The Vortex beckons,how many contradictions and errors are in the Qur'an

[Aquitaine]

i think you've missed post 148 on page 15. that answeres this matter. if you really want an answer that is.

A scripture from a book does not constitue as evidence.

All post 148 shows is that according to Islam, all children are born Muslim.

Just like according to Christianity, all children are born Sinners.

You need to realise that a religious perspective is nothing mroe than a belief, not fact. So far, no religion has stepped over the line that separates fact from fiction.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Ok Fati... let's do this one more time. And for the record, I'll calm my dialogue a bit if you follow suit. I don't want anything to get nasty over semantics...

But really, let's just break down what you said.

Response: Again, another display of a lack of comprehension. Now let me break it down to you. My original statement is in post 16 which clearly states that the term "first muslim" is not there.

Here is the post you are referring to.

Response: It amazes me. Why is it that because a person can not comprehend simple, basic english, it's the qur'an's fault? You're inability to comprehend is your fault. No where does the verses imply that anyone is the first muslim. Case in point, show me the word "first"? Show me anything synonymous to the word "first"? Exactly. You can't. So how can the verses imply something if the words are not there? Does "the dog is fast" imply that "the dog is slow"? No. Why? Because "fast" and "slow" are not synonymous in meaning. This is simple english. The same goes for the verse in question. Neither the word "first" is there, nor is there a word synonymous in meaning.

Now, honestly, what you are clearly saying is that the specific word "first" is not there. Then at the end of the post you extrapolate and say...

Therefore, no where does any verse claim that there was a "first" muslim. A first grader can see this.

I know from your past posts that you do not like when people imply meaning in texts, but this is in fact what you are doing. You also finish up with a bit of a personal insult, which was a little unnecessary.

Anyway, it was then pointed out to you that the word "first" was in fact there, and it at least seemed like you were denying that.

So you clarify yourself in your last post.

Then, in that very same post, I said that the word "first" is not there. Meaning that in the phrase "first muslim", the word "first" is not there, not that the word "first" is not in the text. So when I asked for you to show me the word "first", I'm asking for proof that the word "first" occurs in the alleged phrase "first muslim", not "first" in the text.

Can you at least understand how it looks like you're denying that the word "first" is not there? Because it honestly looks like you are just backtracking on what you said. Honestly, how does "Case in point, show me the word "first"? Show me anything synonymous to the word "first"?" look to you?

I await your response and hope we can continue our conversation in a respectful, less hostile, manner.

 

[Gharib]

Wrong. You cannot "measure" of "define" how much of a Muslim a Muslim is. Hell I even saw a TV documentary not too long ago about the troubles Muslim Homo-Sexuals faced. Some where from Africa, others the Middle-East.

apparently we can, try to keep up will ya?
you see Allah condems homosexuality. just as he condems those who associate other partners to him. so if someone says they believe in Allah, read the quran but at the same time believe that there are more than one god, how can they be a muslim, when it contradicts islam?

They all believed in Allah, all did their prayers and attended Mosques, read Korans etc etc.

You have no right to assess whether or not their faith is "true", you are no mroe or less any "Muslim" than they are.

so a non muslim (thats you) knows who is a better muslim, but i don't even after explaining what islam says concerning the matter? anything else you'd like to share or add?

Just for the record, did you know that Athiests exist too? Oh and so do Agnostics!

is this for real? whats an atheist? oh and just incas you don't get it, here's something for you as a clue :sarcastic

Where are you from by the way, Australia?

i live in australia yes, but am not from here originally, try macedonia. an albanian from macedonia.

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

Wrong. You cannot "measure" of "define" how much of a Muslim a Muslim is. Hell I even saw a TV documentary not too long ago about the troubles Muslim Homo-Sexuals faced. Some where from Africa, others the Middle-East.

They all believed in Allah, all did their prayers and attended Mosques, read Korans etc etc.

You have no right to assess whether or not their faith is "true", you are no mroe or less any "Muslim" than they are.

Just for the record, did you know that Athiests exist too? Oh and so do Agnostics!

Where are you from by the way, Australia?

well those 'muslims' do that all in vain, as they are sure shooting don the wron path (no pun intended). A gay CANNOT be a muslim, just like a Rapist cannot claim he is a nice person!

 

[Gharib]

A scripture from a book does not constitue as evidence.

All post 148 shows is that according to Islam, all children are born Muslim.

Just like according to Christianity, all children are born Sinners.

You need to realise that a religious perspective is nothing mroe than a belief, not fact. So far, no religion has stepped over the line that separates fact from fiction.

well i'd like to see you prove that scripture wrong, in order for the burden to do so to be on me. otherwise it still stands. why doesn't scince claim all children are born atheists, cos that would be a lie. as for what christians believe i can tell you thats wrong, one has to sin in order to be a sinner. i'm sure you know how it works.

 

[Perfect Circle]

look i've never known that homosexuality has existed. i've grown up in my home country mostly therefore i couldn't have know of this due to homosxuality being something no one likes.

but now i know about it, can you lighten up with all the not representing all muslims and stuff. that argumentt is pretty weak and low when non muslims use it. it just shows that you guys genralise about things due to one small error. muslims come from all backgrounds, some of us live in societies that has no time to waste on knowing about gays or lesbians.

You're right, I came across a bit harsh. I'm sorry if I offended you. But please understand that that is why people do the horrific things they do to homosexuals. I'm sure if everyone knew them, and understood the facts about it, all the hate around the subject would dissipate. But ignorance of the subject only makes the fear and negativity stronger.

Also, you have to admit that you are guilty of generalizing non-muslims. I understand that muslims all come from a diverse background. I've got several muslim friends that I've known since childhood.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Response: This is the Religious education forum, not Burger King. You can't have it your way.

Hahaha, that's the funniest thing you've ever said!

 

[Gharib]

You're right, I came across a bit harsh. I'm sorry if I offended you. But please understand that that is why people do the horrific things they do to homosexuals. I'm sure if everyone knew them, and understood the facts about it, all the hate around the subject would dissipate. But ignorance of the subject only makes the fear and negativity stronger.

not offended, just too harsh

Also, you have to admit that you are guilty of generalizing non-muslims. I understand that muslims all come from a diverse background. I've got several muslim friends that I've known since childhood.

where have i generalised all non muslims? i don't remember doing this.
stick to the muslims if you want my advice.

 

[Perfect Circle]

not offended, just too harsh

where have i generalised all non muslims? i don't remember doing this.
stick to the muslims if you want my advice.

Well like I said, sorry...
And as for generalization, who did you mean by "you guys"?

 

[Gharib]

Well like I said, sorry...
And as for generalization, who did you mean by "you guys"?

i meant all non muslims. thanks for pointing it out, i won't do it no more.

 

[Aquitaine]

apparently we can, try to keep up will ya?

No, you can't. Because regardless of whatever scripture you throw at me, it's all based off Human interpretation. There is no real evidence to support any of it being the true, accurate word of whatever God it is claimed to correspond to.

you see Allah condems homosexuality. just as he condems those who associate other partners to him. so if someone says they believe in Allah, read the quran but at the same time believe that there are more than one god, how can they be a muslim, when it contradicts islam?

Allah also permits no mroe than 4 Wives per Husband. Yet how many Wives did Mo' have? 13 in total, 11 at one time.
But again, as I said, all scripture is based off interpretation. No religion has provided any credible evidence for it's claims, you have no idea what this God of yours truely thinks.

so a non muslim (thats you) knows who is a better muslim, but i don't even after explaining what islam says concerning the matter? anything else you'd like to share or add?

Just that you've misunderstood me. I'm not claiming I know who's a better Muslim, I'm simply stating that no-one (even me) can "measure" who is more Muslim than another.

is this for real? whats an atheist? oh and just incas you don't get it, here's something for you as a clue :sarcastic

I know you're being sarcastic, but just for your sake I will inform you as to what an Atheist is: an Atheist is someone who eats babies, and rapes pigeons all day. Why? Because he rejects God and isn't religious, and therefore has no Morality.

i live in australia yes, but am not from here originally, try macedonia. an albanian from macedonia.

So you live in Australia and only just found out that Homo's exist?

well i'd like to see you prove that scripture wrong, in order for the burden to do so to be on me.

Wrong. The burden of proof by default is on you. A statement by default is not true, it needs evidence to support itself, otherwise everything would by default be true, like this statement: I am a rich, handsome Man with lots of girls.

Now, of course I'd need to provide evidence for that statement, and since I have non, it's therefore not true. ^_^

YOU claim these divine things, therefore, YOU need to provide evidence for them. But don't waste your time, all religions have been trying to do it for as long as they've been around, and have all failed....... miserably.

Don't waste your time, you'll only end up throwing scripture at me anyways.

why doesn't scince claim all children are born atheists, cos that would be a lie.

What?! "Science" claims all children are born Atheist"? None-sense! Stop talking about Science as if it's a Dogma. Children arn't born Atheist anyways, because Atheists deny God. Children (to my knowledge) are obviously born Neutral, not a believer, but not a denier - because they don't know anythnig about it!

God!

 

[Riverwolf]

what religion did your parents follow when you were between the age of 0 and say a teenager?

Agnostic, mostly. (I think.) My dad eventually adopted Buddhism, but he never seriously became a practitioner.

 

[Riverwolf]

i think eselam may have been confused regarding that one ploint, although i agree with the rest of his words.

With repect to gay people, they have been around since Lutt and his people. They should be referred to as sodomites as the first gays were from Sodom.

To semi-quote "The Shawshank Redemption," the people from Sodom weren't homosexual, either. You have to be human first, and they didn't qualify.

it is unnatural and unhygienic to have anal sex. it is disgusting and it is against the laws of nature. not even animals practice homosexuality, except monkeys, and monkeys are used as the lowest examples for humans in the quran.

Penguins...

 

[JMorris]

To semi-quote "The Shawshank Redemption," the people from Sodom weren't homosexual, either. You have to be human first, and they didn't qualify.



Penguins...

let me add a link......... that im sure they wont even look at

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aquitaine]

To semi-quote "The Shawshank Redemption," the people from Sodom weren't homosexual, either. You have to be human first, and they didn't qualify.

Coorect me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that Gays don't qualify as Human Beings?

 

[Riverwolf]

Coorect me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that Gays don't qualify as Human Beings?

No; I'm quoting a film. The people in Sodom weren't gay at all; they were demons. (Within the realm of the mythology.)

The people referred to in the film were rapists and sexually addicted to control. Man or woman doesn't matter.

In the real world, people who just happen to be homosexual are just that: homosexual. Nothing bad about it. (I deny any verse that says nonsense like "homosexuality is against the will of God"... or, heck, ANY verse that says stuff happens independently of God.)

 

[Aquitaine]

No; I'm quoting a film. The people in Sodom weren't gay at all; they were demons. (Within the realm of the mythology.)

The people referred to in the film were rapists and sexually addicted to control. Man or woman doesn't matter.

In the real world, people who just happen to be homosexual are just that: homosexual. Nothing bad about it. (I deny any verse that says nonsense like "homosexuality is against the will of God"... or, heck, ANY verse that says stuff happens independently of God.)

Isn't that the story where as they're running away from the burning Sodom, Lot's Wife turns around and God conveniently decides to turn her into stone?

 

[Riverwolf]

Isn't that the story where as they're running away from the burning Sodom, Lot's Wife turns around and God conveniently decides to turn her into stone?

Lot's wife became salt, not stone, but yes.

BTW, I don't believe the story to be literal history. It may be based off of something that happened, but as to what and when is anybody's guess.

 

[kai]

in the prayer, salat, everyone stands shoulder to shoulder, next to rich, poor, black, white, weak, strong. we say the same thing and think the same thing and that is all for allah. rasicm is gone! we are all equal, we are all one, one in purpose. We are borthers in faith.

and yet some are more equal than others i think, remember its an Arab religion , salaat prayers in arabic are listened to by god and only an Arabic Quran is a true Quran, and when you get to paradise you will speak Arabic. yes you all bow to your Arab God in the Arab way and have your women dress in Arab robes follow an Arab calender and go to Arabia for your pilgrimage.

even today in a society whcih claims that their is no more racism, it is evident that it still exists. liverpool here in england if proof of that and if you go on xbox live today, where people feel they can freely speak their mind, the N word is the butt of every sentence. awefull.

and the word kafir would not in any way reflect bigotry.

 

[kai]

well i think this thread has run its course as far as i am concerned , for me its all too much to beleive, it makes no sense to a 21st century mind and i dont feel the need to take on an Arab deity as an overlord.

There are no contradictions in the Quran to a Muslim and thats that. because they would not be a Muslim if they saw one, the veil has been put on and the very thought is un Islamic.