Is the Koran history or guidance?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Eagle wrote:
crazymonkie_ wrote:He could have given human beings free will, but not free will to sin.
You mean, forcing them to do good
Lol bro, those ignrant kafirs bound to hell dont really understand how the God should deal with His creatures whom He put under a forced test in this worldly life

Cheers
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by sum »

Hello Eagle

You gave a vague reply to my question.

Is Koran chapter 9 purely history or guidance for all time?

sum
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Eagle wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Allah behaves as someone within time.
Eagle wrote:Allah lives outside this entity -time- which He created, He is unlimited by time or space, but that does not stop Him from acting within time and space if He willed it.
But you see, Allah had to first decide to create something before he created it (acted within time), even if he merely says "be" and it instantaneously is. So if Allah decided to create us, it invariably means that even according to his perception, there was a time when we did not exist, and this is what caused him to decide to create us. Allah perceived an absence of us, and then an existence of us after he decided to say "be". And he said "be", because according to HIS perception, we did not exist yet. That's time. So regardless of Allah acting within time but perceiving in a timeless way, as your a stupid little excuse attempts, he is still perceiving within time as well. And not just "perceiving" time as in being aware of it, as you would attempt to say, but his perception itself also has to be in time or else he cannot decide to create mankind or even decide to create time itself. A decision to do something always involves time. "Let there be light" is an action based on a decision which invariably means there was no light at a certain point, which is why Allah decided to create light. I could get a 5th grader to see this problem that I raise. And according to a timeless Allah, he cannot decide to create mankind because mankind always existed according to a timeless perception. You cannot decide to create something that already exists. One's perception has to be within time to perceive a lack of something at one point, and then decide to create it at a certain point and perceive it's new existence. So your little cuckoo bird attempt fails. Don't even even attempt a philosophy 101 course. You believe that if you can imagine it, it must be true. :lol:
Last edited by Muhammad bin Lyin on Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

sum wrote:Hello Eagle

You gave a vague reply to my question.

Is Koran chapter 9 purely history or guidance for all time?

sum
You have to give him time to go back to the lab and make up a concoction. Hopefully, he doesn't blow the mosque's lab up by accidentally mixing the wrong concoction. :lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by Eagle »

sum wrote:You gave a vague reply to my question.
The reply was short and accurate, read it again
sum wrote:Is Koran chapter 9 purely history or guidance for all time?
Both
truthanvil.blogspot.com
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by Eagle »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Allah had to first decide to create something before he created it
He doesnt design, He creates "Be and it is".
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Allah perceived an absence of us, and then an existence of us after he decided to say "be". And he said "be", because according to HIS perception, we did not exist yet.
There is no "before and after we existed" to Him since it involves the time factor -an entity outside of Him, irrelevant to Him, and which He created-, this is only from our perspective.
He said "Be" in a place where there is no time, a place impossible for us to understand, by essence. A believer will never have his faith shaken by this fact since religion demands belief in the unseen but a dibeliever whose low desires are stronger than his faith will drift away and start corrupting the true religion through his man-made innovations, and ultimately fashion his own deity.
truthanvil.blogspot.com
crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

Eagle wrote:
crazymonkie_ wrote:Before Islam, there were some monotheistic religions, sure, but I know for sure you wouldn't agree with them.

And what about all those Buddhist countries in southeast Asia? And China? And Japan? none of them had warnings of a god like Allah
They do now
*FACEPALM*

So: For THOUSANDS OF YEARS, China, Japan, and SE Asia were doing fine without monotheism. Without warnings about/"from" the "one true god". Thriving, in fact, well independently of the "right" religion. So 1) What took the almighty, all-knowing, all-powerful creator so long? 2) If they were doing great without the "right" religion, without knowledge of the "right" god- what makes those things so great, and 3) Why are they necessary? ARE they necessary?

If you say they are, you're stuck with the fact that the "right" religion wasn't even available until less than a century ago (some "just" god!); if you say they aren't, you've basically said that Islam doesn't matter.

And again: The first "warners," even if we're talking about monotheism *like* Islam, were CATHOLICS! Praise Allah for the Jesuits, amirite?!?
crazymonkie_ wrote:So if someone actually never hears the message of Islam, Allah's more likely to be merciful and forgive their ignorance?
Allah forgives all people, Muslims or else, who sin out of ignorance.
So it really sounds like knowing about Islam is way worse than not knowing about it. See- quite a few Christian groups tried this sort of mental gymnastics when they "discovered" America and found that there were millions of people who never had, and never could have, learned about Christianity. And just like what you're doing here, those Christians tried to say that people were only held accountable to what they knew.

BUT, that idea, as appealing as it may be, means that Allah's "universal" laws are NOT universal. They are merely a suggestion, only coming into force after people have heard the message and rejected it.

Although that itself has its own problems, considering the baffling contradictions in the Quran about free will and Allah sealing the hearts of unbelievers. Even setting aside the impossibility of free will in a universe with Allah, the sealing of the hearts by Allah makes it impossible to truly have free will. Locked up is not free. Sealed is not open.

To get back to the point: This idea, wherever you got it, makes Islam NOT a truly universal, for-all-time religion, and makes Allah's laws contingent, not universal. You're basically "sandbagging" your own belief system when you do this. But feel free; you're just making it worse for Islam, and if you want to do it, it's no big deal to me.
However the Quran states that all humans have, ingrained in their souls, a basic guidance to understand the great evils and make the essential correct spiritual choices so each person is at least responsible for his response to that basic guidance. This innate guidance must be nurtured or it dies and all humans including the tribes of the Amazon or the Inuites, therefore will be held responsible for at least failing or succeeding in hearkening the basic calls of their ingrained God-consciousness 7:172-3.
Yeah, the Quran SAYS it, but how do we know the Quran is right? Faith, yes? Faith is a dead end, because anyone religious can have the same faith in the same way you have, yet end up with a different religion. If it all went to the same source, there would only be forms of Islam. Clearly there's not, ergo faith doesn't work to your advantage here.
crazymonkie_ wrote:I said that. And I said that faith is of MUCH greater importance in Islam.
And you were corrected that faith and deeds are equally important. Just as a small example, the Quran is full of verses addressing the foremost in faith and saying that only those among them who do good will be succesful in the Hereafter.
I wasn't corrected. Faith still has primacy. If it doesn't, then anyone who accidentally acts according to Allah's laws can get into paradise. Thus making Islam pointless.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Allah wants to send the "perfect" Muslim- whoever it may be- to hell? He does it.
He does anything He wants, but according to His perfecte attributes. He could send the most righteous person to Hell, but He wouldnt.
You only think so. Where's your proof? Allah says all over in the Quran that he COULD have saved such-and-such people, but didn't. Again I say: unjustified faith. You only WISH he does that. You don't know enough about Allah personally to say for sure if he would or wouldn't save the "perfect" Muslim from hell.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Works in Islam are all based on faith- faith that Allah is going to do what he says he will.
Works in Islam are based on their benefits for society as a whole and for the individual primarly. The retribution is with God and none is concerned with this.
Good to know that works in Islam are basically just window dressing for self-aggrandizement.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Anyone with a brain and working eyes.
You mean, anyone with your brain, and eyes that works like yours
Sensibly? Logically? Yeah, I meant that. Thanks for making that clearer.
crazymonkie_ wrote:That 40-some page discussion about total power and total knowledge, and what that means for free will?
It means there is no contradiction between these concepts
No, it means that you were totally defeated in that thread but refused to acknowledge the slightest loss. Everyone except the Muslims on there saw the contradiction and explained it, over and over, to no avail. There IS a contradiction; a MASSIVE contradiction. You don't see it because you need Islam to be true.
crazymonkie_ wrote:You IMPLY that they're all the same- that they're talking about the same afterlife.
I didnt imply, i said they all have the concept of retribution in an afterlife. How this is done may vary between each belief system.
There you go again. You implied it here too. And not all afterlives have retribution at the end.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Examples: Jewish sheol
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/215, ... -Hell.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Judaism does have a concept of reward and punishment in the afterlife..When someone dies, the disembodied soul leaves this sensory world and enters “Gan Eden,”...In order to restore the level of purity the soul had possessed before entering the physical world, it must undergo a degree of refinement commensurate to the degree which the body may have indulged itself...If a person sinned in this lifetime..it must undergo a degree of refinement commensurate to the degree which the body may have indulged itself..This cleaning process hurts, but is a spiritual and mental process designed not for retribution, but to allow one to truly enjoy his/her reward in Gan Eden. This cleaning process is called “Gehinom,” or, in the vernacular, “Hell.”
That's Gehenna. It's a different concept of the afterlife. Where's "Sheol" there? Nowhere. Point still stands.

Oh, and the Greek Hades. Only a very, very, very few "heroes" were "judged" in the sense that you talk about. The gods made the Elysian fields (or populated it with heroes after they died, I forget which) after a successful judgement by the gods. Everyone else- pay the fare to get across Styx, and stick around forever. No judgement there.
crazymonkie_ wrote:There are some belief systems- and they were very widespread for a long time- that don't have the idea of a final, personal judgement and separation from the living world after one's death.
Whichever way they define the afterlife, whether one returns or not, they all believe there must be retribution for the deeds
No, they do not ALL BELIEVE. I've shown you several exceptions. Islam's afterlife and ideas of judgement after death are not universal. Deal.
crazymonkie_ wrote:This means that the Islamic afterlife is a constructed idea. Historically situated. Relatively new, in fact. So it's foolish in the extreme to say that it's universal, and that it has always been. Neither is the case.
It could have been there from the beginning, but the idea was merged with man made innovations
But there's no proof of that. You just want it to be true. So the entire line of thought is seriously flawed, if not totally wrong. Might as well believe that all people once worshipped a single goddess and that later people started worshipping male gods. That's got as much historical evidence as your claim here.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Theravada Buddhism says that the "higher" rebirths are actually just the apparent end-result of rewards. In fact, they tend to obscure the real work of getting off the karmic wheel entirely. The daeva and the 31 gods have a hard time of it because they think there's nowhere else to go, that it's the best life anyone could have. It's true, but it's also wrong.
Purification process from the sins commited until all suffering ends. Whichever way you turn it, the concept of retribution for the deeds is still there.
You said that it was a one-time, post-mortem judgement (okay, two if you count Judgement Day). Therevada Buddhism doesn't have that. There you go, again.

And you totally ignored what I was saying in that quote. You said that a positive rebirth meant that someone had accrued karmic rewards. I pointed out that power, wealth and apparent rewards are only *apparent.* Which first of all makes the Islamic desire for afterlife rewards seem REALLY selfish (I think they are), second of all, means that Buddhism and Islam do NOT have the same idea of concept of retribution, and third, because the "retribution" is really just an impersonal, universal law at work, there is no judgement in Buddhism anyway! (Not from any gods, in any case.)

And there's the fact that Buddhism says that there is no such thing as a single soul. Ever. Meaning that even if there were some sort of god at the end of life judging people, that god would be incredibly unjust for doing so.
crazymonkie_ wrote:You're taking a Muslim approach to karma, thinking in terms of sin and righteous acts
Which is exactly what it is. Karma is rooted in the idea of cause and effect, starting with man's actions.
Ahhhh, but who's ultimately responsible for the cause and effect? In Islam, the final cause is always Allah. He makes things happens or prevents them from happening. He knows what will and what won't happen. In Buddhism, it's up to human beings. Karma is merely the law that reacts to the active force of humans. Humans are ultimately in control. Not so in Islam.

The two belief systems part company very quickly. You can only say in the most vague way that karma and sin are alike.
crazymonkie_ wrote:applying the idea of one single act of judgement to the idea of rebirth
I told you, whether you are retributed once or a 100 times for your actions, the concept is still the same especially considering the fact that in both systems suffering is supposed to stop at one point.
And you ignored that "dhukka" does NOT just mean "suffering." The gods and daeva have dhukka- despite the fact that they are the most blissful beings in the universe. AND there's the fact that rebirth is only about experiencing the universal law of karma- not being judged for your deeds. There's nothing running karma, karma runs itself.
crazymonkie_ wrote:"If Allah wills it". See- there's that arbitrariness again!
Arbitrariness based on a perfect Justice.
No such thing. That's a contradiction.
crazymonkie_ wrote:You're begging the question as to whether or not we have one life or many.
No, thats not the point. The point is that regardless of how similar the concept of afterlife is, the idea of retribution for the deeds is always there.
Ah, so now it's not "they all have a concept of a just retribution in the afterlife" (because "they" all don't, and we've seen examples to the contrary), it's now the idea of retributions for deeds? But WHO or WHAT is doing the retribution, how, and why, is CRITICAL in showing that the ideas are NOT the same. Karma versus Islamic idea of sin are extraordinarily different.
crazymonkie_ wrote:He could have given human beings free will, but not free will to sin.
You mean, forcing them to do good
No, I mean creating them so that they can't sin. That's a very different thing than forcing them to do good.

So I guess Allah ISN'T all-powerful then?
crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Eagle wrote:
crazymonkie_ wrote:He could have given human beings free will, but not free will to sin.
You mean, forcing them to do good
Lol bro, those ignrant kafirs bound to hell dont really understand how the God should deal with His creatures whom He put under a forced test in this worldly life

Cheers
"Lol bro:" So Allah isn't all-powerful, and can't create a human being with free will yet the inability to sin? Just because we can't conceptualize it doesn't mean that an all-powerful being couldn't create it. Or is Allah NOT all-powerful?

And how can a being test something if he already, 100% (no, not metaphorically, or proximally, like humans say this) KNEW what the outcome would be? Some test.
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by sum »

Hello Eagle

How can you differentiate between the historical verses and the guidance?

Please tell us what purpose is served by including history.

sum
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Ahmed chose to reply to inmate red ass monkey
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Eagle wrote:
crazymonkie_ wrote:He could have given human beings free will, but not free will to sin.
You mean, forcing them to do good
Lol bro, those ignrant kafirs bound to hell dont really understand how the God should deal with His creatures whom He put under a forced test in this worldly life

Cheers
crazymonkie_ wrote:"Lol bro:" So Allah isn't all-powerful, and can't create a human being with free will yet the inability to sin?
First of all, there is no such thing called free will in religions, this is because, you cannot tell me you are free to believe or not but of you dont believe you will be burnt in hell.

Consequently , humans have n option but to believe, smart humans that is

Now if I will consider the humans having free will, then it is the free will of deeds to others, yet Allah is the ultimate decider to allow your good deed to happen or not.

Therefore, I dont really consider that humans have any free will
crazymonkie_ wrote: Just because we can't conceptualize it doesn't mean that an all-powerful being couldn't create it. Or is Allah NOT all-powerful?
Well, Allah is still the ultimate decider to allow bad deeds to happen or not, therefore and logically speaking humans already have no free will. They dont even decide to be created or not.
crazymonkie_ wrote:And how can a being test something if he already, 100% (no, not metaphorically, or proximally, like humans say this) KNEW what the outcome would be? Some test.
Well, I replied to this many times before, inmate. In simple terms:

If Allah allowed bad deeds then Allah is only making evident that such person is bad, consequently such person on the JD will convict the self seeing the evidences collected and presented

Back to your cell, inmate
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

sum wrote:Hello Eagle

How can you differentiate between the historical verses and the guidance?

sum
Hello doccy sum

Tripping again?

Here are some guidance verses for you:

لَا تَجْعَلْ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ فَتَقْعُدَ مَذْمُومًا مَخْذُولًا (22)
Do not make with Allah another god, lest you sit down condemned, neglected.
[Al Quran ; 17:22]

وَقَضَىٰ رَبُّكَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا ۚ إِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَكَ الْكِبَرَ أَحَدُهُمَا أَوْ كِلَاهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّ وَلَا تَنْهَرْهُمَا وَقُلْ لَهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيمًا (23)
And your Lord has decreed that you do not worship except Him, and (show) kindness to the parents, whether one or both of them reach old age with you, and say not to them, uff, and do not insult them, and say to them an honourable saying.
[Al Quran ; 17:23]

وَاخْفِضْ لَهُمَا جَنَاحَ الذُّلِّ مِنَ الرَّحْمَةِ وَقُلْ رَبِّ ارْحَمْهُمَا كَمَا رَبَّيَانِي صَغِيرًا (24)
And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say: My Lord! Have mercy upon them, as they raised me up (when I was ) young.
[Al Quran ; 17:24]

رَبُّكُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا فِي نُفُوسِكُمْ ۚ إِنْ تَكُونُوا صَالِحِينَ فَإِنَّهُ كَانَ لِلْأَوَّابِينَ غَفُورًا (25)
Your Lord is best Knowing of what is within yourselves; if you are pious, then He is with those who turn (to Him) Forgiving.
[Al Quran ; 17:25]

وَآتِ ذَا الْقُرْبَىٰ حَقَّهُ وَالْمِسْكِينَ وَابْنَ السَّبِيلِ وَلَا تُبَذِّرْ تَبْذِيرًا (26)
And give the relative his right, and the needy and the traveller, and do not waste (your money) wastefully.
[Al Quran ; 17:26]

إِنَّ الْمُبَذِّرِينَ كَانُوا إِخْوَانَ الشَّيَاطِينِ ۖ وَكَانَ الشَّيْطَانُ لِرَبِّهِ كَفُورًا (27)
Indeed, the wasteful are the brothers of the devils; and the devil is ever to his Lord ungrateful.
[Al Quran ; 17:27]

وَإِمَّا تُعْرِضَنَّ عَنْهُمُ ابْتِغَاءَ رَحْمَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّكَ تَرْجُوهَا فَقُلْ لَهُمْ قَوْلًا مَيْسُورًا (28)
And if you turn away from them seeking mercy from your Lord for which you hope, then say to them a gentle saying.
[Al Quran ; 17:28]

وَلَا تَجْعَلْ يَدَكَ مَغْلُولَةً إِلَىٰ عُنُقِكَ وَلَا تَبْسُطْهَا كُلَّ الْبَسْطِ فَتَقْعُدَ مَلُومًا مَحْسُورًا (29)
And do not make your hand shackled to your neck, and do not stretch it in complete stretch, lest you sit down blamed, insolvent.
[Al Quran ; 17:29]

إِنَّ رَبَّكَ يَبْسُطُ الرِّزْقَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَقْدِرُ ۚ إِنَّهُ كَانَ بِعِبَادِهِ خَبِيرًا بَصِيرًا (30)
Indeed, your Lord stretches the provision for whom He wills and restricts (it). Indeed, He is ever, concerning His servants, Acquainted, Seeing.
[Al Quran ; 17:30]

وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُمْ خَشْيَةَ إِمْلَاقٍ ۖ نَحْنُ نَرْزُقُهُمْ وَإِيَّاكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ قَتْلَهُمْ كَانَ خِطْئًا كَبِيرًا (31)
And do not kill your children fearing poverty, We provide for them and yourselves; indeed, their killing is a huge mistake.
[Al Quran ; 17:31]

وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا (32)
And do not go near adultery; indeed, it is ever an indecency and an evil way.
[Al Quran ; 17:32]

وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ۗ وَمَنْ قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا فَلَا يُسْرِفْ فِي الْقَتْلِ ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنْصُورًا (33)
And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly, We have made to his guardian (heir) an authority, so let him not exceed (the right of) killing; indeed, he has been helped.
[Al Quran ; 17:33]

وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا مَالَ الْيَتِيمِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ حَتَّىٰ يَبْلُغَ أَشُدَّهُ ۚ وَأَوْفُوا بِالْعَهْدِ ۖ إِنَّ الْعَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْئُولًا (34)
And do not go near to the wealth of an orphan except in a way that is best, until he reaches his strength. And fulfil the covenant; indeed, the covenant is ever questioned.
[Al Quran ; 17:34]

وَأَوْفُوا الْكَيْلَ إِذَا كِلْتُمْ وَزِنُوا بِالْقِسْطَاسِ الْمُسْتَقِيمِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا (35)
And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with a straight balance; that is good and a better determination.
[Al Quran ; 17:35]

وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ ۚ إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولَٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْئُولًا (36)
And cause not (others) to follow that of which you have no knowledge; indeed, the hearing and the vision and the heart, for all of these, you will be questioned.
[Al Quran ; 17:36]

وَلَا تَمْشِ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَرَحًا ۖ إِنَّكَ لَنْ تَخْرِقَ الْأَرْضَ وَلَنْ تَبْلُغَ الْجِبَالَ طُولًا (37)
And do not walk on the land exultantly; indeed, you will not pierce the earth nor reach the mountains in length.
[Al Quran ; 17:37]

كُلُّ ذَٰلِكَ كَانَ سَيِّئُهُ عِنْدَ رَبِّكَ مَكْرُوهًا (38)
All that is ever evil, with your Lord, (and) hated.
[Al Quran ; 17:38]

ذَٰلِكَ مِمَّا أَوْحَىٰ إِلَيْكَ رَبُّكَ مِنَ الْحِكْمَةِ ۗ وَلَا تَجْعَلْ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ فَتُلْقَىٰ فِي جَهَنَّمَ مَلُومًا مَدْحُورًا (39)
That is of what your Lord has revealed to you of wisdom. And do not make with Allah another god, lest you be thrown into hell, blamed, rejected.
[Al Quran ; 17:39]

Here are more guidance verses for you:

وَإِذْ قَالَ لُقْمَانُ لِابْنِهِ وَهُوَ يَعِظُهُ يَا بُنَيَّ لَا تُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ ۖ إِنَّ الشِّرْكَ لَظُلْمٌ عَظِيمٌ (13)
And when Luqman said to his son while he was admonishing him: O my son! Do not associate (anything) with Allah; indeed, polytheism is a great injustice.
[Al Quran ; 31:13]

وَوَصَّيْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ بِوَالِدَيْهِ حَمَلَتْهُ أُمُّهُ وَهْنًا عَلَىٰ وَهْنٍ وَفِصَالُهُ فِي عَامَيْنِ أَنِ اشْكُرْ لِي وَلِوَالِدَيْكَ إِلَيَّ الْمَصِيرُ (14)
And We have enjoined the human for his parents, (that) his mother carried him in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning in two years, (saying): Be grateful to Me and to both your parents. To Me will be the (final) destination.
[Al Quran ; 31:14]

وَإِنْ جَاهَدَاكَ عَلَىٰ أَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا ۖ وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِي الدُّنْيَا مَعْرُوفًا ۖ وَاتَّبِعْ سَبِيلَ مَنْ أَنَابَ إِلَيَّ ۚ ثُمَّ إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ (15)
And if they strive to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but accompany them in this world in kindness and follow the way of those who turn to Me. Moreover, to Me is your return, then I will inform you of what you used to do.
[Al Quran ; 31:15]

يَا بُنَيَّ إِنَّهَا إِنْ تَكُ مِثْقَالَ حَبَّةٍ مِنْ خَرْدَلٍ فَتَكُنْ فِي صَخْرَةٍ أَوْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ أَوْ فِي الْأَرْضِ يَأْتِ بِهَا اللَّهُ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَطِيفٌ خَبِيرٌ (16)
O my son! Indeed, if it should be the weight of a mustard seed which may be in a rock, or in the heaven or in the earth, Allah will bring it; indeed, Allah is Subtle, Acquainted.
[Al Quran ; 31:16]

يَا بُنَيَّ أَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ وَأْمُرْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَانْهَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَاصْبِرْ عَلَىٰ مَا أَصَابَكَ ۖ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ مِنْ عَزْمِ الْأُمُورِ (17)
O my son! Establish prayer and command what is the right and forbid what is evil and be patient over that which strikes you; indeed, that is of the toughest affairs.
[Al Quran ; 31:17]

وَلَا تُصَعِّرْ خَدَّكَ لِلنَّاسِ وَلَا تَمْشِ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَرَحًا ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ كُلَّ مُخْتَالٍ فَخُورٍ (18)
And do not turn your cheek to the people (in contempt) and do not walk in the land exultantly; indeed, Allah does not like everyone deluded and boastful.
[Al Quran ; 31:18]

وَاقْصِدْ فِي مَشْيِكَ وَاغْضُضْ مِنْ صَوْتِكَ ۚ إِنَّ أَنْكَرَ الْأَصْوَاتِ لَصَوْتُ الْحَمِيرِ (19)
And be moderate in your walking pace and lower your voice; indeed, the most hated of voices is the voice of donkeys.
[Al Quran ; 31:19]

Here are some history records for you:

نَحْنُ نَقُصُّ عَلَيْكَ أَحْسَنَ الْقَصَصِ بِمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ وَإِنْ كُنْتَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ لَمِنَ الْغَافِلِينَ (3)
We relate to you the best of the stories in what We have revealed to you of this Quran; and indeed, you were before it among the unaware.
[Al Quran ; 12:3]

إِذْ قَالَ يُوسُفُ لِأَبِيهِ يَا أَبَتِ إِنِّي رَأَيْتُ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ كَوْكَبًا وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ رَأَيْتُهُمْ لِي سَاجِدِينَ (4)
When Yusuf said to his father: O my father! Indeed, I saw eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating to me.
[Al Quran ; 12:4]

قَالَ يَا بُنَيَّ لَا تَقْصُصْ رُؤْيَاكَ عَلَىٰ إِخْوَتِكَ فَيَكِيدُوا لَكَ كَيْدًا ۖ إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ لِلْإِنْسَانِ عَدُوٌّ مُبِينٌ (5)
He (Yaqoub) said: O my son! Do not tell your vision to your brothers or they will contrive against you a plan. Indeed, the devil is to the human an obvious enemy.
[Al Quran ; 12:5]

وَكَذَٰلِكَ يَجْتَبِيكَ رَبُّكَ وَيُعَلِّمُكَ مِنْ تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ وَيُتِمُّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَىٰ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ كَمَا أَتَمَّهَا عَلَىٰ أَبَوَيْكَ مِنْ قَبْلُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ (6)
And thus will your Lord choose you and teach you some of the interpretation of sayings and complete His favour upon you and upon the family of Yaqoub, as He completed it upon o your fathers before, Ibrahim and Ishaq. Indeed, your Lord is Knowing, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 12:6]

لَقَدْ كَانَ فِي يُوسُفَ وَإِخْوَتِهِ آيَاتٌ لِلسَّائِلِينَ (7)
Certainly, there were in Yusuf and his brothers signs for those who ask.
[Al Quran ; 12:7]

إِذْ قَالُوا لَيُوسُفُ وَأَخُوهُ أَحَبُّ إِلَىٰ أَبِينَا مِنَّا وَنَحْنُ عُصْبَةٌ إِنَّ أَبَانَا لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ (8)
When they said: Yusuf and his brother are more beloved to our father than we, though we are a clan; indeed, our father is in obvious error.
[Al Quran ; 12:8]

اقْتُلُوا يُوسُفَ أَوِ اطْرَحُوهُ أَرْضًا يَخْلُ لَكُمْ وَجْهُ أَبِيكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا مِنْ بَعْدِهِ قَوْمًا صَالِحِينَ (9)
Kill Yusuf or throw him to the ground, the face of your father may be all for you, and you may be after that a righteous people.
[Al Quran ; 12:9]

قَالَ قَائِلٌ مِنْهُمْ لَا تَقْتُلُوا يُوسُفَ وَأَلْقُوهُ فِي غَيَابَتِ الْجُبِّ يَلْتَقِطْهُ بَعْضُ السَّيَّارَةِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ فَاعِلِينَ (10)
A speaker from among them said: Do not kill Yusuf but throw him into the bottom of the well; so some of the travellers may pick him up if you would do (it).
[Al Quran ; 12:10]

قَالُوا يَا أَبَانَا مَا لَكَ لَا تَأْمَنَّا عَلَىٰ يُوسُفَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَنَاصِحُونَ (11)
They said: O our father! Why do you not entrust us with Yusuf while indeed, we are to him advisors?
[Al Quran ; 12:11]

أَرْسِلْهُ مَعَنَا غَدًا يَرْتَعْ وَيَلْعَبْ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ (12)
Send him with us tomorrow that he may eat well and play; and indeed, we are to him keepers.
[Al Quran ; 12:12]

.
.
.
.

Until verse 12:102

ذَٰلِكَ مِنْ أَنْبَاءِ الْغَيْبِ نُوحِيهِ إِلَيْكَ ۖ وَمَا كُنْتَ لَدَيْهِمْ إِذْ أَجْمَعُوا أَمْرَهُمْ وَهُمْ يَمْكُرُونَ (102)
That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they agreed on their affair while they were planning.
[Al Quran ; 12:102]

Can you now differentiate between guidance ans history? Anytime, doccy

Cheers
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by sum »

Hello my Koranic expert friend, AhmedBahgat

Many thanks for your post.

Will you please give me your opinion on whether Koran 9 is history or guidance?

sum
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

sum wrote:Hello my Koranic expert friend, AhmedBahgat

Many thanks for your post.

Will you please give me your opinion on whether Koran 9 is history or guidance?

sum
Hello doccy

Quran 9 is both, history and guidance, and btw all history verses have a massage of guidance in them, in effect we can virtually say that the Quran is nothing but guidance
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Now if I will consider the humans having free will, then it is the free will of deeds to others, yet Allah is the ultimate decider to allow your good deed to happen or not. Therefore, I dont really consider that humans have any free will
How can Allah judge them without judging Himself, since He is the ultimate responsible?
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Also doccy, the history verses cannot be dealt with individually (even the ones in different locations talking about the same thing), i.e. the whole verses talking about a specific incident must be taken together, which should lead to the moral of the story, or the guidance of the story. However the clear guidance verses like the ones in sura 17 and sura 31 above, can be dealt with individually and without considering adjacent verses.
User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Ahmed chose to reply to inmate pussy cat:
The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Now if I will consider the humans having free will, then it is the free will of deeds to others, yet Allah is the ultimate decider to allow your good deed to happen or not. Therefore, I dont really consider that humans have any free will
How can Allah judge them without judging Himself, since He is the ultimate responsible?
Here the answer stated in a Clause in the Book of Law:

لَا يُسْأَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ وَهُمْ يُسْأَلُونَ (23)
He is not questioned concerning what He does, and they will be questioned.
[Al Quran ; 21:23]

i.e. they will be judged by Allah cannot be judged.

Did your con-Arabic-teachers Layth and Ayman got back to you concerning my killer of an Arabic grammar mother of all slams that Mecca is a proper feminine name that cannot be genetic and cannot have the article Al?

Back to your cell, inmate. And dont get used to ask me questions as long as you are inmate, but there is a way out if you would like to know.
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Did your con-teachers Layth and Ayman got back to you concerning my killer of an Arabic grammar mother of all slams that Mecca is a proper feminine name that cannot be genetic and cannot have the article Al?

Back your cell, inmate. And dont get used to ask me questions as long as you are inmate, but there is a way out if you would like to know.
First, comes the judgment day Allah will thus be questioning Himself. Since there's no free will, humans are born and die innocents.


Second, it doesn't really matter if Mecca is a proper name or not. It wasn't where the Islamic Pharisees forged it. That's the point !
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by Eagle »

crazymonkie_ wrote:So: For THOUSANDS OF YEARS, China, Japan, and SE Asia were doing fine without monotheism. Without warnings about/"from" the "one true god". Thriving, in fact, well independently of the "right" religion.
What does thriving have to do with religion
crazymonkie_ wrote:So 1) What took the almighty, all-knowing, all-powerful creator so long?
What took Him so long to send the prophet Jesus 400 years after Malachi, and what took Him to send Muhammad 600 years after Jesus?
Besides, well before the introduction of buddhism or taoism, the chinese dynasties worshiped a single all powerful entity.
crazymonkie_ wrote:2) If they were doing great without the "right" religion, without knowledge of the "right" god- what makes those things so great
Its not about their greatness, but about ackowledging ones position in the universe and accepting to live within the limits set by the King and Generous Creator, One full of wisdom to His creatures. The Quran explains the fact that many nations who thrived with disregard to the way of God, were razed to the ground.
crazymonkie_ wrote:3) Why are they necessary? ARE they necessary?
It depends on how you view the universe. It is necessary to live within the limits of the ultimate King otherwise you're living in impunity and ingratitude.
crazymonkie_ wrote:If you say they are, you're stuck with the fact that the "right" religion wasn't even available until less than a century
The Quran says for every people there was a way, and that Islam came as the universal way at the appropriate time.
crazymonkie_ wrote:The first "warners," even if we're talking about monotheism *like* Islam, were CATHOLICS!
Go back to your kindergarden library and get your facts right
crazymonkie_ wrote:So it really sounds like knowing about Islam is way worse than not knowing about it.
Even one who doesnt live by God's limits out of ignorance is bound by what the Quran refers to as the basic innate guidance, his ingrained God-cousciousness
crazymonkie_ wrote:See- quite a few Christian groups tried this sort of mental gymnastics
The Quran states these facts in plain words
crazymonkie_ wrote:BUT, that idea, as appealing as it may be, means that Allah's "universal" laws are NOT universal.
Not when the Quran states there are many ways that lead to Allah when they conform to our basic ingrained guidance, that for every people there was a way and that Islam as the universal system will reach the whole world and that people will only be held accountable for rejecting it after guidance is made manifest to them and when they do not hearken the calls of their ingrained God-counsciousness.
crazymonkie_ wrote:the baffling contradictions in the Quran about free will and Allah sealing the hearts of unbelievers.
The seal (death) of the spiritual senses is the natural result of a specific, willful behavior of spiritual self-destruction. God causes the spiritual senses to die just as He causes the physical death of the one who would continuously mutilate himself.
The consequence of such spiritual condition is the incapacity to react positively to guidance and accept it, due to a deep aversion to it. One causes himself to reach that point where he can no longer react positively to spiritual guidance until his appointed time comes. After reaching that point where spiritual guidance causes him aversion, one can choose to adopt a passive attitude towards it instead of fighting or mocking it and thus avoid growing in sin and worsening his state in the Hereafter.

So where is exactly is the contradiction with freewill when the death of the spiritual body, just like the death of the physical body are the result of a willful behavior
crazymonkie_ wrote:Even setting aside the impossibility of free will in a universe with Allah
According to who
crazymonkie_ wrote:Locked up is not free. Sealed is not open.
Yes, spiritual suicide, which is exactly what the sealing of the senses is, stops one from ever being able to react positively to guidance just like physical suicide ends all motions
crazymonkie_ wrote:how do we know the Quran is right?
By looking at all people. The belief in the unseen, of an Ultimate Power is the norm.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Faith is a dead end, because anyone religious can have the same faith in the same way you have, yet end up with a different religion. If it all went to the same source, there would only be forms of Islam.
The basic guidance spoken of is not Islam, but a counsciousness of the One God. Every concept that does not spring from this basic principle is unnatural, per the Quran.
crazymonkie_ wrote:I wasn't corrected. Faith still has primacy. If it doesn't, then anyone who accidentally acts according to Allah's laws can get into paradise.
If that person has at least accepted the basic notion of monotheism which is ingrained in his self. For example an atheist doing good, ie acting within God's limits "without knowing it", the Quran says such person will be requited for his good actions only in this world. In the hereafter in which he does not believe in, his deeds which he confined to the present world, will be reduced to ashes.
crazymonkie_ wrote:You only think so. Where's your proof?
Common sense and the words of Allah in His Quran, and His word is the truth 39:9,38:28,68:35-36"Shall We then treat the People of Faith like the People of Sin? What has happened to you? How do you judge?" 55:60"Is the reward of goodness aught but goodness?" 95:8"Is not Allah the best of the Judges?" 4:147"Why should Allah chastise you if you are grateful and believe? And Allah is the Multiplier of rewards, Knowing".
crazymonkie_ wrote:Allah says all over in the Quran that he COULD have saved such-and-such people, but didn't.
Because it would contradict the Quranic notion of freedom in choice of creed and the concept of accountability.
crazymonkie_ wrote:not all afterlives have retribution at the end
Which ones
crazymonkie_ wrote:That's Gehenna. It's a different concept of the afterlife. Where's "Sheol" there? Nowhere. Point still stands.
You were educated on Judaism's position on the afterlife and how it upholds the notions of retribution -suffering and bliss- in the afterlife, thus canceling your original nonsense that such concept appeared only about 2000 years ago. Sheol is understood to be a transition place of all souls, the righteous and the sinners.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Oh, and the Greek Hades. Only a very, very, very few "heroes" were "judged" in the sense that you talk about. The gods made the Elysian fields (or populated it with heroes after they died, I forget which) after a successful judgement by the gods. Everyone else- pay the fare to get across Styx, and stick around forever. No judgement there.


You are either an complete ignorant who enjoys making a fool of himself, or a purposeful deceiver. There is judgement and retribution of the souls in ancient greek belief systems, get your facts right before i start bringing quotes.
crazymonkie_ wrote:No, they do not ALL BELIEVE. I've shown you several exceptions.
You showed no exceptions and even if you did then you showed that mankind's mainstream belief is that there must be a place where one will be held accountable for his deeds.
crazymonkie_ wrote:You said that it was a one-time, post-mortem judgement (okay, two if you count Judgement Day). Therevada Buddhism doesn't have that.
And i already told you, whether retribution occurs once or a 100 times, the concept of requital for the deeds is still there
crazymonkie_ wrote:You said that a positive rebirth meant that someone had accrued karmic rewards.
I said what those who hold such belief say. Despite certain "subtilities", the basic principle is that a tositive rebirth means righteous past, and a negative rebirth means unrighteous past.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Which first of all makes the Islamic desire for afterlife rewards seem REALLY selfish
Why would the concept of reward for continous selfless actions (will to please God and humbling oneself by showing gratitude to the Generous creator, will to please others, feed others etc) reflect a selfish system
crazymonkie_ wrote:means that Buddhism and Islam do NOT have the same idea of concept of retribution
How can it be so when both systems believe in the concept of retribution for the deeds through suffering or bliss.
crazymonkie_ wrote:and third, because the "retribution" is really just an impersonal, universal law at work, there is no judgement in Buddhism anyway!
This does nothing to the point that the deeds will be requited with justice. You can call that "system" enforcing the just requital anyway you want.
crazymonkie_ wrote:And there's the fact that Buddhism says that there is no such thing as a single soul. Ever. Meaning that even if there were some sort of god at the end of life judging people, that god would be incredibly unjust for doing so.
Even if the mingling of incorporeal thoughts the many schools of buddhism have difficulty defining, and sometimes do so contradictorily, even if that immaterial part of the self evolves or ultimately dies, how would its judgement and retribution be unfair exactly
crazymonkie_ wrote:Ahhhh, but who's ultimately responsible for the cause and effect? In Islam, the final cause is always Allah. He makes things happens or prevents them from happening.
He makes things happen in the sense that He established the laws of cause and effect that naturally lead to a certain outcome. That process is fully encompassed by Allah Who may intervene at any point, again through the laws of cause and effect and this does not cancel the principle that man's actions will always be bound to receive a corresponding retribution. How is that different from what you define as karma, ie the idea that an action creates a chain of events that lead to a just "retribution" by a "universal law at work".
crazymonkie_ wrote:And you ignored that "dhukka" does NOT just mean "suffering." The gods and daeva have dhukka- despite the fact that they are the most blissful beings in the universe.
The suffering of your blissful gods does nothing to the point that buddhism too doesnt escape the natural principle of retribution for the deeds.
crazymonkie_ wrote:No such thing. That's a contradiction.
Where is the contradiction in the fact that an all powerful entity acts according to its perfect attributes, justice and wisdom being one of them
crazymonkie_ wrote:But WHO or WHAT is doing the retribution, how, and why, is CRITICAL in showing that the ideas are NOT the same.
The principle is always the same; just requital for the deeds.
crazymonkie_ wrote:No, I mean creating them so that they can't sin.
Which still means cancelling freewill, since there can only be 2 responses to guidance: obedience and disobedience.
crazymonkie_ wrote:That's a very different thing than forcing them to do good.
Not really
crazymonkie_ wrote:So I guess Allah ISN'T all-powerful then?
Because He cant force people to follow His guidance? If that is what you mean, then know that the Quran says He could force all mankind to believe but He doesnt in accordance with the principles that humans must choose the right path by themselves after falsehood is exposed "truth stands out clear from error".
truthanvil.blogspot.com
crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
crazymonkie_ wrote:"Lol bro:" So Allah isn't all-powerful, and can't create a human being with free will yet the inability to sin?
First of all, there is no such thing called free will in religions, this is because, you cannot tell me you are free to believe or not but of you dont believe you will be burnt in hell.
Only in Islam and Judaism. You're correct, of course, but only for those two religions.
Consequently , humans have n option but to believe, smart humans that is
Only if we presume that those are the only two potentially correct belief systems. And you know very well that the basis of that presumption is faith- faith that, absent actual evidence, ends in very different conclusions.
Now if I will consider the humans having free will, then it is the free will of deeds to others, yet Allah is the ultimate decider to allow your good deed to happen or not.

Therefore, I dont really consider that humans have any free will
Well, if you don't, then the problems with free will in a universe with some being like Allah (all-knowing and all-powerful) vanish. But you're still stuck with the problem of how life is a "test" if the being doing the testing knows the answer 100% already and can change even the most basic parameters if he wants to.
crazymonkie_ wrote: Just because we can't conceptualize it doesn't mean that an all-powerful being couldn't create it. Or is Allah NOT all-powerful?
Well, Allah is still the ultimate decider to allow bad deeds to happen or not, therefore and logically speaking humans already have no free will. They dont even decide to be created or not.
And you didn't answer my question.
crazymonkie_ wrote:And how can a being test something if he already, 100% (no, not metaphorically, or proximally, like humans say this) KNEW what the outcome would be? Some test.
Well, I replied to this many times before, inmate. In simple terms:

If Allah allowed bad deeds then Allah is only making evident that such person is bad, consequently such person on the JD will convict the self seeing the evidences collected and presented
But evident to whom? To Allah? Allah's doing the judging, so it follows that's the case. But if that's the case, that's a contradiction. Allah knows it already, has since before the person was born, probably. For the person being judged? Then why make the final test based on faith, not evidence? Faith-based religions tend toward schism, absent force to keep the "heterodox" or "heretic" elements at bay.

The consequence of that is that faith is not a way to get at the truth, and therefore, saying that you have to have faith in this or that doesn't really get you anywhere. You're just guessing, and hoping for the best. Hoping that the accident of birth that landed you in what you consider the true religion IS the true religion.
crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Is the Koran history or guidance?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

Eagle wrote:
crazymonkie_ wrote:So: For THOUSANDS OF YEARS, China, Japan, and SE Asia were doing fine without monotheism. Without warnings about/"from" the "one true god". Thriving, in fact, well independently of the "right" religion.
What does thriving have to do with religion
The Quran says that those who reject the message- and supposedly there are messengers for EVERY nation- are defeated.

The fact that first, there were no monotheistic religions in the areas I mentioned before the Jesuits and Dominicans came, and second, that the cultures were thriving before any of them had ever heard the name Muhammad or about the religion Islam, means that this claim is false. Totally and completely.

So it has a lot to do with religion, at least according to Islam and the Quran.
crazymonkie_ wrote:So 1) What took the almighty, all-knowing, all-powerful creator so long?
What took Him so long to send the prophet Jesus 400 years after Malachi, and what took Him to send Muhammad 600 years after Jesus?
Besides, well before the introduction of buddhism or taoism, the chinese dynasties worshiped a single all powerful entity.
Oooooo- buuuuuuurrrnn.

What about the places I mentioned? You're not making a good case.
crazymonkie_ wrote:2) If they were doing great without the "right" religion, without knowledge of the "right" god- what makes those things so great
Its not about their greatness, but about ackowledging ones position in the universe and accepting to live within the limits set by the King and Generous Creator, One full of wisdom to His creatures. The Quran explains the fact that many nations who thrived with disregard to the way of God, were razed to the ground.
Ummmm.... but if the limits exist, they'd be universal laws. Truly universal laws. Not laws that were made by men, even if those men claimed to be speaking for the "one true god". Nobody would be able to transgress them. Can humans break orbit by running really fast then jumping? Can we stop breathing air and still live? No. In the same way, a universal law would be impossible to transgress. The laws in the Quran? NOT universal.

And there have been so many cultures/nations/kingdoms without even the non-universal laws as vaguely mentioned in the Quran who have thrived. I doubt you'd say that the situation-specific gay Hellenistic cultures that dominated the Mediterranean, and then gave the Romans their culture (pre-Greek contact, there wasn't much in the way of arts) were following the laws of the Quran. And that's just an at-hand example. History shows variation, and survival in variation. Allah doesn't destroy most, or even many, cultures that violate "his" laws, pre- or post-Islam advent.
crazymonkie_ wrote:3) Why are they necessary? ARE they necessary?
It depends on how you view the universe. It is necessary to live within the limits of the ultimate King otherwise you're living in impunity and ingratitude.
We can't help but not to live within the limits of universal laws. That's why they're universal.

If, however, these are not necessary laws- only contingent- then that makes Islam, at best, a choice between several options.

And if these laws are dependent upon when a nation learns "the" message- why and how are they necessary? You didn't answer the question.
crazymonkie_ wrote:If you say they are, you're stuck with the fact that the "right" religion wasn't even available until less than a century
The Quran says for every people there was a way, and that Islam came as the universal way at the appropriate time.
It says for every people there was a MESSENGER. There should have been traces, maybe even a few groups, of monotheists all over the world. Yet there are gigantic gaps that existed until monotheistic missionaries came- mostly Christian- and started giving the concept. So you've still got a huge problem.

And even moreso if you say Islam came "as the universal way at the appropriate time." That means its in history yet always was? That makes no sense. And don't give me that claptrap about "Allah is out of time" because he had to be IN time to be a part of causality (to create, to destroy, to bless, to judge, to have a beginning and ending of time). A universal way is UNIVERSAL- always existed and always will. If something comes at the appropriate time, that means that it's temporal and temporary. And it still doesn't answer how a huge portion of Asia had no concept of a single creator god for so long.
crazymonkie_ wrote:The first "warners," even if we're talking about monotheism *like* Islam, were CATHOLICS!
Go back to your kindergarden library and get your facts right
Truth hurts, doesn't it? Catholics beat you to it. So Allah bless Catholics, amirite? The warners of the nations of Asia, right!?!?
crazymonkie_ wrote:So it really sounds like knowing about Islam is way worse than not knowing about it.
Even one who doesnt live by God's limits out of ignorance is bound by what the Quran refers to as the basic innate guidance, his ingrained God-cousciousness
Now you've added "ingrained God-consciousness." That's just begging the question as to whether that exists in the first place. Faith again, yes? Because otherwise, that's just more of that "listen to your soul" stuff that's caused lots of divisions in every religion. Though every religion doesn't have an issue with schisms. Yours does, but not everyone else's.
crazymonkie_ wrote:See- quite a few Christian groups tried this sort of mental gymnastics
The Quran states these facts in plain words
It's still mental gymnastics, whatever the source.
crazymonkie_ wrote:BUT, that idea, as appealing as it may be, means that Allah's "universal" laws are NOT universal.
Not when the Quran states there are many ways that lead to Allah when they conform to our basic ingrained guidance, that for every people there was a way and that Islam as the universal system will reach the whole world and that people will only be held accountable for rejecting it after guidance is made manifest to them and when they do not hearken the calls of their ingrained God-counsciousness.
Your problem then becomes: Why have the five pillars of faith? Why not just let the "ingrained God-consciousness" do its thing? Why have the "seal of the prophets?" If you take the specifics out of Islam, there's no reason for it to exist as a specific religion. There's no reason to say that the Quran HAS to be in Arabic, or that Muhammad was the final prophet.

At best it seems like Islam is Allah butting in to people's lives where he shouldn't be. Your presentation of it minimizes Islam's specifics to the point that they vanish into a haze of vague monotheism muttered in archaic Arabic. Since this is not what Islam is, I have to wonder about your angle here.
crazymonkie_ wrote:the baffling contradictions in the Quran about free will and Allah sealing the hearts of unbelievers.
The seal (death) of the spiritual senses is the natural result of a specific, willful behavior of spiritual self-destruction. God causes the spiritual senses to die just as He causes the physical death of the one who would continuously mutilate himself.
So that means he's all right with sending people to hell. Cool. Glad we cleared that up.
The consequence of such spiritual condition is the incapacity to react positively to guidance and accept it, due to a deep aversion to it. One causes himself to reach that point where he can no longer react positively to spiritual guidance until his appointed time comes. After reaching that point where spiritual guidance causes him aversion, one can choose to adopt a passive attitude towards it instead of fighting or mocking it and thus avoid growing in sin and worsening his state in the Hereafter.
But Allah already knows 100% who will get the seal and who won't, who will be "spiritually self-destructive" and who won't. So the contradiction is this: humans supposedly have choices in their lives. But Allah already knows and has power over everything. There can be no will, at all, in such a universe.
So where is exactly is the contradiction with freewill when the death of the spiritual body, just like the death of the physical body are the result of a willful behavior
Because there is no will, there can be no responsibility for humans. That's the contradiction: the Quran says there is will and responsibility, yet there cannot be in a universe with Allah.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Locked up is not free. Sealed is not open.
Yes, spiritual suicide, which is exactly what the sealing of the senses is, stops one from ever being able to react positively to guidance just like physical suicide ends all motions
So how is that just? How is that merciful? If Allah seals hearts, HE is taking away free will. And also being unjust and unmerciful.
crazymonkie_ wrote:how do we know the Quran is right?
By looking at all people. The belief in the unseen, of an Ultimate Power is the norm.
Only in certain cultures. And there's more to Allah than just "an Ultimate Power", and you know that. Adding to that changes the definition of that particular deity. Allah is not universal, never was, and never will be. Some day he'll join the ranks of Apollo and the Magna Mater in the long rolls of gods with "dead" religions. If we look at "all" people, all we see is variation. Many gods. Not one source. Sure, supernatural stuff- that seems to be a pretty universal human norm. But as far as gods? No real single idea of gods have primacy over another. Yours is just a preference, like animism or belief in no gods but in ghosts, is a preference.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Faith is a dead end, because anyone religious can have the same faith in the same way you have, yet end up with a different religion. If it all went to the same source, there would only be forms of Islam.
The basic guidance spoken of is not Islam, but a counsciousness of the One God. Every concept that does not spring from this basic principle is unnatural, per the Quran.
So does that mean that Unitarian Universalists are Muslims? Because they've got that. Oh, but they're cool with gay people. Maybe that's against the universal, non-universal laws of god. What a conundrum.

You're again begging the question- starting from the conclusion and working backwards for your case. The Quran says it. So what? It also says lots of wrong things (I didn't want to list them, just to have you ignore them again). Relying upon a clearly mistaken book for evidence is not the best idea in the world.
crazymonkie_ wrote:I wasn't corrected. Faith still has primacy. If it doesn't, then anyone who accidentally acts according to Allah's laws can get into paradise.
If that person has at least accepted the basic notion of monotheism which is ingrained in his self. For example an atheist doing good, ie acting within God's limits "without knowing it", the Quran says such person will be requited for his good actions only in this world. In the hereafter in which he does not believe in, his deeds which he confined to the present world, will be reduced to ashes.
So then- Islam really doesn't matter? Because this is what you're saying. That "even an atheist" (totally not insulting little phrase, btw) can get into paradise if this atheist ACCIDENTALLY follows Allah's laws. So that brings me back to my earlier point: That you're basically following an arbitrary, and thus, unjust, god. If he could bring a "righteous" atheist into heaven, he could send a "righteous" Muslim to hell. You just said he would- don't act like he won't because you don't want him to.

According to your logic here, Islam is superfluous. So why have it exist in the first place? As per your earlier points, only those who hear the "right" message are responsible for acting according to it. Which means that NOT hearing it, and possibly making it to heaven without all those pointless (because Allah is arbitrary) rules, is better than actually KNOWING and BELIEVING in the "right" message! Which means the "right" message is rubbish and a waste of time.
crazymonkie_ wrote:You only think so. Where's your proof?
Common sense and the words of Allah in His Quran, and His word is the truth 39:9,38:28,68:35-36"Shall We then treat the People of Faith like the People of Sin? What has happened to you? How do you judge?" 55:60"Is the reward of goodness aught but goodness?" 95:8"Is not Allah the best of the Judges?" 4:147"Why should Allah chastise you if you are grateful and believe? And Allah is the Multiplier of rewards, Knowing".
Don't quote from the Quran when the Quran is under scrutiny. If I ask you to define a word, you don't say the word and act like you've defined it. If I ask for proof, you cannot use the questionable source that you THINK is right.

And "common sense" leads lots of places. It led Thomas Paine to lack of belief in any god; it led Martin Luther to a strict Christianity; it led Mani to experience what he believed was a religious event and form a religion based on what he thought was revealed to him.... and on and on. Common sense doesn't go anywhere- it must be backed up by evidence. You don't have any, you only have faith and preference.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Allah says all over in the Quran that he COULD have saved such-and-such people, but didn't.
Because it would contradict the Quranic notion of freedom in choice of creed and the concept of accountability.
So one is free to choose a creed and Allah may allow one to exist in heaven, unless one has heard the "right" message (Islam) and rejected it, in which case Islam is needed? Hm. And how can one be responsible for ANYTHING in a universe where a fully knowing, fully powerful being exists? It's just not possible.
crazymonkie_ wrote:not all afterlives have retribution at the end
Which ones
Hades, a lot of Native Americans, Buddhism. That's all I can think of, but I'm sure there's more. It's a lot of cultures/nations anyway.
crazymonkie_ wrote:That's Gehenna. It's a different concept of the afterlife. Where's "Sheol" there? Nowhere. Point still stands.
You were educated on Judaism's position on the afterlife and how it upholds the notions of retribution -suffering and bliss- in the afterlife, thus canceling your original nonsense that such concept appeared only about 2000 years ago. Sheol is understood to be a transition place of all souls, the righteous and the sinners.
I told you: Gehenna and Sheol are two different concepts. The fact is that Judaism doesn't have consensus on what the afterlife is like. So it's *possible* that Judaism uses such an idea of retribution- but not *necessarily* so. And Judaism's Sheol was only one example.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Oh, and the Greek Hades. Only a very, very, very few "heroes" were "judged" in the sense that you talk about. The gods made the Elysian fields (or populated it with heroes after they died, I forget which) after a successful judgement by the gods. Everyone else- pay the fare to get across Styx, and stick around forever. No judgement there.


You are either an complete ignorant who enjoys making a fool of himself, or a purposeful deceiver. There is judgement and retribution of the souls in ancient greek belief systems, get your facts right before i start bringing quotes.
The Homeric Greeks didn't believe in that stuff. The later Classical Greeks did, sometimes, but it was under debate. So not universal. You said "all," and now you're backing off from that position. Wisely, but it means you're being inconsistent and don't have a solid position yourself.

HOWEVER: the specifically Islamic style of judgement and either heaven or hell, and that's it, definitely originated with Christianity. Other systems did exist- but they weren't consistent, more like ideas about what happened after humans died, not a statement of (alleged) fact.
crazymonkie_ wrote:No, they do not ALL BELIEVE. I've shown you several exceptions.
You showed no exceptions and even if you did then you showed that mankind's mainstream belief is that there must be a place where one will be held accountable for his deeds.
It's "mainstream" now, eh? Not "all"? Sneaky sneaky Eagle. You said it was universal, now you're saying it's not. And even saying "mainstream" is a stretch. Neither you nor I have the historical know-how to say that; I'm pretty sure nobody on earth does. But YOU have shown that you're willing to shift terms in order to fit the argument according to your desires. Of course there are plenty of cultures with ideas of after-life judgement. But the Islamic and Christian ideas are hardly all there are.
crazymonkie_ wrote:You said that it was a one-time, post-mortem judgement (okay, two if you count Judgement Day). Therevada Buddhism doesn't have that.
And i already told you, whether retribution occurs once or a 100 times, the concept of requital for the deeds is still there
But- an important point in Islam is that it's GOD doing the retributing. In Buddhism, it's a universal law- not even retribution. It's just what happens. So it's not even close to the same.
crazymonkie_ wrote:You said that a positive rebirth meant that someone had accrued karmic rewards.
I said what those who hold such belief say. Despite certain "subtilities", the basic principle is that a tositive rebirth means righteous past, and a negative rebirth means unrighteous past.
And you're wrong about it in the sense that I mentioned. A positive rebirth does NOT necessarily mean a righteous past.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Which first of all makes the Islamic desire for afterlife rewards seem REALLY selfish
Why would the concept of reward for continous selfless actions (will to please God and humbling oneself by showing gratitude to the Generous creator, will to please others, feed others etc) reflect a selfish system
Because of the final reason behind it: Personal rewards from the creator of the universe. How is that not selfish? It's pretty well the very definition of selfish.
crazymonkie_ wrote:means that Buddhism and Islam do NOT have the same idea of concept of retribution
How can it be so when both systems believe in the concept of retribution for the deeds through suffering or bliss.
Because Allah is ultimately responsible for the retribution and the rewards, as well as the judgment. This means that the responsibility is not with human beings. In Buddhism, the "retribution" is meted out by an impersonal universal law, and humans are ultimately responsible for their deeds.

And again: The "rewards" in Buddhism can be only apparent rewards. Not so with Islam's rewards. They're obvious and legalistic. And greedy.
crazymonkie_ wrote:and third, because the "retribution" is really just an impersonal, universal law at work, there is no judgement in Buddhism anyway!
This does nothing to the point that the deeds will be requited with justice. You can call that "system" enforcing the just requital anyway you want.
No, it speaks entirely to the point. Islam has a being judging and paying attention. Buddhism has no such being. The presence or absence of such a being totally changes the nature of the rewards and punishments, how they're meted out, and the nature of them. It's still not universal. Contingent.
crazymonkie_ wrote:And there's the fact that Buddhism says that there is no such thing as a single soul. Ever. Meaning that even if there were some sort of god at the end of life judging people, that god would be incredibly unjust for doing so.
Even if the mingling of incorporeal thoughts the many schools of buddhism have difficulty defining, and sometimes do so contradictorily, even if that immaterial part of the self evolves or ultimately dies, how would its judgement and retribution be unfair exactly
Because Allah, according to Buddhism, is yet another contingent being, subject to karma, and not fit to judge.

And I'll say again: Buddhism does not have the concept of a single soul. There are some sects that get sort of fuzzy about it (Tibetan seems to be the worst for it), but that's a truly universal belief (for Buddhism). So that makes the idea of getting judged for something that "you" did (your soul being the non-corporeal portion of "you") absolutely unjust and nonsensical.
crazymonkie_ wrote:Ahhhh, but who's ultimately responsible for the cause and effect? In Islam, the final cause is always Allah. He makes things happens or prevents them from happening.
He makes things happen in the sense that He established the laws of cause and effect that naturally lead to a certain outcome. That process is fully encompassed by Allah Who may intervene at any point, again through the laws of cause and effect and this does not cancel the principle that man's actions will always be bound to receive a corresponding retribution. How is that different from what you define as karma, ie the idea that an action creates a chain of events that lead to a just "retribution" by a "universal law at work".
There are no actions "by" "man" in a universe with Allah. Allah knows and has power over everything. Things are as they must be, now, in the past, and forever. No will, no action, no choice.

It's massively different from karma because karma actually *is* choosing. Not the apparent choice in Islam. Absent an all-knowing and all-powerful being, humans DO have a choice. With such a being in the universe, there is no such thing as choice. And karma, again, is a law. Like gravity. Not a being that chooses, and in fact is the only choosing entity in the universe.

There's nothing running karma; karma runs itself.
crazymonkie_ wrote:And you ignored that "dhukka" does NOT just mean "suffering." The gods and daeva have dhukka- despite the fact that they are the most blissful beings in the universe.
The suffering of your blissful gods does nothing to the point that buddhism too doesnt escape the natural principle of retribution for the deeds.
The principle is entirely different. And thanks, you pretty much said in "Muslim speak" that you were mistaken about dhhukka.
crazymonkie_ wrote:No such thing. That's a contradiction.
Where is the contradiction in the fact that an all powerful entity acts according to its perfect attributes, justice and wisdom being one of them
"Arbitrariness based on a perfect justice".

It speaks for itself. I can't even explain how it's a contradiction any clearer than just seeing it makes it obvious.
crazymonkie_ wrote:But WHO or WHAT is doing the retribution, how, and why, is CRITICAL in showing that the ideas are NOT the same.
The principle is always the same; just requital for the deeds.
No, it is not. I've explained how and why it is different.
crazymonkie_ wrote:No, I mean creating them so that they can't sin.
Which still means cancelling freewill, since there can only be 2 responses to guidance: obedience and disobedience.
That's assuming that the potential to sin still exists. I said this is going to be human beings that can't sin but still have free will. They can't disobey, because they can't sin.

So it's not possible, then?
crazymonkie_ wrote:That's a very different thing than forcing them to do good.
Not really
Yes, really.
crazymonkie_ wrote:So I guess Allah ISN'T all-powerful then?
Because He cant force people to follow His guidance? If that is what you mean, then know that the Quran says He could force all mankind to believe but He doesnt in accordance with the principles that humans must choose the right path by themselves after falsehood is exposed "truth stands out clear from error".
I told you, it's not forcing, it's creating them so that they can't sin, yet have free will. If he's all-powerful, he can do that.

But since he can't, according to you, Allah clearly isn't all-powerful.
Post Reply