You are still running away from my question. It is certainly not the case that no-one is interested. I would suspect that all those who read your posts are very interested in your views and beliefs regarding the Koran. I am not surprised that you are going to have a break as you will be hoping that I will let the matter drift.
I will wait for your return unless you want to let us know if there is anything in the Koran that you find unacceptable and therefore reject. Will you be letting us know?
The unacceptable things in the Qur’an are the illogical things. By now you have learnt that, but I hope you have developed a better standard than emotions. kaimana
33:50 always confused me, because it seemed like Muhammad could fornicate with his cousins. But the word “nikah” is used (in the Qur’an) to mean contractual sex, which fits with everything said here. We already agreed there, but I’ll remind you. The point of my discussion was that 4:24 does not mean “rape”. The context (as shown by 4:23) refers to marital sex. You say a man cannot have sex with two sisters at the same time, but I say this is silly. What it means is that he cannot be in a relationship involving marital-sex (i.e. marriage) with two sisters.
There are two contracts, one being marriage, the other guardianship. I already disproved rape for iffo and darth.ringmaster
Verse 20:130 says there are five sessions. The word “end” is used, as it is used for “ends” elsewhere. There are three parts to the day.
(1) 9-5 deals with those that are attacked. If they don’t accept islam, they are “untrustworthy” and must be killed. If they accept islam, don’t kill them.
(2) 9-6, don’t kill a person who voluntarily converts before being attacked.
(3) 9-7 to 9-13, make a truce (temporary peace) with those who are still strong enough to defend themselves, and continue to use whatever taquiya, subterfuge etc. that you can. If you reach the point where you are stronger that they, you attack them again
Yes you are still mired in a medieval approach. My next post will re-emphasise your redundant ways. As for 9:5, it deals with those who broke treaties in some way (9:1-4). 9:6 refers to any idolater who seeks refuge. The reason they hear the Qur’an is because they are ignorant. The reason they came was to seek refuge, not to convert. 9:7-13 reminds that 9:5 was about untrustworthy folk.
That basically sums in up. That basically sums up the history of Islamic conquest as well.
Suppose it’s so. So what? Does it justify lying about the Qur’an? Does your support (and sharing) of human stupidity justify it?
I think you can’t accept that you lost That’s okay, because I am not here to convince. I am just putting you in your place. That way, the intelligent people will have less to contend with.
Bitchboy allah does not restrict the conditions of sura 9. You and muslim apologists are inventing them.
Depends on interpretation, but as for logic, you are starving. You should get the point and adopt my plant analogy. You will get nowhere without, since you are incapable of dancing in the psychological arena. People won’t think you have substance, and following false Qur’an-Islam is (as I suggested) better than living your life. It does not matter whether you care or not; what matters is what you really are.
That said, sura 9 is obviously contextual.
No. It merely means they were still strong enough to defend themselves. Muslims don’t like people who can defend themselves. In the eyes of muslims, people who defend themselves are not fighting fairly.
A muslim's idea of a fair fight is to fight people who cannot defend themselves, especially women, as evidenced by verse 4-34.
More noise, yes?
PS.....re: verse 24-41.....don't forget to pray every time after you fart. That does not contravene said verse, and therefore attention whore allah would surely be pleased.
No it gives specific times, farting not being prescribed.
(1) A truly professional liar would be able to deceive his audience. MM is not fooling anybody....except himself.
(2) We know he is muslim. I would say he is a Salafist.
(3) That website of his is nothing but gibberish. It's verbal flatulence, just like what he has posted throughout this forum. Verbal flatulence does not make him an intellectual.
I know my standards, and even if I were lying, it would be less of a lie than your illogical venom. I know your weakness, which is the weakness of what this forum stands for. Labels. I know I’m right.darth
It is not a 3-fold punishment. Dying means perishing means going to Hell. If you cannot realise what it means, that is your fault. Of course you do; you are aware of what you are.
What exactly are you refuting? I have not made any claim or proposed any theory regarding 111. I am merely asking questions which you are unable to answer. These are simple questions - who was abu lahab that he merits an entire sura? What were his crimes that he was given a 3-fold punishment.
I answered them to the extent that every time you repeat yourself, I can feel sorry for you.
Beating around the bush. I checked that verse word by word. Do you agree that it is "chastity" as in relation to guarding one's private parts? Can you now answer without evasion my main question - can a wife be "chaste" by guarding her private parts from her husband? Note that if you answer "yes", it will demolish your other statement in previous post that sex is necessary in an islamic marriage.
24:33 refers to the chastity of guarding one’s parts, which naturally applies to the captive-master. There are different words used for the two “chastities”, meaning you will have to obey my prior demand. As it stands, rape is refuted.
Ok, let me modify it
You want to
Beat (painfully if necessary but non-harmful) a wife to avoid divorce.
Divorce a wife to avoid beating her (causing injury).
Your life if thus followed would be an unending cycle
marriage-beat (painfully if necessary) -divorce-marriage-beat (painfully if necessary)-divorce-marriage-beat (painfully if necessary)-divorce.......
You are clutching at straws. The point still remains - beating is beating. The quran allows beating of wife
I’ll just ignore the last line, shall I? According to our accepted translation of “idhrib” (which I only accept so people are not prejudiced!), the striking is an attempt to symbolise his contempt whilst representing the last chance before divorce. It clearly must not accelerate what is not preferred (divorce). It cannot injure, neither is it a punishment. The ultimate punishment is divorce. The previous steps are meant to convey and prevent.
Unbiased? Buddy, you have no clue about objective analysis. You are biased towards the quran and can see no wrong in it. Your arguments reflect this. The only people you can convince are those that want to be convinced (similar muslims). Only a biased muslim will read the word "beat" and then pretend it is splitting the air or some such thing.
So why is it you struggle and I laugh at you, in the meantime having already explained my position clearly? As for “buddy”, I tend to only associate with half-intelligent people who have a point.piscohot
Read my next post. It forces FFI to get its priorities right, which means abrogating the current culture. So far it has not been refuted, nor will it be.
Only you can understand what you say, no normal person can.
1. you said hand cutting and public flogging is only for deterrence, and you are lying, it is the actual punishment your god wants for thieves and for fornication.
2. You said beating wife is symbolic beating, again you are lying, quran never says its symbolic.
And I challanged you on both to show me where quran says what you are saying, you making your own stories.
I challenge you to refute my logic on 2). As far as I am concerned, I already beat your point into submission.http://allpoetry.com/poem/9613459-Strik ... -by-Minhaj
As for 1), the actual laws are there for deterrence. The only reason we have laws is for deterrence. The actual implementation of laws (once a crime is committed) involves consideration of circumstances. I believe we were discussing “eye-for-an-eye” in Minhajism, so you should attempt to get the context right. Otherwise, your mixed-words will be very hard to understand.Antineo
Whatever is your point, proof is good.