Quran434.com - open invitation to all - $1000

[iffo]

Iffo;

I offered before my last post: debate me exclusively and prove you are real. I will wait for your acceptance. Otherwise I will think your above comment is more of the same garbage.

Topics are my approach vs your grumpiness and Qur'an-alone (religion) vs hadith (ignorance, herd-thinking).

If you refuse, do not make excuses for your hypocrisy. This is your chance.

You have one week to present your clear acceptance or declination here. I am not discussing anything else with anyone, except in an environment where they are accountable for what they say (i.e. proper debate).

After all, I am not leaving because of the counter-logic, but rather the lack of and refusal to present it.

Cheers.

What ever you had to say you have already said it, and it did not impress me nor anyone else and all have been rejected. Most of your defensive arguments were quite funny. From striking the air, to quran contradicts itself for not providing enough detail on beating, to multiple meanings etc. Like I said you have ran out of good defensive arguments . You will repeat same thing again. So sorry it will waste of time doing a private debate.

[MesMorial]

Iffo;

If I am going to say the same thing, you can copy and paste your most effective responses. Therefore you can debunk me like you say can.

I have not started with you, because you have never addressed the real point. Sum is mistaken that more people will keep it to the point, since he could not keep it to the point himself. I want to demonstrate in a proper environment that FFI is replete with grumpy sheep without wool. In effect I want to force you into the inevitable hole you are so scared of. I cannot lose, which is why I give you the chance to admit it or prove me wrong.

Philosophically, logically and theologically you are second-rate, and I just want to show it before I go. I will then make an article out of the debate, and use it. If it taught no-one else, it would at least teach you.

So I offer again.

Cheers.

[iffo]

MM

If you have some hidden super gun , please present it here , I need straight forward, to the point answer , not a long essay of mambo jumbo rambling which are the tactics you Muslims use to divert and thinking you have put a convincing argument. If not please consider yourself refuted.

MM,
Admit it A book suppose to guide people that takes so much effort to understand is a dumb book, written by someone really dumb which can not be god, because if it was god who designed your heart and your eye
, he got to be super super smart. Think about this when you are not in stubborn argumenting mood.

Now you tell me what the heck is talking about here
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11666" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MesMorial]

The capitalised section says that “eye for an eye” applies to murder. Killing one is like killing all of humanity (5:32), so it is a matter of justice (25:68). Obviously it does not mean that if a man kills a female, he must sacrifice one of “his” females (that’s not justice). Simply, if a free man kills a free man, he is subject to the penalty (unless forgiven). If a free man kills a slave, he is still subject although there may be other factors/considerations (maybe the servant was a captive serving punishment for a bad crime). If a man kills a woman, he will be subject to the penalty. If a woman kills a man, there will possibly be forgiveness. If she kills a woman, maybe different.

In all circumstances there may be room for forgiveness, but basically “equality” is being emphasised. “Free man for a free man…” emphasises that not all cases are the same (e.g. free man for criminal).


***


Now my “secret” weapon is not secret, since it has been available to you.

The Qur’an prohibits ahadith, yet you argue they are a part of Islam and that “Qur’an-alone” “reformers” are deluded. If you attempt to support your claim, you know that I will win (unless you were telling fibs when you said I had nothing to offer). So why do you do it? It is because you ignore my point, judging everything by ME rather than IT. That is just "banners and labels".

Secondly, my aim is to encourage critical, objective and non-emotional approaches to solving the problems of the world. When we fix our attitudes and our thinking, it will be as natural as a flowing river (when the dam is demolished). Lots of green plants will grow. “Progressiveness” refers to getting our point, intention and priorities right.

Your aim is to destroy Islam, but you rely on the same technique by which Sunnis justify their idols (i.e. religious attachment to history, ignorance of the philosophy of religion as also supported by the Qur’an). Thus if your attitude and approach is flawed, how can you have a healthy root? If you cannot address your own root, then you cannot go deep enough to fix the root of Earth’s social problems (greed, attachment, emotion, ego, identity, institutionalisation). You will become contaminated by attachment and possibly obsession.

Hypothetically you could eliminate Islam by proving that Muhammad contradicted the Qur’an, but such evidence is only hearsay and out of context. The very sources you use would contradict each other, so at best you are discrediting ahadith. Moreover, Sunnis already agree with contradicting the Qur’an.

You could “prove” that Muhammad was a rapist, thief etc. etc., but these labels are seen as loose conclusions from an emotional perspective. Sunnis have already accepted the authority of death for apostasy, stoning, child-marriage etc. etc., so crying “foul!” will not eliminate the problem which is the reason you have a problem!

Your aim therefore cannot be to refute the problem, but simply to make people aware of it. So what would you like them to do? Agree with the Qur’anic distortions? I know I would prefer them to promote critical, objective and non-emotional thinking. Otherwise we would be spreading the opposite. You cannot fight an idea by force, but only with another idea. If you can succeed in making people aware of the problem (with your good history skills), it follows that you can make them aware of the only solution: my way.

My way has its philosophy (lest you call me Muslim), but forgetting that (for now), it has all the benefits without the distortions of yours.

If you convince a Sunni that certain elements in Sunnism are unacceptable and MANDATORY, he/she will leave Islam, They will do this because when you prove the truth of the ahadith, they will not follow the Qur’an. That’s fine, but due to the nature of ahadith and of Sunnism, it might work for 15% if lucky. In the meantime, since radical Sunnism has maintained itself for so long, it follows it may continue doing so.

My approach is not against a critical, objective and non-emotional evaluation of ahadith, but I recognise it is not going to solve the problem. It is a moral and thus psychological problem, fuelled by desire for identity. People do not actually believe in their religions: they subscribe for the sake of belonging and life-structure. It is an ego-thing, and I have seen this for myself not only because they rely on the same refuted arguments, but the way that they behave. I will adopt the same attitude to the study of the Qur’an, and see that it prohibits ahadith whilst conforming to the self-evident philosophy of religion (with which we can dismiss Sunnism alone).


See this:


All of you are mentally sick

A Sunni (on my YouTube yesterday)


It follows that if I am mentally sick, he is accusing the whole non-Muslim world of being so. The difference is that he feels the pinch from this approach.


you hepocrites are doomed, bye and watch out we are on to you, we will defend Allah and his rasul from hypocrites and deniers of truth like you

Another one from yesterday


It follows that if he is going to defend intellectually, he would have stayed and not fled.

They are ****-scared I (a non-Muslim) am going to convince people like you to change your approach.

When people stop recognising Sunnis as Muslims (i.e. followers of the Qur’an!), it eliminates their prime reason for being Sunni (identity). The more idols that we worship, the more defined we become, yes?

So we have moved from the dubious morality of Sunnism alone to corruption of the Qur’anic concept of religion. This concept is self-evident, and is what defines “religion” (see my essay “Progressive Souls”). If the Qur’an did not agree with it, it would not be a religion at all and thus could be dismissed right there.

We move to the next level, which confirms the previous by identifying the deviations of “Sunna” from the Qur’an. This is not an attempt to vindicate the Qur’an, but simply to identify the symptoms by which we diagnose a corrupt system. The Qur’an says one thing about apostasy, the “Sunna” says another. If the Sunna explains the Qur’an, there is no point in the Qur’an saying differently in the first place. If the Qur’an is just a lure, it shows that even Muhammad knew only the Qur’an could be followed, but the “Sunna” was a sneaky thing (it appears there is no solid historical evidence of “Sunna”). Either way, the two are easily shown to be in conflict, and my arguments on this subject have not wavered.

The next level is where the roots break the surface. Are we encouraging people to follow the Qur’an, or are we simply encouraging the elimination of idol-worshipping tendencies? The latter is the case, and since we use the Qur’an as “Lesson 1” on “religion vs tradition”, we should be telling Sunnis that if they want to be Muslims, they should be following the Qur’an. At this level we also encourage non-Muslims to judge the Qur’an on its own terms, and to be objective. Discussions should be had on the apparent and most logical meaning of verses, preferring the progressive approach and not calling Muslims “twisters” even if for some reason you do not agree. You can say that you don’t agree with their logic in that instance, but do not judge by banners and labels. As long as their intention is to improve, it does not matter because they are progressing to the next level. All improvement is the result of a healthy root (intention etc.), and if it is becoming too healthy for its current level (e.g. moving away from the Qur’an), we should not cut it!

(Note that this is just one example (Sunnism/Qur’an/Islam) of the wider approach. The basic process if to separate the philosophy/religion from non-God OR non-self-evident influence, and then to encourage what is GOOD in it whilst identifying what is bad. The process begins anew on the scripture alone, incorporating scientific, moral and historical evidence).

The last level is to take “critical, objective and non-emotional thinking” to its “peak” by suggesting that we do not need holy books to recognise what is best (or to achieve it). Mughal could not explain.

Hence my philosophy.

[darth]

“ Notice where hitting is involved, a weapon is identified.

So now you are saying 4:34 cannot mean "beat" because a weapon is not identified? Usage of beat/strike as in "strike him" or "beat her" does not require a "weapon". That is the worst defense yet..

Where it is relevant weapon or other object is identified. Where it is not required (such as beating of wife) it is not identified.

You will go round and round with this, so here it is -

For the last time -

the meaning of the word idhrib is beat. Most places this word is used it means strike. Based on the usage and context it may imply something else, but the primary meaning is beat/strike etc. .

So, see the correct meanings below (rather than your wishful thinking). Strike is the correct usage in most cases and fits the verse best. Set forth is nonsensical and not the meaning of the word and therefore makes no sense when used in most of the verses you provided.

2.60 - We said "Strike with your staff the stone."
2.73 - So, We said, "Strike the slain man with part of it."
8:12 - so strike upon the neck and strike from them every fingertip
3:112 - (duribat means imposed upon/put upon) - "They have been put under humiliation wherever they are overtaken"
8.50 - They are striking their faces and their back and [saying], taste the punishment of the burning fire
(In this one the quraner's try the idiotic defense that striking is physical and you cannot strike a dead person therefore the word is set forth which is just rubbish. The correct word is "strike".)
18.32 - Here adhrib is used which can mean give/present (kind of like hit them with the example). Here the translation in context is correct - "give/present them the example". Same with 18.45

24.31 - and stamp/put their covers over their chests (here contextual derivative translation of strike)
24.31 - and let them not stamp/strike their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment.
26.63 - Then we inspire moses - "strike with your staff the sea"
20.77 - “And We had inspired to Moses, "set forth with My servants at night and strike (idhrib) for them a dry path through the sea”
(since 26.63 says strike and a "weapon" is used according to you, this meaning is the same here since the verses are talking about the same thing. But, notice no weapon)

36.13 - (word is adrib which is present/give as before ) - "and present to them an example: the people of the city, when the messengers came to it"

37.93 - (word used darban means strike )- translation is - "and he turned upon them a blow with the right hand"

47.27 - (yadribuna certainly means strike, set forth is nonsensical here) - Then how [will it be] when the angels take them in death, striking their faces and their backs?

I will take your point about "softly" as evidence that the ahadith are wrong. Thus, they are inconsequential.

I don't know what you are talking about. There is no "softly" in the verse. We are not talking of any hadiths here. Whether the hadiths say softly or harshly is irrelevant since this verse does not specify that either.

[darth]

.
The Qur’an prohibits ahadith, yet you argue they are a part of Islam and that “Qur’an-alone” “reformers” are deluded.

We disagree that quran prohibits ahadith. That is your assumption. It is already shown that quran points to the examples of mo and that is recorded in hadiths. So hadiths that do not go against the quran are mandated by the quran.

.
Secondly, my aim is to encourage critical, objective and non-emotional approaches to solving the problems of the world.

It is neither critical nor objective to use a book to prove itself. It is not a non-emotional approach when you try to change words of a book to fit your world view.

Your aim is to destroy Islam, but you rely on the same technique by which Sunnis justify their idols (i.e. religious attachment to history, ignorance of the philosophy of religion as also supported by the Qur’an).

islam is what it is. We are not in the business of defining islam. Why should we base our argument on what you want islam to be instead of what it actually is.

At this level we also encourage non-Muslims to judge the Qur’an on its own terms, and to be objective. Discussions should be had on the apparent and most logical meaning of verses, preferring the progressive approach and not calling Muslims “twisters” even if for some reason you do not agree. You can say that you don’t agree with their logic in that instance, but do not judge by banners and labels.

You cannot pick and choose what you think is the "most logical" meaning of the verse.
If you take a verse and pretend that it is saying something it is not, that is fraudulent. Of course you will be called a spinner and a twister.
We are not in this business to sugar coat the quran for people like you. We are here to examine it objectively with facts, science and logic.

(Note that this is just one example (Sunnism/Qur’an/Islam) of the wider approach. The basic process if to separate the philosophy/religion from non-God OR non-self-evident influence, and then to encourage what is GOOD in it whilst identifying what is bad. The process begins anew on the scripture alone, incorporating scientific, moral and historical evidence).

Why bother? Why not simply pick another religion that is superior, say, zoroastrianism?

[MesMorial]

Darth;

Well to bring the circle to a neat end:

You can set forth a stone with a stick, meaning you have to hit it.

You can set forth dead bodies by magically causing them to move (with a magical calf). And you can do the same with setting forth a sea. You cannot strike a path.

2:61 shows that duribat can mean set forth (it shares the trilateral root besides).

8:50, 47:27 were clarified by other verses as turning them away to the fire.

8:12 and ones like it (e.g. 37:93) are self-explanatory as “set forth”.

If we say "a dog set on him", it can technically mean the dog barged him and sent him on, or it can mean it came onto him and bit him. If we "cast on" a stone, it can mean we hit the stone, or we kicked it on. I will look into that, because it is difficult to ascertain if certain words in Arabic can be equivalent to words in English, and minor things can make a big difference. "Forth" and "on may or may not be equivalent in Arabic.

We can go ‘round in circles, but we must use logic too. The solution is to be consistent with preventing divorce. “Beating” does not prevent divorce, and is redundant since divorce is the solution in extreme circumstances.

[MesMorial]

Darth;

We disagree that quran prohibits ahadith. That is your assumption. It is already shown that quran points to the examples of mo and that is recorded in hadiths. So hadiths that do not go against the quran are mandated by the quran.

Then you are to be considered a hobo in the realm of logic, gasping into the empty cans of refuted arguments.

This point makes the rest of your reply (which simply repeats the usual and ignores my points) worthless. You know this, which is why you cling to ahadith. You don't want to be redundant, do you.

[iffo]

MesMorial
The capitalised section says that “eye for an eye” applies to murder ......................it does not mean that if a man kills a female, he must sacrifice one of “his” females (that’s not justice).

Well who knows what it means. It means one thing who ever said this is mental and been smoking weed.

Indeed it looks like it means what is in bold above. I am sure he wanted to say an eye for an eye. It is the most retarted statement. If he meant eye for an eye, all he had to say "who ever will kill will be the one who will be punished and will be killed no excption, unless forgiven . That's it. Not like "man for man, old for old, woman for woman, donkey for donkey" ................ nonsense.

Again no wise god will use this kind a stupid language to mean eye for an eye. Dumb book .

[MesMorial]

Darth, here is something for you to address:

All usages of DRB in the Qur’an can be “set forth”, while only some can be inferred as “strike”.

“Strike” makes no sense when it comes to preventing divorce, but let us use that point to conclude it must be symbolic (i.e. a last statement).

The wife cannot be hospitalised, for she could not obey him afterwards (4:34). At least, she would not want to because women are not cattle who change their tune with violence. Rather, it should be an expression of contempt for her viewpoint. Thus, the head and sensitive/vulnerable parts should be avoided. This is consistent with the ahadith. The man would maybe strike her once on the shoulder and push her away a little, or once lightly on the chest. This would indicate he has had enough and that the "divorce wheel" is rolling. As soon as she obeys, the matter should be taken no further. If the man has struck her in this way once, and she is still resilient, separation should be sought (4:35).

We should use critical thinking, common sense and all principles in the Qur’an. Whether we interpret “strike” or “set forth”, neither involves physically harming the woman. Situations should be dealt with according to what is appropriate.

[iffo]

Why bother? Why not simply pick another religion that is superior, say, zoroastrianism?

He can not, quran has scared the sh!t out of people with so many threats and punishments of hell fire. He probably thinks "what if quran is from god, then I am screwed."

That is one thing Muhammad has done really good, he scared the crap out of people. Muslims even scared to think critically about Islam or Allah/Muhammad.

Even if critical brain wave come they immediately say 'sorry allah, forgive me, forgive me'

[MesMorial]

That is one thing Muhammad has done really good, he scared the crap out of people. Muslims even scared to think critically about Islam or Allah/Muhammad.

Even if critical brain wave come they immediately say 'sorry allah, forgive me, forgive me'

Dear Iffo; you are perhaps speaking from experience. Nevertheless, not sure why you say “He can not” if you read what I wrote…!

“Why not become a Zoroastrian, why not become a Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Satanist, Unionist or Anarchist?”

Because Islam delivers more identity-fulfilment. It is simpler than Buddhism, but gives people everything that the others could. So does Zoroastrianism have “scientific miracles”? Without that, there is no satisfaction because they would have to say “Just do” when asked why they believe it. Most importantly, since it relies on “just do”, it does not have the momentum since there are few Zoroastrians in the world. If it does not have the spotlight, it means they actually have to really feel it personally (which they don’t). This is how ideas spread or perish, and if a few more people got their priorities right, the wheel could get moving. Your defeatist attitude is uninspiring, and cynicism needs style.

[pr126]

Mesmorial wrote:

Because Islam delivers more identity-fulfilment.

Islam first takes away the persons identity, humanity, self worth, his past culture, and fills the vacuum created with blind faith in Islam.
The person then becomes nothing, less than human, a worthless peace of scrap if Islam were to taken away from him.
Islam becomes his identity, his only self worth.

But, the process is reversible, as apostasy proves the case.

[darth]

You can set forth a stone with a stick, meaning you have to hit it.

You can set forth dead bodies by magically causing them to move (with a magical calf). And you can do the same with setting forth a sea. You cannot strike a path.

Setting forth a stone" does not make ay sense at all. Neither does setting forth dead bodies. Only "strike" makes sense.

Usage of strike in 20.77 and 20.63 is correct. Moses is commanded to use his staff to strike a path through the sea. He raises his staff and strikes at(towards) the sea and it parts. Moses did not "set forth" a path through the sea. He actually struck with his staff and the sea parted (at least so the story says)

2:61 shows that duribat can mean set forth (it shares the trilateral root besides).

duribat has a different meaning in context than idhrib, I already told you that. However, 4.34 does not use duribat. It says specifically idhribuhanna and wherever idrib has been used the meaning has been "strike" (even when you illogically try to put set forth, you are forced to change it to beat/strike)

8:50, 47:27 were clarified by other verses as turning them away to the fire.

8:12 and ones like it (e.g. 37:93) are self-explanatory as “set forth”.

As I have told you, 8.50, 8.12, 37.93 make sense only with "strike". Set forth usage is simply wrong here.

The solution is to be consistent with preventing divorce. “Beating” does not prevent divorce, and is redundant since divorce is the solution in extreme circumstances.

4:34 does not talk about divorce at all. It is within the context of marriage. So there is no question of divorce at all at that point. Whether beating results in divorce or not is not being debated. What is being debated is what the verse actually says. The verse actually says idhrib which means "strike" in 95% cases usage of the word in the quran.

All usages of DRB in the Qur’an can be “set forth”, while only some can be inferred as “strike”.

Wrong. It is the other way around. All the verses that you provided where idrib is used, the meaning that fits best is "strike". Set forth makes no sense at all.

“Strike” makes no sense when it comes to preventing divorce, but let us use that point to conclude it must be symbolic (i.e. a last statement).

The wife cannot be hospitalised, for she could not obey him afterwards (4:34). At least, she would not want to because women are not cattle who change their tune with violence. Rather, it should be an expression of contempt for her viewpoint. Thus, the head and sensitive/vulnerable parts should be avoided. This is consistent with the ahadith. The man would maybe strike her once on the shoulder and push her away a little, or once lightly on the chest. This would indicate he has had enough and that the "divorce wheel" is rolling. As soon as she obeys, the matter should be taken no further. If the man has struck her in this way once, and she is still resilient, separation should be sought (4:35).

Make up your mind. So now she can be "beaten" symbolically, without being hurt badly? So now 4:34 allows symbolic beating as an expression of contempt. So you agree that the verse does mean beat. Whether the beating is symbolic or not is left to your imagination since 4.34 does not use the word "symbolically".
It is interesting - earlier you claimed that the only beating allowed was in self defense (where self defense means fear of her disobedience). You beat (idrib) round and round the bush, but come back to the same thing - idhrib is beat in 4:34 - whether in contempt for her opinion (which itself is pretty misogynistic when you think about it) or self defense against her disobedience or whatever. Beat is idhrib is beat is idhrib. Time to swallow the medicine and accept it.
Your next step would be to say clearly - it may mean "beat", but I reject this verse with that meaning and I will provide a better verse with a nicer meaning. We can all be happy then.

We should use critical thinking, common sense and all principles in the Qur’an. Whether we interpret “strike” or “set forth”, neither involves physically harming the woman. Situations should be dealt with according to what is appropriate.

Quran is about obeying allah and his messenger, not about critical thinking or common sense. For the last time - we are not debating what the quran ought to say and mean. We are debating on what it actually says.

Because Islam delivers more identity-fulfilment. It is simpler than Buddhism, but gives people everything that the others could.
So does Zoroastrianism have “scientific miracles”? Without that, there is no satisfaction because they would have to say “Just do” when asked why they believe it. Most importantly, since it relies on “just do”, it does not have the momentum since there are few Zoroastrians in the world. If it does not have the spotlight, it means they actually have to really feel it personally (which they don’t). This is how ideas spread or perish, and if a few more people got their priorities right, the wheel could get moving. Your defeatist attitude is uninspiring, and cynicism needs style.

Zoroastrianism perished because islam destroyed it, not because it had no merit. Buddhism, christianity, zoroastrianism, reformed judaism will give you as much or more identity fulfillment and they all have more merit than islam. Why do you feel you need islam or any religion?
There are no scientific miracles in islam unless you have started believing that the sun sets in a muddy pond.

But this last post is revealing. You can say this about yourself -
I am memorial. I was born a muslim.
I read the quran and the hadiths. The hadiths showed my prophet in a bad light, so I discarded them.
There are many verses in the quran that when literally translated are harsh . The harsh meanings do not vibe with my humanity. But I cannot discard islam and quran . My identity comes from being a muslim. So I will reinterpret the quran . But what I am doing is not reinterpretation. It is the actual original meaning (which I cannot prove but am sure about). I don't have to be logical or accurate in my interpretation. I only have to convince myself .

[darth]

You can set forth a stone with a stick, meaning you have to hit it.

You can set forth dead bodies by magically causing them to move (with a magical calf). And you can do the same with setting forth a sea. You cannot strike a path.

Setting forth a stone" does not make ay sense at all. Neither does setting forth dead bodies. Only "strike" makes sense.

Usage of strike in 20.77 and 20.63 is correct. Moses is commanded to use his staff to strike a path through the sea. He raises his staff and strikes at(towards) the sea and it parts. Moses did not "set forth" a path through the sea. He actually struck with his staff and the sea parted (at least so the story says)

2:61 shows that duribat can mean set forth (it shares the trilateral root besides).

duribat has a different meaning in context than idhrib, I already told you that. However, 4.34 does not use duribat. It says specifically idhribuhanna and wherever idrib has been used the meaning has been "strike" (even when you illogically try to put set forth, you are forced to change it to beat/strike)

8:50, 47:27 were clarified by other verses as turning them away to the fire.

8:12 and ones like it (e.g. 37:93) are self-explanatory as “set forth”.

As I have told you, 8.50, 8.12, 37.93 make sense only with "strike". Set forth usage is simply wrong here.

The solution is to be consistent with preventing divorce. “Beating” does not prevent divorce, and is redundant since divorce is the solution in extreme circumstances.

4:34 does not talk about divorce at all. It is within the context of marriage. So there is no question of divorce at all at that point. Whether beating results in divorce or not is not being debated. What is being debated is what the verse actually says. The verse actually says idhrib which means "strike" in 95% cases usage of the word in the quran.

All usages of DRB in the Qur’an can be “set forth”, while only some can be inferred as “strike”.

Wrong. It is the other way around. All the verses that you provided where idrib is used, the meaning that fits best is "strike". Set forth makes no sense at all.

“Strike” makes no sense when it comes to preventing divorce, but let us use that point to conclude it must be symbolic (i.e. a last statement).

The wife cannot be hospitalised, for she could not obey him afterwards (4:34). At least, she would not want to because women are not cattle who change their tune with violence. Rather, it should be an expression of contempt for her viewpoint. Thus, the head and sensitive/vulnerable parts should be avoided. This is consistent with the ahadith. The man would maybe strike her once on the shoulder and push her away a little, or once lightly on the chest. This would indicate he has had enough and that the "divorce wheel" is rolling. As soon as she obeys, the matter should be taken no further. If the man has struck her in this way once, and she is still resilient, separation should be sought (4:35).

Make up your mind. So now she can be "beaten" symbolically, without being hurt badly? So now 4:34 allows symbolic beating as an expression of contempt. So you agree that the verse does mean beat. Whether the beating is symbolic or not is left to your imagination since 4.34 does not use the word "symbolically".
It is interesting - earlier you claimed that the only beating allowed was in self defense (where self defense means fear of her disobedience). You beat (idrib) round and round the bush, but come back to the same thing - idhrib is beat in 4:34 - whether in contempt for her opinion (which itself is pretty misogynistic when you think about it) or self defense against her disobedience or whatever. Beat is idhrib is beat is idhrib. Time to swallow the medicine and accept it.
Your next step would be to say clearly - it may mean "beat", but I reject this verse with that meaning and I will provide a better verse with a nicer meaning. We can all be happy then.

We should use critical thinking, common sense and all principles in the Qur’an. Whether we interpret “strike” or “set forth”, neither involves physically harming the woman. Situations should be dealt with according to what is appropriate.

Quran is about obeying allah and his messenger, not about critical thinking or common sense. For the last time - we are not debating what the quran ought to say and mean. We are debating on what it actually says.

Because Islam delivers more identity-fulfilment. It is simpler than Buddhism, but gives people everything that the others could.
So does Zoroastrianism have “scientific miracles”? Without that, there is no satisfaction because they would have to say “Just do” when asked why they believe it. Most importantly, since it relies on “just do”, it does not have the momentum since there are few Zoroastrians in the world. If it does not have the spotlight, it means they actually have to really feel it personally (which they don’t). This is how ideas spread or perish, and if a few more people got their priorities right, the wheel could get moving. Your defeatist attitude is uninspiring, and cynicism needs style.

Zoroastrianism perished because islam destroyed it, not because it had no merit. Buddhism, christianity, zoroastrianism, reformed judaism will give you as much or more identity fulfillment and they all have more merit than islam. Why do you feel you need islam or any religion?
There are no scientific miracles in islam unless you have started believing that the sun sets in a muddy pond.

But this last post is revealing. You can say this about yourself -
I am memorial. I was born a muslim.
I read the quran and the hadiths. The hadiths showed my prophet in a bad light, so I discarded them.
There are many verses in the quran that when literally translated are harsh . The harsh meanings do not vibe with my humanity. But I cannot discard islam and quran . My identity comes from being a muslim. So I will reinterpret the quran . But what I am doing is not reinterpretation. It is the actual original meaning (which I cannot prove but am sure about). I don't have to be logical or accurate in my interpretation. I only have to convince myself .

[MesMorial]

Dear Darth;

What do golf, causing a dead man to walk, returning from somewhere and splitting the sea all involve?

Moses was not striking the path; he was setting forth a path with his staff. This also shows he did not have to know HOW to do it, just that Allah would tell him to do something (with something) and it would happen. Of course, not all of the conversations are shown.

2:61 lends good support to my view on 2:60 and 2:73, because although they were struck with humiliation, the striking sent them forth (which is why they returned). The “setting forth” simply involved the striking of something on them, just like the rock and dead man.

As I have told you, 8:50, 8:12 and 37:93 make perfect sense, especially when viewed with the other verses.

4:34 is talking about steps to reconcile (i.e. prevent divorce). Admonishment to explain and discuss the problem, separation to make her warm to him and then (let us use your preference) a symbolic setting forth with a light push. Causing physical pain does not lead to reconciliation (prevention of divorce).

Well I am glad you admit that “idhrib” has apparently two meanings. Others say it has many meanings, but if you look it can have a maximum of two. Then when we look closer we find it actually has one. Of course people may not agree, which is why I let you have your cake with “strike”. While here, I will point out that “wife-beating” is in self-defence, but striking once (not twice) is not the beating we think of. The verse simply says to “idhrib”, which from the examples in 2:60 and 2:73 etc., can only mean once. Besides, it must be compatible with reconciliation.

All usages of DRB in the Qur’an can be “set forth”, while only some can be inferred as “strike”.

Obeying Allah and His Messenger refers to obeying the entity which results from the relationship between “Allah and His Messenger” (see 9:3 and 45:6). We are of course discussing what the Qur’an actually says, but you must make up your mind – accept “set forth”, or accept “strike” within the principles which surround it. The only reason I am offering is because I know that you want your cake. However, you will not be eating it in front of me.

Your statements about the other religions are subjective, but still I would like to know why I should be a Zoroastrian.

I am not sure where you get your conclusions from. In fact I have a better philosophy than Zoroastrianism, and it is better because it gives a better reason not to be a Muslim than does Zoroastrianism.

So if you are finished, it was Iffo’s responsibility to reply, not yours to repeat yourself.

Cheers.

[MesMorial]

This bears some relevance (diverse learning techniques):

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

Is that video the sort of thing that muslims watch? Is it some obscure way of terrifying muslim children about hell? What was the point of that video apart from it being a distraction from the thread?

sum

[MesMorial]

Hello MesMorial

Is that video the sort of thing that muslims watch? Is it some obscure way of terrifying muslim children about hell? What was the point of that video apart from it being a distraction from the thread?

sum

It is actually the narration which is relevant. Firstly it mentions a dead man walking. Secondly it talks about someone returning.

I am uncertain why you are asking me about relevance, when irrelevance is your specialty.

Cheers.

[MesMorial]

I forgot, I must also find some way to fill in the countdown that I prescribed.