to the people, so that they may do good and avoid evil."
The definition isn't limited to a prognosticator:
"A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. "
prophet
\Proph"et\, n. [F. proph[`e]te, L. propheta, fr. Gr. ?, literally, one who speaks for another, especially, one who speaks for a god an interprets his will to man, fr. ? to say beforehand; ? for, before + ? to say or speak. See Fame. ] 1. One who prophesies, or foretells events; a predicter; a foreteller.
2. One inspired or instructed by God to speak in his name, or announce future events, as, Moses, Elijah, etc.
3. An interpreter; a spokesman. [R.] --Ex. vii. 1.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prophet
Okay, where in hell does fornification fit in with eating pork?
That was a silly thing to say.
They are both sins (though not on the same level).
Regardless what your Quran says, you can eat what God created and the Lord said to Peter that man should not say anything God created to be unclean.
Chickens and other animals are much filthier and unhealthy than pork.
God wants us to be healthy and safe
Why do you have to delve into what you think is clean or not clean? If God said don't eat it, you shouldn't eat it.
pork is a healthy part of a balanced diet.
hahahaha, bro, I swear to God that was the funniest thing I've read on this forum! You're awesome.
The Torah ONLY says this about pigs:
Leviticus 11:7
And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.
That is ALL that God told the Israelites about pigs.
He didn't even tell them they can't eat them, just warned them they were unclean.
So the Jews have been misinterpreting the Torah?
What else do you think "unclean for you" means? Do you think it means don't wash your hands with pigs? It means they are unfit for consumption.
Give me one major reason why you believe the scripture became corrupt?
Bear in mind secular works like the Aeneid and Illiad are very well preserved even though they were copied without the religious vigor of devoted scribes.
Because I don't believe anything that doesn't come from a Messenger of God or is traced back to a Messenger of God.
Who cares if the Iliad were well preserved, were their authors Prophets?
Very devoted high priests and scribes copied the Scripture, they DID NOT treat their cherised writings with carelessness and without love.
With ardent zeal thet kept their scriptures uncorrupt, even in ancient Jewish communities that long since diverged from the main body, the holy writing were very well preserved.
Yes bro, I'm not saying there's some campaign by a race of evil people to corrupt Scriptures, but not EVERYONE has this ardent zeal to preserve the word of God. What proof do you have that the OT and NT were preserved since Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh) respectively. Not just that Jews and Christians are righteous people, but what was the mechanism by which it was preserved?
Good, summarize it in a paragraph.
Do you have a birthday coming up? GET THE BOOK, it's 10 bucks or something.
The Quran diverges way too much from the writing we have of the Prophets, and the Jews kept excellent care of their writings. It is unreasonable for you to say Islam is the answer. Isalm is not true, and no matter how much you can convince yourself that Jesus talked as a baby and angels bowed to Adam, this NEVER happened. You follow falsehood. I see this clearly, and sadly you don't.
Actually Islam doesn't contradict OT like it contradicts the NT. Islam is true, bro.
Obviously so, since all Jewish communities, whether how spread out they were, all had the same scriptures, only some writings were missing here and there because some comminities diverged before some Prophets were born. But you can see it is most evident that the Scripture was indeed well preserved, even since times before some prophets were born!!! Very astonishing!!
Did the dispersion of the tribes happen in the life of Moses (pbuh)?
Either the Gospel was a great success and fulfilled the Will of God and was the most successful relgion in History, like Christianity is, or it failed and only a tiny sect preserved it. Well, tha latter is not the reality and is not logical.
Unitarians weren't so tiny. They were half the Christian population until the late 4th century when they started getting seriously suppressed after the Council of Nicaea.
The Christianity that you see today is the True Christianity, it was the Will of God. Your faith is NOT from God becasue it contradicts God's true Will as revealed in the Gospels and verified in Prophecy. Only a disbeliever could doubt God as much as you.
No bro, the Unitarian Christians preserved God's word up till the revelation of the Qur'an. The NT doesn't trace back to Jesus (pbuh) and therefore does not tell us what Jesus said or did.
You either have faith in God and that His Will always comes to be, or you lack faith in Him andaccept that His Will fails since His revelation turns out to be a failure and nobody accepts it or it becomes corrupt.
God WOULD NOT let that happen, He always ensure that His Word comes to Him fruitful.
A significant group of TRUE Christians remained guided after Jesus' (pbuh) ascension and up to the Qur'an.
Well, the people are convinced that they are being ruled by Islam.
Yeah right, most of the "muslim" rulers are in jail.
You don't have to speak for Muhammed, but I want you're answer. What would you say to Jesus Christ?? Would you proceed to stone the adulteress if that truly was the Law of God?
If I was living at the time of Jesus (pbuh) I would listen to him .
What do you think about families where the father stays home and takes care of the kids and house while the mother does work and makes the money? I essense she is the care-taker of the family and her man.
This is an increasingly common phenomena.
Does this displease Allah?
It doesn't displease God but you should know that any money that a woman makes is HERS, and she is not obliged to provide for anyone, and when she does, this all is counted as Charity. On the otherhand, a husband MUST provide for his family especially his wife. In fact, a wife can sit on a couch and do nothing and either her father or her husband or her brother are forced by Islamic law to provide for her.
All I'm saying is that if your religion is so divine and perfect, the Muslim world wouldn't be so backward. There is an obvious disparity.
When the Muslim world is ruled by Islam, it's number 1. When it's ruled by garbage men secularists, it goes down.
If that continues, then Islam will fall.
I wouldn't count on it, bro.
Actually in physics there is a point in which a substance coexists in all three states at once. This is called the Triple Point.
Yes, but for water to be a gas or liquid or solid, it takes several molecules to exist in those phases. You can't look at two molecules of H2O and say "that's liquid" or "that's gas" they only exist as groups, I think the minimum is four molecules of water in a certain matrix to be considered a solid. So at any one point, a group of water molecules is either solid, liquid or gas. Several groups of each phase can co-exist, but each group is only at one phase.
Because WE WERE NOT created directly from dirt!
Evolution IS Science!!! Creationism is a backwards unrealistic literalist concept that NOT REAL. People read Gensis WAY to literally.
Read
www.darwinismrefuted.com Science has nothing to back evolution. Science backs creationism.
Our human bodies derived from earlier hominids, and that is why we have animal organs and stuff in us. We are mammals, clearly.
Yes we're mammals, but that doesn't mean we CAME from other mammals.
I do not believe in God any more or less than a Christian that is a Creationist.
Good
Evolution does not denote God as the Creator, rather the opposite.
God created evolution to ensure a constant new flow of new life.
He used this device He created to, over the course of time, create men.
He took a hominid and forged men from it using his tool of evolution.
God was not in a rush to create men suddenly from actual dirt.
But He did create man from dirt, this is easy for God.
Peace bro