Support NeoGAF

[crazy monkey]

I didn't say that you are not allowed nor did I say that this is a discuss me thread.

I was just educating the people who don't know how to argue that that too doesn't disprove my argument.

dude don't need to educate anybody. They will say what they want. If you don't want to listen than don't.

Just because something is not directly observable does not in anyway make it less true than something directly observed.

everyone can use this to say they are right.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Mr Phd was a nutcase remember? Thats your reply to him... if you want i will put you in touch with people that you can debate with. They are not gamers so they dont have an account here, they have already answered everything you have mentioned here "the rock" argumanrt being the most obvious one.

Though i cannot articulate myself as well as they do, so i'll let them answer you directly.

Mr Ph.D's argument was a dumb ass and a very unscientific one too, and I have proven that too.

You think that I do not discuss such matters with highly educated Muslims too? at least they don't embarrass themselves with stupid responses, which makes posting here more fun.

 

[Kinitari]

Sunni and Wahabism are the same. Wahabism is not a sect, its more strict form of Islam that started as good thing but then everything turned sour(IMHO) as they infused too much of old culture of the arab penisula that was present 1400 years aog... Shia and Sunni divide is based upon on the who should be the leader of Muslims, ie Caliph... But the basic teachings of Islam are the same.

Fair enough, I should have been clearer.

There are scholars and clerics that argue over the meaning, and the intention, and the translation of many many sura. There are also the terrorist who claim this, that, or the other thing about the Quran. My point is, even among those who speak Arabic, the 'meaning' of the Quran varies, sometimes from person to person. If God intended it to be a strict set of rules that could not mean anything else, it would be in his power to make it so. The fact that he did not, means he knew people - even those who spoke Arabic - would read and interpret it differently, but did not care/it was his will. Why would he want people to argue, and fight, and bicker about... how many times to wash your hands before you pray, or whether or not you should physically discipline your child/wife, or if 'defending Islam' includes the west being allowed to exist.

Really, it just seems pretty sloppy of him.

 

[Anaxagoras]

dude don't need to educate anybody. They will say what they want. If you don't want to listen than don't.

everyone can use this to say they are right.

Is God's existence a true scientific theory?

You haven't even understood the statement.

 

[The Other One]

I'm curious. Who were the messengers to the Australian Aborigines? The Meso-American and Andean civilizations? The Plains Indians? The Inuit?

If you do not know who they were, how can you be sure that these people were sent messengers?

Islaam is for the whole of mankind so just because they didn't have the messengers sent to them directly doesnt mean the message given by that particular messenger was not received.

So Mohammed [peace be upon him] was the final messenger. I'm not sure if all the mentioned above came after 622C.E but if they did, then their messenger is and was prophet Mohammed [peace be upon him]

Likewise one could argue, if you were not with these people how do you know they were not sent messengers? There are many messengers other than those mentioned in the Quran.

 

[crazy monkey]

SO I am not guy so I had to study I found this.

BBT is not about the origin of the universe, but rather its development with time.the ultimate origin of the universe remains a topic of on-going theoretical research, both from the standpoint of finding models which can explain the current evidence as well as generating unique predictions from these models for future observations.

 

[The Other One]

Just because something is not directly observable does not in anyway make it less true than something directly observed.

Exactly. And with this we believe that Allah [God] exists. It comes down to faith.

 

[crazy monkey]

You haven't even understood the statement.

you haven't either

 

[Anaxagoras]

SO I am not guy so I had to study I found this.

BBT is not about the origin of the universe, but rather its development with time.the ultimate origin of the universe remains a topic of on-going theoretical research, both from the standpoint of finding models which can explain the current evidence as well as generating unique predictions from these models for future observations.

for the 10th time in this thread, read what you post before you post it.

Is the earth and the stars age a matter discussed in the universe development through time? or is it discussed in the origin of the universe?

 

[Prine]

Mr Ph.D's argument was a dumb ass and a very unscientific one too, and I have proven that too.

You think that I do not discuss such matters with highly educated Muslims too? at least they don't embarrass themselves with stupid responses, which makes posting here more fun.

Sums up every reply you come back with. "I know you dont" regardless of whats said. I will forward them to this thread though.

And i must thank you for keeping this up, allows me to question Islam with the doubts you have.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Exactly. And with this we believe that Allah [God] exists. It comes down to faith.

I was referring to the big bang theory.

 

[Zapages]

Fair enough, I should have been clearer.

There are scholars and clerics that argue over the meaning, and the intention, and the translation of many many sura. There are also the terrorist who claim this, that, or the other thing about the Quran. My point is, even among those who speak Arabic, the 'meaning' of the Quran varies, sometimes from person to person. If God intended it to be a strict set of rules that could not mean anything else, it would be in his power to make it so. The fact that he did not, means he knew people - even those who spoke Arabic - would read and interpret it differently, but did not care/it was his will. Why would he want people to argue, and fight, and bicker about... how many times to wash your hands before you pray, or whether or not you should physically discipline your child/wife, or if 'defending Islam' includes the west being allowed to exist.

Really, it just seems pretty sloppy of him.

I think you are trying to get the different school of thoughts in Islam... Well Sunni Islam there are 4 and I think there are a lot more than 4 school of thoughts in Shia Islam.

As for washing hands for prayers in Islam there is no dispute in that...

All Islamic scholars look down upon Terrorists that kill innocent women and children... They have said that it goes against Islam.

If you meanMuslims of Hezbellah, Hamas, Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Philippines, and Chechnya... Then its up for debate as for some they are freedom fighters just like how we as our fore fathers fought with terrorist like tactics in the American Revolution or
terrorists... Regardless of that comparison that's murky water all together.

Sunni School of thoughts in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MuslimDistribution3b.JPG

I am from Hanafi school of thought though... But in end I call myself still a Muslim as there is not any major differences between the school of thoughts.

 

[crazy monkey]

for the 10th time in this thread, read what you post before you post it.

Is the earth and the stars age a matter discussed in the universe development through time? or is it discussed in the origin of the universe?

big bang theory tells you how the starts were born not how the universe came to be.

 

[The Other One]

Here is another question for your Almighty God, can he create a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it up?

Answered not by me but a professor:

Yes, it is not part of the power of Allaah that He is able to create a rock that He is unable to move, because everything that Allaah creates He is able to move, but the fact that it is impossible for the power of Allaah to be connected to the creation of this supposed rock does not indicate that He is lacking in power. Rather – on the contrary – it is indicative of His complete power, because this question of yours is like asking: Can Allaah be unable to do something that may be rationally possible? No doubt, if we say no, this does not mean that the power of Allaah is limited, rather it is an affirmation of the completeness of His power, because not being incapable means having power. If we say that Allaah cannot be unaware of or forget anything, saying that does not mean that He is incapable or is lacking, rather it is an affirmation of His perfection and complete power and knowledge.

More in depth answer by same person:

This question is not valid at all because the power of Allaah is not connected to irrationalities. How can He be a god if He is unable to lift their “rock,” when one of the attributes of Allaah is power? Can there be any attribute in any created thing that is greater than the attributes of its Creator?

The power of Allaah – which is undoubtedly absolute and unlimited – is connected to things that are rationally possible, not things that are rationally impossible. No matter how absolute and limitless His power, it must still remain within the bounds of possibility, and it is not connected to irrationalities. This is not a limitation of it. In order to clarify this point we will give some examples:

We ask all of these bishops and theologians: Can God create another god like Him? If they say yes, we say to them: How can this created being be a god if he is created? How can he be like God when he has a beginning, whereas God exists from eternity? In fact the phrase “creating a god” is a sophism or false argument, and is a contradiction in terms, because the mere fact that something is created means that it cannot be a god. This question is like asking could God create “a god who is not a god”? it is self-evident that the answer can only be: The power of Allaah has nothing to do with that, because the idea that something can be a god and not a god is illogical and is irrational, and the power of Allaah has nothing to do with irrationalities.

Another example: We may also ask them: Can God really expel anyone from under His control? If they say yes, they have imposed a limit on the control of Allaah, and if they say no – which is correct – they have agreed with us that the power of Allaah is absolute and has nothing to do with irrationalities, because it is rationally impossible for any created being to be expelled from the control of its Creator.

A third example: One day one of the disbelievers asked me: Can your Lord create a rock that is so huge that He would be unable to move it? And he added in a sarcastic manner: If you say, yes He can, you will have stated that your Lord is unable to move the rock, and this indicates that He is not a god, but if you tell me, No, He cannot, you will have admitted that He is not able to do all things, therefore He is not a god.

 

[Instigator]

Likewise one could argue, if you were not with these people how do you know they were not sent messengers? There are many messengers other than those mentioned in the Quran.

One could also argue if Islam didn't take root, not even a little bit, in any of those faraway regions, there were no messengers or all the messengers (and Allah) failed.

 

[crazy monkey]

I was referring to the big bang theory.

and he was referring to his faith and god

 

[crazy monkey]

answer about rock

you did not need to answer his question like this.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Sums up every reply you come back with. "I know you dont" regardless of whats said. I will forward them to this thread though.

And i must thank you for keeping this up, allows me to question Islam with the doubts you have.

The difference, is that I prove my arguments to be true, you can go back and read them all one by one, unlike many here who either attack me in person or answer with irrelevant questions on and on which forces me to become repetitive in order for them to understand the argument.

Even if you don't agree with me, give my arguments their share of time and thought and you might learn something new.

 

[Atrus]

Islaam is for the whole of mankind so just because they didn't have the messengers sent to them directly doesnt mean the message given by that particular messenger was not received.

So Mohammed [peace be upon him] was the final messenger. I'm not sure if all the mentioned above came after 622C.E but if they did, then their messenger is and was prophet Mohammed [peace be upon him]

Likewise one could argue, if you were not with these people how do you know they were not sent messengers? There are many messengers other than those mentioned in the Quran.

I'm not the one making these claims. A claim was made that there was apparently Islamic contact with these peoples, one which you've seem to now date to the time of Mohammad of Arabia.

I'm simply asking for support for this. If you cannot support this by any other means than the Quran, which itself made the original statement, how is this not a circular answer? It falls on the claimant to prove the claim being made.

Trying to put it to me to disprove the claim is utter nonsense. If I said that Mohammad, Moses and Jesus were engaged in a sexual relationship on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy, does that mean the statement is true until you disprove it?

 

[Prine]

big bang theory tells you how the starts were born not how the universe came to be.

Here's an interesting one: When did time begin? What happened the before time began? Has it always been there?

 

[The Other One]

One could also argue if Islam didn't take root, not even a little bit, in any of those faraway regions, there were no messengers or all the messengers (and Allah) failed.

The best islamic scholarly opinion concerning this type of people is that they will be put to the test on the Day of Resurrection. Whoever obeys will enter Paradise and whoever disobeys will enter Hell, because Allaah (God says) says

“And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)” [al-Israa’ 17:15]

Just because we don't know the messenger that was sent doesn't mean he wasn't sent.

 

[crazy monkey]

The difference, is that I prove my arguments to be true, you can go back and read them all one by one, unlike many here who either attack me in person or answer with irrelevant questions on and on which forces me to become repetitive in order for them to understand the argument.

Even if you don't agree with me, give my arguments their share of time and thought and you might learn something new.

answer that you got, you have never said about them. you are only hearing what you want to hear.

 

[The Other One]

I'm not the one making these claims. A claim was made that there was apparently Islamic contact with these peoples, one which you've seem to now date to the time of Mohammad of Arabia.

I didn't say they 100% received the message, check my post above for Islaams stance on such people.

 

[Kinitari]

I think you are trying to get the different school of thoughts in Islam... Well Sunni Islam there are 4 and I think there are a lot more than 4 school of thoughts in Shia Islam.

Stuff

I think you are answering my question better than you were before - but there is still too many holes.

The fact that there are so many different schools of thought implies there is disagreement between Muslims on how to interpret the Quran - that is irrefutable. The idea of a "perfect Quran" implies that it is impossible to misinterpret, or mistranslate this book.

Although, I do admit that one of your links did help clarify something for me, I was not aware that God basically 'gave up' sending prophets, and just settled on Arabic in the end. And in general, I do have to commend you for actually doing a pretty good job answering some of my questions - I think it was partially because you might not have understood what I was trying to say that it took so long for you to 'get' my point - Probably my fault, I should be clearer.

 

[crazy monkey]

Here's an interesting one: When did time begin? What happened the before time began? Has it always been there?

Its always been there. there you go. My answer.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Answered not by me but a professor:

Yes, it is not part of the power of Allaah that He is able to create a rock that He is unable to move, because everything that Allaah creates He is able to move, but the fact that it is impossible for the power of Allaah to be connected to the creation of this supposed rock does not indicate that He is lacking in power. Rather – on the contrary – it is indicative of His complete power, because this question of yours is like asking: Can Allaah be unable to do something that may be rationally possible? No doubt, if we say no, this does not mean that the power of Allaah is limited, rather it is an affirmation of the completeness of His power, because not being incapable means having power. If we say that Allaah cannot be unaware of or forget anything, saying that does not mean that He is incapable or is lacking, rather it is an affirmation of His perfection and complete power and knowledge.

More in depth answer by same person:

This question is not valid at all because the power of Allaah is not connected to irrationalities. How can He be a god if He is unable to lift their “rock,” when one of the attributes of Allaah is power? Can there be any attribute in any created thing that is greater than the attributes of its Creator?

The power of Allaah – which is undoubtedly absolute and unlimited – is connected to things that are rationally possible, not things that are rationally impossible. No matter how absolute and limitless His power, it must still remain within the bounds of possibility, and it is not connected to irrationalities. This is not a limitation of it. In order to clarify this point we will give some examples:

We ask all of these bishops and theologians: Can God create another god like Him? If they say yes, we say to them: How can this created being be a god if he is created? How can he be like God when he has a beginning, whereas God exists from eternity? In fact the phrase “creating a god” is a sophism or false argument, and is a contradiction in terms, because the mere fact that something is created means that it cannot be a god. This question is like asking could God create “a god who is not a god”? it is self-evident that the answer can only be: The power of Allaah has nothing to do with that, because the idea that something can be a god and not a god is illogical and is irrational, and the power of Allaah has nothing to do with irrationalities.

Another example: We may also ask them: Can God really expel anyone from under His control? If they say yes, they have imposed a limit on the control of Allaah, and if they say no – which is correct – they have agreed with us that the power of Allaah is absolute and has nothing to do with irrationalities, because it is rationally impossible for any created being to be expelled from the control of its Creator.

A third example: One day one of the disbelievers asked me: Can your Lord create a rock that is so huge that He would be unable to move it? And he added in a sarcastic manner: If you say, yes He can, you will have stated that your Lord is unable to move the rock, and this indicates that He is not a god, but if you tell me, No, He cannot, you will have admitted that He is not able to do all things, therefore He is not a god.

Good answer, smart one too, at least I know now that God is not capable of doing rationally impossible actions.

The mystery still remains whether he exists or not, if he didn't all of this wouldn't be possible anyway.

 

[Instigator]

The best islamic scholarly opinion concerning this type of people is that they will be put to the test on the Day of Resurrection. Whoever obeys will enter Paradise and whoever disobeys will enter Hell, because Allaah (God says) says

“And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)” [al-Israa’ 17:15]

Just because we don't know the messenger that was sent doesn't mean he wasn't sent.

But like Atrus reaffirmed, it's a bold, extraordinary claim with absolutely zero evidence.

At least, one can follow Muslim expansions in Africa and Eurasia through time. Their descendants are still alive and thriving today reconfirming what we already knew about history.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Here's an interesting one: When did time begin? What happened the before time began? Has it always been there?

Have I ever said that I know, or said that I believe that science knows everything?

 

[crazy monkey]

For ramzhan I can't wait till I get to eat samosa and kababs. Its been while.

 

[Prine]

Have I ever said that I know, or said that I believe that science knows everything?

Easy Nizar, everything i post is not aimed at you. I've listened to some theories, one from a Professor at Cambridge talking about the universe always being here through other dimensions.

 

[The Other One]

But like Atrus reaffirmed, it's a bold, extraordinary claim with absolutely zero evidence.

At least, one can follow Muslim expansions in Africa and Eurasia through time. Their descendants are still alive and thriving today reconfirming what we already knew about history.

Yea but like I said there is a ruling for such people. If they didn't get the message then they have a chance on the day of judgement.

 

[Zapages]

I think you are answering my question better than you were before - but there is still too many holes.

The fact that there are so many different schools of thought implies there is disagreement between Muslims on how to interpret the Quran - that is irrefutable. The idea of a "perfect Quran" implies that it is impossible to misinterpret, or mistranslate this book.

Although, I do admit that one of your links did help clarify something for me, I was not aware that God basically 'gave up' sending prophets, and just settled on Arabic in the end. And in general, I do have to commend you for actually doing a pretty good job answering some of questions - I think it was partially because you might not have understood what I was trying to say.

These school are thoughts are there mostly a collection Hadiths (verifying their authenticity) with the Holy Quran in the Sunni School of thoughts... I am personally not a Shia so I've not read up on their differences... Regardless of all this the Holy Quran is not changed is kept constant in all sects... The thing that changes between them are the Hadiths, I guess that they follow.

Check here, but be weary that it is wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches

EDIT: No prob in answering questions.

Also definitely on the samsoas and going to local mosques for dinner night considering there is a new mosque that is opening in my town yaya!!

Crazy monkey which state are you from from? northern, NJ here!
I'll try to find a better source latter as it time for prayer...Although you can check the previous pages of this thread as I am pretty sure someone here has given a good detailed answer for you.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Easy Nizar, everything i post is not aimed at you. I've listened to some theories, one from a Professor at Cambridge talking about the universe always being here through other dimensions.

Ok, I just want to point out that not all theories are as concrete, always check the evidence and the reasoning the theory is based on.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Yea but like I said there is a ruling for such people. If they didn't get the message then they have a chance on the day of judgement.

Good to know this, since we haven't received any prophets in the Scandinavian region, I know what to do when judgments day comes, it will be hopefully an easy pass.

 

[The Other One]

Good to know this, since we haven't received any prophets in the Scandinavian region, I know what to do when judgments day comes, it will be hopefully an easy pass.

Yea but you have received the message. You know about Allah, the Quran, the prophet [peace be upon him] you know about Islaam.

And if you don't, then read this link:

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Intro_Islam.htm

After you had read it, there, you know it now

 

[Anaxagoras]

Answered not by me but a professor:

Yes, it is not part of the power of Allaah that He is able to create a rock that He is unable to move, because everything that Allaah creates He is able to move, but the fact that it is impossible for the power of Allaah to be connected to the creation of this supposed rock does not indicate that He is lacking in power. Rather – on the contrary – it is indicative of His complete power, because this question of yours is like asking: Can Allaah be unable to do something that may be rationally possible? No doubt, if we say no, this does not mean that the power of Allaah is limited, rather it is an affirmation of the completeness of His power, because not being incapable means having power. If we say that Allaah cannot be unaware of or forget anything, saying that does not mean that He is incapable or is lacking, rather it is an affirmation of His perfection and complete power and knowledge.
Answered not by me but a professor:

Yes, it is not part of the power of Allaah that He is able to create a rock that He is unable to move, because everything that Allaah creates He is able to move, but the fact that it is impossible for the power of Allaah to be connected to the creation of this supposed rock does not indicate that He is lacking in power. Rather – on the contrary – it is indicative of His complete power, because this question of yours is like asking: Can Allaah be unable to do something that may be rationally possible? No doubt, if we say no, this does not mean that the power of Allaah is limited, rather it is an affirmation of the completeness of His power, because not being incapable means having power. If we say that Allaah cannot be unaware of or forget anything, saying that does not mean that He is incapable or is lacking, rather it is an affirmation of His perfection and complete power and knowledge.

More in depth answer by same person:

This question is not valid at all because the power of Allaah is not connected to irrationalities. How can He be a god if He is unable to lift their “rock,” when one of the attributes of Allaah is power? Can there be any attribute in any created thing that is greater than the attributes of its Creator?

The power of Allaah – which is undoubtedly absolute and unlimited – is connected to things that are rationally possible, not things that are rationally impossible. No matter how absolute and limitless His power, it must still remain within the bounds of possibility, and it is not connected to irrationalities. This is not a limitation of it. In order to clarify this point we will give some examples:

We ask all of these bishops and theologians: Can God create another god like Him? If they say yes, we say to them: How can this created being be a god if he is created? How can he be like God when he has a beginning, whereas God exists from eternity? In fact the phrase “creating a god” is a sophism or false argument, and is a contradiction in terms, because the mere fact that something is created means that it cannot be a god. This question is like asking could God create “a god who is not a god”? it is self-evident that the answer can only be: The power of Allaah has nothing to do with that, because the idea that something can be a god and not a god is illogical and is irrational, and the power of Allaah has nothing to do with irrationalities.

Another example: We may also ask them: Can God really expel anyone from under His control? If they say yes, they have imposed a limit on the control of Allaah, and if they say no – which is correct – they have agreed with us that the power of Allaah is absolute and has nothing to do with irrationalities, because it is rationally impossible for any created being to be expelled from the control of its Creator.

A third example: One day one of the disbelievers asked me: Can your Lord create a rock that is so huge that He would be unable to move it? And he added in a sarcastic manner: If you say, yes He can, you will have stated that your Lord is unable to move the rock, and this indicates that He is not a god, but if you tell me, No, He cannot, you will have admitted that He is not able to do all things, therefore He is not a god.

Good answer, smart one too, at least I know now that God is not capable of doing rationally impossible actions.

The mystery still remains whether he exists or not, if he didn't all of this wouldn't be possible anyway.

I just went outside to take a smoke and being away from the screen I gave the professors answer a little bit more thought.

To me right now it sounds like a damn good way to protect God from such questions, but isn't being unable to perform rationally impossible actions the same thing as not being fully capable of doing anything, in other words God is still not all capable as he claims to be.

 

[Atrus]

I didn't say they 100% received the message, check my post above for Islaams stance on such people.

Didn't the sentence Zapages posted state that that all peoples were sent a messenger?
So regardless of whatever test they face at the end of life as an individual, there would have still required to have been a messenger to that particular region.

If your only support is a circular one, then doesn't that weaken the Quran as an authoritative source? This book said it happened, and therefore it happened because it says it does? Shouldn't the words of a God be more substantive than the ravings of a dervish?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Yea but you have received the message. You know about Allah, the Quran, the prophet [peace be upon him] you know about Islaam.

And if you don't, then read this link:

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Intro_Islam.htm

After you had read it, there, you know it now

You just had to crush my fun, didn't you?

But as an exmuslim, I am glad that Islam is not true ^^

 

[crazy monkey]

Didn't the sentence Zapages posted state that that all peoples were sent a messenger?
So regardless of whatever test they face at the end of life as an individual, there would have still required to have been a messenger to that particular region.

If your only support is a circular one, then doesn't that weaken the Quran as an authoritative source? This book said it happened, and therefore it happened because it says it does? Shouldn't the words of a God be more substantive than the ravings of a dervish?

Islamic tradition holds that God sent messengers to every nation. Muslims believe that God sent only Muhammad to convey the divine message to the whole world, whereas he sent other messengers (rasuls) to convey their messages to a specific group of people or to an individual nation.

is this what we talking.

 

[crazy monkey]

You just had to crush my fun, didn't you?

But as an exmuslim, I am glad that Islam is not true ^^

not true for you. True for me.

 

[heidern]

I have proven that Islam is a violent religion.

99% of people have a violent philosophy, so is there any point to you proving this? I'm guessing you are trying to jump on this because Muslims make the statement that Islam is a peaceful religion. However they say so becuase in their opinion Islam encourages people to try to be peaceful and only use force if necessary, hence it is a peaceful religion. You've haven't disproven that statement.

Now if the Quraan was perfect, it would be literally impossible to interpret
it in any other way than it is intended.

Yes, the Quran is perfect. There are however infinite ways to interpret it. One of which is
the right way. From an Islamic perspective this life is a test, the challenge is to try to follow the Quran correctly. Yes Allah could have designed us so we perfectly follow the Quran, but then it wouldn't be a test. But he has designed us as we are, and human beings are flawed and will make mistakes and will misinterpret things. The thing is we have been given free will, it is up to us to try and follow it. Our successes and failures are our responsibility.

Or if you want an analogy, life is like a nail, the Quran is like the perfect hammer, if a human misuses the hammer and decides to hit the nail with the handle whose fault is that? The designer of the hammer or the human?

 

[Atrus]

Islamic tradition holds that God sent messengers to every nation. Muslims believe that God sent only Muhammad to convey the divine message to the whole world, whereas he sent other messengers (rasuls) to convey their messages to a specific group of people or to an individual nation.

is this what we talking.

Apparently.

It's easy for anybody to state that a messenger was sent to the middle-east if you lived there and know about these people after the fact. It's another thing to state that a messenger was sent to talk to the then current Emperor Pacal in the Mayan city of Pelenque.

 

[crazy monkey]

Nizar what do Agnostic people believe happens after death?

 

[Prine]

99% of people have a violent philosophy, so is there any point to you proving this? I'm guessing you are trying to jump on this because Muslims make the statement that Islam is a peaceful religion. However they say so becuase in their opinion Islam encourages people to try to be peaceful and only use force if necessary, hence it is a peaceful religion. You've haven't disproven that statement.



Yes, the Quran is perfect. There are however infinite ways to interpret it. One of which is
the right way. From an Islamic perspective this life is a test, the challenge is to try to follow the Quran correctly. Yes Allah could have designed us so we perfectly follow the Quran, but then it wouldn't be a test. But he has designed us as we are, and human beings are flawed and will make mistakes and will misinterpret things. The thing is we have been given free will, it is up to us to try and follow it. Are successes and failures are our responsibility.

Or if you want an analogy, life is like a nail, the Quran is like the perfect hammer, if a human misuses the hammer and decides to hit the nail with the handle whose fault is that? The designer of the hammer or the human?

Was the message sent via Aramaic/Hebrew which was then distorted? Then via Arabic which i read was not Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) native language.

 

[Anaxagoras]

99% of people have a violent philosophy, so is there any point to you proving this? I'm guessing you are trying to jump on this because Muslims make the statement that Islam is a peaceful religion. However they say so becuase in their opinion Islam encourages people to try to be peaceful and only use force if necessary, hence it is a peaceful religion. You've haven't disproven that statement.

Since most the members in this thread that are debating for Islam do not know how to argue logically, I was forced to write this post to instruct you on how to prove my arguments false:

I have proven that Islam is a violent religion.

In order to prove me wrong you will have to prove that Islam doesn't preach on violence.

Justifying the violence in the Quran doesn't make Islam nonviolent.

Pointing out that other religions are violent too doesn't make Islam a nonviolent religion.

Claiming that an antiviolent religion is a stupid one doesn't make Islam a nonviolent religion.

Pointing out that the Quran discuss violence because its a guide to life and that Islam is a life style does not make Islam a nonviolent religion.

Claiming that violence being discussed in the Quran is a good/bad thing does not make Islam a nonviolent religion.

Claiming that the argument that Islam is a violent religion has no value at all does not make Islam a nonviolent religion.

Pointing out peaceful verses out of the Quran doesn't make Islam a nonviolent one.

Pointing out that Islam has the same God as the other Abrahamic religions doesn't make Islam a non violent religion.

Claiming that Islam is the true religion or the religion of God and therefore can not be considered violent does not make Islam nonviolent.

Claiming that Jesus and Hitler are violent too doesn't make Islam a nonviolent reeligion.

I have proven that according to the Quran the Earth is older than the stars and proven that according to science the stars are older than the Earth.

In order to prove me wrong on this one you have to either prove that I have misinterpreted the Quranic verse or prove that according to science Earth is older than the stars.

Pointing out a number of similarities between Quranic creationism and modern day scientific discoveries does not disprove my argument.

Providing me with links to websites that claim that Earth and the rest of the universe have the same age without any further reasoning, scientific research, evidence or reliable sources doesn't disprove my argument.

Pointing out that science changes and what is scientifically true today might not necessarily be true in the future does not prove my argument to be false.

Discussing Dark matter and how religion and cosmology are similar does not disprove my argument.

Discussing the credibility of wikipedia does not disprove my argument.

I have proven that faith is an unreliable tool to reach the true religion.

In order to prove me wrong on this argument you will have to prove that faith is a reliable tool to the true religion.

Claiming that God has the power and will to choose whom he wants to the true religion does not disprove my argument.

I have proven that a grammatical error exists in the Quran.

In order to prove me wrong on this argument you will have to prove that it is not a grammatical error.

Claiming that Arabic originates from the Quran and thus Arabic grammar is false and the Quran is correct does not disprove my argument.

Pointing out that such matters can not be discussed on forums but have to be discussed with Arabic grammar experts doesn't disprove my argument.

Pointing out that youtube is not a reliable source will not disprove my argument, for the video I linked to is not the source, the Quran is, the video just explains why it is a grammatical error in English.

Other don'ts in this discussion:
Call me single dimensioned.
Claim that I live in a closed world of my own.
Point out that I was brought up in Saudi Arabia.
Point out that I don't know whether God exists or not.
Claiming that my intention is to disrespect Islam and Muslims.
Claiming that I am not listening to your arguments.
And finally pointing out that Ramadan starts in 9 days.
For non of the mentioned above disproves my arguments in anyway.

Now you either start arguing logically or I will have to start ignoring the unserious and irrelevant responses, for I do not have all the time in the world to educate people on the internet on how to reason properly.

Underlined is for you.

Also, being peaceful but preach on violence in certain circumstances isn't being peaceful by definition.

 

[Instigator]

Yea but like I said there is a ruling for such people. If they didn't get the message then they have a chance on the day of judgement.

I understand the religious aspect, it's just that it is as if there were never any messenger sent. No traces of isolated Muslim converts exists. Not even a tiny, weeny, little mosque in the Australian outback. If the message ever got there, it appeared it was long gone and forgotten. A complete, utter failure if this ever took place.

Of course, if one 'believes', messengers were sent somehow, regardless of conversion results or if the message got trough. But when considering more Earthly limitations, there's no way the people in Arabia knew about those people on other undiscovered continents and sent messengers to them. They certainly never traded with them before and after and there's no record of any other contact. If one look at the evidence (or lack thereof) objectively, no messengers were sent.

Thankfully, modern technology makes the islamic message available to all corners of the world, but that's not Allah's work. It certainly doesn't qualify as messengers either.

 

[crazy monkey]

Apparently.

It's easy for anybody to state that a messenger was sent to the middle-east if you lived there and know about these people after the fact. It's another thing to state that a messenger was sent to talk to the then current Emperor Pacal in the Mayan city of Pelenque.

Messengers have been coming for thousands of years. Even before Abraham. total is 124,000 prophets but only the most important 25 are mentioned in the Qur'an

 

[crazy monkey]

Underlined is for you.

you haven't answer my question?

 

[The Other One]

Was the message sent via Aramaic/Hebrew which was then distorted? Then via Arabic which i read was not Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) native language.

No it was always sent in pure arabic which was the native language of prophet Mohammed [peace be upon him]. I think what you might have read is that he was illiterate i.e couldnt read or write.

Allah says: "Indeed We have revealed the quran in Arabic, that you may understand" (Surah Yusuf - 12:2)

 

[crazy monkey]

I understand the religious aspect, it's just that it is as if there were never any messenger sent. No traces of isolated Muslim converts exists. Not even a tiny, weeny, little mosque in the Australian outback. If the message ever got there, it appeared it was long gone and forgotten. A complete, utter failure if this ever took place.

Of course, if one 'believes', messengers were sent somehow, regardless of conversion results or if the message got trough. But when considering more Earthly limitations, there's no way the people in Arabia knew about those people on other undiscovered continents and sent messengers to them. They certainly never traded with them before and after and there's no record of any other contact. If one look at the evidence (or lack thereof) objectively, no messengers were sent.

Thankfully, modern technology makes the islamic message available to all corners of the world, but that's not Allah's work. It certainly doesn't qualify as messengers either.

messengers were before Islam as religion started. Abraham came for different reason. Moses came for different reason. and so on..