Support NeoGAF

[heidern]

Underlined is for you.

That's awfully nice of you. The question still stands though: Is there any point to you proving this? I'd genuinely like to understand your agenda.

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

Sorry, that's your definition. I'm using a different definition. I've underlined it for you.

...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.

Or explicity,
a) Primarily encouraging to try to be peaceful = peaceful
b) Primarily encouraging to try to be violent = violent
c) Not encouraging anything = neutral.

Islam falls under a)

 

[Instigator]

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

If that is somehow true, then it is even a bigger failure than imagined. The divine plan needs a serious rethink.

And we all know what would have happened to these messengers with the Mayans.

 

[The Other One]

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.

If the message was forgotten as a result of the people, that is not Gods fault but the peoples. The message does not have to directly get to them via a messenger or the people of arabia. It could be someone from australia who became muslim and went to these people and gave the message.

And we believe everything is pre destined by Allah and is Allah's will. And Mohammed [peace be upon him] is the final messenger so there will not be a messenger after him so it doesn't have to qualify as a messenger. So the internet and modern technology is Allah's work albeit via the US army.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Nizar what do Agnostic people believe happens after death?

I speak for myself only.

I don't know what happens after death and so does everybody else.

 

[Prine]

If that is somehow true, then it is even a bigger failure than imagined. The divine plan needs a serious rethink.

And we all know what would have happened to these messengers with the Mayans.

Over a billion followers and growing buddy. There are plenty of stories of Latinos converting too.

 

[Anaxagoras]

That's awfully nice of you. The question still stands though: Is there any point to you proving this? I'd genuinely like to understand your agenda.

My point of this is to prove out that Islam is not a nonviolent religion.

Sorry, that's your definition. I'm using a different definition. I've underlined it for you.

Or explicity,
a) Primarily encouraging to try to be peaceful = peaceful
b) Primarily encouraging to try to be violent = violent
c) Not encouraging anything = neutral.

Islam falls under a)

That is not my definition, that is the commonly accepted definition of peaceful:

peace⋅ful–adjective
1. characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peaceful

 

[Anaxagoras]

If that is somehow true, then it is even a bigger failure than imagined. The divine plan needs a serious rethink.

This one made me laugh :lol

 

[crazy monkey]

If that is somehow true, then it is even a bigger failure than imagined. The divine plan needs a serious rethink.

And we all know what would have happened to these messengers with the Mayans.

Not all messenger were there to start new religion. Many of them were killed for conveying message that was different than one people believed at the time. so?

 

[Anaxagoras]

If the message was forgotten as a result of the people, that is not Gods fault but the peoples. The message does not have to directly get to them via a messenger or the people of arabia. It could be someone from australia who became muslim and went to these people and gave the message.

And we believe everything is pre destined by Allah and is Allah's will. And Mohammed [peace be upon him] is the final messenger so there will not be a messenger after him so it doesn't have to qualify as a messenger. So the internet and modern technology is Allah's work albeit via the US army.

You haven't responded to this yet, I hope you haven't missed it:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17112154&postcount=2907

 

[Atrus]

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

I'm guessing these 25 prophets were all situated in the middle-east? If so, doesn't Allah appear to be racist? At any rate, how do you know these messengers were sent? Why does no ancient civilization mention these messengers in any capacity?

 

[crazy monkey]

This one made me laugh :lol

You still have not answer my question.

 

[The Other One]

If that is somehow true, then it is even a bigger failure than imagined. The divine plan needs a serious rethink.

How can it be a failure if you don't know what the plan is?

 

[Instigator]

If the message was forgotten as a result of the people, that is not Gods fault but the peoples. The message does not have to directly get to them via a messenger or the people of arabia. It could be someone from australia who became muslim and went to these people and gave the message.

And we believe everything is pre destined by Allah and is Allah's will. And Mohammed [peace be upon him] is the final messenger so there will not be a messenger after him so it doesn't have to qualify as a messenger. So the internet and modern technology is Allah's work albeit via the US army.

But the point I am trying to drive is that every people far from the (expanding) Caliphate rejected/forgot the message. That's at least hundreds of different ethnic groups all saying no.

And this was pre-destined by Allah then he wanted a 100% failure rate. It's a bit odd to then blame the people, all of them, for it. This is ridiculous...

Over a billion followers and growing buddy. There are plenty of stories of Latinos converting too.

All Muslims or converts through natural contacts. Just like it happens with other religions.

The miraculous stuff with messengers to the 4 corners of the world mysteriously failed, all according to divine plan.

 

[Anaxagoras]

You still have not answer my question.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17112651&postcount=2925

 

[crazy monkey]

I'm guessing these 25 prophets were all situated in the middle-east? If so, doesn't Allah appear to be racist? At any rate, how do you know these messengers were sent? Why does no ancient civilization mention these messengers in any capacity?

nope. not every one is from middle east.

Adam -Adam
Idris - Enoch
Nuh - Noah
Hud- Eber
Saleh -Shelah
Ibrahim-Abraham
Lut -Lot
Ismail - Ishmael
Is'haq -Isaac
Yaqub-Jacob
Yusuf -Joseph
Ayub - Job
Shoaib- Jethro
Musa - Moses
Harun -Aaron
Dhul-Kifl -Ezekiel
Daud -David
Sulayman -Solomon
Ilyas -Elijah
Al-Yasa -Elisha
Yunus -Jonah
Zakariya-Zacharias
Yahya-John
Isa-Jesus
Muhammad-Mohammed

when we are talking about 124000 messanger, some of them were even before writing was invented. Even if there is discription of them in some text or sign language you would not know.
This is something I remember from when I was kid If I am wrong correct me where it says at the day of judgment every prophet will lead the people they represent. Some one them will be alone some of them will be with 2 or three people .

 

[Instigator]

How can it be a failure if you don't know what the plan is?

Part of the plan is to at least to give all the people the 'message', right? That part was a failure. If there is other parts to the plan, you and I can not say.

But instead of arguing the colors of unicorns like this plan thing is turning out to be, the simpler, rational explanation to it all is that there was never a plan and thus no messengers hence why none of those people knew of Islam.

 

[crazy monkey]

But the point I am trying to drive is that every people far from the (expanding) Caliphate rejected/forgot the message. That's at least hundreds of different ethnic groups all saying no.


The miraculous stuff with messengers to the 4 corners of the world mysteriously failed, all according to divine plan.

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.

 

[The Other One]

You haven't responded to this yet, I hope you haven't missed it:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17112154&postcount=2907

I didn't answer the original question. Like I mentioned it was answer by a professor. So I wouldn't be able debate with you regarding this, maybe ask him for an explanation.

Like I mentioned, we believe in God, we have faith. First you would have to believe in one god before bothering with anything else. If you're not going to believe in God, whats the point of these what if questions.

 

[crazy monkey]

Part of the plan is to at least to give all the people the 'message', right? That part was a failure. If there is other parts to the plan, you and I can not say.

But instead of arguing the colors of unicorns like this plan thing is turning out to be, the simpler, rational explanation to it all is that there was never a plan and thus no messengers hence why none of those people knew of Islam.

Islam just did not start. Ever prophet came with specific message. Not every prophet started religion. Not every prophet wrote about it.

Islam views every single prophet from Adam (Arabic: اد&#1605 to Muhammad as important. According to Islam, as mentioned in the Qu'ran, the prophets 'Isa (Jesus), Musa (Moses), Dawud (David), Ibrahim (Abraham), Saleh (Shelah), and Muhammad had the responsibility of ushering in their own holy scripture, given to them by Allah.

 

[crazy monkey]

I speak for myself only.

I don't know what happens after death and so does everybody else.

don't include everybody else.


Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

* Strong agnosticism
* Weak agnosticism

* Apathetic agnosticism
* Agnostic atheism

* Agnostic theism

* Ignosticism

which one do you follow?

 

[Atrus]

nope. not every one is from middle east.

Adam -Adam
Idris - Enoch
Nuh - Noah
Hud- Eber
Saleh -Shelah
Ibrahim-Abraham
Lut -Lot
Ismail - Ishmael
Is'haq -Isaac
Yaqub-Jacob
Yusuf -Joseph
Ayub - Job
Shoaib- Jethro
Musa - Moses
Harun -Aaron
Dhul-Kifl -Ezekiel
Daud -David
Sulayman -Solomon
Ilyas -Elijah
Al-Yasa -Elisha
Yunus -Jonah
Zakariya-Zacharias
Yahya-John
Isa-Jesus
Muhammad-Mohammed

when we are talking about 124000 messanger, some of them were even before writing was invented. Even if there is discription of them in some text or sign language you would not know.
This is something I remember from when I was kid If I am wrong correct me where it says at the day of judgment every prophet will lead the people they represent. Some one them will be alone some of them will be with 2 or three people .

Which of those listed is not from the middle-east?
For convenience I've linked the following map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Middle_east_graphic_2003.jpg

Again, my charge of racism still stands.

As for claiming that some of them came before writing was established, that is irrelevent. Writing has been around for 6,000 years, or roughly 5,600 years before Mohammad. Yet there is no anything in any form in these cultures about Islam, and for the even more remote civilizations, absolutely nothing about Abrahamic religions whatsoever.

 

[Anaxagoras]

don't include everybody else.


Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

* Strong agnosticism
* Weak agnosticism

* Apathetic agnosticism
* Agnostic atheism

* Agnostic theism

* Ignosticism

which one do you follow?

I haven't made my mind yet, I can answer it simply this way:
I believe that religions are false and thus are not the true path to God.
I do not know whether God exists or not.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I haven't made my mind yet, I can answer it simply this way:
I believe that religions are false and thus are not the true path to God.
I do not know whether God exists or not.

I prefer to word it this way:
Whether God does exists or not, that I don't know. but what I know is that religions are not the true path to him.

 

[crazy monkey]

I believe that religions are false and thus are not the true path to God.

this don't match.

I do not know whether God exists or not.

 

[Instigator]

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.

You went through that already.

And the distinction is irrelevant when it comes to informing the people of the world vital information when it comes to their salvation, be it Mayans or Arabs.

Islam just did not start. Ever prophet came with specific message. Not every prophet started religion. Not every prophet wrote about it.

Islam views every single prophet from Adam (Arabic: اد&#1605 to Muhammad as important. According to Islam, as mentioned in the Qu'ran, the prophets 'Isa (Jesus), Musa (Moses), Dawud (David), Ibrahim (Abraham), Saleh (Shelah), and Muhammad had the responsibility of ushering in their own holy scripture, given to them by Allah.

That's already known Islamic dogma. Other prophets are acknowledged, but it is said God's message was corrupted so Islam becomes the final, corrected version once of for all for all humanity.

No matter who preached what to whom at whatever time, the core message was likely the same: one god, set of moral rules, pork bad, etc.

 

[Anaxagoras]

this don't match.

I knew that you wouldn't understand it and therefore I made another comment to explain it better to you.

One more time:
I don't know if god exists or not.
But I know that religions are wrong.

This means:
If god actually exists, I believe that religions are not the correct way to take if I want to reach God, in other words, religions are lying and are made by men.

If God does not exists, I still believe that religions are made by man.

Do ... you ... understand .. me ... now?

 

[Anaxagoras]

You went through that already.

And the distinction is irrelevant when it comes to informing the people of the world vital information when it comes to their salvation, be it Mayans or Arabs.



That's already known Islamic dogma. Other prophets are acknowledged, but it is said God's message was corrupted so Islam becomes the final, corrected version once of for all for all humanity.

No matter who preached what to whom at whatever time, the core message was likely the same: one god, set of moral rules, pork bad, etc.

you got PM.

 

[crazy monkey]

Which of those listed is not from the middle-east?
For convenience I've linked the following map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Middle_east_graphic_2003.jpg

Again, my charge of racism still stands.

As for claiming that some of them came before writing was established, that is irrelevent. Writing has been around for 6,000 years, or roughly 5,600 years before Mohammad. Yet there is no anything in any form in these cultures about Islam, and for the even more remote civilizations, absolutely nothing about Abrahamic religions whatsoever.

the list here already contains prophet that came all the way back in 3000 bc . Half one the list are related one way or other thus not from other parts of world.

If god was racist he would not say everyone is equal and no one tribe is better than other.

 

[Zapages]

That's list is 25 from 124000(large number) of messengers that came to earth.

 

[crazy monkey]

No matter who preached what to whom at whatever time, the core message was likely the same: one god, set of moral rules, pork bad, etc.

nope this is where you are wrong. Prophets and messenger came to convey massage. Not always the massage was about one god or pork bad. pork was allowed before and so was wine and many things.

 

[crazy monkey]

If god actually exists, I believe that religions are not the correct way to take if I want to reach God, in other words, religions are lying and are made by men.

than what is the right way? what is your definition of god? or the right path to him? How should man have live if there is no religion?

 

[Instigator]

nope this is where you are wrong. Prophets and messenger came to convey massage. Not always the massage was about one god or pork bad. pork was allowed before and so was wine and many things.

Irrelevant.

If the people never heard of God, I can guarantee you the message was about God.

If they already knew about him, then he could relay other information relevant to them.

If messengers came and talked about the flying serpent god and the need to feed him human blood than this was about another religion altogether and this had nothing to be with Islamic beliefs.

It's pointless to argue about this...

Stay forcus, crazy monkey! There's a larger argument Atrus and I have been arguing for a while.

But this will have to wait until tomorrow. Sleepy now.

 

[heidern]

My point of this is to prove out that Islam is not a nonviolent religion.

That is not my definition, that is the commonly accepted definition of peaceful:

peace⋅ful–adjective
1. characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peaceful

I'll raise you

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peaceful

peace·ful (pēs'fəl)
adj.

1. Undisturbed by strife, turmoil, or disagreement; tranquil. See Synonyms at calm.
2. Inclined or disposed to peace; peaceable.
3. Of or characteristic of a condition of peace.

 

[Anaxagoras]

than what is the right way?

To God? I don't know.

But I know that your religion isn't the one.

what is your definition of god? [/QUOTE]

God is an empty term that posses no real meaning that by time became socially accepted as a being that has control over everything.

God to me is what ever holds responsibility for our existence.

God can be a cosmological force that has resulted in the existence of the universe, God can be a spirit, God can be the universe, God can be an Almighty, all capable, being that is testing us in this life to punish/reward us at the after life if such a thing exists.

or the right path to him?

I don't know if there is such a thing as the true path to God, but I know that the Abrahamic religions are man made.

How should man have live if there is no religion?

Live a life like the one I am living, an awesome one.

 

[crazy monkey]

If the people never heard of God, I can guarantee you the message was about God.

If they already knew about him, then he could relay other information relevant to them.

this is where we differ. It might the way of life that needed change. It might be one rule which needed change. As I said not all messenger were successful at doing what they did. many were killed. I will let Atrus talk tomorrow.

But this will have to wait until tomorrow. Sleepy now.

good night friend. ciya tomorrow insha allah.

 

[Darackutny]

About the "Grammatical Error" in the Qur'an:

Here are three reasons as to why Al-Sabi'oon is referred to as marfu'u instead of mansoob:

الأول : أن الآية فيها تقديم وتأخير ، وعلى ذلك يكون سياق المعنى : إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والنصارى ، من آمن بالله ...فلا خوف عليهم ، ولاهم يحزنون ، والصابئون كذلك ، فتعرب مبتدأً مرفوعا ،وعلامة رفعه الواو ، لأنه جمع مذكر سالم . ونظير ذلك من لغة العرب قول الشاعر :

فمن يك أمسى بالمدينة رحله فإني وَقَيَّار ٌبها لغريب

وموطن الشاهد قوله "قيار" ، وهو اسم لفرسه ، أو جمله ؛ فقد جاءت هذه الكلمة مرفوعة على أنها مبتدأ ، ولم تجئ منصوبة على أنها معطوفة على اسم إن المنصوب وهو ياء المتكلم في قوله ( فإني )

الثاني : أن " الصابئون " مبتدأ ، والنصارى معطوف عليه ، وجملة من آمن بالله ... خبر "الصابئون" ، وأما خبر "إن" فهو محذوف دل عليه خبر المبتدأ "الصابئون" ، ونظير ذلك من لغة العرب قول الشاعر :

نحن بما عندنا ، وأنت بما عندك راضٍ ، والأمر مختلف

والشاهد فيه أن المبتدأ "نحن" لم يذكر خبره ، اكتفاء بخبر المعطوف "أنت" ؛ فخبره "راض" يدل على خبر المبتدأ الأول ، وتقدير الكلام : نحن بما عندنا راضون ، وأنت بما عندك راض .

الثالث : أن " الصابئون " معطوف على محل اسم " إن " ؛ فالحروف الناسخة ، إن وأخواتها ، تدخل على الجملة الاسمية المكونة من مبتدأ وخبر ، واسم إن محله الأصلي ، قبل دخول إن عليه الرفع لأنه مبتدأ ، ومن هنا رفعت "الصابئون" باعتبار أنها معطوفة على محل اسم إن . [ انظر : أوضح المسالك ، لابن هشام ، مع شرح محيي الدين ، 1/352-366 , تفسير الشوكاني والألوسي ، عند هذه الآية] .

Please note that there is no point in translating this into English, because its pretty impossible to explain unless you have a really solid background in Arabic grammar.

---------------

The only other important point raised in the past couple of days that is worth responding to is the issue of there being several interpretations attributed to Islam. There isn't a flaw in God's plan, but rather a part of His plan for mankind. He was always aware that there will be people that will hi-jack Islam and there are hadiths that speak of this in general. Some of them speak of specific sects like the Khawarij or the Qur'anis, and there are verses that speak of differences of opinion and that all that matters is God's view Himself. So, no, the formation of deviant sects is evidence for Islam, not against.

---------------

I'll also be responding to GSG Flash's earlier post about the differences between Sunnism and Shiasm later, with sources, of course. Sorry for the delay.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I'll raise you

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peaceful

peace·ful (pēs'fəl)
adj.

1. Undisturbed by strife, turmoil, or disagreement; tranquil. See Synonyms at calm.
2. Inclined or disposed to peace; peaceable.
3. Of or characteristic of a condition of peace.

Inclined or disposed to peace is an accepted definition of peaceful, but it still has to be violent free to count as peaceful.

 

[Atrus]

the list here already contains prophet that came all the way back in 3000 bc . Half one the list are related one way or other thus not from other parts of world.

If god was racist he would not say everyone is equal and no one tribe is better than other.

Prophet from 3,000 BC? Surely you don't mean Adam? Regardless, you're not addressing the issue as to why even in that time period, people from 3,000BC to Mohammad never once recorded anything Islamic.

Furthermore I don't quite understand when you say "Half one the list are related one way or other thus not from other parts of world."

You stated the greatest 25 were said people, and I pointed out that it seems particularly racist for the greatest 25 out of over a hundred thousand to focus on such a small region of the planet, with Mohammad, which some view to be the greatest, also among them.

God may say whatever it likes, but it seems to be racist to cast the best 25 to only a small sub-group of humanity, and this is without the problems of making the 'Holy Book' contextually focussed on one region alone.

A significant stumbling block in promoting the bible was that natives in South America didn't quite know what a Shepard was, having never seen Sheep ever in their life. It's very difficult to think that being so focussed on a particular region, that such a book was ever intended for every audience.

The Jews whose religion is co-opted by the others have no problem. They claim it to be their religion alone and therefore only contextually significant to them. Not so much with the Christians and Muslims who see a universal truth for all mankind.

 

[crazy monkey]

I don't know if there is such a thing as the true path to God, but I know that the Abrahamic religions are man made.

So do you consider any other religion that is not man made? and also

Adam -Adam
Idris - Enoch
Nuh - Noah
Hud- Eber
Saleh -Shelah
Ibrahim-Abraham
Lut -Lot
Ismail - Ishmael
Is'haq -Isaac
Yaqub-Jacob
Yusuf -Joseph
Ayub - Job
Shoaib- Jethro
Musa - Moses
Harun -Aaron
Dhul-Kifl -Ezekiel
Daud -David
Sulayman -Solomon
Ilyas -Elijah
Al-Yasa -Elisha
Yunus -Jonah
Zakariya-Zacharias
Yahya-John
Isa-Jesus
Muhammad-Mohammed

So all of the above were wrong?

 

[heidern]

Inclined or disposed to peace is an accepted definition of peaceful, but it still has to be violent free to count as peaceful.

No, it doesn't have to be violent free. It just has to be inclined or disposed to peace. You'll have to take that up with dictionary.com and tell them to fix their entry if you disagree.

 

[Anaxagoras]

About the "Grammatical Error" in the Qur'an:

Here are three reasons as to why Al-Sabi'oon is referred to as marfu'u instead of mansoob:

الأول : أن الآية فيها تقديم وتأخير ، وعلى ذلك يكون سياق المعنى : إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والنصارى ، من آمن بالله ...فلا خوف عليهم ، ولاهم يحزنون ، والصابئون كذلك ، فتعرب مبتدأً مرفوعا ،وعلامة رفعه الواو ، لأنه جمع مذكر سالم . ونظير ذلك من لغة العرب قول الشاعر :

فمن يك أمسى بالمدينة رحله فإني وَقَيَّار ٌبها لغريب

وموطن الشاهد قوله "قيار" ، وهو اسم لفرسه ، أو جمله ؛ فقد جاءت هذه الكلمة مرفوعة على أنها مبتدأ ، ولم تجئ منصوبة على أنها معطوفة على اسم إن المنصوب وهو ياء المتكلم في قوله ( فإني )

الثاني : أن " الصابئون " مبتدأ ، والنصارى معطوف عليه ، وجملة من آمن بالله ... خبر "الصابئون" ، وأما خبر "إن" فهو محذوف دل عليه خبر المبتدأ "الصابئون" ، ونظير ذلك من لغة العرب قول الشاعر :

نحن بما عندنا ، وأنت بما عندك راضٍ ، والأمر مختلف

والشاهد فيه أن المبتدأ "نحن" لم يذكر خبره ، اكتفاء بخبر المعطوف "أنت" ؛ فخبره "راض" يدل على خبر المبتدأ الأول ، وتقدير الكلام : نحن بما عندنا راضون ، وأنت بما عندك راض .

الثالث : أن " الصابئون " معطوف على محل اسم " إن " ؛ فالحروف الناسخة ، إن وأخواتها ، تدخل على الجملة الاسمية المكونة من مبتدأ وخبر ، واسم إن محله الأصلي ، قبل دخول إن عليه الرفع لأنه مبتدأ ، ومن هنا رفعت "الصابئون" باعتبار أنها معطوفة على محل اسم إن . [ انظر : أوضح المسالك ، لابن هشام ، مع شرح محيي الدين ، 1/352-366 , تفسير الشوكاني والألوسي ، عند هذه الآية] .

Please note that there is no point in translating this into English, because its pretty impossible to explain unless you have a really solid background in Arabic grammar.

If you would have watch the video I posted in the same post I pointed this out you would not have posted this, for it is discussed in the video.

The order of the words have been rearranged in this explanation, the sentence has been split into two and therefore this explanation is pointless.

look at the difference:
original verse:
إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَٱلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَٱلصَّـٰبِـُٔونَ وَٱلنَّصَـٰرَىٰ مَنۡ ءَامَنَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأَخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَـٰلِحً۬ا فَلَا خَوۡفٌ عَلَيۡهِمۡ وَلَا هُمۡ يَحۡزَنُونَ 

verse in the text you provided:
إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والنصارى ، من آمن بالله ...فلا خوف عليهم ، ولاهم يحزنون ، والصابئون كذلك

Here is the link one more time, this issue that you pasted in your post is discussed at 4:05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-AZ6if0Qlw

 

[Anaxagoras]

No, it doesn't have to be violent free. It just has to be inclined or disposed to peace. You'll have to take that up with dictionary.com and tell them to fix their entry if you disagree.

Sorry, that is common sense, you simply can't be peaceful and violent at the same time, these are two contradictory terms.

It is like being dead and breathing at the same time.

You can be breathing and not dead, you can be dead and not breathing, but you can't be breathing and dead at the same time.
You can be peaceful and not violent, you can be violent and not peaceful, but you can't be peaceful and violent at the same time.

It is simply logic here:
If you are dead you are not breathing.
If you are breathing you are not dead.

What you are doing is taking a definition of dead such as one from point 2-7:
dead –adjective
1. no longer living; deprived of life: dead people; dead flowers; dead animals.
2. brain-dead.
3. not endowed with life; inanimate: dead stones.
4. resembling death; deathlike: a dead sleep; a dead faint.
5. bereft of sensation; numb: He was half dead with fright. My leg feels dead.
6. lacking sensitivity of feeling; insensitive: dead to the needs of others.
7. incapable of being emotionally moved; unresponsive: dead to the nuances of the music.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dead

Not only that, you totally ignore the first one in this list too for example, the main one, which is no longer living; deprived of life, and claim that one can be dead and breathing at the same time since lacking sensitivity of feeling is also a definition for dead.

 

[Anaxagoras]

So do you consider any other religion that is not man made? and also

Adam -Adam
Idris - Enoch
Nuh - Noah
Hud- Eber
Saleh -Shelah
Ibrahim-Abraham
Lut -Lot
Ismail - Ishmael
Is'haq -Isaac
Yaqub-Jacob
Yusuf -Joseph
Ayub - Job
Shoaib- Jethro
Musa - Moses
Harun -Aaron
Dhul-Kifl -Ezekiel
Daud -David
Sulayman -Solomon
Ilyas -Elijah
Al-Yasa -Elisha
Yunus -Jonah
Zakariya-Zacharias
Yahya-John
Isa-Jesus
Muhammad-Mohammed

So all of the above were wrong?

If they all preached on the same Abrahamic religion, then yes, I believe that they are all wrong.

 

[GSG Flash]

I'll also be responding to GSG Flash's earlier post about the differences between Sunnism and Shiasm later, with sources, of course. Sorry for the delay.

Don't bother, I don't really care for your opinions or your vague sources. If you do, your post probably won't be read.

 

[Darackutny]

If you would have watch the video I posted in the same post I pointed this out you would not have posted this, for it is discussed in the video.

If you have read my post thoroughly, you would have not re-linked me to the video, since he only responds to one of the three arguments that I've posted above.

Also, his response is rather weak, since his argument was, "why you should split the sentence like that-- there is no reason for it, no sense for it, no justification for it, apart from, of course, trying to correct this anomaly..." That isn't much of an argument really since his lack of knowledge, and inability to understand why this specfic sentence structure was chosen, should necessarily leave us with a grammatical error.

 

[Darackutny]

Don't bother, I don't really care for your opinions or your vague sources. If you do, your post probably won't be read.

How about hadiths from Al-Shaikh Al-Saduq, or even better from Al-Kulaini? Would that be enough? Or is that still insufficient since all Shia knowledge was taught to you back in grade school?

 

[Anaxagoras]

If you have read my post thoroughly, you would have not re-linked me to the video, since he only responds to one of the three arguments that I've posted above.

Also, his response is rather weak, since his argument was, "why you should split the sentence like that-- there is no reason for it, no sense for it, no justification for it, apart from, of course, trying to correct this anomaly..." That isn't much of an argument really since his lack of knowledge, and inability to understand why this specfic sentence structure was chosen, should necessarily leave us with a grammatical error.

The order of the words have been rearranged in this explanation, the sentence has been split into two and therefore this explanation is pointless.

look at the difference:
original verse:
إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَٱلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَٱلصَّـٰبِـُٔونَ وَٱلنَّصَـٰرَىٰ مَنۡ ءَامَنَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأَخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَـٰلِحً۬ا فَلَا خَوۡفٌ عَلَيۡهِمۡ وَلَا هُمۡ يَحۡزَنُونَ 

verse in the text you provided:
إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والنصارى ، من آمن بالله ...فلا خوف عليهم ، ولاهم يحزنون ، والصابئون كذلك

 

[Darackutny]

^ Alright, I'll let that one go. How about the other two reasons I've provided?

 

[GSG Flash]

How about hadiths from Al-Shaikh Al-Saduq, or even better from Al-Kulaini? Would that be enough? Or is that still insufficient since all Shia knowledge was taught to you back in grade school?

How about I don't care either way?

The chances of you turning myself or anyone into a wahabbi are about as good as Nizar turning myself or any other Muslim here away from Islam, regardless of what either of you post.

 

[heidern]

Sorry, that is common sense, you simply can't be peaceful and violent at the same time, these are two contradictory terms.

Not only that, you totally ignore the first one in this list too for example, the main one...

You don't even know how to use a dictionary properly. There's no "common sense", each entry stands on it's own. There is no hierarchy of validity, all are equally valid, you are free to choose whichever one you want, to convey whatever you want to say.

I say Islam is peaceful because it is inclined or disposed to peace; peaceable. Perfectly fitting the given dictionary definition. The other definitions including the first one are irrelevent.

You say Islam is not peaceful because it is not free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder. It fits the given dictionary definition. The other definitions including the second one are irrelevent.

Both our statements; that Islam is peaceful and that Islam is not peaceful are true.