Allah as Law: The Law!

[Ansar al-Zindiqi]

Please simmer down because . . .

Others still have plans for us

[zamie]

cat, i never doubted that the koran is a book of law, and i don't think anyone has ever doubted it, so i am still failing to understand the point of this thread. When a criminal commits a crime in america, do we take him as an example for an invectiveness in the law...yes we do. SO what the hell are you talking about, when you say that we have to examine the koran from the koran?

1) What is the Koranic DEEN, usually (but quite imperfectly) translated 'religion'?


2) What is the Koranic 'Islam'? What does it mean within the Koranic context? Is it written that often?


3) Who are the Koranic 'Muslims'? Are they called to follow hadiths or the previous scriptures?


4) What is the Koranic 'Shariah'? For it is mentioned 4 times...

The answer to your first question is that deen means religion in arabic..

I don't get your second question, please reiterate.

The answer to your third question is that muslims are told to follow koran

The answer to your 4th question is that sharia is the law system of muslims, as specified in the koran and hadith.

If i am wrong, please tell me.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_Saudi_Arabia

Article 1 states that "God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet" are the country's constitution...

It even has the perfid Shahadah on its flag


Since there's a beginning of an answer in your post, I shall deal with it soon.

By quoting Article 1 of the Saudi Constitution, you have taught everyone that Muslims only live by Quran and Sunnah. One does not see Hadith mentioned in that declaration. That is a plus point and you have burst the Hadith bubble. Good job.

At first, I thought that the posters had misunderstood you or failed to understand you. But now I feel that most are trying their best not to understand you.

[zamie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_Saudi_Arabia

Article 1 states that "God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet" are the country's constitution...

It even has the perfid Shahadah on its flag


Since there's a beginning of an answer in your post, I shall deal with it soon.

By quoting Article 1 of the Saudi Constitution, you have taught everyone that Muslims only live by Quran and Sunnah. One does not see Hadith mentioned in that declaration. That is a plus point and you have burst the Hadith bubble. Good job.

At first, I thought that the posters had misunderstood you or failed to understand you. But now I feel that most are trying their best not to understand you.

And from where do we learn the sunnah? Sira and hadith? Certainly they are the most extensive on the topic.


Also, where in the koran does it permit stoning? No where in the koran is stoning permitted. So why does Saudi Arabia stone people on occasion? (http://www.ishr.org/index.php?id=857)

Well, let's consult the hadith..

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 8.809/825 Narrated byIbn Umar
A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.

So mr cat. You use the constition of saudi arabia to prove your argument that the hadith is not followed, yet we learn the sunnah from the hadith and the Sira, and the practice of stoning in saudi arabia is also from the hadith. So mr cat, what are you talking about? Perhaps 'god's book' also refers to the OT , which is where we learn the punishment of stoning. But if this were true, then Saudi arabia would use the Ot for all punishments not just stoning. So since this is not the case, we can say that the punishment is only adhered to because muhammad permitted it, and if it were not for the Hadith, no one would have known about it.


Anyway, i guess it comes down to the fact that Saudi does indeed follow the sunna, But if it were not for the hadith, this sunna would have been lost. So i guess you are actually right, when you say that saudi arabia only follows koran and sunna, as the hadith is only reporting on history and not making any new laws that are not based on the sunna. (However this is not always true, for example the law against women driving in saudi arabia.)

[The Cat]

Hi 'zamie'. You're more polite than crazymonkie, thanks for your inquisitive tone which I'll answer lengthly.

cat, i never doubted that the koran is a book of law, and i don't think anyone has ever doubted it, so i am still failing to understand the point of this thread..... SO what the hell are you talking about, when you say that we have to examine the koran from the koran?

Any other way would be to attack a Straw-Islam, such as the one built by the Muhammadans. My point is that the Koran dismisses nowadays man-made Islam. So why fight it blindly, according ourselves to the Straw-Islam built by the imams? The Koran is on OUR SIDE about this !

External critics of the Koran make you a kafir -dumb/deaf and blind- in the eyes of all Muslims. You whip the river but it keeps on flowing, you bark at the caravan but the caravan passes. You failed to establish a meaningful dialog, as they can dismiss you to their heart content, from the Koran itself. That's the mind-language I was referring to: if I am to talk to a kid, I will use his/her mind-language, if I am to talk to a woman or a carpenter, I will so use the appropriate mind-language. Same if I want to talk to a Koranic Muslim, to be absolutely differentiated from a Muhammadan.

1) What is the Koranic DEEN, usually (but quite imperfectly) translated 'religion'?
The answer to your first question is that deen means religion in arabic..

2) What is the Koranic 'Islam'? What does it mean within the Koranic context? Is it written that often?
I don't get your second question, please reiterate.

3) Who are the Koranic 'Muslims'? Are they called to follow hadiths or the previous scriptures?
The answer to your third question is that muslims are told to follow koran

4) What is the Koranic 'Shariah'? For it is mentioned 4 times...
The answer to your 4th question is that sharia is the law system of muslims, as specified in the koran and hadith.

If i am wrong, please tell me.

1) DIN. Islam, Din and Muslims are closely related in the Koran so we can study them altogether.

Is the Koranic DIN (deen) a 'religion' as in our usual understanding of the word, a set of beliefs and creeds? NO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%ABn
http://www.learndeen.com/jm/deen-islam/ ... islam.html

crazymonkie said: 1) "Way of life". Sort of like dharma.
I think he's right on this. Let us check what it means.

The Vedic Rta (Rita)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B9%9At%C3%A1

In the Vedic religion, Ṛta (Sanskrit ऋतं ṛtaṃ "that which is properly joined; order, rule; truth") is the principle of natural order which regulates and coordinates the operation of the universe and everything within it. In the hymns of the Vedas, Ṛta is described as that which is ultimately responsible for the proper functioning of the natural, moral and sacrificial orders....

Ṛta and Dharma
Already in the earliest Vedic texts, Ṛta as an ethical principle is linked with the notion of cosmic retribution. A central concept of the Ṛgveda is that created beings fulfil their true natures when they follow the path set for them by the ordinances of Ṛta, and failing to follow those ordinances was thought to be responsible for the appearance of various forms of calamity and suffering. Committing one's actions to the governance of Ṛta, referred to as its "Dharma", was therefore understood as imperative in ensuring one's own well-being.

In this vein, the individual who follows the ordinances of nature can be described as one who acts according to the "Dharma of Ṛta". Dharma, then, was originally conceived of as a "finite or particularized manifestation of Ṛta inasmuch as it represents that aspect of the universal Order which specifically concerns the mundane natural, religious, social and moral spheres as expressed in ritualistic regulations, public laws, moral principles and laws of nature".

So the Koranic Din means the inside/out Cosmic Order, as performed by the stars and the trees.... emphasized in surah 57.1-3: All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifieth Allah; and He is the Mighty, the Wise. ---His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He is Able to do all things. ---He is the First and the Last, and the Outward and the Inward; and He is Knower of all things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deen_%28Arabic_term%29

How the term Dīn came to be used in Islamic Arabia is uncertain, but its use in modern Persian may derive etymologically from the Zoroastrian concept, Daena, which represents "insight" and "revelation", and from this "conscience" and "religion". Here, Daena is the Eternal Law, which was revealed to humanity through the Mathra-Spenta ("Holy Words"). Alternatively, the Hebrew term "דין", transliterated as "dīn", means either "law" or "judgement" (so written in Q.1.4).... The term is often translated in parts of the Qur'an as "religion". However, in the Qur'an itself, the act of submission to God is always referred to as Dמn, rather than as Muzdhab (Urdu Mazhab), which is the Arabic word for "religion."

The Mazhad or school of laws instituted man-made regulations on behalf of God, hijacking and bypassing the Koranic injunctions not to do so.

So, again, we must turn to the Hindu concepts of Dharma and Rta to understand its far reaching implications.
How come this got into Islam is a mystery to me but even Allah has all the characteristic of the Vedic Varuna!

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/ve ... asp#varuna

In Varuna we see the earliest signs of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God, the precursor of the Upamishadic Brahman. Varuna is the ruler of the worlds, the ordainer and enforcer of law and upholder of the world order....

Varuna is the knower of all and controller of all. He is supreme God capable of controlling and dispensing justice.... If two people talking together, beware that Varuna is there watching every thing that is going on.... Varuna is the protector, ''the Holy One, helper of all mankind, the law maker whose holy laws remain unweakened.'' Together with Mitra, he controls the world order, Rta and when people transgress the moral order and commit sin, he knows and punishes them. But if they repent and seek forgiveness, he forgives them too.

How Varuna came to be portrayed as Allah totally escapes me for the time being... But the link is there for us to see!
Even the relation between Allah and ar-Rahman (the Beneficent) is but a duplicate of the Varuna/Mitra co-existence!

2. Islam (it must be connected to the Islamic SLM, and to the Samaritan Aslama).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-L-M

The word إسلام Islām is a verbal noun derived from s-l-m, meaning "submission" (i.e. entrusting one's wholeness to another), which may be interpreted as humility. "One who submits" is signified by the participle مسلم, Muslim (fem. مسلمة, muslimah).

The word is given a number of meanings in the Qur'an. In some verses (ayat), the quality of Islam as an internal conviction is stressed: "Whomsoever God desires to guide, He expands his breast to Islam." Other verses connect islām and dīn (usually translated as "religion"): "Today, I have perfected your religion (dīn) for you; I have completed My blessing upon you; I have approved Islam for your religion." Still others describe Islam as an action of returning to God—more than just a verbal affirmation of faith.

So the translation of Din by 'religion' is shrinking its meaning. It doesn't truly means 'to surrender' which is a religionist's fallacy. It is best translated by ''Being at Peace with God's Universe'' ! Whatever and whomever conform to this being ''at Peace with God'' with humility (like Noah and Abraham) is thus in the straight path, even without upholding the Koran. One observes God's order naturally when he humbles himself and don't part away from arrogance.

As a verb, it should be understood as 'to aslama' so to surrender, but this is only partially correct, half true. If not a verb but a noun, then Al-Islam must be related to its Semitic root of SLM: Salam, Shlama (Syriac), Hebrew Shalom, Arabic Salema, Ethiopian Selam: peace be with you. Thus, the verb aslama cannot solely means to surrender. It carries the idea of surrendering in order to make peace, to come at peace with. Its origin is most obviously from the Samaritan book 'Memar Marqah': to be at peace with God, ie. to give up sectarian arrogance and all kinds of earthly vanities.

This 'religion' is not to abide to any earthy code of laws as portrayed in the hadiths' fallacy. That's the meaning behind the word Mazhab (school of laws to be obeyed) which are indeed religions, contrary to the Koranic injunctions (25.30-31): Allah suffices for a Guide and Helper! That's the Din of Abraham, the straight path and we shall see that this Din includes the Shariah to be followed. And Abraham didn't have a Koran to follow, yet was exemplary!

3) Who's a Koranic Muslim? Well, the stars, the trees and also Abraham who didn't have a Koran! Moses (46.12) and Jesus' disciples were Muslims (5.111), just like everything in the Cosmos. 55.1-9: ''The Beneficent Hath made known the Qur'an. He hath created man. He hath taught him utterance. The sun and the moon are made punctual. The stars and the trees adore. And the sky He hath uplifted; and He hath set the measure, That ye exceed not the measure, But observe the measure strictly, nor fall short thereof.''
http://www.answering-islam.org/Mna/muslim.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim

Arabic muslimun is the stem IV participle of the triliteral S-L-M "to be whole, intact". A literal translation would be "one who wants or seeks wholeness", where "wholeness" translates islāmun. In a religious sense, Al-Islām translates to "faith, piety", and Muslim to "one who has (religious) faith or piety". According to the Quran, Abraham was ancestor of the Muslims by his covenant with God.

22.78: And strive for Allah with the endeavour which is His right. He hath chosen you and hath not laid upon you in religion any hardship; the faith of your father Abraham (is yours). He hath named you Muslims of old time and in this (Scripture), that the messenger may be a witness against you, and that ye may be witnesses against mankind. So establish worship, pay the poor-due, and hold fast to Allah. He is your Protecting friend....

http://www.mohammedislam.info/muslim.html

One of the verses in the Qur'an makes a distinction between a mu'min, a believer, and a Muslim:

The Arabs of the desert say, "We believe." (tu/minu) Say thou: Ye believe not; but rather say, "We profess Islam;" (aslamna) for the faith (al-imanu) hath not yet found its way into your hearts. But if ye obey [Allah] and His Apostle, he will not allow you to lose any of your actions: for [Allah] is Indulgent, Merciful ('The Koran 49:14, Rodwell).

According to the academician Carl Ernst, contemporary usage of the terms "Islam" and "Muslim" for the faith and its adherents is a modern innovation. As shown in the Quranic passage cited above, early Muslims distinguished between the Muslim, who has "submitted" and does the bare minimum required to be considered a part of the community, and the mu'min, the believer, who has given himself or herself to the faith heart and soul.

Ernst writes: "The Arabic term Islam itself was of relatively minor importance in classical theologies based on the Qur'an. If one looks at the works of theologians such as the famous al-Ghazali (d. 1111), the key term of religious identity is not Islam but iman (faith), and the one who possesses it is the mu'min (believer). Faith is one of the major topics of the Qur'an; it is mentioned hundreds of times in the sacred text. In comparison, Islam is a less common term of secondary importance; it only occurs eight times in the Qur'an. Since, however, the term Islam had a derivative meaning relating to the community of those who have submitted to Allah, it has taken on a new political significance, especially in recent history."

In the Koranic language one who attacks Islam is bound to lose, a simpleton kafir, for it is like Don Quixote charging the windmills !

I shall deal with the Koranic Shariah later...

[crazymonkie_]

The Cat has now started to pick and choose among whom he will reply to based on their alleged politeness. When did he convert to Islam?

One cannot show tone in posting. I brought up several valid points in my last reply which was dismissive of The Cat because his arguments are so awful that I can't hope to be 'nice' about it. And he's also throwing stones in glass houses, saying I have the 'beginnings' of an argument and that I destroyed my own argument. Neither of which is true; I've got a stronger argument than he does, and his attempts to make this into a question of the Quran as a book of law alone is a non-starter. He's trying to dismiss my arguments, this time by saying I have the wrong tone.

Get over yourself, The Cat. This is the Internet, and you're not authority, in any sense of the word. You're not a mod, you're not an honest-to-goodness researcher, and I know for sure you only know a few words, maybe at best a few phrases, of Arabic. I know even less, but at least I don't act like I know more than I do.

And even more importantly, I don't act like my secondary or tertiary sources are primary sources. Nor that even these sources say something that they don't (like that embarrassing little business with the SA constitution. Tsk tsk.) Getting rid of the ahadith in Islam is a fairly well-intentioned aim, but it still leaves the Quran. And that without the context of alleged historical events- so that the violent verses can be seen as timeless (state of never-ending war, "mischief in the land" as "insulting" (how, never stated) the Prophet and Allah).

The fact that he's doing it, or trying to, using a false association between secular Constitutions and the Quran is laughable and stomach-churning at once.

[The Cat]

And from where do we learn the sunnah? Sira and hadith? Certainly they are the most extensive on the topic. Also, where in the koran does it permit stoning? No where in the koran is stoning permitted. So why does Saudi Arabia stone people on occasion?
http://www.ishr.org/index.php?id=857

The Koran only recognizes the sunnah of Mhmd as:

1) Following the injunctions and rules set up in the Arabic Koran AND ALL the other korans.
2) Follow the sunnah set forth by previous messengers, particularly Abraham and Jesus (Isa).

Well, let's consult the hadith.. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 8.809/825 Narrated by Ibn Umar.....

This is really much troublesome for the Jews. In this hadith, Muhammad is judging them according to their own holy book, as recognized by the Arabic Koran and so dismisses other exercises (such as the Talmud and Mishna). As you've said stoning isn't recognized in the Koran, but it is an obligation from a Torah perspective, which specifies 18 cases for stoning. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

From a Koranic perspective, Jews are to obey God and stone the culprits as ordered in the Torah. From this perspective, no adulterations (such as the Talmud, Mishna or... HADITHS) are allowed. In your hadith he is following a Koranic injunction (10.94-95): And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee.....

From a Koranic perspective the only choice left for the Jews is thus:
1) To obey God and His messenger, in their case Moses and the Torah.
2) To revert to the Hanifa status of Abraham (neither a Jew or a Christian)
3) To convert to Christianity or Islam, both duly abrogating the Torah.

5:43 How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them) ? ....

5:44 Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered (unto Allah) judged the Jews,
and the rabbis and the priests (judged) by such of Allah's Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto were they witnesses...

From a Koranic perspective, Jews aren't allowed to tamper His Scriptures as done per the Talmud, Mishna or... hadiths.

How Jesus (Isa) was allowed to abrogate the Torah for Christians:

5:47 Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein.
Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

43:63 When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with wisdom,
and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and -obey me-.

3:50 And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which
was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and -obey me-.

The likeness of Adam and Jesus
3.59-60: Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him:
Be! and he is. (This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not thou of those who waver.

Now, if we juxtapose 3.59 and 2.30, Jesus is the viceroy on earth, equal with Adam. Muhammad is commanded no to waver about it,
ie. to follow him as a light on earth. So to follow the sunnah of Muhammad, no doubt, is to follow the sunnah of Jesus and Abraham !

So, the next crucial thing to dismiss is the religionist's concept of abrogations, which never meant that Allah abrogated the Arabic Koran
(a silly idea) but that... the Arabic version of the former scriptures does abrogate them, much like Jesus was allowed about the Torah...

How Allah abrogated the Jewish Talion law:
5:45 And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers.

And, NO... a monarchy such as the Saudi family or even the dynasties such as the Umayyad, Abbasid or Ottoman
are not enjoined by the Koran, but through consultation in wordly affairs (as-shurah, sura 42):
http://www.detailedquran.com/quran_data ... s_Role.htm

42:38 And those who answer the call of their Lord and establish worship, and whose affairs are a matter of counsel,
and who spend of what We have bestowed on them...

3:159 It was by the mercy of Allah that thou wast lenient with them (O Muhammad), for if thou hadst been stern and fierce of heart
they would have dispersed from round about thee. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of
affairs. And when thou art resolved, then put thy trust in Allah.

Really the Koran goes AGAINST the religionist's cover-up !

[The Cat]

I've got a stronger argument than he does, and his attempts to make this into a question of the Quran as a book of law alone is a non-starter. He's trying to dismiss my arguments, this time by saying I have the wrong tone.

I know, like the Koran can't be the Saudi Arabia Constitution...

[crazymonkie_]

Ummmmm...... yyyyyeaaaah.

Can't scroll back a page, kittycat?

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

By quoting Article 1 of the Saudi Constitution, you have taught everyone that Muslims only live by Quran and Sunnah. One does not see Hadith mentioned in that declaration. That is a plus point and you have burst the Hadith bubble. Good job.

At first, I thought that the posters had misunderstood you or failed to understand you. But now I feel that most are trying their best not to understand you.

And from where do we learn the sunnah? Sira and hadith? Certainly they are the most extensive on the topic.


Also, where in the koran does it permit stoning? No where in the koran is stoning permitted. So why does Saudi Arabia stone people on occasion? (http://www.ishr.org/index.php?id=857)

Well, let's consult the hadith..

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 8.809/825 Narrated byIbn Umar
A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.

So mr cat. You use the constition of saudi arabia to prove your argument that the hadith is not followed, yet we learn the sunnah from the hadith and the Sira, and the practice of stoning in saudi arabia is also from the hadith. So mr cat, what are you talking about? Perhaps 'god's book' also refers to the OT , which is where we learn the punishment of stoning. But if this were true, then Saudi arabia would use the Ot for all punishments not just stoning. So since this is not the case, we can say that the punishment is only adhered to because muhammad permitted it, and if it were not for the Hadith, no one would have known about it.


Anyway, i guess it comes down to the fact that Saudi does indeed follow the sunna, But if it were not for the hadith, this sunna would have been lost. So i guess you are actually right, when you say that saudi arabia only follows koran and sunna, as the hadith is only reporting on history and not making any new laws that are not based on the sunna. (However this is not always true, for example the law against women driving in saudi arabia.)

Sunnah came to us through generations, not books. Hadith and the so-called Seerahs came from various men, who heard it from unknown others.

The hadith which you quoted proves that stoning was a Jewish punishment, prescribed by the Torah. Quran prescribes death sentence only for pre-meditated murder. You are right in saying that Quran does not prescribe stoning people to death.

Those 2-3 Muslim countries which stone people to death, are barbaric. You can see that not all Muslim countries follow that punishment.

[Eagle]

zanie, why you sound like realpest?

brother, explain to him what zanie means

[Eagle]

Now explain the clear attempt of the Quran to be first person format, as if it is God speaking himself, letter for letter, directly to people, rather than a narrator retelling what God said and did as was the case of the Bible.

Because contrary to scriptures from the past, the Quran was meant to be literally the words of God put in the prophet's mouth as stated in your Bible "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him. If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it."

It was not the case with past scriptures.

[Eagle]

His death made it possible to be saved, but one has to accept Jesus and his sacrifice and live accordingly in order to be saved.

Your mythological son/god/lamb was presented as a sacrifice for all humanity's sins, indiscriminately. Whether you accept his alleged death or not, Jesus died for the sins of all; past present and future sins (an absurdity per the OT sacrificial system). The moment you say that some stand excluded from redemption, or that one needs to take action in order for the sacrifice to apply, you are saying that Jesus died for the sins of some, not of all and that his sacrifice is potentialy useless for billions (against its original intent).

[zamie]

Ok cat, i agree with your answers to the questions and your answer about the hadith, but there is still one problem with the point of your argument.

Any other way would be to attack a Straw-Islam, such as the one built by the Muhammadans. My point is that the Koran dismisses nowadays man-made Islam. So why fight it blindly, according ourselves to the Straw-Islam built by the imams? The Koran is on OUR SIDE about this !

External critics of the Koran make you a kafir -dumb/deaf and blind- in the eyes of all Muslims. You whip the river but it keeps on flowing, you bark at the caravan but the caravan passes. You failed to establish a meaningful dialog, as they can dismiss you to their heart content, from the Koran itself. That's the mind-language I was referring to: if I am to talk to a kid, I will use his/her mind-language, if I am to talk to a woman or a carpenter, I will so use the appropriate mind-language. Same if I want to talk to a Koranic Muslim, to be absolutely differentiated from a Muhammadan.

You are calling me an'external' critic,' what do you mean by this? I am a creation of allah, the same being that wrote the koran, and i am part of his plan as well, in what way am i external? If you mean by 'knowledge,' then that can't be true, because i have read the answers to your questions and i know them now, am i qualified yet?

Also, let's consult the hadith..

5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Rubbing hands and feet with dust (Tayammum), Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331)"

Now, you may dismiss this as it's only a hadith, but most muslims would not as it puts their religion in a good light..

Now, you say that i am attacking muhammadins to refute Islam. Well, according to you, Muslims should follow the sunna, and a Muhammadin is someone who follows Muhammad, and thus follows the sunna. Perhaps that was bad wording by you, because i do know what you mean. You are talking about people who have 'changed' the law. This must only be what you mean, because if you also mean that using criminal actions committed by muslims is not fair to judge the koran, then the Koran is in no way like the constitution, as in america/Australia, the actions of criminals are used all the time to create new laws and to analyse the effectiveness of laws.

As for your comment about stoning, then yes i agree. But i could probably find laws in saudi arabia that are purely from the hadith. I will look, and post any if i find some.

@Ghalibkhastahaal
so, the hadiths did not come to people through generations? Does that not improve their authenticity? I would rather trust a source that was recored at the TIME than generations after..

[crazymonkie_]

Your mythological son/god/lamb was presented as a sacrifice for all humanity's sins, indiscriminately. Whether you accept his alleged death or not, Jesus died for the sins of all; past present and future sins (an absurdity per the OT sacrificial system).

You're missing something here. Jesus' death only gave the possibility of being forgiven. Humans still must act according to the grace given to them. Accepting Jesus' death as a requirement of salvation is central to this forgiveness. So too is acting according to Christian principles.

The moment you say that some stand excluded from redemption, or that one needs to take action in order for the sacrifice to apply, you are saying that Jesus died for the sins of some, not of all and that his sacrifice is potentialy useless for billions (against its original intent).

Taking that same point of view, the fact of Muhammad being a messenger and revealing the perfected version of Islam is useless to billions of people as well. If one does not take action, one is not a Muslim, and therefore will end up in hell. If one takes action, one is a Muslim and will end up in heaven. It's like that with Christianity and Jesus: One needs to take action, or one is not a Christian, and thus, damned to hell.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Although I'll just add that I'm doing the clarifying not because I believe in that stuff (there are plenty of issues with Christianity as is, and I don't believe in it), but that your understanding was so terrible that I felt the need to make it all clearer.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

His death made it possible to be saved, but one has to accept Jesus and his sacrifice and live accordingly in order to be saved.

Your mythological son/god/lamb was presented as a sacrifice for all humanity's sins, indiscriminately. Whether you accept his alleged death or not, Jesus died for the sins of all; past present and future sins (an absurdity per the OT sacrificial system). The moment you say that some stand excluded from redemption, or that one needs to take action in order for the sacrifice to apply, you are saying that Jesus died for the sins of some, not of all and that his sacrifice is potentialy useless for billions (against its original intent).

What kind of a twisted sense of reasoning do you have?? He died so that everybody CAN be saved, not so that everybody IS saved. It's simple and you've already been told this, and this is the way all Christians understand it. He even said that some will be discarded during the harvest and thrown into the fire like weeds are during a harvest. Honestly, what sort of thickness blocks your mind??? Oh, that's right. It's Islam. You're a Muslim which automatically means that you cannot reason correctly nor even objectively. Oh well. Not my fault. Glad it's not me.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Now explain the clear attempt of the Quran to be first person format, as if it is God speaking himself, letter for letter, directly to people, rather than a narrator retelling what God said and did as was the case of the Bible.

Because contrary to scriptures from the past, the Quran was meant to be literally the words of God put in the prophet's mouth as stated in your Bible "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him. If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it."

It was not the case with past scriptures.

First of all, it says from among your brothers, and if you read Deuteronomy 17:15, only a mere 20 or so verses away, you will clearly see who the author is talking about when it says "among your brothers". It clearly meant fellow Jews. Yet another Muslim lie. You people are the worst this planet has to offer. Not only do you constantly lie about your own religion, you try to hijack and lie about other people's religions as well, if that's what it takes to make your illegitimate religion created by your 20% pedo profit appear to be legitimate. What desperate disgraces you people are, and it's not even your fault, it's Islam's fault, which means it's Muhammad's fault.

Secondly, if it's literally the word for word dictation of Allah, then would you care to explain why it's Muhammad talking in 9:30 and 63:4? And then, of course, there's the oddity of Sura Al Jinn where the speaker keeps going back and forth between Allah and the Jinn in an almost schizophrenic fashion.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Let's get back to the basics for a moment.

We like to think of Islam as an ideology, well it's not quite so.
Basically Islam, as it is nowadays, is rather A CODE OF LAWS.

We like to give our proofs that it can't be from a God, that is human fabric and to point out its flaws and discuss all over them with indignation. But I think that we miss the most important point about the Koran: as the Islamic sacred book it is essentially a whole code of laws, to which we must add (as it is wrongly) the hadiths, sira and tafsirs. Those and others like Fiqh, act as jurisprudence.

So we're still and always within a legal procedure. When we deal with it as we do, we fail to understand what we're dealing with. At the end, it doesn't really matter if it's man-made or not, if some verses appear to us mere nonsense. The Koran and the Islamic jurisprudence are left untouched by all our critics because they come down to blast over let's say the American Constitution.

But how can it have any legitimacy of law if it is shown to not be from God while it claims it is?? So the errors that you try to make irrelevant are actually the entire crux of the matter. How could a person still consider it law if they found out that the entire thing came from a false angle?? THAT is the question we need to ask Muslims.

Imams and Mullahs are more akin to our notion of lawyers than they are to our notion of priests. So to deal with the Koran the way we usually do is totally missing the point

Actually, they are missing the point and need to be asked point blank how they can merely ignore errors in a supposedly perfect book. To give the Quran any legitimacy and get all involved with their laws is to drag you into their quagmire that is a completely cross eyed and illegitimate one to start with. You are saying that rather than continually show them there is no such thing as flying monkeys, we need to realize that we should get into a discussion with them about what color dress they wear, thereby giving some legitimacy to flying monkeys.

and so there's a huge misrepresentation between our perception and theirs: we can hurl anything we want, yet it doesn't reach Muslims for a minute, kafirs (all of us) are barking at the wrong tree, charging the wrong hill even with the most formidable will...

So you're essentially saying, they are simply not able to reason properly?

You may think you've proven the Koran wrong, or some verses...

There's no "think" about it, either it's shown to be wrong or it's not. and clearly it HAS been shown to be wrong in many places. If they ignore it and practice denial, then what can be done?? That's mental illness at that point. Should mental illness be appeased?

it really comes down to argue against the American Constitution !

The American Constitution was written by men and supposed to be written by men and it can be changed (amended). Can you amend something that is supposed to be written by God?

Let us say you argue that men are created unequally and come with a thousand examples to underline your point. This will not change an iota to the Declaration stating that: ''All men are created equals''. This is not David against Goliath, this is David against a troubled T-Rex !

You don't understand what that statement means. Equal means that they are have the same inalienable rights, rather than people being born as non equals and one being better than the other because of the social status they were born into. So while it does not mean the poor man should have as much money as the rich man, but it DOES mean that they both have equal rights under the law. There is no royalty system nor caste system.

Criticizing the Koran, in the mind of the Muslims, means you're either an outlaw or a kafir. Foreigners are such ignorant kafirs, dumb, blind and deaf so their silliness may be pardonable, that is up to the point of obtuse bad faith. They are not knowledgeable in the Science of the Law.

If we still continue this kind of approach we simply can't reach them. Their mind-language is totally different from our. The Koran is above all criticizing simply because it is The Law, the Islamic Constitution. The whole building of Islam is based on that. If you want to talk their mind-language we must argue from within the law, just like lawyers do

It is simply wrong to appease their insanity and play with them in their fantasy tea party. It only encourages it. Many people think that appeasement and trying to slowly mold Islam is the way to go. This is kind of what Britain was thinking. But the appeasement has done nothing but merely encourage them and embolden them. So no, even if they turn a deaf ear, then say it again. and again, and again and again and be diligent about reminding them.

... for criticizing it from outside, like we do, is of no avail. Worthless. Emotionals over-reacting. Whipping the river because it merely flows. Contest the law as much as you want, it is still the law!

I disagree. While I think that no Muslim will ever admit the problem, they see it. You can tell that they see it because of how outlandish they are willing to be in attempting to solve the problem, and they can't be completely oblivious to the fact that they have to go through these gymnastics And they find ways to ignore it and therefore it should be repeated until they can no longer ignore it.

A good example for that is how AhmedBahgat behave if you attack his divine book. He'll argue like a lawyer interpreting The Law, from within (never from outside like we do)

There is no such thing as a within interpretation and an outside interpretation. There is only one correct interpretation

giving you many related verses to a case.

And we do they same thing. This has nothing to do with treating it like law, it's merely discussing the meaning of the verses.

Under critics and attacks, he will dismiss you without recourse.

Without recourse?? Who needs recourse when he has already made a horse's ass out of himself and admits it when he has to dismiss someone??

This is like if you were stating that an article of some code of laws is completely flawed, arguing to a policeman that you didn't infringe the law by driving at high speed because there was nobody else on the highway at that time. So you really weren't a danger although you crashed the speed limit by much. The regulations couldn't then apply to you in this case... maybe you were running fast because you were late for an important meeting...

The policeman will react much like AhmetBahgat. He'll think you're a strange silly fellow, write the contravention, and give it to you with a huge smile: you've been dismissed. The Law has been infringed and his job is to punish the guilty. Period. You don't argue against a code of laws. You follow it, contest its accuracy in any given case, show your proves or else troubles are on the way...

If the origin of the code of laws is found to be a lie, then the entire code topples. You are saying that they will somehow merely find a way to ignore the problem one points out and follow the law anyway. Then repeat the false origin of the law once again. And again, and again. Don't play within their law, that's the game they love to play because it gives it legitimacy. Challenge not the law, but the origin of the law itself. Nobody can challenge the origin of the Constitutional laws because the origin is the people themselves. For example, if you like to smoke marijuana, then you can argue that laws against it are unfair, but you know why the laws are that way, because a majority of people want them that way and you also know that if enough people felt differently, that law could change. So that's why nobody bothers to challenge the origin of American law because there really is nothing to challenge about it's origin. However, in the case of the Quran, there is MUCH to challenge regarding it's origin. Why argue within the lie rather than expose the lie itself at it's very root??

It doesn't matter if the Koran is man-made or not, silly or not, or if you want or can reason it out. Lex Dura, Sed Lex.

So essentially, you are saying that the truth simply does not matter.

The West is basically an enemy to Islam because it has different laws, ie. different values.
It wants freedom, while that can't be under The Law. To a Muslim, our notion of freedom is a dead-end... met by fate.

Yes, once again, Islam is the problem. The Muslim isn't actually the problem at all, it's Islam. Muslims aren't making these problem up, they are following Islam.

That's why we MUST be knowledgeable in what is The Law according to the Koran, for only then can we construct a valid case.

No. You cannot appease a lunatic and encourage his delusions and give them false legitimacy. That's what you are suggesting be done. That starts off in the wrong direction right from the start. This is like saying that you must address someone who is delusional and thinks he is a king as "your Majesty" or else he won't listen to you. How long is that game supposed to go on??

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

The moment you say that some stand excluded from redemption, or that one needs to take action in order for the sacrifice to apply, you are saying that Jesus died for the sins of some, not of all and that his sacrifice is potentialy useless for billions (against its original intent).

Taking that same point of view, the fact of Muhammad being a messenger and revealing the perfected version of Islam is useless to billions of people as well. If one does not take action, one is not a Muslim, and therefore will end up in hell. If one takes action, one is a Muslim and will end up in heaven.

Yes, exactly. But understand, you are asking him to think objectively and therefore you thought he should have seen the parity. He's not capable of that.

[Eagle]

He died so that everybody CAN be saved, not so that everybody IS saved.

1Jn2:2"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

The sins of the whole world (past,present and future) have been atoned for.

The moment you say there are conditions for his sacrifice to apply, you are saying that he was slaughtered for the sins of some, not of all.
Also, why did Yahweh always forgive sins through sincere repentance but suddenly needed to slaughter himself by coming to earth as his own son.

First of all, it says from among your brothers

And the term is used for non israelites all over the OT, besides the fact that the Israelites were still waiting the rise of "that prophet" up to the time of Jesus, that the Messiah and "that prophet" are 2 distinct entities and that Jesus himself denied being "that prophet".

Your bible says that God's words will be put in that prophet's mouth, hence the Quran being the word for word dictation of God.

Garbage can:

Honestly, what sort of thickness blocks your mind??? Oh, that's right. It's Islam. You're a Muslim which automatically means that you cannot reason correctly nor even objectively. Oh well. Not my fault. Glad it's not me..Yet another Muslim lie. You people are the worst this planet has to offer. Not only do you constantly lie about your own religion, you try to hijack and lie about other people's religions as well, if that's what it takes to make your illegitimate religion created by your 20% pedo profit appear to be legitimate. What desperate disgraces you people are, and it's not even your fault, it's Islam's fault, which means it's Muhammad's fault.