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 - mclinkin94

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... 31
76
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Someone Should refute this.
« on: June 04, 2014, 08:53:49 PM »
Quote

Brother, using this EXTREME standard, you'll have to reject all history books as well.  You can't use this standard and expect to be taken seriously.

Hello brother,
Ibn Hisham wrote this biography 200 years after the prophet's death. The sources he used are what he has heard about the prophet through things like sayings, maybe little fragments of writing and some hadiths. It is absolutely justified to reject this. Since I have seen tons of evidence of corruption in the hadiths and the flaw of accuracy in chains of narration, I reject all hadiths. Although I do agree that there may be elements/fragments of truth in them.


 
Quote
The Hadiths have A LOT OF TRUTH IN THEM.  We'll just have to use the Holy Quran to filter out the man-made garbage from them.

If we are only going to accept the hadiths that agree with the Quran, then what is the point of hadiths?

By the way, hadiths can be wrong even if they don't contradict the Quran. In fact, many hadiths don't contradict the Quran that is because the subject of many hadiths is different from the Quran.

Example: "The prophet used to eat with his right hand". This doesn't contradict the Quran, but could very well be a lie.


 

Quote
If we reject all Hadiths, then we'll end up in very very bitter and ugly games of confusion and guess work.  This is what Allah Almighty Himself Said:

Quite the contrary actually. If we reject hadiths, we accept the Quran.

Quran 45:6 These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?

I underlined the word "these" to make it clearer. If I write a book and say "These are my sentences, don't believe in any other statement", it is clear that THESE sentences in my book are the only things to be beleived. The same applies to Quran 45:6, Allah tells us that these are Allah's verses and we cannot believe in any verses pertaining to Islam besides them


Quote
[075:019]  It is (also) Our responsibility to explain to you its meaning.[/color]

Quran-onlys are a deviant cult!

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

You are assuming that when Allah says that he will explain the Quran's meaning, he is referring to using the prophet Muhammad/hadiths to explain the Quran. If this is the case, then how come we don't find a book that explains or provides a tafsir of every Quranic verse by the prophet Muhammad? Although I do agree the prophet Muhammad had a duty to explain the Quran, he didn't add his own teachings to it.

Secondly, the Quran informs us how Allah explains his verses and leaves no room for another book to explain the verses. Allah explains the Quran through the Quran! It is like me explaining my book in my sentences in my own book!

Here is an example:

"See how We explains the verses that they may understand." (6:65)

So Allah explains the verses in the Quran. That is how Allah explains the Quran, not through some other source.

It is Allah, who is the ‘Mufasir’ i.e commentator of the Qur’an, and the Tafsir of one verse was provided by the revelation of other verses which would throw light on the subject under discussion. Thus it is said:

"Ar-Rahmaan (The Beneficent God). It is He who teaches the Qur’an." (55:1-2)

Not only was the revelation, compilation and protection of the Book taken up by Allah himself, but also its explanation. As we are informed:

"Do not move your tongue with this (Qur'an) to make haste with it. Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it. Therefore when We have recited it, follow its recitation. Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it." (75:16-19)

Here Allah relieves the prophet from explaining the Quran and says the duty is on Allah.

Hence it is Allah who provides the Tafsir of His Book by <Tasreef ul Ayat>, that is, by repetition of verses. By explaining verses in the Quran through the Quran.

77
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Someone Should refute this.
« on: June 04, 2014, 04:30:55 PM »
I don't need to refute this.

It cites hadiths and not actual Quranic verses. Easy-->Hadiths are lies and fabrications. Problem solved.

/thread.

(by the way there is a TON of evidence showing that hadiths are lies and fabrications)

Edit: If you notice, this article uses Ibn HIsham's book quite often. Ibn Hisham did a biography of the prophet Muhammad's life long after the prophet died. What sources do you think he used to write that biography---->Hadiths/sayings/chinese whispers/rumors etc. etc.

78
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Refuting WikiIslam: Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Torah/Gospel)
« on: June 01, 2014, 12:24:28 AM »
6.) Consider the evidence: The Qur'an never says the physical scriptures of the previous revelations are corrupt (since we have precluded 2:79). If the previous scriptures are not corrupt, what do we do if the Qur'an contradicts the message of the Bible?

As we have seen, the Quran clearly states that previous scriptures have been tampered with. Quran 2:79's correct interpretation was shown. There is always a correct interpretation and an incorrect interpretation. This is especially true in science, when you have a body of evidence--many people can make incorrect interpretations. There is always one true interpretation. The true interpretation should be shown to be true by evidence and the incorrect interpretation should be ruled out. As you have seen in my previous post, Wiki-Islam's interpretation of QUran 2:79 is fraudulent.

Let me give an example of how Allah indirectly informs us the scriptures are corrupted:

[Quran 5:41] O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief of those who say, "We believe" with their mouths, but their hearts believe not, and from among the Jews. [They are] avid listeners to falsehood, listening to another people who have not come to you. They distort words beyond their [proper] usages, saying "If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware." But he for whom Allah intends fitnah - never will you possess [power to do] for him a thing against Allah . Those are the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.

Take a look at the above verse. It says that the Jews are listeners of falsehood and that falsehood comes from distorting words beyond their usages. Then Allah says they are disgraced and impure. If their corruptions were small and insignificant, would Allah really go as far as say they are disgraced and have a great punishment? The only rational conclusion is to assert that the corruption of the Jews’s scripture was significant! In fact, it was so significant that Allah (the most merciful) will given them a severe punishment. When a merciful yet just person gives you a punishment, you know what you did must have been especially significant.

79
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Refuting WikiIslam: Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Torah/Gospel)
« on: May 31, 2014, 11:58:58 PM »
5.) Qur'an 2:79 when read in context clearly states that the illiterate people were writing the book 'with their own hands' and claiming it was from Allah. Since we know the people of the Book were literate, these verses are not referring to them.

This is the most important point to be discussed! In this post, I will give an exegesis of Quran 2:79 and present the correct translation of such a verse and show how wiki-Islam's interpretation is invalid.

First, not all the people of the book were literate. Only a party of them were. Nowhere in the Quran does it declare that the people of the book were all literate.

Please read the context of Quran 2:79 very carefully as if you don't, you won't understand why Wiki-Islam's interpretation is false.

[Quran 2:75] Do you covet, that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

[Quran 2:76] And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We have believed"; but when they are alone with one another, they say, "Do you talk to them about what Allah has revealed to you so they can argue with you about it before your Lord?" Then will you not reason?

[Quran 2:77] But do they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they declare?

[Quran 2:78] And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming.

[Quran 2:79] So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

WikiIslam asserts that since Quran 2:78 is immediately before Quran 2:79, that Quran 2:79 is only referring to the people in Quran 2:78 (illiterates) and not the actual jews who distort the scripture in 2:75 (several verses before 2:79). This methodology of interpretation is absolutely invalid! When you read a paragraph, you don't only read the sentence before the thing you are trying to interpret, you read the full paragraph. You must read the beginning of this section of chapter 2 (verses 75).

 It is important to note that Quran 2:76-79 are continuations OF Quran 2:75 which states the Jews distort their scriptures. When something is a continuation of a sentence, then it is part of the context.

Let me paraphrase what the Quran is saying:

"A party of the Jews used to distort the Torah after knowing it. And among these Jews that distort the Torah after knowing it, there are the illiterates who do not know the book who only follow their desires and conjectures about the book. So woe to those who write the book with their own hands and say this is from "Allah".

As you can see the last sentence in my paraphrase includes the first sentence! You don't just interpret that last sentence and say, "oh it is only referring to the illiterates".

In fact, it must follow from a rational interpretation of these verses that the Quran is referring to the Jews that distort to Torah and not the illiterates. The illiterates were put there to show that among those who distort the Torah, are these people who just follow their desires/conjecture. Then it says woe to those who fabricate the book with their own hands.

What wiki-Islam states is that the illiterates wrote the book with their own hands. This is where I facepalmed myself.  How could an illiterate person make additions to the book with his own hands if he cannot read or write! hello?

Wiki-Islam also states that it is not the Jews who write the book with their own hands, it is the illiterates. EVEN IF this was the case (which it is not), the Quran says they changed THE book, not A book. It is a definite article meaning it is referring to a specific book.  What is THE book the Quran is talking about? The Torah (as Quran 2:75/context states). Therefore, even with Wiki-Islam's incorrect interpretation, the Torah still gets corrupted and gets lies inserted in it...

Wiki Islam's interpretation is invalid because:
1.) Illiterate people cannot write a book with their own hands (duh!)
2.) The verse before 2:79 states that the illiterate people do not know the book--if they do not know the book, how could they write or add-on to the book they don't know?
3.) Quran 2:75 (few verses before) is speaking about the Jews and the Christians distorting their books
4.) Quran 2:78 states that AMONG the Jews who distort the book, there are illiterates who follow their own conjecture of the book and hearsay. So this verse is a continuation of 2:75 (which states that the Jews were distorting the book).
5.) Quran 2:79 then states, So woe to those who write the book with their own hands and say it is from Allah. Quran 2:78 is a continuation of Quran 2:75-- and thus Quran 2:79 is referring to the Jews that distort the book, not the illiterate ones (see the exegesis above).


So as you can see Wiki-Islam failed to read the whole context of this verse (beginning from Quran 2:75) and failed to use their reason. This could have been either an honest mistake or some serious deliberate misinterpretation.

What is very funny is that even under Wiki-Islam's interpretation, the Torah still gets corrupted as Quran 2:79 states: "THE" book, not, "a" book. Therefore, the Quran wanted to make it clear that the book (Torah) got corrupted. So Wiki-Islam cannot hide behind this fact. If the Quran wanted to say that there were people (besides the people of the scripture) who wrote lies in another book about Allah, the Quran would NOT say "the" book as "the" refers to the Torah as the context makes clear. Rather the Quran would say "Woe to those who write 'a' book and claim it is from Allah.

Now what about the gospel? Well, is it simple. The Gospel we have today is not the gospel that was given to Jesus. The Quran states Jesus was given the Gospel--the gospel we have to day was not given to Jesus, it was a commentary on Jesus' life by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

80
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Refuting WikiIslam: Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Torah/Gospel)
« on: May 31, 2014, 11:29:11 PM »
4.) Both the Jews and Christians were literate peoples who knew their scriptures

Not all of them.

81
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Refuting WikiIslam: Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Torah/Gospel)
« on: May 31, 2014, 11:22:36 PM »
3.) We know that Allah is 'verifying' both the Taurat and Injil; telling Christians and Jews to check their specific scriptures to 'judge by what Allah has revealed.'

Again, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Even when a book is corrupted, it does not mean that the entire message was corrupted. So telling the Jews to check their scriptures does not in any way imply that their scriptures are 100% accurate.

Here is an analogy: Let's say that I write a book and it has been corrupted, but the corruption did not change the basic message. Then I write a new book and I say, refer to the old book I wrote (even if it is corrupted) and see that the message is the same and from me. There are traces of my origional message in the old book.

Believe it or not, the current Torah shares many similarities and agreements with the Quran. When you read the Torah, you see the basic message is the same and there isn't much conflict between the Torah and the Quran. Here is an example as to how you can check specific scriptures to judge by what Allah has revealed:

"And when Jesus the Son of Mary said, O children of Israel, verily I am the Apostle of God sent unto you, confirming the law which was delivered before me, and bringing good tidings of an Apostle who shall come after me, and whose name shall be Ahmed. And when he produced unto them evident miracles, they said, this is manifest sorcery.  (The Noble Quran, 61:6)"

In this verse, Jesus is confirming an old prophesy in the bible that states an apostle will come and his name will be Ahmed. The word Ahmed means: Praised. We find this in the torah.

Song of Songs 5:16 His mouth is most sweet; yea, he is altogether lovely (mohamadim). This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.'

Notice the subtle difference between he is lovely and he is praised. Indeed a lovely person is praised and a praised person is lovely.

For more on this please go to:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm

And watch the set of videos starting with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYf1j5Duhns&index=11&list=PL809E3E8B55FFE2AA

So as you can see, even if a book is corrupted it still has some truth and that truth is enough to "judge by what Allah has revealed".  MANY more examples can be given.

82
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Refuting WikiIslam: Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Torah/Gospel)
« on: May 31, 2014, 11:00:55 PM »
2.) The Qur'an claims to verify the books that they have with them. This precludes the possibility that the People of the Book had corrupted scriptures in their possession at the time of Muhammad. The language used in the Qur'an confirms that the whole texts were intact and 'verified' by the Qur'an. Since we have Biblical texts that pre-date Islam, that match what we have today, we know that today's scriptures are the same as they were in and before Muhammad's time.

The conclusion don't follow from the premises in that argument. When you corrupt a book, you still have the book and you still have fragments of the message. So the Quran came to confirm the original message.  If there were differences in the Quran and the book they have, then the Quran did NOT confirm that aspect of the book.

When you confirm something, you prove it to be valid or true. So the Quran came to confirm the books they had with them. One is pressed with the question, If the book they had with them was perfect and not corrupted, then why did the Quran need to confirm them?

Here is an analogy: I wrote a book that got partially corrupted and parts of the message changed. Now, I have to write another book confirming the old book I wrote and showing this old book was authored by me.  This does not mean that I will confirm everything in the old book, but rather, I would confirm the things that I wrote and not confirm the corruptions. Overall, the old book (despite its corruptions) will be shown to have been mine because of the same style of writing, the same basic message, the same stories, the same personality features of the author reflected etc. etc. A few differences in the old book does not at all show that it wasn't originally authored by me. This new book I wrote had to confirm or verify the truthful aspects of the old book and to show it was authored by me.

It is obvious that the Quran needed to confirm the book they have with them so that they could see that parts of the books they have are true. Even though the books are corrupted, they contain many truths and the basic message of Allah (worship none but Allah).

What is confirmed in the Torah? Many stories have been confirmed in the Torah (Moses, Abraham, etc.), many ancient (obsolete) laws have been confirmed to have existed in the Torah, the BASIC and MOST IMPORTANT part of the Torah has been confirmed in the Quran--To worship none but Allah!

83
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Refuting WikiIslam: Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Torah/Gospel)
« on: May 31, 2014, 10:12:51 PM »
This is the first line of refuting each point that the Wiki-Islam article makes. It is important to point out here that from what I have observed, Wiki-Islam makes very hasty attempts at attacking Islam. I find it shameful the level of dishonestly and ignorance such a website has. Anyway, let's start with their first point:

1.) The Qur'an never charges that the Jews and Christians have physically corrupted their scriptures. It states that they have 'changed words from their right places/context (with their mouths)' and 'concealed parts of the message given to them'.

The Quran has charged the Jews and Christians to have physically corrupted their scriptures.

[Quran 2:75] Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

Few verses later:

[Quran 2:79] So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Wiki Islam argues that Quran 2:79 is speaking of the illiterate people, not the Jews/Christians. I will show that this is not the correct interpretation (in fact it is an invalid interpretation) when I refute point 5 in my next posts.

It is funny that Wiki Islam knows that if QUran 2:79 is interpreted in the manner it should be, it would completely contradict their whole point. Point 1 that they made up partly relies on the correct interpretation of Quran 2:79. That is why they felt like they had to write a whole article showing a different interpretation of Quran 2:79. Again, when I post refuting point 5, the correct interpretation of Quran 2:79 will be shown and their interpretation will be shown to be invalid.

I also wanted to discuss the part when wikiIslam states: " It states that they have 'changed words from their right places/context (with their mouths)' and 'concealed parts of the message given to them"

While it is true that many verses state that they have changed words out of context and hid parts of the message:

1.) Quran 2:75-79 is clear that they inserted things to the scripture.
2.) The Quran is clear that they were changing words out of context which changes the meaning of the scripture. How does wikiIslam think this isn't corruption. We all know a case in which reading something out of context changes the whole meaning of the sentence. In fact, in philosophy there if a logical fallacy known as quoting out of context. If you quote out of context you really do change the meaning. We all know of such examples.
3.) The Quran says they conceal parts of their scripture. Hiding parts of the message is not corruption? They are literally tampering with their books.

So all in all, the Quran asserts that the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians): Concealed parts of their scripture/message from Allah, distorted the meaning of the scripture by quoting out of context AND inserted lies into their scripture. If these do not mean the Jews corrupted their scripture, what does?

I have also heard a case when the opposition states: "the verse says a party of the Jews, not all the Jews corrupted the scripture--so this means that the scripture is not corrupted because only a few Jews corrupted the scripture". Well obviously not every single Jew corrupted the scripture. All it takes is a few literate Jews who have authority to corrupt the scripture to completely perverse the scripture. It is also well known that the Torah was orally transmitted and written down by scribes. So the corrupted oral transmission would have gotten on paper. In fact, we don't have the Torah (the original book) that Moses received. In fact historically, that is exactly what happened. IN the time of Jesus, there were the scribes and pharisees and they were the ONLY people who were literate and had access to the scripture. They only made up a small portion of the Jews and they have the potential to corrupt the scripture, since they were the authorities and the keepers of the book. So this is an example as to how only a small portion or party of the Jews can completely corrupt the entire scripture.

84
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Refuting WikiIslam: Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Torah/Gospel)
« on: May 31, 2014, 09:59:33 PM »
Their article can be found here: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Corruption_of_Previous_Scriptures_(Qur%27an_2:79)

They claim that the Quran does not charge the people of the book with corrupting their scriptures. I will post their main points that make up a summary of the Article and I will refute each point in each successive post.

Their points are:

  • The Qur'an never charges that the Jews and Christians have physically corrupted their scriptures. It states that they have 'changed words from their right places/context (with their mouths)' and 'concealed parts of the message given to them'.
  • The Qur'an claims to verify the books that they have with them. This precludes the possibility that the People of the Book had corrupted scriptures in their possession at the time of Muhammad. The language used in the Qur'an confirms that the whole texts were intact and 'verified' by the Qur'an. Since we have Biblical texts that pre-date Islam, that match what we have today, we know that today's scriptures are the same as they were in and before Muhammad's time.
  • We know that Allah is 'verifying' both the Taurat and Injil; telling Christians and Jews to check their specific scriptures to 'judge by what Allah has revealed.'
  • Both the Jews and Christians were literate peoples who knew their scriptures.
  • Qur'an 2:79 when read in context clearly states that the illiterate people were writing the book 'with their own hands' and claiming it was from Allah. Since we know the people of the Book were literate, these verses are not referring to them.
  • Consider the evidence: The Qur'an never says the physical scriptures of the previous revelations are corrupt (since we have precluded 2:79). If the previous scriptures are not corrupt, what do we do if the Qur'an contradicts the message of the Bible?

In the next several posts, I will go and refute each point.


***I just wanted to make a quick laugh at point #5 that the wiki-Islam article makes. If you haven't noticed, it is claiming that illiterate or unlearned people can write a book with their own hands! LOL! Seems like a very valid interpretation of the Quran  :P***

85
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: What makes Bukhari and Moslem's hadiths better than the ahl-al-bayt hadiths?
« on: May 30, 2014, 05:13:25 PM »
I do admire that the shia only accept hadiths based on whether it contradicts the Quran or doesn't. The only issue is, even if a hadith doesn't contradict the Quran, it could easily make a false statement or a false law.

My main issue with debating with shia is not their hadiths (that's my issue with sunni), but it is the nonsense of the infallible imams and their corrupted interpretations of the Quran. They always cite Quran 3:7 and they say "see, only those who are knowledgeable can interpret the Quran--that means the Imams"!   >:(

The first thing I say is that if the prophet himself was fallible, what makes these imams infallible. Are they better than the prophet.

If the prophet was fallible, then would God say this:

Quran 34:50 Say, "If I should err, I would only err against myself. But if I am guided, it is by what my Lord reveals to me. Indeed, He is Hearing and near."

 In spite of the above confirmation of the fallibility of the Prophet, together with six
incidents in the Quran where the Prophet was reprimanded by God for errors he committed,
still the ones who idolise the Prophet claim that Muhammad was infallible!


The six incidents are found in 8:67-68, 9:43, 9:113-114, 33:37, 66:1 and 80:1-11.

If the prophet was fallible, then it follows that the imams must be too.


86
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Is earth the center of the Universe according to the Glorious Quran?
« on: May 29, 2014, 07:40:55 PM »
Hello brother Osama, as always, I love the way you explain things in detail and I love the style of your discussion!

when you said:

"However, throughout the Glorious Quran, Allah Almighty did speak in several Noble Verses about earth and the objects in the Universe relative to the earth.  In other words, our earth would be the center or the focus or the primary celestial body of the Noble Verse, and the other celestial bodies would be the secondary objects."

I would also add that Allah spoke of objects in the universe relative to earth because the Quran was meant for us humans who reside on earth. I'm sure if he wrote a Quran to aliens, he would talk about everything relative to their home planet and he wouldn't be talking about earth  :).


87
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / How to debate with shia?
« on: May 29, 2014, 07:19:10 PM »
I can't seem to get my point across on the proper method to interpret the Quran! If I can't do this, then they can never understand the Quran.

They say that we cannot interpret the Quran without the "infallble Imams" and they cite Quran 3:7. Quran 3:7 just says that only the people of knowledge can interpret the allegorical/hidden meanings of the Quran--and this is obviously true. The #19 miracle is hidden, the rose like paint thing in the Quran can only be understood if you have cosmological knowlege etc. But these shia seem to insist that only imams and religious gurus have the right to tell you that the true meaning of the Quran.


I argued:

1.) The Quran says it has all the details and that Allah explains the Quran and that the Quran explains itself (example: Allah says " "See how We explain the verses that they may understand." (6:65) and we don't need some extra source or some imam telling us what it says Thus Allah revealed verses which provided Tafsir of other verses themselves. If we needed some other source to explain the Quran, Allah would have made the prophet Muhammad write an entire tafsir of every Quranic verse--but that didn't happen. Rather, Allah himself explained the Quran through the Quran.  What remained ambigous in one verse, its clarification and exegesis was provided by Allah Himself by the gradual descent of other verses of the Qur’an. Hence Allah provided the Tafsir of the Qur’an by the Qur’an itself, and did not make His Book dependent on any compilations of traditions for its exegesis. It is by this manner that Allah gave the Tafsir of His Book to the messenger and the messenger inturn conveyed to his audience. The messenger did not give any separate book of Tafsir to the Ummah as the Tafsir of the Qur’an which he imparted on the Ummah was contained inside the pages of the Qur’an itself."

2.) Imams are not infallible as if they were, they wouldn't be contradicting each other. One must be wrong, fallible, eh? Plus, I cannot believe the extent of Idol worship these people have

Should I just give up on them. It seems like people will never stop believing in anything they don't want to. Let me just say that if I was like that, I would have never became a Muslim in the first place.
-----

Just look at this shia clown who thinks there is a hidden meaning in the Quran that contradicts what it clearly says! He calls it "esoteric".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Hy1j7-zCE&list=FLaTLZxxhHOwx0YKZZ89fGUg#t=660

The link is at a specific time, but I cannot believe that a shia can think that the Quran has some kind of hidden meaning and that the Quran STATES that Jesus was not crucified even though it made it clear!!!!!!  :-[ --This is just because some Imam told him so.

88
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Naturalism (a.k.a "anti-super-naturalism") DEBUNKED:
« on: May 29, 2014, 04:54:50 PM »
Hello again everyone. This is another post in the nice line of Naturalism defeaters.

In my previous posts, I have shown that the belief in naturalism is unjustified. In this post, I will show that the belief in naturalism is self-defeating!

When a belief is self-defeating, it is outright false. So THIS is the post where naturalism will be officially debunked. Once a belief is shown to be self-defeating, it is debunked.

What is a self defeating belief?

A self defeating belief is (as the name implies) a belief that defeats itself. Take this sentence for example:

"There are no true sentences".

If I say there are no true sentences, then my sentence itself cannot be true which means that there ARE true sentences!

I will show that naturalism has the same feature in being self-defeating or "shoots itself in the foot".

Evolutionary argument that defeats naturalism:

Many people think that biological evolution and naturalism are compatible. They think that evolution is a pillar on the temple of naturalism (as Alvin Plantinga states). That is not true at all and they do conflict with each other. It is amazing as to how many people can maintain a belief in both naturalism and evolution, yet, not know about the philosophical implications of their belief.

What I am saying is that is it not sensible to believe in BOTH evolution and naturalism. The major argument here is about the reliability of our cognitive faculties (our logic, our knowledge, memory, our intuition etc.)!

The theory of evolution states that the traits that improve the overall fitness of a population survive, while the traits that don't get lost and not reproduced in the population. Naturalistic evolution is not concerned with giving us the cognition to tell us what is true, rather naturalistic evolution is concerned with giving us the cognition to survive. In other words, all the information we get of reality is nothing more than survival information!

If our beliefs are simply the result of selective advantage of randomly achieved traits, that means that our beliefs don't aim at truth, but aim at survival! So how do we know that everything that we believe is really true, if is just something that helps you survive!

To restate, blind evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive and is not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life! If naturalism is true and we are products of natural selection of random traits, then EVERYTHING we know is only for survival and not what is actually real! So if naturalism is true, then our beliefs about logic, science and rationality are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain that is aimed at survival rather than telling us the truth.

Now I have heard some argue that knowing what is true about the world is most beneficial for survival. This is not necessarily true. Here is an example, mild paranoia is better for survival but it doesn't represent a true picture of reality. Those who are paranoid are suspecting that people around them are trying to hurt them, this isn't true in most cases, yet it helps the paranoid people survive at times of danger. So the argument that knowing whatt is true is beneficial for survival holds no water. So if naturalism is true, then everything you believe is just survival information rather than an accurate assessment of reality!

So given this evolutionary argument, naturalism shoots itself in the foot or defeats itself. If naturalism is true, then everything we believe is nothing more than beliefs that help in survival, including beliefs about naturalism! So if Naturalism is true, then the belief in naturalism is just something we believe because it helps with survival.   In other words, if naturalism is true then naturalism is false. Just like if the sentence that "there are no true sentences" is true, it means that that sentence is false! This is how naturalism shoots itself in the foot/defeats itself.

Theistic evolution is the only way to go:

The theist (more specially-The Muslim , as there is much Quranic evidence detailing the controlled evolutionary stages of creation), on the other hand, can rationally accept theism and evolution. We trust that evolution was not just a blind, random series of events, but rather a controlled series of events led by God that would lead to humans developing the cognition necessary to fulfill our purpose in life (to rationally believe and worship God).

In order for naturalists to  rationally maintain their position, they must not believe in the current biological evolution theory! When you deny the biological evolution theory, you are going against a ton of evidence and that also makes your naturalism very ill-supported. Most naturalists that I know BELIEVE in the theory of evolution! Unfortunately, they did not think this through and they failed to see the deep philosophical implications of their belief system.

With this, I say that naturalism is therefore debunked. ***Evolution disproves naturalism***.

Here are a few videos that make the same argument against naturalism. I highly recommend the first one! The next 2 are great, but all is summarized in the first one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ5RPn6nlwo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8&index=2&list=LLIQLP9vDP95J7-5g0W5WejA

89
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: What makes Bukhari and Moslem's hadiths better than the ahl-al-bayt hadiths?
« on: May 29, 2014, 04:17:04 PM »
Thank you brother for that explanation! But, I was hoping for a comparison between the sunni hadiths science and the shia hadith science.

90
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Female dress code in the Quran
« on: May 29, 2014, 12:00:33 AM »
Quick further explanation of a part of this verse:

Allah allows for flexibility in the dress code:

" .... not to show their adornments except that of it which normally shows."

This expression may sound vague to many because they have not understood the Mercy of God. Once again, God here used this very general term in order to allow women the freedom to decide on what is shown of her body. Righteous women will always make the correct decision so as to conform to the general code of morality, and also according to the time, place and occasion.

The great wisdom of God in granting women this fexible concession can be witnessed every day and in every place. The following example demonstrats the application of this concession:

A woman attending the masjid for prayers, or attending a funeral would wish to wear fairly concervative clothes, but a woman playing sports for example would wish to wear simple light clothes that does not hinder movement.

If God did not grant this merciful concession in 24:31it would mean that all women would have to wear ientical clothes at all occasions!

The word 'zeenatahunna' (adornments) in this verse refers to the woman's beauty spots which carry a sexual connotation, examples are "thighs, breasts, back side ... etc). At the end of the verse, God tells the women not to strike with their feet to show their 'zenatahunna'. The way a woman strikes her feet while walking can expose the details of certain parts of the body.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... 31

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