Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AhmadFarooq

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21
226
Unsurprisingly, the question still remains unanswered.

Regarding your point,
Do you have a quote from the Bible saying that the Bible did not exist in eternity with God?

227
Quote
“No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”
(John 1:18)

Beget literally means to bring a child into the world by means of reproduction. If this is not the meaning of this verse, then the original texts should have been translated better, which leads to the problem of whether the Greek version of the Bible is correct or the English one.

Your assertion that the Qur'an does not call Jesus the "son of Mary" is amazing. The Qur'an at-least 23 times literally calls Jesus "son of Mary".
Source: http://search-the-quran.com/search/son%20of%20Mary

Imagine a mother, pointing towards her son, repeats herself 23 times, that "this is her son, that this is her son" and so on, and some guy tells the people that: No, by "son" she did not mean "son", she meant something completely different. Can you see how incorrect this logic is?
Exactly what does the Qur'an need to say that you will accept the fact that the Qur'an claims Jesus to be the "son of Mary"?

It is pretty much a complete waste of time replying to you, if you are going to make such obviously faulty assertions.

228
The following is according to my knowledge, which could be mistaken.

I don't think Islamic doctrine ever claimed that the humans were the "first creation". From what I understand the first creation in this verse is referring to the "former creation" which has died (i.e. humans) and now Allah will recreate it. The word "اول" translated as "first" can also be translated as "former" which, if I'm not mistaken, is the gist of it in this context (I will ask an Arabic speaking person to confirm this).

This is apparently the opinion of Ibn Kathir: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2620&Itemid=76

229
Once again did not answer the question!

And, which scholar said that "the Quran and Allah existed as two through eternity"? As far as I know, no one said that. What scholars have said is that, because God is supposed to be eternal, and therefore God in His entirety with all His attributes has to be eternal, which means God's knowledge also has to be eternal and since God's knowledge consists of the Qur'an along with all the knowledge about this universe, therefore the Qur'an is uncreated and has existed since the beginning (or throughout eternity). By this understanding, if I'm not mistaken, the Torah and the Bible would also be considered eternal.

Other scholars hold the opinion that even if there was a millisecond difference, God would have existed prior to His knowledge and therefore the Qur'an is created. This opinion has existed since 9th-10th centuries CE, primarily by the religious movement the Mut'azalis. This movement pretty much died out, but the concept of the uncreated Qur'an still exists.

230
Answer the question!

And there has not been a consensus of scholars about the un-createdness of the Qur'an.

231
Someone else probably will have a better answer to this.

This issue, apparently, like many other issues, is one with great scholarly difference of opinion.

Here is a link which explains the commonly understood theory of abrogation: http://islamicencyclopedia.org/public/index/topicDetail/id/48

Hers is a link, of an article by Dr. Israr Ahmad Khan, which criticizes the commonly held ideas about abrogation:
http://iiit.org/Research/ScholarsSummerInstitute/TableofContents/ArgumentsforAbrogationintheQuranACritique/tabid/241/Default.aspx

Regards,

232
Isn't Bible supposed to be the word of God too? I mean, Jesus was just one word, whereas the Bible is much greater than that. So... is Bible a bigger God? Or at the very least, it should be a God too. Right?

233
Because it has been becoming increasingly clear to me that you are just trying to bait the other person in saying certain specific things. If you already knew the rewards, why were you asking me?

If you wanted to talk about this subject, you should have just said so, about a week ago when you tried to push the discussion towards this point. This is the third time, I'm saying this: "Stop mincing words and speak plainly."
It is apparent to me that you are not a Muslim, you have changed the subject multiple times in this discussion, apparently trying hard to finally catch the other person without an answer. Topics that were explained to you in one post, even though you did not continue to argue on that topic (presumably because you couldn't), you continued to debate on that same issue with another person in a way that showed complete ignorance of the arguments that I had already given.

Give me one good reason that I'm wrong, otherwise this is probably going to be my last post on this thread.

Regards,

234
If that is what the residents of heaven desire, than it will be there.

As I said before, "stop mincing words and speak plainly." It appears you were trying to push the discussion towards this point from the time you started asking about rewards of heaven about 5 days ago. And by the way, nice job on continuously moving from one topic to another, probably with the objective of finally finding a good argument against Islam.

Regards,

235
Regarding the second link, I won't go into detail, just point out one flaw.
Quote
Clearly "mischief" which is also equated to "waging war against Allah and His Messenger" in the very next verse, can and does apply to someone who simply refuses to accept Islam.

Their constructed conclusion is that because  mischief is equated as a simple disbelief in Allah, therefore disbelievers should be killed according to the Qur'an. First of all, the "mischief = simple disbelief" equation, they get only from exegeses of the Qur'an which are written by humans and can be erroneous. Also, I highly doubt they even quoted those texts sincerely. As far as I know, the Qur'an does not make this claim.

Secondly, this interpretation implies that Muslims should be killing all the disbelievers, why are they not doing so? Why are the Caliphs and Prophet known to have "not killed" all the disbelievers under their power when they got the chance? Either there is such an obvious contradiction in Islamic doctrine (which apparently Muslim scholars were unaware of) or this website is just being deliberately malicious.

Also, the same website (if I remember correctly) talks about dhimmis. Where did they come from, if all disbelievers were supposed to be killed as a command from Allah (as they allege)? At the very least, the website should have pointed out this apparent contradiction, seeing as it claims to be an "objective" source of Islam.

Objective source, yeah right!
If you want, I can provide you with clear proofs disproving their so-called "objectivity".

Regards,

236
Please do try not to visit anti-Islamic sites, at-least not until you know of various Muslim sites which refute their allegations. These anti-Islamic websites cherry-pick the evidence that confirms their already drawn out conclusions and ignore all the contradicting evidences.

I doubt anyone will have the time for "a full proper refutation". I don't think there are any rebuttals targeting wikiislam specifically at the moment. Most Muslim sites will be concerned with general refutations.

You will have to search on this website or use: http://searching-islam.com/ which is like a Google index for Muslim websites.

On the "Friends" issue, there is some difference of opinion on this, I previously compiled some notes on this subject, which are mentioned below.

Taking Non-Muslims as “Friends”

If a friend is defined as – someone with whom a person has relationships based on sympathy, kindness, concern which includes charitable help and support, condolence and consolation and any well-meaning attitude of wishing well OR customary cordiality, adequacy in courtesy, pleasant and friendly behaviour and mannerly politeness – then, non-Muslims can indeed be taken as friends by Muslims.
According to Kaleef K. Karim, the Arabic word ‘Awliya’ translated into English as ‘Friends’, has been accepted by some but at the same time “many Muslim and non-Muslim scholars favour that the Arabic word ‘awliya’ should be interpreted to mean ‘guardians’, ‘allies’, ‘patrons’ and ‘protectors’, not ‘friends’, as some who have suggested.”

Mauláná Mufti Muhammad Shafi’s Ma’áriful-Qur’án Explanation

Mauláná Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ in his Ma’áriful-Qur’án divides friendship into four degrees.
“The first degree of such relations comes from the heart, that of affection and love involving intense emotional commitment. This is called Muwálát or close friendship. This sort of friendship is restricted to true Muslims. A Muslim is not permitted to have this kind of relationship with a non-Muslim … any deep emotional commitment by a true Muslim in the known forms of love and friendship has to be exclusively for one who is with him all the way in the pursuit of this noble purpose”
This Muwálát appears to be a kind of friendship on a spiritual level.
Any degree of friendship below this is allowed. These “lesser degrees” allow, (second degree of friendship) “relationship based on sympathy, kindness and concern. It includes charitable help and support, condolence and consolation and any well-meaning attitude of wishing well.” (third degree of friendship) “… relations based on customary cordiality, adequacy in courtesy, pleasant and friendly behaviour and mannerly politeness.” (fourth degree of friendship) “… dealings and transactions in business or employment or wages or industry or technology.”
These allowances are discouraged or in some cases prohibited during times of war with those non-Muslims.
“It is on this basis that Muslim jurists have prohibited the sale of arms to disbelievers who are at war with Muslims. However, trade and activities allied to it have been permitted. Also allowed is having them as employees or being employed in their plants and institutions”
Source: Mauláná Mufti Muhammad Shafi’, Ma’áriful-Qur’án, Volume 2, p. 56-58

Sunnah of the Prophet & his Companions

“When Makkah was in the grip of famine, he personally went out to help his enemies who had made him leave his home town. Then, came the conquest of Makkah. All these enemies fell under his power and control. He set [almost] all of them free…”
“When non-Muslim prisoners of war were presented before him, he treated them with such tenderness which many cannot claim to have done even in respect of their children. The disbelievers inflicted on him all sorts of injuries and pain but he never raised his hand in revenge. He did not even wish ill of them. A delegation from the tribe of Banú Thaqíf who had not embraced Islam upto that time came to visit him. They were given the honour of staying in the Mosque of the Prophet, a place regarded by Muslims as most honourable.”
Caliph 'Umar “gave stipends and allowances to needy non-Muslim dhimmk, an elegant conduct the examples of which are spread all over in the accounts of dealings credited to the rightly-guided Khulafá and the noble Companions… It had nothing to do with Muwálát or close and intimate friendship which had been forbidden.”
“Islam teaches its adherents all possible tolerance, decency and benevolence while dealing with non-Muslim”
Source: Mauláná Mufti Muhammad Shafi’, Ma’áriful-Qur’án, Volume 2, p. 58-59

Reference to some Muslim & Non-Muslim Commentaries

Kaleef K. Karim notes that Qur’an verses in reference to the topic of not taking non-Muslim as friends, according to both Muslim an non-Muslim commentaries, were received in the context of the battles with the non-Muslims, and it should be taken as meaning that in times of war with non-Muslims, Muslims aren’t supposed to take those non-Muslims as friends.
http://discover-the-truth.com/2014/12/01/can-christians-and-jews-be-friends-with-muslims/

Qur’an 3:28

Kaleef K. Karim notes that Qur’an 3:28, according to both Muslim and non-Muslim commentaries, was received in the context of the Battle of Badr, and it should be taken as meaning that in times of war with non-Muslims, Muslims aren’t supposed to take those non-Muslims as friends.
http://discover-the-truth.com/2015/01/24/quran-328-not-to-take-non-believers-as-friends/

Osama Abdullah's article on this matter is located here: http://www.answering-christianity.com/friends.htm

237
First of all, it is much more than just 5 times a day prayers, and secondly what exactly is wrong with that? It is but one of many rewards.

Stop mincing words and speak plainly. Also, why didn't you include the fact about the opportunity to listen to Allah in heaven? Is it because you couldn't come up with any arguments against it?

238
If I remember correctly: rivers of milk, having the opportunity to listen to the voice  of Allah, palaces, if I'm not mistaken, the people getting served drinks by Allah Himself, people probably getting the opportunity to meet with their loved ones, or even the prophets.

239
Nice article.

Don't know much about the other figures, but I had previously come across the Hindu figures, so I know a few things about this. The following is relevant in this case:

Quote
[K. S. Lal's] work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental and African Studies) and Irfan Habib for its agenda and lack of accurate data in pre-census times.
(...) Disputers of the "conversion by the sword theory" point to the presence of the large Muslim communities found in Southern India, Sri Lanka, Western Burma, Bangladesh, Southern Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia coupled with the distinctive lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim empires in the Indian subcontinent as refutation to the "conversion by the sword theory". The legacy of the Muslim conquest of South Asia is a hotly debated issue and argued even today. Different population estimates by economics historian Angus Maddison and by Jean-Noël Biraben also indicate that India's population did not decrease between 1000 and 1500, but increased by about 35 million during that time.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India

A very relevant and extensive article was put up by thedebateinitiative.com:
http://thedebateinitiative.com/2016/01/11/the-myth-of-destroyed-hindu-temples-and-forced-conversion-of-hindus-by-historical-muslim-rulers-of-india/

One of the important points made here, is the fact that rulers cannot rule over the majority people by harshly persecuting them. The rulers need their loyalty. Muslim kings routinely employed Hindu generals and soldiers in their armies. Mahmud of Ghazni apparently, out of a total of 12, had 5 Hindu generals and 35% Hindu soldiers in his army.

Additionally, I once looked up the number of slave rebellions in Muslim parts. I only checked the Wikipedia article, so my information is probably incomplete, but there was only a single record of any salve rebellion under the Muslim caliphs and even that instance is argued by some historians as more of a rebellion of the lowest social classes of the society (which would have included slaves) instead of an exclusively slave rebellion.

I'm not a historian so I can't say for sure, but from what I've read it seems when slaves were treated badly enough up to a threshold point, their rebellions started (which probably includes the most famous one in Haiti). In Muslim areas whether their conditions were bad or not, it apparently never reached that threshold breaking point. I believe a similar situation probably exists for the lack of huge Hindu revolts in India.

Additionally, I don't know if you are aware of the unreliable nature of the number given for the killed of Banu Qurayzah. In case you didn't know about this, there is a comprehensive article authored by Kaleef K. Karim & Aliyu Musa Misau:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/
(The 9th and 10th headings are the most relevant to the present discussion)

Also, again in case you were unaware of this, there is a Facebook page "Exposing Britain First" where the contributors routinely try to counteract the propaganda spread by Britain First.
https://www.facebook.com/Exposing0Britain0First

Regards,

240
What we have been told about heaven, is that the desires of humans will be fulfilled there, some of those  features have been mentioned in the Islamic sources, but not everything has been explicitly defined.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube