Things in Islam I am curious about...

[doorster]

Re: no Its about evangelising by distorting

.....

 

[Hugo]

Re: no Its about evangelising by distorting

I got the fight thing from watching the "discussion" between you and Skye

and I got the twisting thing from the following lines:

• I think you mean the other way round,
• it sounds like you are putting the prophet before God

in view of above-mentioned 2 lines your protestation of innocence are invisible to me

So according to you, I am looking for a 'fight', I 'twist what people say' and now you call me more or less a 'liar'. Is this you normal way of dealing with questions? Perhaps we should all note what Dante said "Some have justice in their hearts, thinking before they let their judgements leave the bow, but your people keep it handy on their lips."

 

[جوري]

Re: Sourcs, what are they?

This is quite an interesting statement but I am puzzled by it:

1. I may be misunderstanding this but are you saying the mother of Abraham was one of Lot's daughters? Or are you saying that Job's mother was one of Lot's daughters?

2. As far as I know, there is only one source for the Job story and that is found in the Hebrew Bible so can you explain what sources you are using to get a lineage for Job and his link with Abraham?

Greetings,
You are puzzled by a great many things--
And no, that is not what I have written at all-- I think you simply want to look for things that aren't there, either to tickle the rest of us or to lie to yourself? I can't be sure of which!

Now, I have said there were several accepted theories to Job's lineage!
either directly to the Abraham line or the Lot line-- Lot was Abraham's nephew, therefore, Lot's daughter can't be Abraham's mother, how you achieved that conclusion from what I have written is beyond me (but it had some comical value for which we thank you).. you seem to have a whole thread going on research methods, yet simple deductive reasoning escapes you? Is it that you are unwilling to learn or simply don't want to? what does the word 'or' denote in your book? the dictionary defines it as : Introducing an alternative

We have the Quran and the Hadith familiarize yourself with them first hand and not from one of your fundie sites as it turns what they indoctrinate you with has no bearing on the truth, perhaps that is why Muslims are so refractory to your futile attempts? Don't seem to want to go back there, to the enlightened path of the dark ages...

all the best

 

[جوري]

Re: no Its about evangelising by distorting

So according to you, I am looking for a 'fight', I 'twist what people say' and now you call me more or less a 'liar'. Is this you normal way of dealing with questions? Perhaps we should all note what Dante said "Some have justice in their hearts, thinking before they let their judgements leave the bow, but your people keep it handy on their lips."

I'll have to agree with Br Doorster on that..
You are indeed deceptive
you do twist words around, just given what you have made of what I have written..

and you often like to Quote dead folks (even if they themselves are plagiarizers) at attempts to flex intellect that does not exist within your mind or to makeup for not having it all together..

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Re: Sourcs, what are they?

Greetings, You are puzzled by a great many things--

Hugo- you are right on the score

And no, that is not what I have written at all-- I think you simply want to look for things that aren't there, either to tickle the rest of us or to lie to yourself? I can't be sure of which!

There are several lineages that we have to prophet Job, all of them connect him with Abraham or asaker, whose mother was the daughter of lot.. but generally excepted that he was of the lineage of Abraham.
all the best

Hugo - The above is what you wrote, that it does not say what you meant is not something I can do much about. Here it seems to me that anyone would be confused with you linking Abraham and Asaker with 'or' as I thought you might be talking about Ibn Asakir who said that Job's mother was the daughter of Lot.

Now, I have said there were several accepted theories to Job's lineage!
either directly to the Abraham line or the Lot line-- Lot was Abraham's nephew, therefore, Lot's daughter can't be Abraham's mother, how you achieved that conclusion from what I have written is beyond me (but it had some comical value for which we thank you)..

Hugo - look at what you wrote and then perhaps you will see why I asked the question.

you seem to have a whole thread going on research methods, yet simple deductive reasoning escapes you? Is it that you are unwilling to learn or simply don't want to? what does the word 'or' denote in your book? the dictionary defines it as : Introducing an alternative

Hugo - Lot was Abraham's nephew not his cousin. I am willing to learn but your answers escape me. You say there are theories so what are they and what authority to they have? The only one I know is the story by Ibn Kathir and he got it from Ibn Ishaaq and as far as I can see there is nothing so say where Ibn Ishaaq got the story. That is all I have been asking. If you don't know then fair enough we can end the discussion here. If my reasoning fails me then that is something that is common to us all.

We have the Quran and the Hadith familiarize yourself with them first hand and not from one of your fundie sites as it turns what they indoctrinate you with has no bearing on the truth, perhaps that is why Muslims are so refractory to your futile attempts? Don't seem to want to go back there, to the enlightened path of the dark ages...

all the best

I thought this was a thread about asking questions but now it seem I have to bring answers. The facts are as far as I know that Lot has no relation to Job and all we know about Job is found in the Bible and indeed we know even less about Lot. The only hint, and it is a very tenuous one is that Job is dated at about the same time as Abraham.

 

[جوري]

Re: Sourcs, what are they?

Hugo- you are right on the score

Hugo - The above is what you wrote, that it does not say what you meant is not something I can do much about. Here it seems to me that anyone would be confused with you linking Abraham and Asaker with 'or' as I thought you might be talking about Ibn Asakir who said that Job's mother was the daughter of Lot.

I think it is quite clear save for your selective understanding..
there are several lineages (denotes) more than one no? I think any one with basic understanding of English can get that much out of what I have written, several and lineages doesn't mean one lineage!

Hugo - look at what you wrote and then perhaps you will see why I asked the question.

I have and I think it is mere descent unto word play on your part and that is actually being generous!

Hugo - Lot was Abraham's nephew not his cousin. I am willing to learn but your answers escape me. You say there are theories so what are they and what authority to they have? The only one I know is the story by Ibn Kathir and he got it from Ibn Ishaaq and as far as I can see there is nothing so say where Ibn Ishaaq got the story. That is all I have been asking. If you don't know then fair enough we can end the discussion here. If my reasoning fails me then that is something that is common to us all.

Indeed Lot was his nephew not cousin, as I have stated so above several hours prior to your response, as for authority, I believe I have told you to familiarize yourself with the Quran and hadith first hand?

the fact that you don't know where he is mentioned in the Quran in the least, already tells me that you are not only lousy at research, but you haven't done what you alleged, which is being really well studied in the Quran and sunna.. by what authority then are you arguing here?
of course I have already discovered that from the first time you argued here about the so-called eradication of Jews in Yathrib while failing to account as to how they got there to begin with!

I thought this was a thread about asking questions but now it seem I have to bring answers. The facts are as far as I know that Lot has no relation to Job and all we know about Job is found in the Bible and indeed we know even less about Lot. The only hint, and it is a very tenuous one is that Job is dated at about the same time as Abraham.

To me you have no scientific or research integrity, and I personally prefer to avoid replying to you as I can see through the charade, I wouldn't have replied back save that someone pointed my attention to the thread.. and I rather found your conclusions comical.. but then I figured, perhaps that is what you were going for?
good luck on your quest

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Re: Fallacious Reasoning avoids the truth

I'll have to agree with Br Doorster on that..
You are indeed deceptive. You do twist words around, just given what you have made of what I have written..

Hugo - this is just a fallacy called ad populum. If that were not enough you compound it by using an ad hominem argument.

and you often like to Quote dead folks (even if they themselves are plagiarizers) at attempts to flex intellect that does not exist within your mind or to makeup for not having it all together..

Hugo - another ad hominem argument and its just as much a fallacy as your first one.

all the best

Every one of your posts contains a quote. It seems to me you are also insulting your own scholars here as they are all dead.

So far in just a few questions where I have insulted no one I have been accused of: being refractory, twisting words, no understanding, looking for faults, illogical, comical, unwilling to learn, falsification of intellect and worst of all a liar.

None of them are acceptable forms of argument and are all logical fallacies of one sort or another. Fine, if that is your only armoury then there is little I can do about it but in my view resorting to such tactics will convince no one.

 

[جوري]

Re: Fallacious Reasoning avoids the truth

Hugo - this is just a fallacy called ad populum. If that were not enough you compound it by using an ad hominem argument.

It is neither-- you are in fact guilty of doing said things.. hiding behind definitions of logical fallacies doesn't deter from the fact of the matter!

Hugo - another ad hominem argument and its just as much a fallacy as your first one.

see previous reply!

Every one of your posts contains a quote. It seems to me you are also insulting your own scholars here as they are all dead.

which scholar have I insulted?

So far in just a few questions where I have insulted no one I have been accused of: being refractory, twisting words, no understanding, looking for faults, illogical, comical, unwilling to learn, falsification of intellect and worst of all a liar.

You have no research integrity and indeed that is insulting, not only to our intellects but mocks the very notion you wish to evoke as if possessing!

None of them are acceptable forms of argument and are all logical fallacies of one sort or another. Fine, if that is your only armoury then there is little I can do about it but in my view resorting to such tactics will convince no one.

each one of your posts has been properly refuted, your unwillingness to accept replies by deranging topics in latter posts and descent into word play and adages can only be met with given replies. from this entire post we've learned nothing there was no exchange as is usually the case in any post of this section where you partake-- none questions get met with none answers!

all the best

 

[جوري]

addendum to previous..
yes: Ibn Asaker narrated that his (job's) mother was a daughter of Lot (pbuh).

 

[Hugo]

Re: Sourcs, what are they?

the fact that you don't know where he is mentioned in the Quran in the least, already tells me that you are not only lousy at research, but you haven't done what you alleged, which is being really well studied in the Quran and sunna.. by what authority then are you arguing here?

Hugo - the earliest sources are Biblical ones, so have you read the 42 chapters of Job? Job is mentioned in the well known verses Quran 38:41-43 whether he is mentioned elsewhere I am unsure in the Arabic version. The word(s) "job" appears 4 time in 4 verse in the Pickthal translation. I have already mentioned the Ibn Ishaaq source and "JOB (aiyub)" appear in 2 hadith(s) in Bukhari translation so tghere is not as far as I can see a huge amounts of data on the subject to research.

of course I have already discovered that from the first time you argued here about the so-called eradication of Jews in Yathrib while failing to account as to how they got there to begin with!

Hugo - if I recall, I said it was uncertain, meaning no one knows for sure. However, my question is what does it matter as far as the massacre was concerned?

To me you have no scientific or research integrity, and I personally prefer to avoid replying to you as I can see through the charade, I wouldn't have replied back save that someone pointed my attention to the thread.. and I rather found your conclusions comical.. but then I figured, perhaps that is what you were going for?
good luck on your quest

all the best

Again you answer is of the form ad hominem and you have simply added to your list of insults. If you do not want to reply to me then don't get involved.

 

[جوري]

Re: Sourcs, what are they?

Hugo - the earliest sources are Biblical ones, so have you read the 42 chapters of Job? Job is mentioned in the well known verses Quran 38:41-43 whether he is mentioned elsewhere I am unsure in the Arabic version. The word(s) "job" appears 4 time in 4 verse in the Pickthal translation. I have already mentioned the Ibn Ishaaq source.

is that all what google yielded to your fingertips to make you instantly a scholar?..
just letting you in on a tip, Muslims don't 'J' talk, and prophets need not be mentioned by name ( a special secret be known, to the few who have actually taken the time to read Quran) for them to be the topic of the subject matter!



there are also 16475 of Bukhari and Muslim Ahadiths and that is not even touching
Sunan Abi Da'ud, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Sughra, Sunan Ibn Maja


I am sure if you go through all of them you'll find something.. such as:

Abu Huraira (ra) narrated that the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) said:
"While Job was naked, taking a bath, a swarm of locusts fell on him, and he
started collecting them in his garment. His Lord called him: 'O Job! Have I
not made you too rich to need what you see?' He said: 'Yes, O Lord! But I
cannot shun Your Blessings"
(Bukhari)

many prophets are mentioned in the Quran and sunnah that the bible can't account for..
Luqman
Ahel Al kahf
zhu alqernyen
A'ad
Thamd
Erum
even the so-called massacred Jews!

So what would you like to have achieved at the end of this exercise?
should having these stories in your bible hold some significance for Muslims?

Hugo - if I recall, I said it was uncertain, meaning no one knows for sure. However, my question is what does it matter as far as the massacre was concerned?

Actually it is known for sure how they settled there, and when!-- I already covered it all in some detail, all you need do is actually read replies given you or use the search feature.
There was no 'massacre' as far as Islamic sources, and Islamic sources are indeed what you've used originally to assert your point --no? There was a breech of Hudna and Jews succumbing to the punishment prescribed them in the OT which I quoted when I made my points prior.

If you are going to go on about the Jews of Yathrib it is best to take the entire islamic account of the event, not your desired spin on what happened or you'd be better off denying their existence all together, since their settlement denotes that it was Ishmael being sacrificed not Issac and that Abraham (p) was in that area, and your ever accurate bible had Abraham incapable of travel beyond Palestine ( but I really don't want to go that circular path with you again and again!) It is an exercise in futility!


lastly, don't make posts using my SN or quoting me, if you don't expect a reply--
Your beliefs are your own and are of no concern to me--You want to worship, Jesus or mary, the holy spirit of the father, or the wise men or saints or anthony's tantooni pigs, be my guest!

all the best

 

[Follower]

Why do you keep jumping to the Old Testament times when we were speaking of the crucifixion and Mohammad?

Do you realize the span of time?
Moses 1500-1350 BC
Jesus 1-33 AD
Muhammad 570-632 AD

Did secular historians even exist in Moses time!? What we do have is archeology that supports and proves that many of the events that occurred in Old Testament times happened. Where there is history the Holy Bible is accurate.

Knowing that the Holy Bible is GOD's Word and He protects His Word then the miracles given to Moses must be accurate. Why could't Moses write all of the story yet have someone finish the last bit about his eath and burial? Would this second author then claim all of Moses' work?

'You also had a problem with the hadiths being written later - ok with that logic so is the NT - you also ignored the youtbe video which shows contradcition of Pauls story - here it is again'

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/689-does-the-bible-contain-contradictions

con⋅tra⋅dic⋅tion  /ˌkɒntrəˈdɪkʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-truh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4. direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5. a contradictory act, fact, etc.

What disbelievers of the Holy Bible see as contradictions is simply fuller meaning.

LOL!! Zapharn - 'again i call you once again a hypocirte - not beacsue its name calling because its preety clear you are one - your trying to find "secular" sources for an 600 AD backward arabian society and yet are not willing to do the same for the OT - thats open hypocricy.'

These people were merchants traveling meeting people from all over. So we can find a secular historian at the time of Jesus but not 600 years later?

 

[جوري]

Why do you keep jumping to the Old Testament times when we were speaking of the crucifixion and Mohammad?

A question you should direct yo your fellow illuminate, oh learned one!~

Do you realize the span of time?
Moses 1500-1350 BC
Jesus 1-33 AD
Muhammad 570-632 AD

Thank God for your presence here to enlighten us of that.. how about the rest, you know the earth being only 6000 yrs old as per your bible? or did history cease once your god died?

Did secular historians even exist in Moses time!? What we do have is archeology that supports and proves that many of the events that occurred in Old Testament times happened. Where there is history the Holy Bible is accurate.

your bibles can't support themselves in their passages let alone withstand to history!

Knowing that the Holy Bible is GOD's Word and He protects His Word then the miracles given to Moses must be accurate. Why could't Moses write all of the story yet have someone finish the last bit about his eath and burial? Would this second author then claim all of Moses' work?

are there any posts here of Moses?

'You also had a problem with the hadiths being written later - ok with that logic so is the NT - you also ignored the youtbe video which shows contradcition of Pauls story - here it is again'

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/689-does-the-bible-contain-contradictions

I think Dr. Bart Eherman's analysis of your bibles is incredible.. ought to take your head out of the sand and read it sometimes..

http://www.bartdehrman.com/index.htm

con⋅tra⋅dic⋅tion  /ˌkɒntrəˈdɪkʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-truh-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4. direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5. a contradictory act, fact, etc.

Glad you finally managed to enroll yourself in some nightly classes.. starting with English is good!

What disbelievers of the Holy Bible see as contradictions is simply fuller meaning.

http://www.bartdehrman.com/index.htm

oh I'd say full of something indeed..

These people were merchants traveling meeting people from all over. So we can find a secular historian at the time of Jesus but not 600 years later?

Another nonsensical statement.. we thank you for taking up webspace!

all the best

 

[Follower]

How long is a day for GOD?

2 Peter 3
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

LOL! Gossamer Zaphran believes that the arabs were a backwards group during Mohammad's time. They did not live in a bubble!! There were Christians and Jews in the area. 'These people were merchants traveling meeting people from all over. So we can find a secular historian at the time of Jesus but not 600 years later? '

LOL! Gossamer - This discussion with Zaphran is all about my asking if there is proof that the angel was Gabriel and that he actually spoke to Mohammad. Are there any witnesses?

Zaphran woun't answer but needs me to prove that Moses spoke to GOD. I give him what I have and yet he still can not give me the evidence I need about Mohammad and Gabriel.

This leads me to the answer, for no answer is actually the answer!! No. There is absolutely no proof, no witnesses that the angel was Gabriel and that he actually spoke to Mohammad.

OK, I can move on to another topic.

 

[جوري]

it is funny how many produced a list of witnesses to Gabriel's presence, me br. Yusufnoor..

it is just so futile replying back to you.. here is something suitable for your level!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[GreyKode]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Follower Refuted. I think now he understands.

 

[جوري]

Follower Refuted.

I figured it is the only 'phraseology' he understands..
about five six times that I have been a witness to that he asks the same question and again and again someone gives him a full reply with citations and links, he is simply not interested.. he wants to believe what he believes in face of scholars, critics, history, and sadly not only does HE NOT HAVE A GRIP ON CHRISTIANITY, he is making the leap over to exegesis of Islamic text on an Islamic forum..

It is just useless, I don't understand why they keep allowing him to post here.. I mean there must be at least one forum rule against spam or raising an issue that has been addressed more than once if by the same person? :rollseyes

 

[Grace Seeker]

If I might get back to actually asking and having questions answered, please.

it's not allowed Now to prostrate to any other than Allah, before it was allowed, in front of kings and parents-figures of authority- but nowadays it's only reserved for God.

it might not be a person's intent to worship, but it is mainly used-in Islam at least-to indicate worship, thus it isn't automatically worship, but does strongly imply it.

You say, "It's not allowed Now..." Why would this change?

I can understand that you might not have a revealed answer, so please speculate if you must.



Can you give examples of any other things that have changed over time?

 

[Grace Seeker]

it was only EVER allowed twice; once in Quran 2:34

And when We told the angels, "Prostrate yourselves before Adam!" -they all prostrated themselves, save Ibiis, who refused and gloried in his arrogance: and thus he became one of those who deny the truth. - Asad

But I've also already been told:

Well, speaking as a Muslim I would never prostrate to anyone or anything other than Allah. It is impossible for angels to worship a being other than God since they do not have free will and only obey Him in everything.

How does one reconcile those two answers?

 

[Grace Seeker]

ahah that was a trick question! which has illusions of being a trap? I'll have get back to you after I simmer down, until then you can try to find and point to a sentence or word where I said "angels are to worship a being other than God"

you either take it back or I shall start doing same to you (but I am not as devious and malicious as you so you'll have excuse me for not being able to insult Christianity for it is alleged that they are "followers of one of great Muslim Prophets namely Hz. Isa (A.S) whom they distorted beyond all recognition to resemble/comply with some Greek myth pertaining to some god Zeus and halfman-half god hercules

Take what back? That was no trick question.

Two different people have given me two different answers. Both of them are Muslims. I'm assuming that both are sincere Muslims. But I won't assume that one has THE answer and the other is in error. That is one possibility, but it could also be that they are both right, just in different context. Or, it could be that a third will speak up and suggest that neither was right. I don't know. I just know that I have two different answers. I woud have asked this some time ago of the original poster, but I got interrupted by some who choose to make this into a debate thread. Something I'm hoping to get beyond. So, this isn't a trick question to prove anything. It's just an honest search for understanding how different people understand different things within Islam.

If you're needing to simmer down, that's your own doing. No one is turning the heat up under you or anyone else.