Germany...Again

[mido9]

 

There is so much that goes own before you can understand a single verse of the Quran. It's not an easy task, that's why it becomes frustrating when someone who has no idea about the actual way of reading the quran starts talking about a certain verse.

I have a question, why don't your religious leaders EVER give a CONCLUSIVE, DEFINITIVE, EASY TO UNDERSTAND version of the quran? Why do they always have to shroud it in massive secrecy of its meaning, almost to the point where the qur'an's and the hadith's words themselves have virtually no meaning themselves, and the only thing that matters is what THEY say means? And why don't they just say how they got the specific meaning of a phrase or its context?

 

Especially when there's so much revisionism in islam like how slavery was accepted in islam for 1.3k years until it wasn't, oppression of women was okay until it wasn't, the ottoman empire took over the balkans for over a thousand years until islam apparently only spread by peace(every country that got decolonized in the balkans instantly converted to christianity, by the way) and so on.

 

You can't run a religion on infinitely shifting values, at that point it just becomes a rule of man than rule of law and at that point they're just controlling you.

[Dad]

I have a question, why don't your religious leaders EVER give a CONCLUSIVE, DEFINITIVE, EASY TO UNDERSTAND version of the quran? Why do they always have to shroud it in massive secrecy of its meaning, almost to the point where the qur'an's and the hadith's words themselves have virtually no meaning themselves, and the only thing that matters is what THEY say means? And why don't they just say how they got the specific meaning of a phrase or its context?

 

Especially when there's so much revisionism in islam like how slavery was accepted in islam for 1.3k years until it wasn't, oppression of women was okay until it wasn't, the ottoman empire took over the balkans for over a thousand years until islam apparently only spread by peace(every country that got decolonized in the balkans instantly converted to christianity, by the way) and so on.

 

You can't run a religion on infinitely shifting values, at that point it just becomes a rule of man than rule of law and at that point they're just controlling you.

 

So. . . .people can't change their perception over time?  Isn't that what politicians do?  So why is it okay for them and not okay for Islam?

[Aerion Brightflame]

Isn't Hell officially defined in the Abrahamic religions as simply being a realm with no contact with God, as there could be no greater punishment for a worshipper. The whole 'Fire, Brimstone and point sticks' image was created much much later.

 

And there's no definitive version of the Holy Book in any religion not just Islam. The meaning of passages and teachings changes with debate and with time. They have different meanings to different people. Look at the Pope say, look at how the previous Pope contrasts to the current one in terms of attitude. It's occurred in most religions because Religion has to adapt to suit the world it is in to a form. Not doing so would be the death of it eventually. 

 

I can't testify to it exactly because I'm not Islamic, but there is probably a little sense of power in only the sacred few having real knowledge of what the text means. A very human reason obviously. I imagine there's something about the sanctity of the word of God in the official explanation - But I look forwards to the more specific explanation. 

[Dad]

Wasn't hell a description written by the church and changed in the Bible?

[chairman ali]

I have a question, why don't your religious leaders EVER give a CONCLUSIVE, DEFINITIVE, EASY TO UNDERSTAND version of the quran? Why do they always have to shroud it in massive secrecy of its meaning, almost to the point where the qur'an's and the hadith's words themselves have virtually no meaning themselves, and the only thing that matters is what THEY say means? And why don't they just say how they got the specific meaning of a phrase or its context?

 

Especially when there's so much revisionism in islam like how slavery was accepted in islam for 1.3k years until it wasn't, oppression of women was okay until it wasn't, the ottoman empire took over the balkans for over a thousand years until islam apparently only spread by peace(every country that got decolonized in the balkans instantly converted to christianity, by the way) and so on.

 

You can't run a religion on infinitely shifting values, at that point it just becomes a rule of man than rule of law and at that point they're just controlling you.

 

The reason why many Arabs converted to Islam was because the eloquence of the Quran. The Quran challenged the Arabs to create one verse similar to its eloquence and none could. When the Quran was revealed the Arabs saw that these verses, which are from God, did things (in terms of syntax, grammar, etc.) that none have ever done before and everyone had thought it was impossible to do. You see, only someone who's very knowledgeable in a field can tell you whether something is amazing or not. That's why the Magicians accepted the God of Moses, because all they did was trickery but when they saw Moses's cane turn into a snake, they knew that this wasn't a trick. Because they're professionals in their field, they were the best at it.

 

So how do you expect a mere human (current religious leaders) to simplify the word of God? Each verse have seven meanings, we only know about 3-4 meaning of the verses but not the other remaining meanings. The Arabs didn't need a simplified version because they knew classical Arabic perfectly. Currently, very few know classical Arabic. I am an Arab and classical Arabic, to me, is incredibly hard. Arabic is known to be one of the hardest languages to learn. Yet the early Arabs understood the message, so why would we need a simplified version? Because it's too hard for you? That isn't God's fault that you can't read a language properly. Just like you can learn physics, you can learn a language. Go learn classical Arabic like the early Arabs, then you'll see how much of a linguistic genius the Quran is. When Muhammad [pbuh] spoke the verses the Arabs started saying that this is magic. Magic is extraordinary, it is unusual, out of this world; that just proves the linguistic genius of it.

 

You see you say "shifting values" because you have absolutely no idea about the sects in Islam, why there are sects, how some sects are political and some sects aren't, what happened after the death of the prophet and so on. You know some basic history of whom conquered whom. You don't know how Islam works and you don't know how many true muslims were oppressed by these "Muslim leaders" you're speaking of. The Shias have been massacred throughout history for stepping in the faces of these "Muslim leaders" and telling them that we do not follow someone who isn't a successor of the Prophet (there are only 12). Abu Thar Al-Ghafari, god's peace be upon him, used to stand in-front of Muawiya Ibn Abi Sufyan's, لعنة الله عليه, palace and used to recite loudly verses of the Quran that show what kind of ruthless person Muawiyah was.

 

If you think all Muslims accept people like Muawiya, the Abbasids and the Uthmaniyoon then you have done your research properly. You are comparing the Islam of Muhammad and Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (both whom were guided by God) to some ruthless killers who were there for the money and power. 

[vla1ne]

It's not.  I'm a Christian, and I know plenty of brothers who I'm good friends with that couldn't care less about hell.  So no, the threat of damnation is not compulsion to join for everyone .  That's kind of 50/50.

whether it works or not isn't the question though, if i said i would give you $10 for converting to Christianity, and would rob you if you didn't, whether or not you believe me, and whether or not it would happen, hold no bearing over whether it was counted as compulsion. it should still indeed count as an attempt at incentive, the question of effectiveness comes second. you can refuse it, but it still counts. then again, compulsion might not be the right word since i believe it means an irresistible force. Incentive maybe? so i guess it would be incentive, not compulsion.

 

 

So. . . .people can't change their perception over time?  Isn't that what politicians do?  So why is it okay for them and not okay for Islam?

islam is supposedly led by a god, politicians are human. you worship gods, you follow humans. there is a massive difference in the required dedication. which is why there is such a large divide. gods should not be making human mistakes. the prophet of islam is supposed to have a perfect revelation from a god, and is supposed to have the power of god backing them to enact any given revelation from said god. there should be no human mistakes in a divine revelation. or if there are, they should be negligible by way of divine influence. gods do not get the excuse of being imperfect. and their prophets have, within their own books, been described as having the ability to call upon the power of said god. mistakes are human. but a human lead by a god has no such room for mistakes. otherwise why worship a being who makes mistakes?

 

The reason why many Arabs converted to Islam was because the eloquence of the Quran. The Quran challenged the Arabs to create one verse similar to its eloquence and none could. When the Quran was revealed the Arabs saw that these verses, which are from God, did things (in terms of syntax, grammar, etc.) that none have ever done before and everyone had thought it was impossible to do. You see, only someone who's very knowledgeable in a field can tell you whether something is amazing or not. That's why the Magicians accepted the God of Moses, because all they did was trickery but when they saw Moses's cane turn into a snake, they knew that this wasn't a trick. Because they're professionals in their field, they were the best at it.

 

So how do you expect a mere human (current religious leaders) to simplify the word of God? Each verse have seven meanings, we only know about 3-4 meaning of the verses but not the other remaining meanings. The Arabs didn't need a simplified version because they knew classical Arabic perfectly. Currently, very few know classical Arabic. I am an Arab and classical Arabic, to me, is incredibly hard. Arabic is known to be one of the hardest languages to learn. Yet the early Arabs understood the message, so why would we need a simplified version? Because it's too hard for you? That isn't God's fault that you can't read a language properly. Just like you can learn physics, you can learn a language. Go learn classical Arabic like the early Arabs, then you'll see how much of a linguistic genius the Quran is. When Muhammad [pbuh] spoke the verses the Arabs started saying that this is magic. Magic is extraordinary, it is unusual, out of this world; that just proves the linguistic genius of it.

 

You see you say "shifting values" because you have absolutely no idea about the sects in Islam, why there are sects, how some sects are political and some sects aren't, what happened after the death of the prophet and so on. You know some basic history of whom conquered whom. You don't know how Islam works and you don't know how many true muslims were oppressed by these "Muslim leaders" you're speaking of. The Shias have been massacred throughout history for stepping in the faces of these "Muslim leaders" and telling them that we do not follow someone who isn't a successor of the Prophet (there are only 12). Abu Thar Al-Ghafari, god's peace be upon him, used to stand in-front of Muawiya Ibn Abi Sufyan's, لعنة الله عليه, palace and used to recite loudly verses of the Quran that show what kind of ruthless person Muawiyah was.

 

If you think all Muslims accept people like Muawiya, the Abbasid and the Uthmaniyoon then you have done your research properly. You are comparing the Islam of Muhammad and Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (both whom were guided by God) to some ruthless killers who were there for the money and power. 

new literature techniques are nothing worth worshiping though. respecting? sure, but they are not proof of the divine. the moses story is magic based, even though I grant the existence of god for the sake of the conversation, i can't really say magic would sell me on whether or not said god is worth worshiping.

 

if you want as many people to worship you as possible, you would leave undeniable evidence. not a book. claiming that people cannot understand it because there are 7 meanings per verse, then claiming that there are wrong interpretations, (that have clearly shifted over time) is the definition of doublespeak (well, multispeak in this case). if a politician said everything they said had seven meanings, and shifted their policies accordingly, you would cal them out on it immediately because it would mean they could, at any time, slide over to the meaning most convenient to them at that time. why would you give a supposed god that avenue, especially one that's telling you to submit to them completely. clearly there's an interpretation that allows for the killing of anybody who so much as disagrees with the quran.

 

" Because it's too hard for you? That isn't God's fault that you can't read a language properly."

 

you serious? your apparently omniscient and omnipotent god claims to have created humanity. any and all flaws can be traced back to said god's original design, because your god would have known about any and all potential flaws by way of being an omniscient designer (if you know everything, and you make anything, then by definition, you know any and all future flaws of that creation). also, even if you left out omniscience your excuse would only be valid if your god knew no language but arabic. if i wrote a decree in Spanish, and asked a Japanese person to read it and act upon it, would it be their fault if they came to a wrong interpretation? as for the original language ISIS reads the same scripts as you adhere to, and i assume they know the language far better considering it's their native language for the most part, so why are their actions any less valid? you've granted multiple interpretations, what makes one interpretation more valid than another? and why is it that ISIS, the group taking the same actions as we've seen throughout history from Muslims, is the one with the wrong interpretation? are you saying every generation of Muslim except this one has the right interpretation? 

 

 

"When Muhammad [pbuh] spoke the verses the Arabs started saying that this is magic. Magic is extraordinary, it is unusual, out of this world; that just proves the linguistic genius of it."

magic? no. linguistic ability is not magic. i will not invoke godwins law, but really, wordplay is nothing new, before and after muhammad, there have been stories and speakers and actors in every language whose words, art, design, or whatever else were like divine poetry. a good speaker is not evidence of the divine. might his words have been extaordinary and unusual? sure, but so apparently, were the words of the man who founded mormonism, so were the words of jesus, so were those of many presidents past, so were those of malcom X and martin luther king, so were those of aristotle, so were those of anne frank, hellen keller, shakespeare, aristotle, homer, walt disney, and naomi novik, so were the artworks of the greatest artists like Michelangelo, so were the designs of the greatest mechanics, such as galileo, the styles of the greatest poets, the plans of the best generals, it goes on and on. muhammad was probably a great tribe leader who had a way with words and a penchant for warfare, but that does not make him magical by any means. 

you are discussing the words of a man who existed before the modern age, linguistic ability back then was probably akin to magic, today? it's a dime a dozen, because it was never magical, it was merely unusual. if pretty much anybody on YCM went back to the past and wrote poems they'd be a prophet too. language is not evidence of the divine. unusual and extraordinary are not synonymous with breaking the laws of physics the way actual magic does. 

 

 

why are there even sects? at all? your god exists right? it's omnipotent and omnicient right? if either of those are true, then why would there be more than one understanding of islam? why would there be any doubters of it's meanings, especially within the religion itself? why would a full understanding of islam be restricted by as human a concept as language? these are all questions and barriers that even a human can get past. why is it that a god can't do so with the greatest of ease? it has infinite power to employ any plan it may have, it's had millions of years to come up with said plans, and it's had thousands of years to implement said plans to get around any language barrier. instead, it allows it's own people to war, doesn't reveal itself to any culture that hasn't already met an abrahamic religion, and has yet to create such a miracle as granting a full and immediate understanding upon any who so much as touch a quran  such an implementation would, at the very least, either derail or support groups such as ISIS, (i've touched and skimmed through the quran, i don't have as deep an understanding of it as i do the bible, but have fully read through the OT of the bible, unless i'm mistaken, the quran takes off with that as the starting point, so i still don't see how it could possibly have anybody, or anything worshiping it) do you not see how differences in ideals should be literally impossible if the quran were as divinely inspired as many of it's followers claim? divine inspiration should leave no room for doubt, if your god is truly what inspired the book, then those within the religion should never have any doubt as to the desires of their god, much less the existence of said god, yet what we see is no better than the rest of the religions, arguments over the desires of the god, the need for reform within the religion, people bombing public spaces over differences in ideals, banishment and murder over leaving the religion to become either christian, catholic, hindu, protestand, buddhist, atheists, ect, ect. that is not evidence of divine influence, that is the same as every other religion.

 

 

"If you think... "

my statements target islam itself. the actions and inactions of your god and your prophet(s). the problems within your religion that practically any modern human could have solved in under 5 minutes were they granted even half omnipotence/ omniscience. the people who ruled only factor into my statements so far as my assertion that your god either didn't care all that much about who spoke for him, or had actually accepted the people you now denounce as his speakers. there are few, if any other options. if your god didn't want the people you denounce to speak for him, there are countless stories in the OT where your god fixed the problem with extreme prejudice (joseph and his egypt trip, the supposed exodus, and subsequent voyage of moses, the destruction of entire cities, the drowning of the world, ect). assuming your god exists, i would then assume that had your god had a problem with the people who ruled in his name, he would have fixed it himself, or granted somebody he agreed with, the ability to do so.

my current research is the OT. which i admit may not have the details of the quran within it, but considering it's the same god, and considering from what i do know about the quran, allah isn't exactly against bloody warfare, i believe my statement is not too far from correct. a book that was written from god would not cause this much suffering and pain over centuries. and any god of respectable calubur would not be so silent while his apparentl chosen people were suffering below him. the backing of god should ensure your government remains uncorrupted, god's chosen lineage/ prophets/ whatever else you wish to declare them should never be dethroned in the first place, the economy of any country favored by a god should never be anything lower than first, second only if god will it. deviants who interpret the passages wrong would be corrected upon consulting their god through prayer, and those who wish to renounce their god would not have to remain silent or leave their homes on pain of death. in fact, there would be no way to renounce a god, that would be like you saying queen elizabeth doesn't exist. you can literally go over to her and hold a conversation to affirm she is indeed there with you okay, you'd probably be arrested or detained if you tried to do so, but you get the point

 

I am not discussing the people who follow islam, when i make my statements, i am discussing islam itself. the god and prophets outlined within the book. no matter how many meanings it has, the actions taken regarding the book, by those who follow it, no matter their level of understanding, should never deviate from the will of the god who decrees such actions. it is a GOD, we are discussing, miscommunication should never, be possible in the first place.

[chairman ali]

new literature techniques are nothing worth worshiping though. respecting? sure, but they are not proof of the divine. the moses story is magic based, even though I grant the existence of god for the sake of the conversation, i can't really say magic would sell me on whether or not said god is worth worshiping.

 

if you want as many people to worship you as possible, you would leave undeniable evidence. not a book. claiming that people cannot understand it because there are 7 meanings per verse, then claiming that there are wrong interpretations, (that have clearly shifted over time) is the definition of doublespeak (well, multispeak in this case). if a politician said everything they said had seven meanings, and shifted their policies accordingly, you would cal them out on it immediately because it would mean they could, at any time, slide over to the meaning most convenient to them at that time. why would you give a supposed god that avenue, especially one that's telling you to submit to them completely. clearly there's an interpretation that allows for the killing of anybody who so much as disagrees with the quran.

 

There are no "new literature techniques". The Quran proposed a challenge to the Arabs. If they could create 1 verse similar to the quran then they can call Allah a false god. The best poets gathered and none could come up with a single verse similar. Now when I say similar it has many meanings in Arabic literature, as I said, only those who are knowledgeable in the field can appreciate it. 

 

The miracle is that. The miracle was the literature of the Quran (there are other miracles but you have to go and do the research yourself, unfortunately this is probably my last post here for a while) none was able to win the challenge, the best Arabian poets failed. I know why that doesn't seem "amazing" to you but once you learn Arabic, your jaw will drop. You can't appreciate something you haven't learned.

 

Actually, 7 meanings are in something we call 'Tabaqat' [levels]. The first meaning is enough to guide you through life, the other meanings are specifics. Again, you need to do your own Islamic research if you would like the debate because this is getting tedious that I have to explain the structure of the Quran to you.

 

No, there is no such verse in the quran that say you're permitted to slay anyone for disagreeing, again, please don't throw accusations without first reading the Quran and when each verse was revealed. Read my previous posts. Each verse was revealed for an event. The first meaning is enough to guide you through those events if they happen in this day and age.

 

The problem here is that the western approach to Islam is incorrect. The Quran isn't like the bible. Why do you think there are seminaries for Islam if you can read the quran and learn it on your own? There are classes in the seminaries for Quran that go on for years. Yet some people open the Quran and read it for a few days and they 'think' they can refute it. Sorry, but you NEED knowledge of history AND Arabic literature before you can get into debates.

 

 

 

you serious? your apparently omniscient and omnipotent god claims to have created humanity. any and all flaws can be traced back to said god's original design, because your god would have known about any and all potential flaws by way of being an omniscient designer (if you know everything, and you make anything, then by definition, you know any and all future flaws of that creation). also, even if you left out omniscience your excuse would only be valid if your god knew no language but arabic. if i wrote a decree in Spanish, and asked a Japanese person to read it and act upon it, would it be their fault if they came to a wrong interpretation? as for the original language ISIS reads the same scripts as you adhere to, and i assume they know the language far better considering it's their native language for the most part, so why are their actions any less valid? you've granted multiple interpretations, what makes one interpretation more valid than another? and why is it that ISIS, the group taking the same actions as we've seen throughout history from Muslims, is the one with the wrong interpretation? are you saying every generation of Muslim except this one has the right interpretation? 

 

Yes it would be their fault. YOU as the author of the decree need to explain everything to the Japanese person. Allah has revealed to the prophet and the prophet explained it to the people. People nowadays have barely any knowledge of how to approach the Quran because they neglect teachers and try to do it on their own. You NEED a teacher to explain Islam to you. All of the western people I know who converted to Islam did not convert without first finding a teacher and debating with them. Once they were satisfied with what they have learned from their teacher, they convert. Would you start mixing chemicals without first being instructed by a teacher? Why do universities no give you books and tell you to read from them and come back to do your exams? Why do we need a professor if we can figure everything out from a text book? Nothing works that way. I can't learn martial arts simply by reading a book, I'd need someone who has mastered the art to come and teach me.

 

 

why are there even sects? at all? your god exists right? it's omnipotent and omnicient right? if either of those are true, then why would there be more than one understanding of islam? why would there be any doubters of it's meanings, especially within the religion itself? why would a full understanding of islam be restricted by as human a concept as language? these are all questions and barriers that even a human can get past. why is it that a god can't do so with the greatest of ease? it has infinite power to employ any plan it may have, it's had millions of years to come up with said plans, and it's had thousands of years to implement said plans to get around any language barrier. instead, it allows it's own people to war, doesn't reveal itself to any culture that hasn't already met an abrahamic religion, and has yet to create such a miracle as granting a full and immediate understanding upon any who so much as touch a quran  such an implementation would, at the very least, either derail or support groups such as ISIS, (i've touched and skimmed through the quran, i don't have as deep an understanding of it as i do the bible, but have fully read through the OT of the bible, unless i'm mistaken, the quran takes off with that as the starting point, so i still don't see how it could possibly have anybody, or anything worshiping it) do you not see how differences in ideals should be literally impossible if the quran were as divinely inspired as many of it's followers claim? divine inspiration should leave no room for doubt, if your god is truly what inspired the book, then those within the religion should never have any doubt as to the desires of their god, much less the existence of said god, yet what we see is no better than the rest of the religions, arguments over the desires of the god, the need for reform within the religion, people bombing public spaces over differences in ideals, banishment and murder over leaving the religion to become either christian, catholic, hindu, protestand, buddhist, atheists, ect, ect. that is not evidence of divine influence, that is the same as every other religion.

 

 

The prophet warned the people that there will be 73 sects in Islam, only one of them is the correct one. And he made sure to tell everyone who his successors was. But the Arabs wanted more "freedom" so after the death of the prophet a lot of things happened. Read history and you'll know all about it. I can't explain everything, I'm not an expert.

 

Who said the sects doubt the meaning of the quran? Sects happened because of people not knowing who to follow after the prophet even though there were clear instructions left by the prophet. Verbal instructions in-front of the whole city. Sects are political. Read about the origination of Sufism and you'll know at least one reason how sects "pop up".

 

Read the Islamic view of why the world originated, etc. and you'll have the answer to "why are there so many sects" and the constant atheist argument of "if god is here why doesn't he interfere". Read the Islamic philosophy books. It really would take a long time for me to explain and I'm not up to it nor am I qualified to debate. I'm not a seminary student so what I know is very little. If you would like to debate with people who are more knowledgeable and can give you proper answers I can PM you a website.

 

 

 

my statements target islam itself. the actions and inactions of your god and your prophet(s). the problems within your religion that practically any modern human could have solved in under 5 minutes were they granted even half omnipotence/ omniscience. the people who ruled only factor into my statements so far as my assertion that your god either didn't care all that much about who spoke for him, or had actually accepted the people you now denounce as his speakers. there are few, if any other options. if your god didn't want the people you denounce to speak for him, there are countless stories in the OT where your god fixed the problem with extreme prejudice (joseph and his egypt trip, the supposed exodus, and subsequent voyage of moses, the destruction of entire cities, the drowning of the world, ect). assuming your god exists, i would then assume that had your god had a problem with the people who ruled in his name, he would have fixed it himself, or granted somebody he agreed with, the ability to do so.

 

You have little knowledge of Islam, no knowledge of Islamic history. I don't think it's a good idea to jump into a debate simply because you think you know about Islam or have heard somethings. I don't want to be an arse but really, you need proper knowledge before you can debate and it seems to me that you don't know how to approach the Quran let alone read it.

 

This is my last post. I don't think either of us are qualified to debate in this field. I will no longer reply, I hope you understand. This is mainly because I'm not knowledgeable enough and I prefer not to say anything incorrect that will show Islam as a dark religion. If you would like my offer, I'll PM you the website and you can debate with people who are actually more knowledgeable.

[vla1ne]

There are no "new literature techniques". The Quran proposed a challenge to the Arabs. If they could create 1 verse similar to the quran then they can call Allah a false god. The best poets gathered and none could come up with a single verse similar. Now when I say similar it has many meanings in Arabic literature, as I said, only those who are knowledgeable in the field can appreciate it. 

 

The miracle is that. The miracle was the literature of the Quran (there are other miracles but you have to go and do the research yourself, unfortunately this is probably my last post here for a while) none was able to win the challenge, the best Arabian poets failed. I know why that doesn't seem "amazing" to you but once you learn Arabic, your jaw will drop. You can't appreciate something you haven't learned.

 

Actually, 7 meanings are in something we call 'Tabaqat' [levels]. The first meaning is enough to guide you through life, the other meanings are specifics. Again, you need to do your own Islamic research if you would like the debate because this is getting tedious that I have to explain the structure of the Quran to you.

 

No, there is no such verse in the quran that say you're permitted to slay anyone for disagreeing, again, please don't throw accusations without first reading the Quran and when each verse was revealed. Read my previous posts. Each verse was revealed for an event. The first meaning is enough to guide you through those events if they happen in this day and age.

 

The problem here is that the western approach to Islam is incorrect. The Quran isn't like the bible. Why do you think there are seminaries for Islam if you can read the quran and learn it on your own? There are classes in the seminaries for Quran that go on for years. Yet some people open the Quran and read it for a few days and they 'think' they can refute it. Sorry, but you NEED knowledge of history AND Arabic literature before you can get into debates.

 

 

 

Yes it would be their fault. YOU as the author of the decree need to explain everything to the Japanese person. Allah has revealed to the prophet and the prophet explained it to the people. People nowadays have barely any knowledge of how to approach the Quran because they neglect teachers and try to do it on their own. You NEED a teacher to explain Islam to you. All of the western people I know who converted to Islam did not convert without first finding a teacher and debating with them. Once they were satisfied with what they have learned from their teacher, they convert. Would you start mixing chemicals without first being instructed by a teacher? Why do universities no give you books and tell you to read from them and come back to do your exams? Why do we need a professor if we can figure everything out from a text book? Nothing works that way. I can't learn martial arts simply by reading a book, I'd need someone who has mastered the art to come and teach me.

 

 

 

The prophet warned the people that there will be 73 sects in Islam, only one of them is the correct one. And he made sure to tell everyone who his successors was. But the Arabs wanted more "freedom" so after the death of the prophet a lot of things happened. Read history and you'll know all about it. I can't explain everything, I'm not an expert.

 

Who said the sects doubt the meaning of the quran? Sects happened because of people not knowing who to follow after the prophet even though there were clear instructions left by the prophet. Verbal instructions in-front of the whole city. Sects are political. Read about the origination of Sufism and you'll know at least one reason how sects "pop up".

 

Read the Islamic view of why the world originated, etc. and you'll have the answer to "why are there so many sects" and the constant atheist argument of "if god is here why doesn't he interfere". Read the Islamic philosophy books. It really would take a long time for me to explain and I'm not up to it nor am I qualified to debate. I'm not a seminary student so what I know is very little. If you would like to debate with people who are more knowledgeable and can give you proper answers I can PM you a website.

 

 

You have little knowledge of Islam, no knowledge of Islamic history. I don't think it's a good idea to jump into a debate simply because you think you know about Islam or have heard somethings. I don't want to be an arse but really, you need proper knowledge before you can debate and it seems to me that you don't know how to approach the Quran let alone read it.

 

This is my last post. I don't think either of us are qualified to debate in this field. I will no longer reply, I hope you understand. This is mainly because I'm not knowledgeable enough and I prefer not to say anything incorrect that will show Islam as a dark religion. If you would like my offer, I'll PM you the website and you can debate with people who are actually more knowledgeable.

 

it counts as a literature technique. it may not have been new, but what you have outlined fits the bill of literary technique perfectly. (multiple ways to read it, more than one meaning, complex interpretation, ect). literary device, literary technique, whatever you may wish to call it, new or not, that is exactly what you have outlined. the challenge was essentially "who can write a better book/poem" everybody failed, and they called it magical as a result. you see it in many religions. there's nothing new about it here, except the person using it had a different god. again, claiming only those who read it in the original language can understand it is rather close to a cop-out, considering there are many people who have read it in the original language and have still shunned it as a result. no matter how eloquent the wordplay. but tell me, regardless of what your chosen deity did, or what the prophet wrote, if you yourself had infinite power, and wanted those you created to follow you, would you bury your only words in a half dead language that less than 10% of the world could read fluently, and had been rewritten by normal humans multiple times over? all while never making a personal appearance? if the answer is anything but yes, you have already improved upon the thing you are advocating right now. sure, there's possibly a myriad of reasons within the scriptures why allah hasn't shown himself, but keep omnipotence in mind when you read those excuses. what could possibly keep a being with infinite power from revealing itself to humanity for a modern discussion?

 

to this part i have to say, my ancestor's friend could do magic. he died a while ago, but i have it all written down in this book. it's called the illiad. it can be interpreted multiple ways, and it clearly details the existence of beings beyond the scope of mortal man. do you believe it? no. of course you don't. a book isn't enough for a claim that you're skeptical of. you want actual proof. but i'll detail this part later.

 

to start with, i'll place a video from somebody who spoke the language, was not impressed, and while his views mirror mine on the quran (and the OT, which i have actually read through, and already reject), he went through everything you're telling me to read, and came to the same conclusion i'm already at.as a disclaimer, i will not, and would not substitute his views for my own, but i have to say, if you are telling me that his   [spoiler=this]

now, with that as the platform, i have to say, he answered a question that you have skimmed multiple times already. that question being, that your god is omniscient and omnipotent. you get me? the questions i leveled, all came with two sides. the first being, an objection based upon omniscience, the second being based upon basic planning ability, and intellectual efficiency. your god fails both questions for reasons i've already outlined, but since i have an answer to the question of omnicience, i can use the normal path of deity questioning instead of the sideways path. that we've been going down. so, the first being contradictions, regardless of structure, the quran is written in such a way that what i know of Muhammad's actions would only make sense if his god were little more than a delusion. since we're still granting existence here, i will not go down that particular path of logic. but suffice to say, the structure of the books, the amount of them, and the inability to convey proper understanding to anybody who doesn't speak a single language (and apparently the inability to even get it right there) speaks to a lack of care from this god. omnipotence, and omniscience mean the current state of islam should never have come about through any means other than the intent of your god. 

 

people who speak the language, have come to that conclusion. does that tell you nothing? people who have read the book in its' supposedly magical original language, along with all of it's attachments, have come to the conclusion that it's telling them to kill. and some quote the verses as they kill in the name of allah. nothing in it says kill, yet ISIS, people who can more than likey read it in all it's glory, are able to interpret it as such? and more than that, throughout history, there have been genocides carried out in the name of allah, using the quran as justification. so nothing in it, not one verse, calls for the killing of those in opposition to you?

( http://janmorganmedia.com/2014/05/proof-islam-evil-violent-intolerant-straight-koran/ )

i'm sure every single verse was taken so far out of context in english as to say fight, kill, or torture correct? put into context, NT speaks more about love and peace than the quran does, by any means. (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/love.htm) and yet you would say the quran is a peaceful book.

 

i'm pointing out things that make no sense from a skeptical point of view. the book's clearly human, bound by all the same limitations of the human language, justifying atrocities and speaking against them, just like the OT and NT, and there's no evidence of any divine ability in the people i've seen advocating it. i'm not sold because people claim it's got great wording. when i look at a religion, everything that isn't the god comes second. the problem here? your god is the only being i haven't heard from. you are correct that i haven't read the book in it's original language, but if your meaning in that statement is that i have to by into it to believe in it, then you will never convince me. if your meaning is that once i learn the language, i'll be convinced, then tell that to all the people who left. if your meaning is that you will not discuss the matter with people who don't read arabic, then i have t ask why advocate it at all? my criteria for believing in a god is simple by omnipotent standards. yet not once has it been granted. our god could be the first, but right now it's the same as every other religion i discuss.

 

 

if you boss knew exactly what language you spoke, could easily give you orders in that language, and still gave you specific orders in a language he clearly knew you couldn't speak. that would be your fault? because your boss couldn't be bothered to take the 0.5 seconds out of his eternity t give you instructions in the most efficient manner possible? you realize that's an excellent way to run business into the ground right? but as for the chemist and martial arts questions.if i want to learn, i would ask the best to teach me, but unfortunately, your god (the leading expert in god's will) won't talk to anybody who hasn't drank the kool-aid, and i have no intention of drinking the kool aid until i hear directly from your god. your god knew this from the start because he's omniscient (and designed humanity), and therefore, your god decided to not speak to me before i ever was even born. in other words, the only being i would ask, refuses to speak to me until i'm already a chemist. so the example falls flat.

 

your god either wanted 73 sects with only one true one, or didn't care. because if your god only wanted one sect, he would have decreed it so. that's the perk of omnipotence. and considering he demands all who worship him to submit 100% there is no free will argument to be had in this particular religion. either he wanted it to be that way,or he simply didn't care.

 

nobody (EDIT: I did, but that's not what i meant when i said it.). i said meant they interpret them differently. that does not mean they doubt the book itself, that means they came to different conclusions about the meaning. again, if your god wanted somebody to lead, he would have made said leader evident himself, there is ample evidence in the OT of your god doing exactly that, and there is no reason for me to believe he would stop doing so considering his apparently unchanging nature.

 

i already figured it out, either that's what he wants, or he simply does not care. because if it isn't what he wanted, i have ample evidence from the OT of him making his will known very swiftly.  and again, unchanging nature, so i have no reason t doubt that he would change his habits.

 

what debate? this is a discussion. if you want to link me to somebody you think would actually have a debate, i'd be glad to do so with them, but this is just me passing the time.

[Raine]

To be fair. When I was scrolling through General and I saw "Germany... Again", I was relieved to see it was just a terrorist attack. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Let us say you are reading a Hadith book about Islamic Law. You came upon a narration and decided to see how authentic it is. You look at the last narrator, research him, and then look at the one that narrated before him and research him, until you reach the end of the chain. [it isn't necessarily a 'him', it could be a 'she'.] That's how it works. If one narrator has something fishy about him or is known that he's not trustworthy the hadith is labelled as 'weak' or whatever [since I myself don't know the labeling method].

 

This is used for Hadith books and there are many types of them [Jurisprudence, history, ethics, spirituality, etc.]

Everything else in the world is judged based how it's interpreted. If you want an example just look at Trump's 2nd Amendment comment. Why does Islam get special privileges to stay in 1000AD while every other religion has been forced to adapt