• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed The Miracles Continue ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is claiming to be the best judge of the Quran halal?
Isn’t there just about a dozen fatwahs waiting for the poor little fella?
 
autumn1971 said:
Is claiming to be the best judge of the Quran halal?
Isn’t there just about a dozen fatwahs
Click to expand...

This statement (judge) belongs to Bing Translator.

The actual term "interpreting ", "evaluating ".

Only God gives the fatwa.
 
Last edited:
Emre_1974tr said:
This statement (judge) belongs to Bing Translator.

The actual term "interpreting ", "evaluating ".

Only God gives the fatwa.
Click to expand...


From what I read fatwa's only pertain to the interpretation of Sharia. The Koran (being the perfect word of God) should need no interpretation (to a scholar who is fluent in Arabic that is).

You are doing your interpretations (evaluations) from others work. I mean those who have interpreted the text from Arabic To Turkish ....... yes. What more can be said?
 
Thor 2 said:
From what I read fatwa's only pertain to the interpretation of Sharia. The Koran (being the perfect word of God) should need no interpretation (to a scholar who is fluent in Arabic that is).

?
Click to expand...



I'm showing the obvious.

Example,

Only God gives the fatwa.
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
the conservative Muslim countries.
Click to expand...

They're not conservative. On the contrary, reformist and innovators in religion. They changed religion and twisted it. For example, they added things like headscarves, stoning, circumcision, and so on.

We're telling the original version.

In real Islam ; No headscarves, no stoning, no circumsion...
 
Emre_1974tr said:
They're not conservative. On the contrary, reformist and innovators in religion. They changed religion and twisted it. For example, they added things like headscarves, stoning, circumcision, and so on.

We're telling the original version.

In real Islam ; No headscarves, no stoning, no circumsion...
Click to expand...
As one of our resident Scotsmen can I be first to go "No true Scotsman" to this silly statement?
 
Emre_1974tr said:
In real Islam ; No headscarves, no stoning, no circumsion...
Click to expand...

This is all very laudable, but I am sure that the those Muslims that do think that these things belong to Islam, also have read the Koran, and that they have found exactly those quotes that you think do not exist.
 
Emre_1974tr said:
They're not conservative. On the contrary, reformist and innovators in religion. They changed religion and twisted it. For example, they added things like headscarves, stoning, circumcision, and so on.

We're telling the original version.

In real Islam ; No headscarves, no stoning, no circumsion...
Click to expand...

Only because they hadn't yet dreamed up those embellishments. But they got around to it. All of it. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

And the just plain crazy and dead wrong. They had already largely gotten around to that in the original version. But they were also able to embellish on that.

Show me a faith-based religion, and I'll show you something that is inevitably corruptible. And almost certainly wrong in the first place.
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
This is all very laudable, but I am sure that the those Muslims that do think that these things belong to Islam, also have read the Koran, and that they have found exactly those quotes that you think do not exist.
Click to expand...



No, they follow the Hadith/sect and Sufism religions.

They're listening to the people's words.

They think they have no authority to understand the Qur'an.

In short, they have embraced the anti-Islam teachings.

The headscarf, the stoning, the circumcision, from the fake Injils and the fake Torah (they are hadith books).

There is no such thing in the Qur'an.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79983

http://quranic.org/
 
Toontown said:
Only because they hadn't yet dreamed up those embellishments. But they got around to it. All of it. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that decent Christians who can accept science, and who do can leave judgement to their God instead of killing people today, are the ones who need to avoid a literal interpretation of their scriptures, whereas here we are told that decent Muslims need to go back to a more literal interpretation ...

They are, of course, all interpretations, and can change according to their believers wishes. But it is good to know that at least some believers think that their religion is compatible with humanism.
 
You know, I kind of like the Quran/Book of Mormon approach to holy books. I have this book here. An angel gave it to me and I transcribed it. I don't have the original any more because I gave it back to the angel / I lost it / the dog ate it. It has a lot of stuff that looks like it was plagiarized from other holy books because those books were right, but have been corrupted over time by evil priests. Worship me and give me money.
 
CORed said:
You know, I kind of like the Quran/Book of Mormon approach to holy books. I have this book here. An angel gave it to me and I transcribed it. I don't have the original any more because I gave it back to the angel / I lost it / the dog ate it. It has a lot of stuff that looks like it was plagiarized from other holy books because those books were right, but have been corrupted over time by evil priests. Worship me and give me money.
Click to expand...


Sounds good to me!
 
CORed said:
Well sure, to the nearest whole number or to one significant digit. Seems a bit sloppy to me, but maybe close enough for religious work.
Click to expand...

ISF your one stop shop for science wrong.

Before I start note that the accepted number for the age of the universe has tightened up a bit since I wrote my post. That only changes how wrong you are, doesn't make you right.

With currently accepted numbers the age of the universe divided by the age of the Earth is 3 to two decimal places not one, no matter how you apply the error bars. And at one edge of the error bars, it's 3 to nearly five decimal places.

And besides I said it was inside the errors bars. When 3 was inside the error bars it was inside them. So decimal places don't matter. 3 was higher than the lowest value and less then the highest value. So to any number of decimal places it would still be inside.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
ISF your one stop shop for science wrong.
Before I start note that the accepted number for the age of the universe has tightened up a bit since I wrote my post. That only changes how wrong you are, doesn't make you right.

With currently accepted numbers the age of the universe divided by the age of the Earth is 3 to two decimal places not one, no matter how you apply the error bars. And at one edge of the error bars, it's 3 to nearly five decimal places.

And besides I said it was inside the errors bars. When 3 was inside the error bars it was inside them. So decimal places don't matter. 3 was higher than the lowest value and less then the highest value. So to any number of decimal places it would still be inside.
Click to expand...


What is this crap! If you post some letters you should be sure others know what you are on about. Is it an acronym? I saw no reference to this in CORed's post.
 
Emre_1974tr said:
They're not conservative. On the contrary, reformist and innovators in religion. They changed religion and twisted it. For example, they added things like headscarves, stoning, circumcision, and so on.

We're telling the original version.

In real Islam ; No headscarves, no stoning, no circumsion...
Click to expand...

You're basically discarding a lot of additions (good) and adding your own interpretations (bad).

The quran was written during the third caliph. That explains a lot of silliness in it (an your interpretation of the "fluorescent planet" goes the same way). They wrote what they knew at the time, not the words "dictated to the prophet", some of them written on dry leaves which were eaten by a goat (what shows how god cared about those who didn't care).

The only real thing is the way you feel the presence of your god and the way you inspire yourself with the example of the prophet, departing from the little certainty of the quran as it is. Don't worry, the bible is even worst in that aspect.

It's just a personal matter so I don't understand all your devilish parade here speaking almost in tongues about things that are not really written there. It looks you're just enamoured of the earthly devilish power brought by preaching backed, in the supposed authority of hallowed scriptures (how very Christian of you).

If a god had wished to make things clear, it has got it right from the beginning (mount Rushmore comes to mind as a way of expression), so the conclusion is, either there's no god or that god decreed each of us must find a personal and quiet way to reach such god. You must decide, there's no third way. The only thing that matters is what you share of that intimate way of reaching god, not all the babbling of yours about the quran that shows that you aren't even sure there's a god but you yourself, what is horrible.


Go ahead, cutting the nonsense and showing us you're a pious man or woman... or go away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom