FFI is Out-of-Date; Part of the Problem

[yeezevee]

Spoiler! :

iffo

Again Quran never said symbolic or hit gently it's you making it up.
You tell me this your god wrote pages after pages of never ending utter nonsense , repeating same thing over and over ... Was it difficult for him to say 'it's symbolic beating, or hit gently' ? Was it that difficult??
Stop playing games MM. FFI is doing a good job being honest and telling people this religion is false just leave it.

Don’t know about the honest part, since despite claiming I am lying you could not rebut my conclusions.

You on the other hand are flat out cheating and lying trying to give positive pic of Islam, confusing people.
Eventually we need to get rid of all these stupid religions and move toward finding the truth and you are no help.

Then drop your religion of twisting the Qur’an. That is first stage. I am no help to your religion, but believe me my approach leaves FFI for dead. That is what this thread shows. It is also not ultimately about “Qur’an-alone”, so you really need to stop labelling me.

In the meantime, I don’t want to have to feel sorry for you.



Connedbymo+co;


Labels again. I have shown FFI up, which is why you all need to gather together in group therapy.



ringmaster;


No there are 5 prayers in 20:130. There is dawn, before sunset, night and the parts of the day. The word “part” should be ends. How many times is the sun at its furthest point? 3 times. So that’s 5 prayers.

And zakat was clearly defined in 2:219. If it was implemented as a tax then it would be progressive, like the jizya was (according to ahadith).


Untrustworthy folks were in 9:1-4, but the Sura is not applicable now. It’s an example of what 33:53 is (contextual advice).

9-6 clearly only applies to converts. That verse says nothing about whether they were ignorant or not. Your spin is just another fabrication. The verse clearly applies to people who voluntarily come forward to convert before they are attacked and to avoid being attacked. Verse 9-5 applies to people who have been attacked and choose to convert rather than die.

No, 9:5 already said how to deal with converts. 9:6 applies to idolaters who seek asylum, not who convert. They do not come to hear the word of God. They come for asylum. The reason they are to hear the word of God is that they are ignorant (9:6).

Threats can be worded in many different ways. They can be explicit threats or veiled threats, but they are nevertheless still threats.

Your prophet sent those threats in an effort to spare himself the expenditure of military resources, but if the “invitations” (verse 9-1 to 9-3) were rejected, military action (9-5) followed.

Vague, always vague. You seem to miss 9:7-13 every time. While I think of it, 9:29 does not apply for all times since otherwise it would say “fight non-Muslims. 9:5 is easy because it applies to specific people (9:1-3).

As other participants of this forum (even some who have told me that they don't particularly like me......maybe I am too direct for some.......I suppose some think I am not "diplomatic" enough) have acknowledged before, I know the koran very well.

You have been debunked on every syllable you have written in here, not only by me, but by others such as darth, muhammad bin lyin, sum, and others.

In fact, your spin in many cases has been so verbose and incoherent that you have ended up hanging yourself, such as when you did when you talked about "trends" in language to explain away the correct koranic meaning of "nikah".

Your mutual admiration society of one (namely you) has become the laughing stock of the forum. Judging by how I have seen you received elsewhere, you are the laughing stock of your fellow muslims as well.

Yet I am still here making fools of all of you.

There is no more discussion on “nikah”. It was already shown in 4:23 that the context is marriage.

One cannot be "nice" and be a real muslim. To be a real muslim, one must obey his pimp whoremaster allah (who admits to being a liar) and follow the example of his prophet.

No that point has been destroyed too. Playing with debris won’t help you.



kaimana1;


Let's make it quick.

Your reply to my point on 4:23 is not good enough. The chapter does mention polygamy (4:3).

Your point on 2:230 is based on what?



Cheers.

MesMorial
Don’t know about the honest part, since despite claiming I am lying you could not rebut my conclusions.

What you mean could not rebut?, you lost every debate and I caught you cheating. Saying cutting hand or lashing in public is just for threat and deterrence. Like here, I told you where is it that quran says beat symbolically ?? Can you show me? And you are silent when I said was it difficult for Allah to say "hit gently" instead of pages after pages of threats and stupidity.

Did God created quran for only MM that only you understand the rest could not understand for last 1400 years, he definately failed miserably in his final message to mankind if only one person understood that.

FFI is doing a good job in exposing Islam, I don't personally agree if any member use it to incite hate against muslims and doing hate mongering.

MesMorial knows well that Islam is Out-of-Date and is the the Problem in every other domain of human life., Islam is the problem Social sphere, political sphere, economical sphere, family life and even in personal life. MesMorial is trying to wiggle out of those problems by blaming, Mullahs, Hadith, Quran mistranslation, Quran misinterpretation, Aggressive infidels in on internet etc..etc...

[kaimana1]

There is no more discussion on “nikah”. It was already shown in 4:23 that the context is marriage.

Is that so buddy? Lets take a look at 4:23

حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمْ أُمَّهَاتُكُمْ وَبَنَاتُكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ وَعَمَّاتُكُمْ وَخَالَاتُكُمْ وَبَنَاتُ الْأَخِ وَبَنَاتُ الْأُخْتِ وَأُمَّهَاتُكُمُ اللَّاتِي أَرْضَعْنَكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُم مِّنَ الرَّضَاعَةِ وَأُمَّهَاتُ نِسَائِكُمْ وَرَبَائِبُكُمُ اللَّاتِي فِي حُجُورِكُم مِّن نِّسَائِكُمُ اللَّاتِي دَخَلْتُم بِهِنَّ فَإِن لَّمْ تَكُونُوا دَخَلْتُم بِهِنَّ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَحَلَائِلُ أَبْنَائِكُمُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ أَصْلَابِكُمْ وَأَن تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

There's several key words in the verse in play here the word nisakoom means women not wives as most translators use and waḥalāilu means permitted or allowed.
With that in mind this is how the verse should translate into raw english


Your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your paternal aunts, and your maternal aunts, and the brothers` daughters (nieces), and the sisters` daughters (nieces), and your mothers who breast fed you, and your sisters from the lactation/breast feeding, and your women`s mothers (mothers in-law), and your step- daughters who (are) in your custody from your women whom you entered with them , are forbidden on you, so if you were not entered with them , so no offense/sin on you, and (also forbidden on you are) your sons` allowed/permitted women whom from your backbones/genealogical relations ,and that you COMBINE between the two sisters, except what had preceded, that God was/is forgiving, merciful


In other words the context is who you can ENTER INTO or can have and not have sexual relations with. Plain pure and simple.

Your reply to my point on 4:23 is not good enough

Well, if it wasnt earlier it is now.

The chapter does mention polygamy (4:3

It menations how many women you can have sexual relations under contract-at the same time

Your point on 2:230 is based on what

On the verse itself
فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا فَلَا تَحِلُّ لَهُ مِن بَعْدُ حَتَّىٰ تَنكِحَ زَوْجًا غَيْرَهُ ۗ فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا أَن يَتَرَاجَعَا إِن ظَنَّا أَن يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللَّهِ ۗ وَتِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللَّهِ يُبَيِّنُهَا لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ

key word here is تَنكِحَ That is tankihaa root word nkh

if a man divorces his spouse (zawaj زَوْجًا is used in this verse) then they cannot have relations until she CONSUMATTED or tankihaa with other man and they divorce.

In any case- the word nkh tankihaa clearly means sexual relations in this verse.

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

You are still running away from my question. You and Ghaith have a lot in common in that you both ignore difficult questions and hope that the questions will disappear. I will ask you once again.

Do you find anything unacceptable in the Koran and therefore reject it?

sum

[Centaur]

sorry I dont get the context of using Allah is merciful and forgiving at the end of a verse which explains who you can f..k and who you cannot

[pr126]

sorry I dont get the context of using Allah is merciful and forgiving at the end of a verse which explains who you can f..k and who you cannot

It is the same context that you get in a burger joint when the guy at the till says "Have a nice day" or in this case, "Allah is merciful and forgiving"
It is very unlikely that Allah has ever said any of this. It is tagged on by humans, putting words into Allah's "mouth".

Mind you, the whole Quran is cooked up by Muslims Muhammedans. Allah is just a stone idol, still stuck in the Kaaba.

[MesMorial]

Iffo;


You want to take what I said about hand-chopping out of context of ethics and apply it to Qur’an? I was not talking about Islam; sum was talking about ethics. You didn’t even understand what you were referencing.

Now go and read the thread to see what I meant by “symbolically”.

...



ringmaster;


You keep asking me how many prayers at each time. There is one session of prayers, which is why I gave info on length. The word for “parts” is more accurately “end”, so there are three ends plus the afternoon and the night. That’s five.

You were debunked on zakat; you keep saying things that aren’t even in the Qur’an.

9-5 only deals with converts who surrendered after being attacked. 9-6 deals with converts who converted to spare themselves from attack.

Obviously, since if they were already beaten then they could not come for asylum. Anyone who was not hostile could seek asylum. I am not sure of your point there.

I am clear…always very clear. Verses 9-7 to 9-13 clearly only apply to idolators who are still strong enough to defend themselves against an attack from muslims, as is made abundantly clear from 9-8. They in no way absolve 9-5 or 9-6. If 9-5 and 9-6 were meant to be absolved, they would not be there in the first place.

As I have said many times on FFI, Sura 9 was contextual revelation designed to make Muslims do a specific thing in a specific situation. This is because the people were not trustworthy and were still hostile (9:7-13). The people in 9:7-13 are the same as those in 9:5-6; don’t try to say otherwise. If Allah said they were untrustworthy, believers had to believe it.

Well, that does you it seems.



darth;

Why a rope around her neck? What did she encourage him that she should die? What was the crime that was so severe? Why will his hands be ruined? Why will he perish? Why the 3-fold punishment. You have gone on for so many pages and at least two threads without answering this.
(I will not get into the argument of whether fire means hell or earthly flames since you have a habit of losing track)

“Hands” implies “works”. Everything that happens to him is part of one punishment, and since one must die to go to Hell, I cannot see a 3-fold punishment. There is just one.

The metaphor of the firewood-bearer is clear enough, and the fibre of the palm in her neck is suggestive. A wife looks after a husband. Interesting metaphor.

His wealth is mentioned in 111.2. You are saying that in the entire surah only 111.2 is needed? The other verses can be thrown away?
Why then does this allah waste his time and ours detailing all of abu lahab's punishment? Again, I ask - why is his hands ruined, why does he perish and his wife hung?
At this point - all you need to do is admit that you have no idea, but can come up with some spin.
Telling us we don't need to know is not an acceptable response.

To make the point. Your questions are not actually valid (because I’ve already explained), so be happy with that. I know it refutes you, but don’t blame me.

The word, mess, the word - chastity/modesty how close is the word used to private parts etc.

To guard chastity one must guard one’s private parts. You are probably using the wrong word (it’s why I asked).

Wisdom from mess and the quran - Steps for a suspicious man to take - advice, withhold sex and beat up wife. This results in a happy marriage...

Why are you pretending I haven’t already explained? It is why you are a quivering mess.

You still don't see the contradiction in your mind -
You want to
Beat a wife to avoid divorce.
and
Divorce a wife to avoid beating her.

Your life if thus followed would be an unending cycle

marriage-beat-divorce-marriage-beat-divorce-marriage-beat-divorce.......

But none of this spin removes the central point of this argument (if you have not already forgotten it) - quran still says "beat"

I never actually said a man should divorce to avoid a non-harmful strike. Your point doesn’t go anywhere.

Did I use the word "unnatural". I believe I used the word "wierdos". Weirdos to me are those who would let an unproven religious dogma dictate their habits and life. This includes those weirdos that keep spinning and weaving trying to defend an idiotic 7th century book.
By the way, Not having sex can be quite a natural state too - for example, right now as I am typing, I am not having sex. When i go in to work I spend nearly 10 hours not having sex. It is still a natural state, you know.
I was helping out delivering packages for an elderly couple sometime ago. Very old (over 95) happily married couple. But they are very fragile and need assistance and certainly are in no shape for sex. But, very natural state for them.

That just shows how you have to duck and weave and still fail. In other words, my point was valid and you have to concoct special out-of-context examples.

You say it is very clear. That is because you are projecting what you want it to be on to the verse. That is not an objective analysis. An objective analysis would show you that one cannot say with certainty whether the quran meant a minimum wait period of 4 months or a maximum wait period of 4 months (unless of course you refer to external texts)


The rest of your post is the usual repetitive gibberish which I am going to ignore

Good, consider yourself debunked. What I said is very easy to explain to unbiased folks.



yeezevee;


No, I am blaming this forum, and exposing it well. It’s slightly busy with panic.



kaimana;

Is that so buddy?

Mhmm.

Lets take a look at 4:23

حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمْ أُمَّهَاتُكُمْ وَبَنَاتُكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ وَعَمَّاتُكُمْ وَخَالَاتُكُمْ وَبَنَاتُ الْأَخِ وَبَنَاتُ الْأُخْتِ وَأُمَّهَاتُكُمُ اللَّاتِي أَرْضَعْنَكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُم مِّنَ الرَّضَاعَةِ وَأُمَّهَاتُ نِسَائِكُمْ وَرَبَائِبُكُمُ اللَّاتِي فِي حُجُورِكُم مِّن نِّسَائِكُمُ اللَّاتِي دَخَلْتُم بِهِنَّ فَإِن لَّمْ تَكُونُوا دَخَلْتُم بِهِنَّ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَحَلَائِلُ أَبْنَائِكُمُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ أَصْلَابِكُمْ وَأَن تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

There's several key words in the verse in play here the word nisakoom means women not wives as most translators use and waḥalāilu means permitted or allowed.
With that in mind this is how the verse should translate into raw english


Your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your paternal aunts, and your maternal aunts, and the brothers` daughters (nieces), and the sisters` daughters (nieces), and your mothers who breast fed you, and your sisters from the lactation/breast feeding, and your women`s mothers (mothers in-law), and your step- daughters who (are) in your custody from your women whom you entered with them , are forbidden on you, so if you were not entered with them , so no offense/sin on you, and (also forbidden on you are) your sons` allowed/permitted women whom from your backbones/genealogical relations ,and that you COMBINE between the two sisters, except what had preceded, that God was/is forgiving, merciful


In other words the context is who you can ENTER INTO or can have and not have sexual relations with. Plain pure and simple.

When meaning “sex”, I think that “nikah” means “consummation of marriage”, as it is always related to marriage. In order to have sex, people must be married. Thus when it says “forbidden to you…” it means those whom you cannot contract marriage with in order to have sex with. This is logical since fornication is forbidden. ringmaster’s entire point here was that it allowed rape with captives, which is laughable. 4:22-25 goes through a list of people with whom one cannot have legal marriage with. This includes those who are “guarded” (in marriage), excluding believing captives (their marriage with non-Muslims is dissolvable, should they wish to marry a Muslim).

As for the point about sisters, it says you should not be in wedlock between two sisters at once. In case you did not notice, it helped my point.

It menations how many women you can have sexual relations under contract-at the same time

“Under contract”. Well done.

On the verse itself
فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا فَلَا تَحِلُّ لَهُ مِن بَعْدُ حَتَّىٰ تَنكِحَ زَوْجًا غَيْرَهُ ۗ فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا أَن يَتَرَاجَعَا إِن ظَنَّا أَن يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللَّهِ ۗ وَتِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللَّهِ يُبَيِّنُهَا لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ

key word here is تَنكِحَ That is tankihaa root word nkh

if a man divorces his spouse (zawaj زَوْجًا is used in this verse) then they cannot have relations until she CONSUMATTED or tankihaa with other man and they divorce.

In any case- the word nkh tankihaa clearly means sexual relations in this verse.

Under contract, translating to default marriage (i.e. happy marriage with sex).

Thank you.

[MesMorial]

Hello MesMorial

You are still running away from my question. You and Ghaith have a lot in common in that you both ignore difficult questions and hope that the questions will disappear. I will ask you once again.

Do you find anything unacceptable in the Koran and therefore reject it?

sum

There is nothing difficult about your enquiries. You are like a mechanical commentary, and no-one is interested.

[MesMorial]

And still, FFI sinks.

[MesMorial]

Now I will resume my break, but don't consider me gone.

There is more to it than this thread/forum.


Cheers.


P.S. I am somewhat worried about ringmaster's mental stability, so look after him.

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

You are still running away from my question. It is certainly not the case that no-one is interested. I would suspect that all those who read your posts are very interested in your views and beliefs regarding the Koran. I am not surprised that you are going to have a break as you will be hoping that I will let the matter drift.

I will wait for your return unless you want to let us know if there is anything in the Koran that you find unacceptable and therefore reject. Will you be letting us know?

sum

[kaimana1]

In other words the context is who you can ENTER INTO or can have and not have sexual relations with. Plain pure and simple.[/quote]

When meaning “sex”, I think that “nikah” means “consummation of marriage”, as it is always related to marriage. In order to have sex, people must be married. Thus when it says “forbidden to you…” it means those whom you cannot contract marriage with in order to have sex with. This is logical since fornication is forbidden. ringmaster’s entire point here was that it allowed rape with captives, which is laughable. 4:22-25 goes through a list of people with whom one cannot have legal marriage with. This includes those who are “guarded” (in marriage), excluding believing captives (their marriage with non-Muslims is dissolvable, should they wish to marry a Muslim).

Well, nikah means to intertwine or have sex with the contract is the same thing as buying a camel or horse. It is basically, prostitution. I was waiting to see if you would figure that out on your own- because you are so unemotional and unbiased

4:22-25 goes through a list of people with whom one cannot have legal marriage with. This includes those who are “guarded” (in marriage), excluding believing captives (their marriage with non-Muslims is dissolvable, should they wish to marry a Muslim).

Well, it goes through a list of people you cant have sexual relations with as well as those whom you can. And no the marriage of non muslim captives is dissolved on the spot. your right hands possesion proves that beyond a doubt.

As for the point about sisters, it says you should not be in wedlock between two sisters at once. In case you did not notice, it helped my point.

Huhhh no it says you cant combine with two sisters at same time in other words you can't have a sister sandwich.

“Under contract”. Well done.

Do you know what that contract means?

Under contract, translating to default marriage (i.e. happy marriage with sex).

Thank you

No how would you be happy knowing that you cant get back together with your ex until you screw some other guy under a fuk contract?

Your sense of happy marriage is quite disturbing.

Thank you.[/quote]

[ringmaster]

ringmaster;

You keep asking me how many prayers at each time. There is one session of prayers,

The koran gives no information on the number of sessions. It doesn't even use the word "session". That’s your invention.

which is why I gave info on length.

Also your invention. The koran does not say that.

The word for “parts” is more accurately “end”,

Another fabrication. The word “end” is not used. You are using that word, but whoremaster allah does not. The ends of the day are merely more parts of the day. The number of “parts” is not defined.

so there are three ends plus the afternoon and the night. That’s five.

Bitchboy allah does not say “ends”. That Mesmorial’s invention, and Mesmorial is not allah.

You were debunked on zakat; you keep saying things that aren’t even in the Qur’an.

That’s because the terms are not there.

Obviously, since if they were already beaten then they could not come for asylum. Anyone who was not hostile could seek asylum. I am not sure of your point there.

It’s simple logic:

(1) 9-5 deals with those that are attacked. If they don’t accept islam, they are “untrustworthy” and must be killed. If they accept islam, don’t kill them.
(2) 9-6, don’t kill a person who voluntarily converts before being attacked.
(3) 9-7 to 9-13, make a truce (temporary peace) with those who are still strong enough to defend themselves, and continue to use whatever taquiya, subterfuge etc. that you can. If you reach the point where you are stronger that they, you attack them again

That basically sums in up. That basically sums up the history of Islamic conquest as well.

As I have said many times on FFI, Sura 9 was contextual revelation designed to make Muslims do a specific thing in a specific situation.

Pure invention.

Bitchboy allah does not restrict the conditions of sura 9. You and muslim apologists are inventing them.

This is because the people were not trustworthy and were still hostile (9:7-13).

No. It merely means they were still strong enough to defend themselves. Muslims don’t like people who can defend themselves. In the eyes of muslims, people who defend themselves are not fighting fairly.

A muslim's idea of a fair fight is to fight people who cannot defend themselves, especially women, as evidenced by verse 4-34.

The people in 9:7-13 are the same as those in 9:5-6; don’t try to say otherwise. If Allah said they were untrustworthy, believers had to believe it.

(1) I don’t say otherwise. The koran says otherwise.
(2) Of course anybody who does not believe in bitchboy allah would be considered “untrustworthy”. Being the attention whore that allah is, it cannot be otherwise.

[ringmaster]

Now I will resume my break, but don't consider me gone.

There is more to it than this thread/forum.


Cheers.


P.S. I am somewhat worried about ringmaster's mental stability, so look after him.

So finally you admit that we are getting under your skin.



PS.....re: verse 24-41.....don't forget to pray every time after you fart. That does not contravene said verse, and therefore attention whore allah would surely be pleased.

[darth]

“Hands” implies “works”. Everything that happens to him is part of one punishment, and since one must die to go to Hell, I cannot see a 3-fold punishment. There is just one.

Three fold punishment - abu lahab's hands ruined, death, wife hung. I did not include the fire because it is left to one's interpretation whether it means hell or earthly flames. The actual word used for hell is not used here. But if you include hell that would be a 4 fold punishment.

What were his crimes that his hands should be ruined, he should die and his wife should die? Why is his wife being killed? What were the crimes that warrants his wife's hanging?

You claim that "hand" means "work" in the quran. Is that your case for a clear quran? Are you going to next claim that "kill" means "kiss"?

The metaphor of the firewood-bearer is clear enough, and the fibre of the palm in her neck is suggestive. A wife looks after a husband. Interesting metaphor.

What is clear? That a wife should be punished for looking after her husband?

To make the point. Your questions are not actually valid (because I’ve already explained), so be happy with that. I know it refutes you, but don’t blame me.

What exactly are you refuting? I have not made any claim or proposed any theory regarding 111. I am merely asking questions which you are unable to answer. These are simple questions - who was abu lahab that he merits an entire sura? What were his crimes that he was given a 3-fold punishment.

To guard chastity one must guard one’s private parts. You are probably using the wrong word (it’s why I asked).

Beating around the bush. I checked that verse word by word. Do you agree that it is "chastity" as in relation to guarding one's private parts? Can you now answer without evasion my main question - can a wife be "chaste" by guarding her private parts from her husband? Note that if you answer "yes", it will demolish your other statement in previous post that sex is necessary in an islamic marriage.

Wisdom from mess and the quran - Steps for a suspicious man to take - advice, withhold sex and beat up wife. This results in a happy marriage...

Why are you pretending I haven’t already explained? It is why you are a quivering mess.

You have explained very well. It is very clear. See underlined above

I never actually said a man should divorce to avoid a non-harmful strike. Your point doesn’t go anywhere.

Ok, let me modify it
You want to
Beat (painfully if necessary but non-harmful) a wife to avoid divorce.
and
Divorce a wife to avoid beating her (causing injury).

Your life if thus followed would be an unending cycle

marriage-beat (painfully if necessary) -divorce-marriage-beat (painfully if necessary)-divorce-marriage-beat (painfully if necessary)-divorce.......


You are clutching at straws. The point still remains - beating is beating. The quran allows beating of wife

Good, consider yourself debunked. What I said is very easy to explain to unbiased folks.

Unbiased? Buddy, you have no clue about objective analysis. You are biased towards the quran and can see no wrong in it. Your arguments reflect this. The only people you can convince are those that want to be convinced (similar muslims). Only a biased muslim will read the word "beat" and then pretend it is splitting the air or some such thing.

[piscohot]

Again, "Islam" is not the problem; it's people's approach.

can you elaborate on this?

what do you mean by 'people's approach'?

what would be the 'right' approach to 'Islam'?

who are the people? muslims or non muslims?

[antineoETC]

Is a slave a captive?

Does someone have to be captured to be a slave?

So "captive" as used in the Qur'an = "Slave" under all circumstances?

[ringmaster]

Again, "Islam" is not the problem; it's people's approach.

can you elaborate on this?

what do you mean by 'people's approach'?

what would be the 'right' approach to 'Islam'?

who are the people? muslims or non muslims?

Mesmorial's approach to to try to rewrite the koran.

His approach includes voluminous amounts of verbiage in order to try to come across as some sort of intellectual. He hasn't figured out that his verbal flatulence does not make him an intellectual.

[iffo]

MesMorial
Iffo;


You want to take what I said about hand-chopping out of context of ethics and apply it to Qur’an? I was not talking about Islam; sum was talking about ethics. You didn’t even understand what you were referencing.

Now go and read the thread to see what I meant by “symbolically”.

Only you can understand what you say, no normal person can.
Point is,
1. you said hand cutting and public flogging is only for deterrence, and you are lying, it is the actual punishment your god wants for thieves and for fornication.
2. You said beating wife is symbolic beating, again you are lying, quran never says its symbolic.

And I challanged you on both to show me where quran says what you are saying, you making your own stories.

[piscohot]

Again, "Islam" is not the problem; it's people's approach.

can you elaborate on this?

what do you mean by 'people's approach'?

what would be the 'right' approach to 'Islam'?

who are the people? muslims or non muslims?

Mesmorial's approach to to try to rewrite the koran.

His approach includes voluminous amounts of verbiage in order to try to come across as some sort of intellectual. He hasn't figured out that his verbal flatulence does not make him an intellectual.

ringmaster,

we are beginning to see new 'approaches' to Islam and the quran by muslims. I wonder if this is the new trend: realised the religion is horribly flawed with the current quran/translation and so make up new ones. We have seen efforts by Mughal, AhmedBahgat (actually his is more like removing (translated) words that could subject the quran to question or ridicule and replacing it with gibberish) and now MesMorial talk about another approach. Haven't enough 'approaches' been made to Islam and the quran in the past 1450 years?
Does it mean that since the beginning of Islam/quran, the wrong 'approach' had been applied and hence now there is another new and correct 'approach' to Islam?
I wonder which angel inspired these guys to the new 'approach'.

[ringmaster]

ringmaster,

we are beginning to see new 'approaches' to Islam and the quran by muslims. I wonder if this is the new trend: realised the religion is horribly flawed with the current quran/translation and so make up new ones. We have seen efforts by Mughal, AhmedBahgat (actually his is more like removing (translated) words that could subject the quran to question or ridicule and replacing it with gibberish) and now MesMorial talk about another approach. Haven't enough 'approaches' been made to Islam and the quran in the past 1450 years?
Does it mean that since the beginning of Islam/quran, the wrong 'approach' had been applied and hence now there is another new and correct 'approach' to Islam?
I wonder which angel inspired these guys to the new 'approach'.

I think it is much more straight-forward than that. Muslims have been trying to deceive the infidel with the more peaceful Mecca verses for a long time. Before I studied the religion thoroughly, that was the song and dance I heard all the time. It was when it was plain to me that their behavior did not square up with the peaceful verses that I studied the literature.

The interesting thing about studying it is that one quickly realizes that one need not know very much of the Koran to understand Islamic law. Most of the verses in the Koran are the more peaceful Mecca verses, but the Koran is not in chronological order, and the peaceful verses are abrogated. The only verses that matter are the latter Medina verses. When muslims harp upon the Mecca verses to absolve the Koran, their motive can be none other than deception. To me, it is as straight-forward as that.

The same goes for that “Koran-only” rubbish. The hadith are ugly. Even muslims cannot deny that, so they apparently believe that the only way they can defend their religion is to disavow the hadith, or to claim that the hadith are invalid (“weak hadith”). It’s only the Koran, and as Mesmorial did early on when he came on the forum, many concentrate on the peaceful Mecca verses. That tactic isn’t even original.

It is also evident to anybody with any degree of literacy that 4 of the 5 pillars of islam require the hadith to be fully explained. So we have his new “approach”. Somehow, by substituting, inserting, or simply rewriting whole verses, the pillars somehow appear. Problem is, the words are simply not there. It’s an “approach” of outright desperation.

It’s all about deception. Muslims have been trying to deceive the infidel since the time of the prophet. Mesmorial and Ahmed Beergut are just different twists to the same basic objective. It’s all about turning the infidel into muslims, by hook or by crook. If full-blown Islamic law became the law of the land, I am quite positive that those two Salafists would show their true colors.