Islam is a false religion per Quran itself.

[KWED]

The hadith is referring to a battle that will occur at end of time when Dajjal the anti-Christ, emerges and the Messiah descends to fight him. The Jews who never accepted Jesus as the Messiah will join Dajjal the anti-Christ while the Muslims will fight alongside the Messiah against the anti-Christ and his followers. And it’s in this context that the hadith was based, “The Hour will not begin until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them until a Jew hides behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say: O Muslim, O slave of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him..”. The Jews in this hadith are referring to those Jews who joined Dajjal the anti-Christ at end of time.

Ok. So the context that legitimises and justifies Islamic scripture which calls for Muslims to kill Jews is that those Jews are ideologically opposed to the Muslims. Even the rocks and trees want the Jews to be killed.

Given that the outcome of all events is determined by Allah's decree, and he is omniscient and omnipotent - why do you think he needs Muslims to hunt down and kill all the Jews before "the hour will begin"? What can't it just "begin" when it is time? Why even create an anti-Christ at all?

It’s NOT the hadiths or passages from Quran as quoted by non-Muslims that originated from some “hate site”, it’s the negative interpretations and comments of those hadiths and passages by the non-Muslims that, more often than not, originated from “hate sites”.

How do you define a "hate site"? Is it any source that is critical of Islam?
If you consider such partisan sceptic sources to be unacceptable, presumably you similarly reject any pro-Islam site as a source? I tend to agree. Personally I stick to the Quran, hadith, classical tafsir and academic historical works.

Sure, if you don’t understand the context or the circumstances of the time. For example, Americans expressing their outrage towards the Japanese in 1941 may seem unacceptable to the uninformed, that is until one realized that the Japanese had just attacked Pearl Harbor and that makes their outrage and calling out for the Japanese blood understandable.

If the US Constitution still contained passages vilifying the Japanese, with calls to fight them and make America supreme, and it was read publicly every Friday and taught to children as the absolute, immutable truth, you may have a point.

Ironically, it seems to be you who doesn't understand the context. Like so many apologists, you conveniently forget that the Quran is Allah's final, immutable, infallible, universal guide for all mankind, all peoples and all times. It is not a history book. If your defence is "but times were different then, that stuff no longer applies" (an argument you denied any apologist making ) then you negate the very purpose of the Quran. Once you dismiss one ayah as no longer valid or applicable or relevant, the whole house of cards collapses.

 

[KWED]

I don’t believe in gods, I believe in One Universal God. It’s the different understandings of who this one God is that led to different beliefs and religions.

Given that most religions over history have been polytheistic, and every religion is absolutely convinced that it is the one true one, how to you know that there is only one god, and it just happens to be the one you decided on?
Remember that every other religionist is just as convinced as you are, and they are just as convinced that you are wrong as you are about them.

And who says that there must be any evidence of supernatural for one to believe in the existence of God??

Not me. But it does make such belief irrational.

You only need a logical and rational mind to know the existence of God.

Then why does religion require faith and belief rather than evidence (as you just pointed out). The reality is that when logic and reason and critical thinking are applied, religions unravel.

Even Science begins to realize that theremust be a Supreme Creator/God.

Utter nonsense. Science requires testable, repeatable evidence and rational arguments. Religion has none.

Unfortunately, you just refused to open your eyes and use your brain which God gave you – that’s sad.

It's not my fault. It's god's fault. He has obviously "placed a seal on my heart so I cannot believe, even if I am warned". I must be one of those who he "surely has created for hell". As "the outcome of all affairs is determined by Allah's decree. If something is meant for me, I cannot flee from it", then it is beyond my control.
Which raises another difficult issue. Why will Allah punish me for something that was his fault? That is neither just nor merciful, and as the Quran claims he is "most just" and "most merciful", then the Quran must be wrong.

Also, that highlights a contradiction in the Quran. "Most" means "cannot be more; the highest possible amount".
But "justice" and "mercy" are opposites, one is punishing a person as they deserve, the other is not punishing a person as they deserve. Therefore Allah cannot be the most of both because he would have to simultaneously punish people and let them off.
How does your "logical and rational mind" address that?

 

[JerryMyers]

Ok. So the context that legitimises and justifies Islamic scripture which calls for Muslims to kill Jews is that those Jews are ideologically opposed to the Muslims. Even the rocks and trees want the Jews to be killed.

Well, again, your understanding is out of context.

All non-Muslims are ideologically opposed to the Muslims, but, you don’t see Muslims going around killing all non-Muslims, do you?? Why?? Because it’s not the preaching of Islam to do that. Do you know how many non-Muslims are living and working in Muslim-majority countries?? You need to come out from your shell and see the real world.

Given that the outcome of all events is determined by Allah's decree, and he is omniscient and omnipotent - why do you think he needs Muslims to hunt down and kill all the Jews before "the hour will begin"? What can't it just "begin" when it is time? Why even create an anti-Christ at all?

Again, your understanding is out of context. The hadith is referring to the signs of the end of time and among these signs are the emergence of Dajjal the anti-Christ, the descent of the Messiah, and the fight between Muslims and Jews at end of time.

Allah does not need the Muslims to kill all the Jews, but, it is a series of events that will lead the Muslims to be in a battle with the Jews at end of time. No events just ‘begin’.

How do you define a "hate site"? Is it any source that is critical of Islam?
If you consider such partisan sceptic sources to be unacceptable, presumably you similarly reject any pro-Islam site as a source? I tend to agree.

A ‘hate site’ is one that propagates hatred for a certain individual, group, or belief with no apparent or wrongly-placed reasons.

Personally I stick to the Quran, hadith, classical tafsir and academic historical works.

It means nothing if your understanding is based on your misinterpretation of ‘the Quran, hadith classical tafsir and academic historical works’ and that misinterpretation probably originated from negative commentaries made on anti-Islam sites.

If the US Constitution still contained passages vilifying the Japanese, with calls to fight them and make America supreme, and it was read publicly every Friday and taught to children as the absolute, immutable truth, you may have a point.

As usual, zero evidence and talking nonsense which probably originated from ‘anti-Islam sites’.

I have yet to hear any Friday sermons (and I have been to many Friday Prayers in many countries) calling Muslims to fight non-Muslims, let alone teach children to hate non-Muslims!! How many Friday sermons have you listened to in mainstream mosques??

Ironically, it seems to be you who doesn't understand the context. Like so many apologists, you conveniently forget that the Quran is Allah's final, immutable, infallible, universal guide for all mankind, all peoples and all times. It is not a history book. If your defence is "but times were different then, that stuff no longer applies" (an argument you denied any apologist making ) then you negate the very purpose of the Quran. Once you dismiss one ayah as no longer valid or applicable or relevant, the whole house of cards collapses.

Yes, Quran IS, in your own words, ‘Allah's final, immutable, infallible, universal guide for all mankind, all peoples and all times’, BUT, the Quran, as the Bible, also related past historical events so that man can learn and benefit from these past events. Only those who lack a logical and rational mind are unable to know when a command is only applicable for that specific time only and when the command is applicable for all times.

 

[JerryMyers]

Given that most religions over history have been polytheistic, and every religion is absolutely convinced that it is the one true one, how to you know that there is only one god, and it just happens to be the one you decided on?
Remember that every other religionist is just as convinced as you are, and they are just as convinced that you are wrong as you are about them.

There is only one God because God said so Himself in the Quran and in the Bible…. but, then, you don’t believe in a God, so how can you even understand that??

Not me. But it does make such belief irrational.

But it was you who said you did not believe in God because there’s no evidence for the supernatural (your Post#140), and now you denied you said that?? Guess that’s not too surprising considering that you are also capable of replacing a word in my comment with another word just to suit your response to that comment!

Then why does religion require faith and belief rather than evidence (as you just pointed out). The reality is that when logic and reason and critical thinking are applied, religions unravel.

Isn’t that obvious? How can you even start to look for evidence if you don’t have faith and belief, to begin with?? Would anyone look for the holy grail if they do not have faith and belief that there is such thing as the holy grail?? So much for your logic, reason, and critical thinking!!

Utter nonsense. Science requires testable, repeatable evidence and rational arguments. Religion has none.

Again, demonstrates the absence of logic, reason, and critical thinking in your responses.

Maybe this short video will help you to understand why believing that there’s no God is not logical - Does Science Argue for or against God? | Eric Metaxas

It's not my fault. It's god's fault. He has obviously "placed a seal on my heart so I cannot believe, even if I am warned". I must be one of those who he "surely has created for hell". As "the outcome of all affairs is determined by Allah's decree. If something is meant for me, I cannot flee from it", then it is beyond my control.
Which raises another difficult issue. Why will Allah punish me for something that was his fault? That is neither just nor merciful, and as the Quran claims he is "most just" and "most merciful", then the Quran must be wrong.

God gave you the faculty of intelligence to think and make the right choices. You refuse to think and use what God has given you and now you are blaming God for that?? Would you prefer God to take away your intelligence and thus, remove the freedom of choice from you which means you do not have any say in anything? In other words, you are just a living puppet just waiting for your strings to be pulled and of course, you cannot be blamed for any sin as you are not responsible for anything because you do not have any intelligence to make choices – be careful what you wish for!

Also, that highlights a contradiction in the Quran. "Most" means "cannot be more; the highest possible amount".
But "justice" and "mercy" are opposites, one is punishing a person as they deserve, the other is not punishing a person as they deserve. Therefore Allah cannot be the most of both because he would have to simultaneously punish people and let them off.
How does your "logical and rational mind" address that?

Forgiving sin is still God’s discretion. However, when you have sincerely repented of your sin and you seek forgiveness from Him, then, there is a great possibility that God will forgive you. Thus, ‘God is Most Merciful’ simply means that the chances of God forgiving your sin are far greater than God punishing you for your sin. All you have to do is repent and seek forgiveness from God, which is what Jesus taught in the Lord’s Prayer.

And what’s the fuss about God punishing a person as they deserve and God forgiving a person who has repented of their sin? I supposed you also make a big fuss over the death sentence of a serial rapist-killer who raped and killed many children and the acquittal of a woman who killed a man in self-defense to protect herself and her children from a violent assault on them. So much for your ‘logical and rational mind’!!

 

[KWED]

Well, again, your understanding is out of context.

No, it is your understanding that is "out of context". Your "context" is to simply accuse any criticism of being "out of context".

All non-Muslims are ideologically opposed to the Muslims,

Not necessarily. Many don't give a **** about Islam. Some. are unaware of it

but, you don’t see Muslims going around killing all non-Muslims, do you??

That depends. Have you not been watching the news over recent years? (Cue a "No True Scotsman" defence)

Why??

Because people in general just want to get on with their lives in peace. Most religionists are better than the religion they follow.

Because it’s not the preaching of Islam to do that.

Again, that depends on your interpretation of passages like "Hatred and enmity for non-Muslims is a good example to follow" or "fight the disbelievers until all religion is for Allah" or "slay the disbelievers wherever you find them".
(Cue "but those devout Muslims are taking those passages out of context! They obviously got it from a hate site!")

Allah does not need the Muslims to kill all the Jews, but, it is a series of events that will lead the Muslims to be in a battle with the Jews at end of time. No events just ‘begin’.

So there events are beyond Allah's control. They are subject to another power.

A ‘hate site’ is one that propagates hatred for a certain individual, group, or belief with no apparent or wrongly-placed reasons.

So like the Quran then.

It means nothing if your understanding is based on your misinterpretation of ‘the Quran, hadith classical tafsir and academic historical works’ and that misinterpretation probably originated from negative commentaries made on anti-Islam sites.

It means nothing if your understanding is based on your misinterpretation of ‘the Quran, hadith classical tafsir and academic historical works’ and that misinterpretation probably originated from positive commentaries made on pro-Islam sites.
See how easy that was?
But anywho, as I said, I only use interpretations from classical tafsir and occasionally modern scholars, or the logical implication of the words used or events. For example, you claim that Muslims can only fight in self-defence. However, Muhammad conquered much of the Arabian peninsula, fighting battles hundreds of miles from Medina. That is logically not possible without aggressive military action. Therefore either your claim is wrong or Muhammad wasn't a true Muslim. Which is the more likely?

As usual, zero evidence and talking nonsense which probably originated from ‘anti-Islam sites’.

What are you talking about? I presented an analogy to show the flaw in your argument. It came from my imagination and requires no evidence.

I have yet to hear any Friday sermons (and I have been to many Friday Prayers in many countries) calling Muslims to fight non-Muslims, let alone teach children to hate non-Muslims!!
How many Friday sermons have you listened to in mainstream mosques??

But both ideas are stated in the Quran, and teh Quran is read at Friday prayers everywhere. Didn't you know that?

Also, interesting that you specified "mainstream mosques", so presumably you know that such sentiments are taught in some mosques.

Yes, Quran IS, in your own words, ‘Allah's final, immutable, infallible, universal guide for all mankind, all peoples and all times’,

Not my words. Those are all words I have heard Muslims use to describe the Quran.

BUT, the Quran, as the Bible, also related past historical events so that man can learn and benefit from these past events.

Ok. So what are today's Muslims supposed to learn from those passages about hating and fighting and killing? That Allah's word is not always infallible, immutable and universal for all people and all times?

Only those who lack a logical and rational mind are unable to know when a command is only applicable for that specific time only and when the command is applicable for all times.

So it is up to the individual to decide if a passage is a universal guide or can be dismissed as no longer relevant.
Presumably this principle applies to every verse of the Quran, yes?

And who decides if a mind is "logical and rational", and what are the criteria? I know mine is (at least, my supervising professor seems to think so), and you seem to think yours is. Research scientist vs religious apologist. Hmm...

 

[KWED]

There is only one God because God said so Himself in the Quran and in the Bible….

Classic circular logic. There are other religious texts that talk about multiple gods, so I guess those are also true, by your "logic"
Also, I thought you believe that the bible has been corrupted, so make your mind up. Is it a reliable source or not?

but, then, you don’t believe in a God, so how can you even understand that??

I understand that other people believe in gods, and I understand why they believe in them, so I'm probably more qualified to comment than you are. Would you accuse a doctor of being unqualified to treat your illness if he wasn't also suffering from it?

But it was you who said you did not believe in God because there’s no evidence for the supernatural (your Post#140), and now you denied you said that??

You are confused. I said that some people do not need evidence for the supernatural in order to believe in god - which is demonstrably true. ie. there is no evidence yet some people still believe.
I, on the other hand, said that the lack of evidence was one of the reasons that I do not accept the existence of gods. Two quite different concepts.

Guess that’s not too surprising considering that you are also capable of replacing a word in my comment with another word just to suit your response to that comment!

Calm down! It was quite reasonable. I replaced "cult" with "religion". A religion is just a cult with more followers. Remember that Islam was just a "cult" for the first 10 years or so.

Isn’t that obvious? How can you even start to look for evidence if you don’t have faith and belief, to begin with?? Would anyone look for the holy grail if they do not have faith and belief that there is such thing as the holy grail?? So much for your logic, reason, and critical thinking!!

You aren't familiar with the scientific method, are you?
If something exists, we should be able to devise a means of testing for it. Whether we expect to find it or not is irrelevant. Can you imagine where we would be today if scientists only ever tried to discover things they already knew about?

Again, demonstrates the absence of logic, reason, and critical thinking in your responses.

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Maybe this short video will help you to understand why believing that there’s no God is not logical - Does Science Argue for or against God? | Eric Metaxas

I didn't spot anything in there that supported your claim. Perhaps you can explain the argument in your own words? I might understand it then.

God gave you the faculty of intelligence to think and make the right choices. You refuse to think and use what God has given you and now you are blaming God for that?? Would you prefer God to take away your intelligence and thus, remove the freedom of choice from you which means you do not have any say in anything? In other words, you are just a living puppet just waiting for your strings to be pulled and of course, you cannot be blamed for any sin as you are not responsible for anything because you do not have any intelligence to make choices – be careful what you wish for!

I notice you completely ignored the argument I presented there, with multiple quotes from Islamic scripture.
If you believe that I have the free will to decide to become a Muslim, you will have to reconcile that claim with the clear statements that Allah decides who believes and who doesn't.

Forgiving sin is still God’s discretion.

Not if the attributes most merciful and most just apply. If he punishes even one person, then he could have been more merciful, and therefore cannot be most merciful.
Likewise, if he forgives just one person who committed a crime or sin, then he could have been more just.

So, Is Allah most merciful and just, or not?

However, when you have sincerely repented of your sin and you seek forgiveness from Him, then, there is a great possibility that God will forgive you. Thus, ‘God is Most Merciful’ simply means that the chances of God forgiving your sin are far greater than God punishing you for your sin. All you have to do is repent and seek forgiveness from God, which is what Jesus taught in the Lord’s Prayer.

What you describe here is god sometimes being merciful. That is not most merciful.

And what’s the fuss about God punishing a person as they deserve and God forgiving a person who has repented of their sin?

Because it is illogical and contradictory, as I explained.

I supposed you also make a big fuss over the death sentence of a serial rapist-killer who raped and killed many children and the acquittal of a woman who killed a man in self-defense to protect herself and her children from a violent assault on them. So much for your ‘logical and rational mind’!!

No. I think that each case must be judged on its merits. Court judges do not have a problem with being just or merciful as they see fit because they are not supposed to be infallibly most just and merciful.
It always makes me laugh when apologists compare god's omni-everything superpowers to human teachers or judges or whatever. Don't you know the difference?

However, I oppose the death penalty because of miscarriages of justice, and the inherent hypocrisy in 'killing people because killing is so wrong'.

 

[JerryMyers]

No, it is your understanding that is "out of context". Your "context" is to simply accuse any criticism of being "out of context".

Well, at least you admitted that your comments which you said I ‘accused’ as ‘out of context’ are just criticisms and that’s what they are as your criticisms are based on your misguided understanding of the Quran and the hadiths. which most likely originated from some anti-Islam sites.

Not necessarily. Many don't give a **** about Islam. Some. are unaware of it

What do you mean ‘not necessarily’??! If they don’t give a **** about Islam, it means they are ideologically opposed to Islam and the Muslims!
Likewise, I, and I am sure there are many too, don’t give a **** about atheism and that means we are ideologically opposed to atheism and its followers – simple basic stuff!! So much for your ‘logic and rational’ thinking!

That depends. Have you not been watching the news over recent years? (Cue a "No True Scotsman" defence)

Despite watching the news over recent years, you don’t see any violence committed by non-Muslims?? You must be living in an alternate universe or your TV has only one channel – Islamophobia TV!.LOL.
And obviously, you cannot tell the difference between Islam and Muslims or Christianity and Christians!

Because people in general just want to get on with their lives in peace. Most religionists are better than the religion they follow.

Yes, and people in general who just want to get on with their lives in peace, don’t go around criticizing and ridiculing the belief of other faiths and then claim they just want to get on with their lives in peace either! What a joke!

Again, that depends on your interpretation of passages like "Hatred and enmity for non-Muslims is a good example to follow" or "fight the disbelievers until all religion is for Allah" or "slay the disbelievers wherever you find them".
(Cue "but those devout Muslims are taking those passages out of context! They obviously got it from a hate site!")

Which passages of the Quran are you referring to?? Quote them and I will tell you how your illogical and irrational mind misinterpreted them.

The fact that you want to believe those passages are encouraging Muslims to be violent tells me you adore violence yourself, just like those Muslim extremists who are also illogical and irrational in their thinking!
True devout Muslims know when passages from the Quran are applicable to the period of those times only or for all times.

So there events are beyond Allah's control. They are subject to another power.

So said someone who doesn’t understand the nature of God. Then again, how can you understand the nature of God when you don’t believe in the existence of God??

So like the Quran then.

Just because you want to believe that the Quran propagates hate, that does not mean, the Quran is.
You must think you are some kind of a god who thinks that whatever you want to believe will become a reality! Lol.

It means nothing if your understanding is based on your misinterpretation of ‘the Quran, hadith classical tafsir and academic historical works’ and that misinterpretation probably originated from positive commentaries made on pro-Islam sites. See how easy that was?

Sure, now try to prove that my understanding is based on my misinterpretation of ‘the Quran, hadith classical tafsir and academic historical works’!

But anywho, as I said, I only use interpretations from classical tafsir and occasionally modern scholars, or the logical implication of the words used or events.

LOL. Please stop cracking jokes and try to be serious for once!! Using and understanding the interpretations are 2 different things, but for argument's sake, give me an example of how you ‘use interpretations from classical tafsir and occasionally modern scholars or the logical implication of the words used or events’.

For example, you claim that Muslims can only fight in self-defence. However, Muhammad conquered much of the Arabian peninsula, fighting battles hundreds of miles from Medina. That is logically not possible without aggressive military action.

That is an example of how you use the interpretations from classical tafsir and occasionally modern scholars or the logical implication of the words used or events??? And which interpretations from the classical tafsir are you using??

Therefore either your claim is wrong or Muhammad wasn't a true Muslim. Which is the more likely?

The question you should ask is – what happened to the Arabian peninsula AFTER Muhammad took control? Which is more likely - did Muhammad invade or did he liberate the Arabian peninsula?

What are you talking about? I presented an analogy to show the flaw in your argument.

LOL. I thought you are presenting facts, but it turns out you are just presenting an analogy that puts more flaws in your already flawed understanding!

It came from my imagination and requires no evidence.

It came from your imagination?? No wonder your comments are baseless nonsense!!

Actually, I have suspected that for some time now, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now that you have admitted it yourself…. Well, no further questions, your Honor!

But both ideas are stated in the Quran, and teh Quran is read at Friday prayers everywhere. Didn't you know that?

What ideas?? Ideas that came from your imagination that imagine every Friday, Muslims are preached hatred and violence??? Which rock have you been living all this while??

Also, interesting that you specified "mainstream mosques", so presumably you know that such sentiments are taught in some mosques.

You do know what ‘mainstream’ is, right??

And what ‘such sentiments’ are you referring to?? Like sentiments that came from your imagination too??

Ok. So what are today's Muslims supposed to learn from those passages about hating and fighting and killing? That Allah's word is not always infallible, immutable and universal for all people and all times?

Do you mean you cannot differentiate between right and wrong?? If you read or watch a movie set during WWII, you think the movie is teaching all people to hate and to fight just because it showed fighting between the US soldiers and the German soldiers?? I am beginning to think that your inability to think logically and rationally is far worse than I thought!!

So it is up to the individual to decide if a passage is a universal guide or can be dismissed as no longer relevant.
Presumably this principle applies to every verse of the Quran, yes?

See what I mean when I said “I am beginning to think that your inability to think logically and rationally is far worse than I thought!!” ???

And who decides if a mind is "logical and rational", and what are the criteria? I know mine is (at least, my supervising professor seems to think so), and you seem to think yours is.

Do you mean you DON’T KNOW what are the criteria to define a ‘logical and rational mind’?? Who is your supervising professor and why don’t you ask him/her to join our discussion here?? That would be interesting!

Research scientist vs religious apologist. Hmm...

Errr…. Are you implying that you are a Research scientist??? Hmm…. Hold on, let me hold tightly to my chair before I fell off it laughing….LOL!!!

 

[JerryMyers]

Classic circular logic. There are other religious texts that talk about multiple gods, so I guess those are also true, by your "logic"

Multiple gods?? You mean like daddy god, mummy god, baby god, and so on?? Wait, you don’t believe in god, so, why are you asking this??

Also, I thought you believe that the bible has been corrupted, so make your mind up. Is it a reliable source or not?

When Muslims said the BIBLE IS CORRUPTED, it means the Bible is now a book of truth (Words from God and His prophets) and lies (some words from other people including the gospelists).

I understand that other people believe in gods, and I understand why they believe in them, so I'm probably more qualified to comment than you are.

You are more qualified to talk about God when you yourself don’t believe in God??! You really got to stop cracking jokes, I mean, I am beginning to have stomach cramps just from laughing too much!! And how can you be more qualified when you have already admitted your comments came from your imagination??

Would you accuse a doctor of being unqualified to treat your illness if he wasn't also suffering from it?

You mean any man who claimed to be a doctor, is qualified to treat your illness as long as he is not suffering from the same illness too??? Are you that naïve and gullible??

You are confused. I said that some people do not need evidence for the supernatural in order to believe in god - which is demonstrably true. ie. there is no evidence yet some people still believe.
I, on the other hand, said that the lack of evidence was one of the reasons that I do not accept the existence of gods. Two quite different concepts.

Let me refresh your memory - I asked you what are your reasons for not believing in God, and your response in your Post#140 –

‘Quite simple.
1. There is no evidence for the supernatural.
2. There is no need for the supernatural.’

Now you try to wiggle out of your nonsense by mentioning ‘some people’, which was irrelevant anyway, as I was asking you a direct question, I am not asking why some people believe and some don’t! Are you confused??

And what different concepts nonsense are you talking about?? Saying ‘lack of evidence' is the same as saying ‘no evidence’!! So stop making a fool of yourself!

Calm down! It was quite reasonable. I replaced "cult" with "religion". A religion is just a cult with more followers. Remember that Islam was just a "cult" for the first 10 years or so.

Quite reasonable??? How low more can you go?? Point is - who gave you the permission to replace a word from the statement of another poster and you did it just to suit your response?? Don’t you have any moral principles at all?? Imagine what would happen if it is ‘quite reasonable’ for any poster in this forum to change any word in the comments of any other posters!! So, stop trying to defend and justify your unethical act!!

You aren't familiar with the scientific method, are you?

And you, the ‘research scientist’, are familiar?? OK, I will try not to laugh…mmmm…mmmm..HAHAHA (sorry, I did try).

If something exists, we should be able to devise a means of testing for it. Whether we expect to find it or not is irrelevant. Can you imagine where we would be today if scientists only ever tried to discover things they already knew about?

Well, you don’t devise a means to test God because He is the Creator and NOT like any of His Creations that you can devise a means to test Him, but the signs are all around you to tell you God exists. Take your body, for example, you think your Organ system, Musculoskeletal system, Cardiovascular system, Respiratory system, Nervous system, Digestive system, Urinary system, and Reproductive system are there NOT by design but just happen by random?? That’s like saying that man did not design and built the car, but the car with all its transmission system, braking system, fuel system, and so on, are created at random by natural forces through the times long before man found it!!

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Yes, they do mean exactly just that - and that is, your responses demonstrated the absence of logic, reason, and critical thinking… else why would I say it???

I didn't spot anything in there that supported your claim. Perhaps you can explain the argument in your own words? I might understand it then.

And waste my time??? If you cannot even understand what was said in that short video which clearly explain why Science is slowly realizing that the existence of a Creator/God is the best explanation of our very existence, then, no other explanation can help you to understand as your thinking is truly absent of logic and rationale.

I notice you completely ignored the argument I presented there, with multiple quotes from Islamic scripture.

Nope, I did not ignore the ‘argument’ that you presented, if you can call that an ‘argument’. I answered it, but you just cannot ‘see’ it as you lack logic and rationale in your thinking to see it.

If you believe that I have the free will to decide to become a Muslim, you will have to reconcile that claim with the clear statements that Allah decides who believes and who doesn't.

Again, the choice you made or will be making is of your free will, BUT Allah knows your destiny.

Imagine one day you find yourself back in time, at the time when your brother collided with a bus because he made a wrong turn at a junction. The future you are watching as the incident is played out. When your brother reached the junction, it’s his free will to turn left or right – it’s his own choice to make. The future you who is watching, knew his destiny, that is, you knew your brother will make the wrong choice and fulfilled his destiny by colliding with the bus. Likewise, God's All-Knowing knowledge is like the knowledge of someone from the future who came back to the past, watching and knowing everything over the past.

Not if the attributes most merciful and most just apply. If he punishes even one person, then he could have been more merciful, and therefore cannot be most merciful.
Likewise, if he forgives just one person who committed a crime or sin, then he could have been more just.
So, Is Allah most merciful and just, or not?

Again, Allah is Most Merciful means He’s most likely to forgive your sin than He’s to punish you for your sin BUT you must seek forgiveness from Him and sincerely repented.

What you describe here is god sometimes being merciful. That is not most merciful.

You mean God should forgive all sinners irrespective of what sin they committed?? If He does that then, you will say God is unjust.
Would you consider a judge ‘just’ if he lets an unrepentant and unremorseful rapist-killer walk away free from his crimes?? Would you consider that as justice served to all his victims???

Because it is illogical and contradictory, as I explained.

Punishing a person as they deserve and forgiving sins of those who had sincerely repented is what a Just and Most Merciful God does!
You find ‘God punishing a person as they deserve and God forgiving a person who has repented of their sin’ illogically and contradictory only affirmed what I said of your thinking process – it lacks logic and rationale.

No. I think that each case must be judged on its merits. Court judges do not have a problem with being just or merciful as they see fit because they are not supposed to be infallibly most just and merciful. It always makes me laugh when apologists compare god's omni-everything superpowers to human teachers or judges or whatever. Don't you know the difference?

The final implication is still the same – there will be those punished and those freed based on merits, but when a Just and Merciful God does the same, you find it illogical and contradictory??? That always makes me laugh!! Don’t you know the difference between those who are punished as they deserved and those who are forgiven as they deserved??

 

[KWED]

Well, at least you admitted that your comments which you said I ‘accused’ as ‘out of context’ are just criticisms and that’s what they are as your criticisms are based on your misguided understanding of the Quran and the hadiths. which most likely originated from some anti-Islam sites.

No idea what you are trying to say there.

What do you mean ‘not necessarily’??! If they don’t give a **** about Islam, it means they are ideologically opposed to Islam and the Muslims!

No it doesn't. It means that they don't care one way or the other. They have no interest in it. A bit like me before I read the Quran.

Likewise, I, and I am sure there are many too, don’t give a **** about atheism and that means we are ideologically opposed to atheism and its followers – simple basic stuff!! So much for your ‘logic and rational’ thinking!

I think your weak grasp of English vocabulary and idiom means that this kind of misunderstanding is going to keep cropping up. What is your first language?

Despite watching the news over recent years, you don’t see any violence committed by non-Muslims?? You must be living in an alternate universe or your TV has only one channel – Islamophobia TV!.LOL.

Ah, the usual resort to whataboutery.
You said...
"you don’t see Muslims going around killing all non-Muslims"
The fact is that in recent years we have seen this kind of thing happening. No one mentioned any violence by non-Muslim groups. But as you have now brought it up - yes, there are non-Muslim groups who commit atrocities as well. Not sure how that helps your argument though.

And obviously, you cannot tell the difference between Islam and Muslims or Christianity and Christians!

Indeed I can. One is the ideology, the other is the followers of that ideology.
What you need to understand it that the ideology is fixed and defined by the content of scripture. The behaviour of its followers can and does vary significantly. Both Mohammad Emwazi and Maajid Nawaz are Muslims, but their behaviour in following Islam is entirely different. Understand?

Yes, and people in general who just want to get on with their lives in peace, don’t go around criticizing and ridiculing the belief of other faiths and then claim they just want to get on with their lives in peace either! What a joke!

You seem confused.
You do realise that you are on a religious debate forum, in the Quran section. What did you expect to find here.
Also, your point is incoherent. One can be both a critic of religion and live peacefully. Not sure why you think the two are incompatible.

Which passages of the Quran are you referring to??

Really? I'm just an ignorant kufar but I can identify those verses. Perhaps you should spend less time on here and more time studying your Quran?

Quote them and I will tell you how your illogical and irrational mind misinterpreted them.

I didn't present an interpretation. I said that id depended on how others interpret them. We know that some Muslims have cited those verses as justification for violence against non-Muslims. We know that other Muslims claim that they are no longer valid or don't say what they appear to say.

The fact that you want to believe those passages are encouraging Muslims to be violent tells me you adore violence yourself, just like those Muslim extremists who are also illogical and irrational in their thinking!

lol! Nice try, but how about you actually address my arguments rather than some bizarre straw man?

True devout Muslims know when passages from the Quran are applicable to the period of those times only or for all times.

And there we have it, the No True Scotsman fallacy, just as I predicted.
You do realise that other Muslims who favour a different interpretation can make the same accusation about you and your modern, liberal interpretation?

So said someone who doesn’t understand the nature of God. Then again, how can you understand the nature of God when you don’t believe in the existence of God??

1. You argued that Muslims killing the Jews is just something that has to happen in the lead up to the day of judgement. A necessary sequence of events. Which implies there is some controlling force other than Allah. Why can't the day of judgement arrive without Muslims killing Jews and even the rocks and trees turning against them?
But if Allah really is the ultimate power, it certainly sounds like he wants the Muslims to kill the Jews, even if he doesn't need them to.

Just because you want to believe that the Quran propagates hate, that does not mean, the Quran is.

60:4 is quite clear. It tell believers that "hatred and enmity towards non-Muslims" is a good example to follow.
Of course, you may claim that the words do not mean what they appear to mean, and you are free to do that. However, renowned classical scholar Ibn Kathir explains that it means... "Animosity and enmity have appeared between us and you from now and as long as you remain on your disbelief; we will always disown you and hate you,"

Sure, now try to prove that my understanding is based on my misinterpretation of ‘the Quran, hadith classical tafsir and academic historical works’!

Well, you claim that the Quran does not promote hate. However, verse 60:4 explicitly promotes hate, it is addressed to "O ye who believe!" and classical tafsir explains that it means hate towards people who maintain disbelief.
So it seems untenable to clam that there is no promoting hate in the Quran.

LOL. Please stop cracking jokes and try to be serious for once!! Using and understanding the interpretations are 2 different things, but for argument's sake, give me an example of how you ‘use interpretations from classical tafsir and occasionally modern scholars or the logical implication of the words used or events’.

See above point.

The question you should ask is – what happened to the Arabian peninsula AFTER Muhammad took control?

Why? What does that have to do with Muhammad using aggressive military action?

Which is more likely - did Muhammad invade or did he liberate the Arabian peninsula?

You mean like how Putin is "liberating" Ukraine?

The rest of your post just seems to be a rambling collection of straw men and ad homs. Please try and stick to the point in future.

 

[JerryMyers]

No idea what you are trying to say there.

‘No idea’ is the best way to describe you. Is that why you are scratching your head, your knee and every other part of your body??

No it doesn't. It means that they don't care one way or the other. They have no interest in it. A bit like me before I read the Quran.

You mean after reading the Quran, you now have an interest in it??? Interest to understand or interest to find faults?? Don't bother, anyone can guess your interest.

Ah, the usual resort to whataboutery.
You said...
"you don’t see Muslims going around killing all non-Muslims"
The fact is that in recent years we have seen this kind of thing happening. No one mentioned any violence by non-Muslim groups. But as you have now brought it up - yes, there are non-Muslim groups who commit atrocities as well. Not sure how that helps your argument though.

‘Not sure how that helps your argument though’??? Are you that simpleton??! No wonder you are scratching your head, your knee.. and whatever have you!! LOL

I think your weak grasp of English vocabulary and idiom means that this kind of misunderstanding is going to keep cropping up. What is your first language?

Ah, the usual resort to whataboutery. That’s one way to divert attention from your inability to think logically and rationally.

Indeed I can. One is the ideology, the other is the followers of that ideology.
What you need to understand it that the ideology is fixed and defined by the content of scripture. The behaviour of its followers can and does vary significantly. Both Mohammad Emwazi and Maajid Nawaz are Muslims, but their behaviour in following Islam is entirely different. Understand?

Indeed you can, that is, display your inability to think logically and rationally. What you don’t understand is Islam, or for that matter, Christianity is not responsible for the actions of their respective followers just as Jesus is not responsible for the sin of any man if that man refused to listen and follow his preaching. Understand??

You seem confused.
You do realise that you are on a religious debate forum, in the Quran section. What did you expect to find here.
Also, your point is incoherent. One can be both a critic of religion and live peacefully. Not sure why you think the two are incompatible.

You can be a critic of religion provided you have understood that religion. In your case, you don’t even understand Islam and you want to be a critic of Islam ??! You are confused!!

Really? I'm just an ignorant kufar but I can identify those verses. Perhaps you should spend less time on here and more time studying your Quran?

Yes, really, you are that ignorant. Identifying and understanding those verses are 2 different things. Perhaps you should spend less time here and more time understanding the verses in the Quran from people who are well-versed in the Quran.

I didn't present an interpretation. I said that id depended on how others interpret them. We know that some Muslims have cited those verses as justification for violence against non-Muslims. We know that other Muslims claim that they are no longer valid or don't say what they appear to say.

What then ?? If you are not presenting an interpretation, and a wrong interpretation at that, you are telling me you are presenting your own understanding which came from your illogical and irrational mind?? That’s scary!!!

lol! Nice try, but how about you actually address my arguments rather than some bizarre straw man?

What nonsense are you talking about?? You hardly present any arguments for me to really address!! Lol, nice try though!

And there we have it, the No True Scotsman fallacy, just as I predicted.

Stop flattering yourself – you have predicted nothing other than predicting that your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally will be exposed again and again!!

You do realise that other Muslims who favour a different interpretation can make the same accusation about you and your modern, liberal interpretation?

Sure, anyone can make accusations…this is a free world but proving it is not as easy as making accusations.

1. You argued that Muslims killing the Jews is just something that has to happen in the lead up to the day of judgement. A necessary sequence of events. Which implies there is some controlling force other than Allah. Why can't the day of judgement arrive without Muslims killing Jews and even the rocks and trees turning against them?
But if Allah really is the ultimate power, it certainly sounds like he wants the Muslims to kill the Jews, even if he doesn't need them to.

You might as well ask ‘why can’t I be born a grown-up adult, then, I don’t have to go through all those early years ?’. What a simpleton!

60:4 is quite clear. It tell believers that "hatred and enmity towards non-Muslims" is a good example to follow.
Of course, you may claim that the words do not mean what they appear to mean, and you are free to do that. However, renowned classical scholar Ibn Kathir explains that it means... "Animosity and enmity have appeared between us and you from now and as long as you remain on your disbelief; we will always disown you and hate you,"

Well, you claim that the Quran does not promote hate. However, verse 60:4 explicitly promotes hate, it is addressed to "O ye who believe!" and classical tafsir explains that it means hate towards people who maintain disbelief.
So it seems untenable to clam that there is no promoting hate in the Quran.

LOL, why do you, again and again, have to display your ignorance and lack of knowledge in understanding the verses in the Quran?? Quran 60:4 along with other related verses were revealed at the time when a letter of Hatib bin Abi Baltaa to the pagans of Makkah was intercepted. Hatib bin Abi Baltaa, a follower of Muhammad, anticipated Muhammad to be defeated by the pagans, so he wanted to win favour from the pagans by writing a letter to the pagans revealing Muhammad's military strategy. His action will, of course, create animosity and enmity among themselves. The word 'disown' tells you it's a reference to someone or group who was of their own.

Why? What does that have to do with Muhammad using aggressive military action?

Muhammad was against enemies who were using aggressive military action. So what do you expect Muhammad to do – use flowers and balloons to fight the enemies?? Why do you think the US used aggressive military action during the Gulf war if they did not believe the enemies will be taking similar action??

You mean like how Putin is "liberating" Ukraine?

Is Putin ‘liberating’ Ukraine?? I didn’t know that!! You are a ‘genious’!

The rest of your post just seems to be a rambling collection of straw men and ad homs.

You mean something like all your posts is just displays of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally??

I think your weak grasp of English vocabulary and idiom means that this kind of misunderstanding is going to keep cropping up. What is your first language?

Ah, the usual resort to whataboutery. That’s one way to divert attention from your inability to think logically and rationally.

IPlease try and stick to the point in future.

Yup, that’s exactly what I will tell you. You do predict the future after all. LOL.

 

[KWED]

‘No idea’ is the best way to describe you. Is that why you are scratching your head, your knee and every other part of your body??

You mean after reading the Quran, you now have an interest in it??? Interest to understand or interest to find faults?? Don't bother, anyone can guess your interest.

‘Not sure how that helps your argument though’??? Are you that simpleton??! No wonder you are scratching your head, your knee.. and whatever have you!! LOL

Ah, the usual resort to whataboutery. That’s one way to divert attention from your inability to think logically and rationally.

You can be a critic of religion provided you have understood that religion. In your case, you don’t even understand Islam and you want to be a critic of Islam ??! You are confused!!

Yes, really, you are that ignorant. Identifying and understanding those verses are 2 different things. Perhaps you should spend less time here and more time understanding the verses in the Quran from people who are well-versed in the Quran.

What then ?? If you are not presenting an interpretation, and a wrong interpretation at that, you are telling me you are presenting your own understanding which came from your illogical and irrational mind?? That’s scary!!!

What nonsense are you talking about?? You hardly present any arguments for me to really address!! Lol, nice try though!

Stop flattering yourself – you have predicted nothing other than predicting that your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally will be exposed again and again!!

Sure, anyone can make accusations…this is a free world but proving it is not as easy as making accusations.

You might as well ask ‘why can’t I be born a grown-up adult, then, I don’t have to go through all those early years ?’. What a simpleton!

Is Putin ‘liberating’ Ukraine?? I didn’t know that!! You are a ‘genious’!

You mean something like all your posts is just displays of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally??

Ah, the usual resort to whataboutery. That’s one way to divert attention from your inability to think logically and rationally.

Yup, that’s exactly what I will tell you. You do predict the future after all. LOL.

It is telling that almost the entirely of your long post was just a bizarre and rambling collection of ad homs, petty insults and non sequiturs.

Once again, please try to address my points and arguments.

 

[KWED]

What you don’t understand is Islam, or for that matter, Christianity is not responsible for the actions of their respective followers

It is if people use specific passages to justify actions.
Take ISIS using female captives for sex, for example.
The Quran and sunnah are absolutely dear that it is acceptable in Islam. Allah permits it and Muhammad allowed his men to practice it.
ISIS have followed this same principle, citing the passages in the Quran and sunnah as justification.

When a sharia court imposes stoning to death for an adulterer, citing sahih hadith, it is Islam that is to blame for the person being tortured to death.

LOL, why do you, again and again, have to display your ignorance and lack of knowledge in understanding the verses in the Quran?? Quran 60:4 along with other related verses were revealed at the time when a letter of Hatib bin Abi Baltaa to the pagans of Makkah was intercepted. Hatib bin Abi Baltaa, a follower of Muhammad, anticipated Muhammad to be defeated by the pagans, so he wanted to win favour from the pagans by writing a letter to the pagans revealing Muhammad's military strategy. His action will, of course, create animosity and enmity among themselves.

You seem confused. Every verse was revealed in response to some event, but is you claim that every verse only applies to that specific event, then the Quran becomes utterly meaningless as a spiritual and practical guide for Muslims in the following centuries.

In 60:4 Allah is telling all believers that Abraham's example of hate and enmity for disbelievers is a good example to follow. He confirms this in 60:6 by saying "There has certainly been for you in them an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day."

The word 'disown' tells you it's a reference to someone or group who was of their own.

The passage is saying that even if those people are relatives, it should not stop you from hating (and disowning) them, just as Abraham did with his father. It is saying that faith in Islam comes above family ties.

Muhammad was against enemies who were using aggressive military action. So what do you expect Muhammad to do – use flowers and balloons to fight the enemies??

Muhammad attacked and invaded many tribes, towns, areas, etc. He was the one instigating military action.
After the Battle of the Trench in 626, Muhammad never fought a defensive battle around Medina. Every battle was an act of aggression against a group on their own territory. You don't conquer the Arabian peninsula through "self defence".

Why do you think the US used aggressive military action during the Gulf war if they did not believe the enemies will be taking similar action??

So you admit that Muhammad's campaigns were like the US invading Iraq?

Is Putin ‘liberating’ Ukraine?? I didn’t know that!! You are a ‘genious’!

He claims he is, just as you are claiming that Muhammad "liberated" the Arabian peninsula.
In reality, it is/was simply imperialist aggression.

 

[JerryMyers]

It is telling that almost the entirely of your long post was just a bizarre and rambling collection of ad homs, petty insults and non sequiturs.

You mean like it's telling that all your posts were just displays of your inability to think logically and rationally??

Once again, please try to address my points and arguments.

Again, you have NOT made any points for me to really address!!

Try to make points that you can back up with facts, NOT back up your 'points' with your imagination and assumptions.

 

[JerryMyers]

It is if people use specific passages to justify actions.
Take ISIS using female captives for sex, for example.
The Quran and sunnah are absolutely dear that it is acceptable in Islam. Allah permits it and Muhammad allowed his men to practice it.
ISIS have followed this same principle, citing the passages in the Quran and sunnah as justification.

Which passage of the Quran/sunnah is that?? Go ahead and expose your ignorance and zero knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah.

When a sharia court imposes stoning to death for an adulterer, citing sahih hadith, it is Islam that is to blame for the person being tortured to death.

Are you an adulterer? You seem to wish adulterers should not be punished at all.

Death to adulterers is not just an Islamic law, it’s also in the Bible - If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

You seem confused. Every verse was revealed in response to some event, but is you claim that every verse only applies to that specific event, then the Quran becomes utterly meaningless as a spiritual and practical guide for Muslims in the following centuries.

You seem confused. Not every verse was revealed in response to some event. The Quran also revealed of who God is, like Surah 114, which is not event-related at all.

In 60:4 Allah is telling all believers that Abraham's example of hate and enmity for disbelievers is a good example to follow. He confirms this in 60:6 by saying "There has certainly been for you in them an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day."

The ‘good example of Abraham’ is referring to Abraham’s rejection of idol-worshiping. Where did you get Abraham’s ‘hate and enmity for the disbelievers’ from???

The passage is saying that even if those people are relatives, it should not stop you from hating (and disowning) them, just as Abraham did with his father. It is saying that faith in Islam comes above family ties.

Abraham’s father was an idol-worshiper and Abraham rejected idol worshipping. Abraham did not disown his father, but he dissociated himself from him, meaning he did not want anything to do with his father’s practice of worshiping idols.

Yes, faith in Allah is above all but the Quran NEVER ask you to disown your parents, your family… dissociated from their blasphemous beliefs, YES.

Yusuf Ali: And Abraham prayed for his father's forgiveness only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy to Allah, he dissociated himself from him: for Abraham was most tender-hearted, forbearing.

Shakir: And Ibrahim asking forgiveness for his sire was only owing to a promise which he had made to him; but when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of Allah, he declared himself to be clear of him; most surely Ibrahim was very tender-hearted forbearing.

Muhammad attacked and invaded many tribes, towns, areas, etc. He was the one instigating military action.
After the Battle of the Trench in 626, Muhammad never fought a defensive battle around Medina. Every battle was an act of aggression against a group on their own territory. You don't conquer the Arabian peninsula through "self defence".

You mind quoting your source of information? Let’s see how ignorant one can be.

So you admit that Muhammad's campaigns were like the US invading Iraq?

Did I admit to that?? And I thought your grasp of English is so good!! LOL.

He claims he is, just as you are claiming that Muhammad "liberated" the Arabian peninsula.
In reality, it is/was simply imperialist aggression.

Putin claimed he was liberating Ukraine?? Really?? I must have missed that. Can you show me the report/news, videos where Putin claimed he was liberating Ukraine??

 

[KWED]

You mean like it's telling that all your posts were just displays of your inability to think logically and rationally??

And right on cue, you perfectly illustrate my point.

Again, you have NOT made any points for me to really address!!Try to make points that you can back up with facts, NOT back up your 'points' with your imagination and assumptions.

In future, I will try and keep each post to just one point. That way you might be able to spot it.

 

[KWED]

Which passage of the Quran/sunnah is that?? Go ahead and expose your ignorance and zero knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah.

Not sure what your plan was here. If you are genuinely unaware of these passages, one would think that you'r check first before exposing your own ignorance. If you are aware of them, asking me to quote them merely highlights the abhorrent barbarism of some elements of Islam to a wider audience. A genuine apologist with knowledge of Islam would attempt to mitigate the problem, by claiming "things were different then" or "it was consensual".
Anywho...

"Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess" - 4:24

"Successful believers; are those who guard their chastity; Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess" - 23:5-6

"O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives; and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you" - 33:50

"Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." - Bukhari 34:432

"Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." - Bukhari 62:137

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born." - Muslim 3371

A modern ruling from one of the leading sheikhs...
"Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her.
What is meant by “those whom their right hands possess” is slave women or concubines" Intercourse with a slave woman is not regarded as zina (adultery) - Islam Question & Answer

Are you an adulterer? You seem to wish adulterers should not be punished at all.

Of course adult, informed, consensual sex should not be punished.
Why on earth would you think it should be?
(Note: "Cuz god sez" is not a rational argument)

Death to adulterers is not just an Islamic law, it’s also in the Bible - If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

As much of the Quran is derived from the Old Testament, that is hardly surprising.
And yes, we have already established that the OT is just as violent and intolerant as the Quran. Not sure why you think that excuses either of them.
"Yes your honour, I did murder my wife, but my brother murdered his as well, so can I go free?"

You seem confused. Not every verse was revealed in response to some event. The Quran also revealed of who God is, like Surah 114, which is not event-related at all.

Despite being the last sura in the Quran, it was revealed during Muhammad's early prophethood in Mecca. It is known as a "refuge verse" and was intended to protect those reciting it from both the persecution of men and evil spirits.
But of course you wouldn't know this as your knowledge of Islam is limited to YouTube propaganda videos. Try reading the Quran with a good tafsir (I recommend Ibn kathir).

The ‘good example of Abraham’ is referring to Abraham’s rejection of idol-worshiping. Where did you get Abraham’s ‘hate and enmity for the disbelievers’ from???

You don't think "idol worshippers" are "disbelievers"? The verse specifically states that the hatred will continue "until you believe in Allah Alone", thus referring to anyone who rejects Islam.
But at least you admit that the Quran does indeed promote hate towards people simply because of their religious beliefs.

Abraham did not disown his father, but he dissociated himself from him

This is where your poor understanding of English comes in. They are synonymous in this context.

Yes, faith in Allah is above all but the Quran NEVER ask you to disown your parents, your family… dissociated from their blasphemous beliefs, YES.

From Ibn Kathir's tafsir on 60:4...
"The Good Example of Ibrahim and His Followers, when They disowned Their Disbelieving People".
Doesn't get much clearer than that, does it?

You mind quoting your source of information? Let’s see how ignorant one can be.

Here's a list of his military actions. Feel free to point out the purely defensive ones - particularly after the Battle of the Trench.
List of expeditions of Muhammad - Wikipedia

Did I admit to that?? And I thought your grasp of English is so good!! LOL.

You said...
"Why do you think the US used aggressive military action during the Gulf war if they did not believe the enemies will be taking similar action??"
Why make the comparison otherwise?

Putin claimed he was liberating Ukraine?? Really?? I must have missed that. Can you show me the report/news, videos where Putin claimed he was liberating Ukraine??

Why am I not surprised that you are also ignorant of global current affairs.
US officials dismiss Putin’s claim that his forces have ‘liberated’ the port city of Mariupol as disinformation – as it happened | Ukraine | The Guardian

"Putin is ready to liberate Ukraine"
See more at Putin has changed the world, and Ukraine has no guts to do anything

 

[JerryMyers]

And right on cue, you perfectly illustrate my point.

Yes, all your posts were just displays of your inability to think logically and rationally – is that the point that I perfectly illustrate?? Glad you agree.

In future, I will try and keep each post to just one point. That way you might be able to spot it.

Yeah, that’s a good idea, keeping each of your posts to one nonsense, I mean, one ‘point’ will help you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Not me. But it does make such belief irrational. ...

Yes, but then what? If a belief is irrational, then what follows with logic, reason and critical thinking about that?

...Then why does religion require faith and belief rather than evidence (as you just pointed out). The reality is that when logic and reason and critical thinking are applied, religions unravel.
...

Yeah, they become unknown and a matter of belief. Again then what follows from that?

 

[JerryMyers]

Not sure what your plan was here. If you are genuinely unaware of these passages, one would think that you'r check first before exposing your own ignorance. If you are aware of them, asking me to quote them merely highlights the abhorrent barbarism of some elements of Islam to a wider audience. A genuine apologist with knowledge of Islam would attempt to mitigate the problem, by claiming "things were different then" or "it was consensual".
Anywho...
"Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess" - 4:24
"Successful believers; are those who guard their chastity; Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess" - 23:5-6
"O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives; and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you" - 33:50
"Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." - Bukhari 34:432
"Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." - Bukhari 62:137
"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born." - Muslim 3371
A modern ruling from one of the leading sheikhs...
"Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her.
What is meant by “those whom their right hands possess” is slave women or concubines" Intercourse with a slave woman is not regarded as zina (adultery) - Islam Question & Answer

You do realize that those hadiths are references to captives of wars not a reference to normal house maids?? You are also trying to judge those hadiths by today’s moral standards which are hilarious considering you yourself do not have any morals.

In those days, captives of war are either killed or if kept alive, they often became slaves to the victors, and having sex with female slaves was common – this is the norm in those days throughout the world even before Islam came into the scene. So, don’t try to give the impression that slaves never existed and sex with slaves was never practiced throughout the world before Islam - they were already the norm long before Muhammad.

‘What the right hands possessed’ is the reference to the female slaves whom you rightfully and lawfully owned.

‘Rightfully and lawfully owned’ means these female captives are not (to be made) sex slaves but, to get intimate with them, they must rightfully become one’s wives and that’s what Quran 33:50 is saying - "O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives; and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you".

Hadith Muslim 3371 and other similar themed hadiths is about “coitus interruptus” as the Muslims did not want to take that extra responsibility of having children from their female slave-wives. They asked the Prophet about this and the Prophet replied by saying it did not matter whether they practice “Coitus Interruptus” or not since whoever has been fated to be born will be born no matter what actions they took.... and you go bananas over it???!

Of course adult, informed, consensual sex should not be punished.
Why on earth would you think it should be?
(Note: "Cuz god sez" is not a rational argument)

So you are telling me it’s okay to have sex with anyone’s wife as long it’s consensual?? Ooops, I forgot that you do not have any morals!!
[Note: Cuz those who do not believe in God have no morals and are incapable to think logically and rationally to have any rational arguments)

As much of the Quran is derived from the Old Testament, that is hardly surprising.

Nope, the Quran came from God, just like the earlier original manuscripts ((like the Torah, the Psalm, the Gospel) which came from God (before parts of them are edited by man). So, it’s not surprising to see similar verses between the Quran and the OT.
Your comment on this is hardly surprising considering your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally.

And yes, we have already established that the OT is just as violent and intolerant as the Quran. Not sure why you think that excuses either of them.

LOL. We have established nothing other than your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally.

"Yes your honour, I did murder my wife, but my brother murdered his as well, so can I go free?"

Now, why would you think that a murderer should be set free because his brother is also a murderer?? Once again you showed everyone you lack any morals and inability to think logically and rationally!!

Despite being the last sura in the Quran, it was revealed during Muhammad's early prophethood in Mecca. It is known as a "refuge verse" and was intended to protect those reciting it from both the persecution of men and evil spirits.

So, what’s wrong with taking refuge in God??

But of course you wouldn't know this as your knowledge of Islam is limited to YouTube propaganda videos. Try reading the Quran with a good tafsir (I recommend Ibn kathir).

Lol! There’s a saying “If you do not know about a subject, it’s best you keep quiet so that people are not sure whether you are knowledgeable or not, BUT the moment you open your mouth or make comments about it, everyone knows you have zero knowledge of the subject!”… and what makes it more hilarious is, you even accuse the other party of having limited knowledge on the subject of which you have zero knowledge - some may call that arrogant stupidity! So, stop exposing yourself!!

You don't think "idol worshippers" are "disbelievers"?

All idol worshippers are disbelievers, BUT not all disbelievers are idol worshippers. Don’t you know that?? You are a disbeliever but are you also an idol worshipper?? Another demonstration of your inability to think logically and rationally?

The verse specifically states that the hatred will continue "until you believe in Allah Alone", thus referring to anyone who rejects Islam.

I know it is very hard for you, but try to understand that verse in context instead of displaying your ignorance.

But at least you admit that the Quran does indeed promote hate towards people simply because of their religious beliefs.

When did I ever admit that?? Your ignorance and lack of logic and rationale in your thinking are really on display now!!

This is where your poor understanding of English comes in. They are synonymous in this context.

They are synonymous in this context meaning Abraham refused to acknowledge his father's practice of idol worshipping, NOT that he refused to accept his father as his own – so much of your ‘good’ understanding of English.

From Ibn Kathir's tafsir on 60:4...
"The Good Example of Ibrahim and His Followers, when They disowned Their Disbelieving People".
Doesn't get much clearer than that, does it?

Yusuf Ali: And Abraham prayed for his father's forgiveness only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy to Allah, he dissociated himself from him: for Abraham was most tender-hearted, forbearing.

Shakir: And Ibrahim asking forgiveness for his sire was only owing to a promise which he had made to him; but when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of Allah, he declared himself to be clear of him; most surely Ibrahim was very tender-hearted forbearing.
Doesn't get much clearer than that, does it?

Here's a list of his military actions. Feel free to point out the purely defensive ones - particularly after the Battle of the Trench.
List of expeditions of Muhammad - Wikipedia

Well, Wikipedia is a great source if you are starting research as it covers a wide range of topics, BUT, you just cannot rely on just Wikipedia as your main source of information. That is because Wikipedia is NOT a credible source of information – it allows multiple users to edit its information. In other words, the quality of these references is questionable because people who are not experts in a field can update a page anytime to reflect whatever information they feel to be true and even back it up with heavily biased sources - sounds like something right up your alley as you too like to edit other user’s comment and replace words from their statement whenever you think that will help your response looks more legit, right?

You said...
"Why do you think the US used aggressive military action during the Gulf war if they did not believe the enemies will be taking similar action??"
Why make the comparison otherwise?

Another demonstration of your inability to think logically and rationally??
The comparison is to tell you that any army will take heavy military action because they expect their enemies to be doing the same. Only those who lack logic and rationale will bring a knife to a gunfight!

Why am I not surprised that you are also ignorant of global current affairs.

US officials dismiss Putin’s claim that his forces have ‘liberated’ the port city of Mariupol as disinformation – as it happened | Ukraine | The Guardian
"Putin is ready to liberate Ukraine"
See more at Putin has changed the world, and Ukraine has no guts to do anything

Errm… I think I specifically asked you “Can you show me the report/news, videos where Putin claimed he was liberating Ukraine??” I DID NOT ask you to show me what others claim of what they think Putin claimed .... you do understand English, don’t you?? Why am I not surprised that you don’t understand what you read??

 

[KWED]

You do realize that those hadiths are references to captives of wars not a reference to normal house maids??

Under Islam, female slaves can be acquired through purchase/exchange and through birth, not just being taken captive. But at least you now admit that Islam allows men to have sex with their males slaves or captives (something that is legally classed as "rape" today).

You are also trying to judge those hadiths by today’s moral standards

So you admit that the moral standards of Muhammad and the Quran no longer apply. Interesting admission.

which are hilarious considering you yourself do not have any morals.

Of course I have morals. I think it is morally wrong to own another human as property, for example. You, on the other hand, think that it is morally acceptable. So much for your "moral high ground"!

In those days, captives of war are either killed or if kept alive, they often became slaves to the victors, and having sex with female slaves was common – this is the norm in those days throughout the world even before Islam came into the scene. So, don’t try to give the impression that slaves never existed and sex with slaves was never practiced throughout the world before Islam - they were already the norm long before Muhammad.

I never made any such claim. I was merely pointing out the moral bankruptcy of Islam in making slavery and using female slaves for sex morally acceptable.

‘What the right hands possessed’ is the reference to the female slaves whom you rightfully and lawfully owned.

‘Rightfully and lawfully owned’ means these female captives are not (to be made) sex slaves but, to get intimate with them, they must rightfully become one’s wives and that’s what Quran 33:50 is saying - "O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives; and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you".

Yes, we get it. You think using female slaves or captives for sex is morally acceptable. (And you accuse hers of having "no morals" )

Hadith Muslim 3371 and other similar themed hadiths is about “coitus interruptus” as the Muslims did not want to take that extra responsibility of having children from their female slave-wives. They asked the Prophet about this and the Prophet replied by saying it did not matter whether they practice “Coitus Interruptus” or not since whoever has been fated to be born will be born no matter what actions they took.... and you go bananas over it???!

Oh dear.
The point is that the hadith describe Muslim soldiers basically raping their new "desirable" captives. Muhammad has the opportunity to tell them not to, but he allows them to continue.
Of course if it was just some random warlord in the ANE allowing his men to rape their captives, then it wouldn't be noteworthy. Those were often brutal times. The problem is that Muhammad is supposed to be "the best of creation", the ultimate moral exemplar and role model for all Muslims to aspire to. So whatever he did is necessarily morally good.

So you are telling me it’s okay to have sex with anyone’s wife as long it’s consensual??

If a woman wants to have informed, adult, consensual sex with someone other than her husband, that is her business. He doesn't own her (no really, he doesn't, even though you may think so).

Ooops, I forgot that you do not have any morals!!

And yet you believe that bashing a woman's brains out with rocks simply for having consensual sex is morally acceptable. t would be funny if it wasn't so abhorrent.

[Note: Cuz those who do not believe in God have no morals and are incapable to think logically and rationally to have any rational arguments)

Islamic "morals" are often completely immoral, as you have nicely illustrated.

Nope, the Quran came from God,

You believe it came from god, but there is literally no evidence or rational argument to support that claim, and much that disproves it.

just like the earlier original manuscripts ((like the Torah, the Psalm, the Gospel) which came from God (before parts of them are edited by man). So, it’s not surprising to see similar verses between the Quran and the OT.
Your comment on this is hardly surprising considering your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally.

Was Zoroastrianism and Arab Paganism also from god, because Islam contains elements of those beliefs as well?

Now, why would you think that a murderer should be set free because his brother is also a murderer?? Once again you showed everyone you lack any morals and inability to think logically and rationally!!

Oh dear god. Surely you can't be that dim?
It was an analogy to illustrate the flaw in your whataboutery argument. You said...
"Death to adulterers is not just an Islamic law, it’s also in the Bible".
Both are wrong. One doesn't excuse the other.
Geddit?

So, what’s wrong with taking refuge in God??

Again, way to miss the point!
You claimed that the verse was not related to any event. I explained that it was.

Lol! There’s a saying “If you do not know about a subject, it’s best you keep quiet so that people are not sure whether you are knowledgeable or not, BUT the moment you open your mouth or make comments about it, everyone knows you have zero knowledge of the subject!”… and what makes it more hilarious is, you even accuse the other party of having limited knowledge on the subject of which you have zero knowledge - some may call that arrogant stupidity! So, stop exposing yourself!!

Never heard that saying. Sounds like you made it up.
However, you posts here clearly show a lack of knowledge of the Quran and associated texts. I mean, you claimed that Allah never makes the threat "worship me or I will torture you forever" in the Quran. So either you hadn't read the Quran or you were doing dishonest.

All idol worshippers are disbelievers, BUT not all disbelievers are idol worshippers. Don’t you know that?? You are a disbeliever but are you also an idol worshipper?? Another demonstration of your inability to think logically and rationally?

Not sure what point you are trying to make. The verse refers to those who reject Islam, as Ibn Kathir explained.

I know it is very hard for you, but try to understand that verse in context instead of displaying your ignorance.

You know, when you claim "BUT CONTEXT!!", you need to explain what the context is that changes the apparent meaning.
In the case of 60:4, the context is Allah saying to all Muslims that Abraham's hatred is a good example to follow. The context is that it is a general example, not event specific.

When did I ever admit that?? Your ignorance and lack of logic and rationale in your thinking are really on display now!!

You said that the verse (which specifically promotes hate) is directed at idol worshippers - ie. people with a different religious belief to Islam.

They are synonymous in this context meaning Abraham refused to acknowledge his father's practice of idol worshipping, NOT that he refused to accept his father as his own – so much of your ‘good’ understanding of English.

If you admit that they are synonymous, what's your point?

Yusuf Ali: And Abraham prayed for his father's forgiveness only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy to Allah, he dissociated himself from him: for Abraham was most tender-hearted, forbearing.

Shakir: And Ibrahim asking forgiveness for his sire was only owing to a promise which he had made to him; but when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of Allah, he declared himself to be clear of him; most surely Ibrahim was very tender-hearted forbearing.
Doesn't get much clearer than that, does it?

Muhammad Sarwar: "When Abraham knew that his father was an enemy of God, he disowned his father."

Pickthall: but when it had become clear unto him that he (his father) was an enemy to Allah he (Abraham) disowned him

Talal Itani: But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of God, he disowned him.

Well, Wikipedia is a great source if you are starting research as it covers a wide range of topics, BUT, you just cannot rely on just Wikipedia as your main source of information. That is because Wikipedia is NOT a credible source of information – it allows multiple users to edit its information. In other words, the quality of these references is questionable because people who are not experts in a field can update a page anytime to reflect whatever information they feel to be true and even back it up with heavily biased sources - sounds like something right up your alley as you too like to edit other user’s comment and replace words from their statement whenever you think that will help your response looks more legit, right?

So what is your argument here? That the list of battles is wrong? That there are some missing of made-up ones added?

Or are you simply avoiding the issue - which is that after the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad did not fight any defensive battles.

Another demonstration of your inability to think logically and rationally??
The comparison is to tell you that any army will take heavy military action because they expect their enemies to be doing the same. Only those who lack logic and rationale will bring a knife to a gunfight!

So when Muhammad invaded lands and attacked tribes, he took a big army in case his opponents fought back?
No **** Sherlock!

Errm… I think I specifically asked you “Can you show me the report/news, videos where Putin claimed he was liberating Ukraine??” I DID NOT ask you to show me what others claim of what they think Putin claimed .... you do understand English, don’t you?? Why am I not surprised that you don’t understand what you read??

You obviously didn't read the articles. Quelle surprise!
"US officials have dismissed Vladimir Putin’s claim that his forces have “liberated” the port city of Mariupol as disinformation. The Russian president made the claim..."

So, to get back to the point - you claimed that Muhammad liberated the Arabian peninsula. Liberated from whom?