Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 5 Votes - 4.2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2012, 05:57 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 06:01 PM by Internet Mullah.)
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Dom, ShirubaDangan, and everyone else, in case if you guys didn't know this, I would just like to inform you that the Islamic laws would not apply to you if you're not a Muslim, even if you're living in a Muslim country. Also, to re-emphasize what I said earlier, the main reason behind the stoning law is to protect society and relationships from the insecurity caused by those who commit adultery by simply deterring the commission of such a crime. Under the Shariah, the benefit of the society is more important the benefit of an individual, hence a stricter code of law is implemented on certain actions of individuals that are deemed harmful to society, so that they happen less frequently in the future. This is an idea that is similar to the prison system. For example, the philosophical basis of secular law is not punishment, but reform. Prisons were initially created with the Christian Puritan notion that if people were isolated from the rest of society, and forced to reflect upon their crimes, they would emerge reformed individuals who are no longer a threat to society. This method would also prevent others from committing crimes as well - i.e. as a means of deterrent - although it is pretty much ineffective in that sense, in my opinion. Similarly, that is the same idea that applies to the reason behind Islamic laws against certain crimes such as adultery and murder, for example, the only difference being that they are more strict and severe. That being said, I'm going to take a break from this whole stoning/adultery discussion for now and I will come back to it later (when I reply to some of the related questions).

Mr. Woof, what you are referring to as "clitorectomy" and oftentimes "killing the child" is not what is done to Muslim females. According to my knowledge, there is no sacred law in Islam that tells us to remove the entire clitoris of a women and thus deprive them of one of the primary mechanisms for sexual stimulation. Rather, what some is done some Muslim females (not all) is that only a minute amount of skin is removed from the clitoral hood, not the entire thing. This is not mutilation, but circumcision. Mutilation has a serious connotation to it. Circumcision, on the other hand, is not something that is harmful to the woman or to her ability to derive sexual pleasure. Also, most Muslim scholars do not consider this practice as compulsory. Circumcision is only compulsory for males, while for females, it is optional. Some think it is recommended according to certain hadiths. But, even those hadiths say that what is slowed is merely a slight 'trimming' of the tip of the clitoral hood. And this is not even practiced in most Islamic countries (i.e. female circumcision). In some parts in Egypt, however, there are women who cut off their entire clitoris, also known as infibulation, or Pharaonic circumcision, and it has been practiced longer than any existing records can show. But, again, such a practice has no authority in Islam.

Mark Fulton, I know that I'm going to be criticized for my beliefs because this as an atheist forum, and I'm okay with being criticized, so don't worry about that. Secondly, concerning your description of Muhammad's charcter, I do not actually agree with you, but I am not offended either, because you are just giving your own honest opinion and I appreciate that. So, thank you for your post. And no, I didn't pick up my bat and ball and head home, nor am I organizing a good squad against you for saying those things. However, I'm going to address your post some time later because that is going to be a long topic and a controversial one. I knew that a discussion of Muhammad would eventually come up in this thread sooner or later.

In your post, some of the things you mentioned about Muhammad are that he was a man who was mentally ill, a tyrant, a pedophile, a warlord, power hungry, illiterate, megalomaniac, delusional and yet cunning, had multiple wives, and a few other things about him. I'm going to discuss each of those points in a separate post in this thread. But, while you're waiting for my reply, I would like you to check out some of the excellent biographies of Muhammad at the links below and then re-consider whether your opinions of Muhammad are well-supported or not:

The Life of Muhammad (by Ibn Ishaq)
Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources (by Martin Lings)
Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (by Karen Armstrong)

NoahsFarce, I have seen the video and I will give my opinions on that in a later post. And thanks for posting that. I won't forget to reply. Smile

Lilith Pride, I will answer your questions at a later post also.
But, first, I'm going to post my replies to some of the questions that were posted days ago. Hopefully in a few hours from now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 06:16 PM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Nah, dude. Stoning is an exercise of moral will. One must be certain to hold the stone, to use it to such infamous purpose. What you're suppose to stone is blasphemers and false prophets. Women got into the mix because men hate to admit the power of the female to seduce.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
28-04-2012, 03:39 AM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2012 03:47 AM by Internet Mullah.)
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
The stoning to death punishment are not enforced on women only, though. It applies to any Muslim who has physically participated in the act of adultery (regardless of their gender). And, again, this is not being done as a means of revenge against the adulterer, but only as a means of deterring the action from happening again or to reduce the chances of that happening because adultery has a potential to threaten collective security (as you can see in this article), and it is even viewed as a crime in Islam. And here's a short video that summarizes the main objective behind such severe punishments in Islam (which I just explained right now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMJgWq8Lg70

That being said, here are my answers to some of the other questions. And there are still more that I have to answer.

(22-04-2012 08:02 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Do you feel that the Q'uran has been abrogated in the past? If so, do you feel that this is appropriate?

Yes, there are several verses that did get abrogated in the Quran. The essence of abrogation is that it marks the end of the validity of the abrogated verses because their heed and effect was of a temporary or limited nature. In other words, God reveals a new law and announces the end of the validity of the earlier law. Also, considering that Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in ever-changing circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the necessity of such laws, and that's why I feel that this is appropriate. During the course of revelation, God has changed his own laws from time to time depending on the changing circumstances. Also, as I said in my OP, we believe that the previous scriptures were abrograted as well, i.e. scriptures such as the Bible, Torah, and the scrolls of Abraham, for example, which we believe are the word of God in addition to the Quran.

One should also know that abrogation in the Quran does not indicate a contradiction. There are some verses that were abrogated by later verses, but this is not a contradiction because, as I explained above, the Quran makes it clear that the earlier one was true only for a specific situation and a specific time, and thus being over-ruled by a new law from God. This means that He just updated the earlier verses with something new depending on the situation of Muslims (i.e. to make something easier for them or to lighten their burden on a given task, for example). In that sense, abrogation is analogous to an "over-writing" system in a computer because an old set of information gets replaced with a new set of information. However, none of the abrogated verses are contradictory because one of them is temporary while the other one is for all times. The Quran itself talks about the concept of abrogation, where it says:

"Whichever revelation We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We substitute something better than it, or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?" (2:106)

You can learn more about this at the links below:
Abrogation in the Quran
Some Questions Regarding the Concept of Abrogation in the Quran

(23-04-2012 02:36 PM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  Why does Allah seem to be a massive dick towards unbelievers?

I do not think that Allah is a massive dick toward non-believers, but He simply does what He thinks is right, and He will give everyone what they deserve according to His Law. We believe that Allah is merciful and compassionate, but not toward everyone all the time, because He will also reveal his displeasure toward the non-believers because of their disbelief. But, when a non-believer converts to Islam and repents to Allah, the Quran says that all his sins will be forgiven. So, this means that even the non-believers are open to receive His mercy any time. In an authentic hadith, it says that Allah's mercy is greater than His wrath/anger:

"When Allah decreed the Creation He pledged Himself by writing in His book which is laid down with Him: 'My mercy prevails over my wrath.'" - Hadith Qudsi

(23-04-2012 02:36 PM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  Why is context so important when a verse that seems angry and evil is shown but not a verse that appears to be good? It's quite annoying.

That is not true, in my opinion, because context is equally important for every verse in the Quran.

Why is it so important? Because it helps to understand the entire Quran better if you know the historical circumstances in which the verses were revealed. At the same time, we should also try to refer to tafseers (or commentaries) of the Quran written by scholars and those who are knowledgeable about the book because they contain many information that we may not know such as the meaning of certain words, the use of figurative language, the circumstances in which a verse was revealed, the historical context behind them, and other related aspects of the Quran. Knowing those things will help us to better understand the meanings behind the verses. Indeed, the Quran says what it means and means what it says, but again, the extraction of meaning is always a matter of interpretation.

(23-04-2012 02:36 PM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  What's with all of this metaphorical stuff? Why is some taken literally and others a magical metaphor?

Well, the thing is that almost every word and phrase in the Quran carries an inner spiritual meaning. Just like the Bible (and other scriptures), the Quran is filled with complex metaphors and layers of meaning that go well beyond what we see on the surface. Some verses are literal while others are metaphorical. It's a mixture of the two. I don't know the reason for that, but that's just how it is, and I like it like that, because I think this is one of the things that makes the Quran so beautiful.

Unfortunately, most of the beauty of the Quran is lost in the process of translation. The greatest problem with a translation of the Quran is, of course, the fact that it transforms the Quran as the word of God in Arabic, to the speech of a human in another language. In this destructive process, the linguistic beauty and the uniqueness of the Quran is almost completely lost, as the very words of God are replaced by human substitutions. The perfect choice of wordings, the syntax of the verse, the powerful rhythm of the passages, and the manners of eloquence displayed by the Arabic, are all destroyed. Even the famous Orientalist, Professor H.R. Gibb, said, "An English translation of the Quran must employ precise and often arbitrary terms for the many-faceted and jewel-like phrases of the Arabic, and the more literal it is, the greyer and more colorless it must be." The Arabic language is an extremely rich and powerful language, and it is simply not possible to convey in another language all the meanings that are conveyed in Arabic.

For many Westerners, the Quran is an extremely difficult text to appreciate, especially in translation. However, those who have a good knowledge of Arabic will be ready to admit that the Quran is untouchable in terms of its poetic eloquence and beauty. The text is regarded as one of the most extraordinary ever put down on paper. And precisely because it is extraordinary, it does not have to follow people's expectations as to what a book should be.

(23-04-2012 02:36 PM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  Do you sincerely believe that the Quran has miraculous claims in it?

Yes, and one of the miracles is known as the challenge of the Quran.

The challenge is to simply produce a single chapter in Arabic which is similar to or better than the Quran, as God said, "And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then bring a single chapter like it, and call your witnesses besides God if you are truthful" (Surah 2:23)". And since that time, for the past 1,400 years, many people have tried to meet the challenge, and even some of the most skilled poets and writers (both Arabs and non-Arabs) have tried to do this in attempt to disprove the Quran. They were among the ones who knew the Arabic language fluently and some of them were even experts in the language. Even Arab Christians and Arab atheists took up the challenge. However, as predicted in the Quran, none of them were able to meet the challenge. They only put themselves to shame. And no one has ever done so yet.

Now, the most miraculous thing about this challenge is not that no one was able to imitate the beauty of the Quran - but that Muhammad was illiterate - an illiterate who lived among the Bedouins in Arabia. There is no historical evidence that he had lessons from someone else on linguistic/literary, historical, theological, and/or scientific fields of study, and yet, he came up with such an extraordinary book that no one could imitate or produce something even similar to it. That is exactly why it is counter-intuitive to think that Muhammad was the author of the Quran.

And when the Arabs of that time heard the revelations being recited, they became overwhelmed, and even jealous, by the literary power and eloquence of the Quranic verses. They couldn't believe how an illiterate man could create something like that all by himself. Even today, most of the Quranic scholars and experts consider the literary aspect of the Quran to be something amazing while knowing the fact that Muhammad was not a trained poet nor was he able to read. If you want to learn more about this topic, here's a good article:

Conclusive Proof that the Quran is the word of God

I do not actually think that the title of the article is appropriate - i.e. the words "conclusive evidence" - because my opinion on the literary beauty of the Quran is that this is something that strengthens the Quran's claim of divine origin, but not a conclusive evidence. Nonetheless, I still like the article because it explains the miraculous aspect of the Quran very clearly.

(23-04-2012 02:45 PM)Mishpul Wrote:  How do you choose passages from Qur'an? And if you take Qur'an as a whole, do you represent some of verses differently, or do you just fully believe it, just dont force it on others?

We take the Quran as a whole because we believe that the entire message is from God. We do not reject or skip any passages from the Quran. Well, that's what we are supposed to do, but there are still Muslims who selectively pick out verses from the Quran and ignore other parts of it (although they may not do that intentionally). However, a complete understanding can only be achieved by understanding the whole issue as presented in all the verses and chapters and not by looking at only a part of the Quran (or a single verse). Furthermore, the Quran itself has warned us against cherry-picking the book, i.e. upholding certain parts of the book while disregarding the rest, as it says:

"... Then is it only a part of the Book that you believe in, and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? And on the Day of Judgment, they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty, for God is not unmindful of what you do." (2:85)

Fortunately, most Muslims are united on the fundamental teachings of the Quran. It's just that sometimes there is a difference of opinion on matters which are not essentially a part of the core of Islam, but strictly speaking, even these differences are unjustified according to the majority of Muslims.

(24-04-2012 03:28 PM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  I've never understood the excuse of "It's not mentioned in the Quran" when nearly all muslims follow the Hadiths as well. And the Quran only takes precedence over the Hadiths when there is a contradiction. An absence of a bad thing doesn't mean you can't do it.

Firstly, the important thing to understand is that we Muslims take the Quran as the primary source of our religion whereas Hadiths are secondary. The Quran is a lot more authentic than the hadiths and also more important than the hadiths. However, the hadiths are still important for Muslims and they are used as a complementary source along with the Quran, for learning about additional things, or things that are not included in the Quran. There are only two cases in which we may reject hadiths, which are: (a) if they contradict with a verse in the Quran as I mentioned before and (b) if the authenticity of the hadiths are weak, meaning that the narrators or the chain of narrations are not reliable. So, as in the first case, when it has been established by scholars that a hadith contradicts the Quran (with logical proofs), then it simply has to be discarded.

For the second case, it's not necessary to be 100% certain if a hadith is authentic or not because being close to 100% certain is good enough. Why? Because it is better to accept hadiths with a slight chance of error than to not accept them at all. There are many hadiths which cannot be ignored because they are necessary to know the details behind the fundamentals of Islam such as how to perform the daily prayers and how to perform the Ramadan fasting, for example.

A more important question is: How much authentic are the hadiths, or in other words, what are the chances of them being fallible? As you may already know, all scholars are aware that there is always a potential for there to be slight mistakes here and there in the process of hadith narration. So, that is the reason why hadith scholars carefully study the hadiths – and the elements of hadith such as the narrators, the isnad, meaning, translation, etc. - in order to establish the authenticity of the hadiths one by one. You can learn more about the levels of hadith classification at the link below:

(1) Notes on the Science of Hadith; (2) Rules Governing the Criticism of Hadith

On the other hand, there are some Muslims who believe in the Quran only and they reject hadiths altogether. These Muslims are oftentimes called "Quran aloners," or "Quranites," or sometimes "hadith rejectors." But this is something that has become a little more prevalent amongst Muslim only in the recent years (although they still represent a miniscule amount of the total Muslim population).

(24-04-2012 03:28 PM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  Also, this "let there be no compulsion in religion" thing is just as annoying. It's the verse that is always shouted at me when I talk about the death penalty. What I also get is that none of the oppressive Islamic countries don't follow Islam properly. Of course, some things will be taken out of proportion when you have the power of a god on your side but why is it so frequent?! I usually see a lot of hate for Iran because that's the worst Islamic country according to some... why? Do they not read the Quran? Or do all of them follow inauthentic hadiths?

The verse "Let there be no compulsion in religion" simply means that we cannot force anyone to accept Islam. The verse is basically a command in the Quran that is being directed toward Muslims to tell them how to behave toward non-Muslims. Secondly, the rulings on death penalty only apply to Muslims who have been proven to be guilty of certain crimes - in other words, those who are already willing to abide by the Shariah - and yet commit crimes. It doesn't have to do anything with the crimes of non-Muslims. Hence there is no contradiction between the said verse and death penalty.

As for your comment that oppressive Islamic countries do not follow Islam properly, that is true, although it is probably not due to whether or not they read the Quran. Rather, the thing about these oppressive Islamic countries is that they have a political theory which is pragmatic and acknowledges that a tyrannical ruler is better than a state of social anarchy. The main examples of such a system of ruling are namely Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. There are also extremist religious groups in those countries who try to take control of the Muslims in violent ways. Take the Talbian for example. At one time, they banned women from working and they forcibly implemented the rural customs of women upon the entire population. However, the vast majority of women in Afghan society already wore headscarves and most of them did not have an issue with the dress-code. They had an issue with not being able to work, especially when over half the population was widowed and unemployment was already astronomically high. Were they oppressive towards women? Yes. Does the Quran approve of the way they were being treated? Absolutely not.

However, there are many other Muslim countries such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Syria, Indonesia, and several countries in Africa where there are less of these cases of hatred and violence committed between the Muslims as compared to the countries that I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

(24-04-2012 03:28 PM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  Oh, when is Jihad permissible?

As I said in my original post, Jihad basically means a "striving" or a "struggle." In a military sense of the word, however, it is essentially a doctrine of self-defense, and thus it can be used only by a Muslim state against imminent and certain aggression by an enemy. In that sense, jihad is equivalent to the doctrine of self-defense in a modern nation-state. It can also be declared in a liberation struggle, as was the case in Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation, for example. However, a jihad cannot be declared against a person or a community just because they belong to a different religion. That's why Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others cannot be the target of a jihad simply because they belong to a different religion. Neither can a jihad be declared by a group of Muslims against a nation that has peaceful relations with Muslims.

More importantly, the Quran clearly prohibits taking the life of an innocent person, whether they are Muslim or not. Some people point to a small number of verses in the Quran that seem to advocate killing of non-Muslims. These verses, however, must be taken in their correct context and not misrepresented by isolating them from other verses in the Quran. The Quran allows justified self-defense in protecting the safety and well-being of a community which is under attack, while strictly maintaining that if the warring party seeks peace, then the other party must stop military action and seek peace also.

(24-04-2012 12:21 AM)angry-santa Wrote:  If I were to draw an image of the prophet mohammad and post it here, What would your reaction be?

I would probably laugh a little, although I know that the image doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate representation of Muhammad at all.

(24-04-2012 03:41 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Since you claim the Jews, Christians, and Muslims have the Old, New, and Final Testaments what do you say of Joseph Smith, the golden plates, and the Book of Mormon? Is Jo Smith a newer prophet and the Book of Mormon an update to mistranslated copies of each of the former?

No, I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is an update of any of the revealed scriptures because: (1) The Prophet Muhammad said that there will be no other prophets after him and that the Quran is the last and final revelation; (2) As a work of literature, the Book of Mormon doesn't even compare with the Bible, Torah, and the Quran; and (3) Looking at the history of the Latter Day Saint movement, Joseph Smith comes across as a deliberate fraud to me. None of the Old Testament prophets nor Muhammad gave me that impression.
____________
Post numbers in which questions and/or comments are still pending: #s 34; 38; 40; 45; 47; 49
Approximate time for completion: 24 to 48 hours
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 04:47 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Firstly, thanks for the responses.
(28-04-2012 03:39 AM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  I do not think that Allah is a massive dick toward non-believers, but He simply does what He thinks is right, and He will give everyone what they deserve according to His Law. We believe that Allah is merciful and compassionate, but not toward everyone all the time, because He will also reveal his displeasure toward the non-believers because of their disbelief. But, when a non-believer converts to Islam and repents to Allah, the Quran says that all his sins will be forgiven. So, this means that even the non-believers are open to receive His mercy any time. In an authentic hadith, it says that Allah's mercy is greater than His wrath/anger:

"When Allah decreed the Creation He pledged Himself by writing in His book which is laid down with Him: 'My mercy prevails over my wrath.'" - Hadith Qudsi
Why should he be angry at someone even though he's created them that way? (assuming he actually exists) plus some Muslims I know don't think they have free will because god is all knowing so the future is set in stone. (which does have problems for evil caused by humans) Yet, the Quran does appear very violent towards them... how is that merciful? and how can you have mercy the same time as justice? The two concepts don't make sense together.

Quote:That is not true, in my opinion, because context is equally important for every verse in the Quran.

Why is it so important? Because it helps to understand the entire Quran better if you know the historical circumstances in which the verses were revealed. At the same time, we should also try to refer to tafseers (or commentaries) of the Quran written by scholars and those who are knowledgeable about the book because they contain many information that we may not know such as the meaning of certain words, the use of figurative language, the circumstances in which a verse was revealed, the historical context behind them, and other related aspects of the Quran. Knowing those things will help us to better understand the meanings behind the verses. Indeed, the Quran says what it means and means what it says, but again, the extraction of meaning is always a matter of interpretation.
Well that's nice isn't it?

I've had the commentaries recommended to me by someone because I said that I had started reading the Quran. But I don't have time for that. Not many people do. Things based on that level of interpretation lose validity quickly. And rightfully so. How do you see that as a good thing?

It seems to me that the only way to prove god is to assume he exists in the first place. For example, if I ask a question about something in the Quran the response I'd get wouldn't be evidence based but 'god did it' or 'god knows' hence why I don't think i'll ever waste my time talking to an Islamic scholar or anything of the sort.

Quote:Well, the thing is that almost every word and phrase in the Quran carries an inner spiritual meaning. Just like the Bible (and other scriptures), the Quran is filled with complex metaphors and layers of meaning that go well beyond what we see on the surface. Some verses are literal while others are metaphorical. It's a mixture of the two. I don't know the reason for that, but that's just how it is, and I like it like that, because I think this is one of the things that makes the Quran so beautiful.

Unfortunately, most of the beauty of the Quran is lost in the process of translation. The greatest problem with a translation of the Quran is, of course, the fact that it transforms the Quran as the word of God in Arabic, to the speech of a human in another language. In this destructive process, the linguistic beauty and the uniqueness of the Quran is almost completely lost, as the very words of God are replaced by human substitutions. The perfect choice of wordings, the syntax of the verse, the powerful rhythm of the passages, and the manners of eloquence displayed by the Arabic, are all destroyed. Even the famous Orientalist, Professor H.R. Gibb, said, "An English translation of the Quran must employ precise and often arbitrary terms for the many-faceted and jewel-like phrases of the Arabic, and the more literal it is, the greyer and more colorless it must be." The Arabic language is an extremely rich and powerful language, and it is simply not possible to convey in another language all the meanings that are conveyed in Arabic.

For many Westerners, the Quran is an extremely difficult text to appreciate, especially in translation. However, those who have a good knowledge of Arabic will be ready to admit that the Quran is untouchable in terms of its poetic eloquence and beauty. The text is regarded as one of the most extraordinary ever put down on paper. And precisely because it is extraordinary, it does not have to follow people's expectations as to what a book should be.
God's pretty silly then. Writing a book in a language that he knows people will find extremely difficult to understand. So much for clarity.

Yet, I'll admit that the Quran probably is a lot more poetic in arabic. I have no quarrels there.

I just don't like jumping through hoops to understand the truth. Philosophy isn't like that, nor is science. Why should the thing that is claiming to be the truth be so convoluted?

Quote:Yes, and one of the miracles is known as the challenge of the Quran.

The challenge is to simply produce a single chapter in Arabic which is similar to or better than the Quran, as God said, "And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then bring a single chapter like it, and call your witnesses besides God if you are truthful" (Surah 2:23)". And since that time, for the past 1,400 years, many people have tried to meet the challenge, and even some of the most skilled poets and writers (both Arabs and non-Arabs) have tried to do this in attempt to disprove the Quran. They were among the ones who knew the Arabic language fluently and some of them were even experts in the language. Even Arab Christians and Arab atheists took up the challenge. However, as predicted in the Quran, none of them were able to meet the challenge. They only put themselves to shame. And no one has ever done so yet.

Now, the most miraculous thing about this challenge is not that no one was able to imitate the beauty of the Quran - but that Muhammad was illiterate - an illiterate who lived among the Bedouins in Arabia. There is no historical evidence that he had lessons from someone else on linguistic/literary, historical, theological, and/or scientific fields of study, and yet, he came up with such an extraordinary book that no one could imitate or produce something even similar to it. That is exactly why it is counter-intuitive to think that Muhammad was the author of the Quran.

And when the Arabs of that time heard the revelations being recited, they became overwhelmed, and even jealous, by the literary power and eloquence of the Quranic verses. They couldn't believe how an illiterate man could create something like that all by himself. Even today, most of the Quranic scholars and experts consider the literary aspect of the Quran to be something amazing while knowing the fact that Muhammad was not a trained poet nor was he able to read. If you want to learn more about this topic, here's a good article:

Conclusive Proof that the Quran is the word of God

I do not actually think that the title of the article is appropriate - i.e. the words "conclusive evidence" - because my opinion on the literary beauty of the Quran is that this is something that strengthens the Quran's claim of divine origin, but not a conclusive evidence. Nonetheless, I still like the article because it explains the miraculous aspect of the Quran very clearly.

I've heard of this before. It's utterly pointless. It's as pointless as the Kent Hovind Challenge.

Firstly, no matter what anyone writes, it'll still be seen as inferior because of bias. You'll read it with the intention of trying to show that it isn't superior to the Quran.

Anywho, the rationalizer on youtube had answered some things relating to writing a better Quran. I can't find any of the videos he had on the topic however.


Thanks again for the other responses.

Yet, you do realise that the Quran gets things wrong about science? Dependent on how you interpret the miraculous passages. Just so you know, these claims are not special and should never be thought of as scientific in any sense of the word.

I have another question. If god did ask you to kill an innocent person, would you?

Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.


Enlightenment is liberating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ALovelyChickenMan's post
28-04-2012, 05:58 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Yeah I got a question, it's in relation to the 72 virgins thing.
72, seems like a bit of a low number don't you think? I mean, you're in the afterlife for what.. ever? so you have to somehow spread out 72 virgins over the period of infinite, how does one do that? If you were to spread it out over say, 1 every hundred years and you'd still run out in 7,200 years, then what are you gonna do for the rest of the infinite years??

I'm just saying, when you think about it, the reward of 72 virgins seems really low and to be honest a little cheap on Gods part.

So that is my question, why 72 virgins? and why is God a bit of tight ass only giving you 72 that is suppose to last infinite years?

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
28-04-2012, 07:04 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Ok, sorry, but the answer you gave to my comment is not an answer.

A social order is a social order, and if the majority of the people consider adultery to be extremely harmful to society, they can institute measures to prevent it. The argument is not about whether adultery is harmful to society or not.

However, the type of measures is what I am addressing.

Some of the attributes of a civilization that imposes rules in a fair manner are compassion, respect for the individual, equal treatment of it's subjects, concern for the welfare of all citizens.

That means you have to find methods of prevention that do not impose treatment of unspeakable cruelty.

The only reason to impose such extreme measure is the basic assumption that humans are so very evil that the only thing that will keep them in line is to periodically single out individuals and subjecting them to such extreme agony that it horrifies the rest of the people enough to be thoroughly afraid of the action in question.

Making a public display of this, and allowing bystanders to pick up a stone and participate appeals to the most atrocious human attribute - pleasure in torture. I have seen clips of people picking up these stones with big grins on their face.

Such inhumane, cold and cruel punishment fosters a callousness in the bystanders that reduces human life to worthless and human suffering to a source of pleasure.

That is not an ingredient that leads to a compassionate, peaceful , safe world. It is a barbaric custom that dates back to a time when there was no safety for people.

There are plenty of effective punishments that do not cause such indescribable pain and agony.

What this tells me is the following (and here you have the reason why many peoples of the world consider muslims uncivilized, warlike, and without any regard for human life):

1. Onlookers from other civilizations think that Muslims are basically evil and rejoice in inflicting suffering on others

2. Muslims themselves believe that they are basically evil and the measures to keep each other in line must be extreme

3. hence, Muslims are basically evil and are not to be trusted.

That is what you are up against as far as world opinion and prejudice goes. The actions of some extremists don't help, but the basic notion stems from the unspeakable cruelties committed in the name of law and order.

You say you feel sadness for the victim. You should feel outrage. You should feel the need to help. This is a life being destroyed in unspeakable agony. There is no reason for that.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
28-04-2012, 08:00 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(28-04-2012 05:58 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yeah I got a question, it's in relation to the 72 virgins thing.
72, seems like a bit of a low number don't you think? I mean, you're in the afterlife for what.. ever? so you have to somehow spread out 72 virgins over the period of infinite, how does one do that? If you were to spread it out over say, 1 every hundred years and you'd still run out in 7,200 years, then what are you gonna do for the rest of the infinite years??

I'm just saying, when you think about it, the reward of 72 virgins seems really low and to be honest a little cheap on Gods part.

So that is my question, why 72 virgins? and why is God a bit of tight ass only giving you 72 that is suppose to last infinite years?
I live in a house with 3 women. When they get their period, it's hell on earth. Imagine 72 women at the same time! God is actually being very merciful with you. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 10:02 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(28-04-2012 08:00 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote:  
(28-04-2012 05:58 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yeah I got a question, it's in relation to the 72 virgins thing.
72, seems like a bit of a low number don't you think? I mean, you're in the afterlife for what.. ever? so you have to somehow spread out 72 virgins over the period of infinite, how does one do that? If you were to spread it out over say, 1 every hundred years and you'd still run out in 7,200 years, then what are you gonna do for the rest of the infinite years??

I'm just saying, when you think about it, the reward of 72 virgins seems really low and to be honest a little cheap on Gods part.

So that is my question, why 72 virgins? and why is God a bit of tight ass only giving you 72 that is suppose to last infinite years?
I live in a house with 3 women. When they get their period, it's hell on earth. Imagine 72 women at the same time! God is actually being very merciful with you. Wink

N00b. There's no PMS in heaven. Tongue

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 06:26 PM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2012 12:08 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
You can wax lyrical about the truth/beauty/complexity of the Koran till the cows come home, but that means little. It does not prove the texts contain great moral truths (they don't) or that they were inspired by god.

The Jews, the Christians and the Mormons do the same by claiming their books are inspired and are great works of literature, and they're neither. If you haven't heard them you haven't been listening.

If people are repetitively bombarded from an early age with the same mantra, some of them (the susceptible ones) will believe it and even fall in love with it. You are obviously a victim of this brainwashing because you repeatedly find excuses for the Koran.


You still think its ok to stone someone. That is sick. There are no excuses.

You stereotype people according to their sex and sexuality. That is unethical.

BTW, I have read many books about Mohammed. At your suggestion, I am rereading Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad," as maybe I missed something first time around. I stand by my conviction that he was nothing more than an evil little tyrant who invented a religion. He was one of the first Joseph Smiths.

Your verbose explanations of this and that are interesting on one level BUT....at the end of the day you have no proof that any of these teachings are anything more than complex man-made waffle.

How about you come clean about yourself? Are you really a Mullah? Why, exactly, are you here? (Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you are, and I hope you stay.) Are you trying to spread Islam? If so, why? Are you hoping to learn something by being here, or is it all about teaching atheists? Do you ever have little glimpses of light shining through when you doubt the dogma?

Do you get an income from promoting Islam?

Have you stoned anyone lately?

How open minded are you? The more educated and the more widely read you become, the less you will dote over the Koran. Have you read "God is not Great...How Religion Poisons Everything," or "The God Delusion?" What about Bertrand Russell?


Are you closeted in an Islamic enclave somewhere? Is someone looking over your shoulder as you write? Just asking.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
28-04-2012, 06:53 PM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Why do Muslims believe the Illuminati and Freemason is out to get them?
All my Muslim friends (or the ones I am acquainted with) believe that. It gets scary when they believe wholeheartedly that secret societies hates Muslims. How would they know if they are a secret?
Why does the people of your faith get offended so easily by the people who don't even follow your faith?
People criticise Christians and make jokes but they don't all go ape shit and even mellow about it.

[Image: boston-terrier-gets-scared.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: