70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India

[Roshanrocks]

damn I did nat know :--D

:cantstop: arrey BB ur debate's interesting.... but i wudnt have found it if i hadnt clicked on the link by mistake...i so if any mods reading this...kindly transfer all the post of the two to another separate thread please :hatsoff:

[Kriterion]

Just responding to the absolute core of the discussion to save time ... See this is the problem ... when people like Muhammad claim that they are agents of God they well and truly believe that in their mind. Ditto with any of the miracles. So to repeat one more time ... the point here is NOT what actually happened ( ie. whethere the moon was cut in two ) but rather what Muhammad stoutly believed he achieved ) . The fact that Muhammad claimed to be a messenger of God and that he recieved revelations regularly is equally preposterous (if not more ) than his claim of having split the moon. There exists no "real" evidence of either that can stand scientific scrutiny other than accounts of his folowers in various Hadith. All holymen are convinced in their mind beyond any doubt that they are divine.

this means that Muhammad had no grasp on reality. this is called schizophrenia...which would necessarily preclude him from having the foresight of thought which would enable him to overcome great adversity to emerge victorious as he did. people with such severe delusions and disconnections from reality need to be medicated, sedated, and institutionalized. they can't even hold down a menial job such as working at a gas station or being a janitor. and this is the person you think went on to become a great threat to world peace? this is especially shocking since Muhammad goes around proving his own "miracles" FALSE. remember that Saibaba and other illusionists at least offer an optical illusion to deceive the ignorant and under-educated among us. further, this means that all those who confirmed Muhammad's alleged miracle are also schizophrenics who are detached from reality and that shatters any credibility the "various Hadith" you speak about could have.

Common sense also says that soo many scholars cant be ALL wrong in the same manner.

logical fallacy. common sense also indicates that the earth must be flat since so many scholars once thought so and they couldn't all be wrong in the same manner.

Yusuf Ali : The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. (Note : He is NOT talking about a future judgement day as the grammar is NOT in future tense ... cant be bothered to keep rehashing the same again and again )

you are the first person i've met to attest that there are multiple days of Judgment in Islam.

but then he goes on to simply dismiss that and say that the verse does not refer to that event but, rather, to a future event and that Quran uses past tense to denote the future . What sort of explanation is this ? Does it even make sense ?

not it doesn't make sense. but then again, i'm not the one who puts blind stock in the word's of scholars. what happened to "all scholars can't be wrong"?

In short there is ABSOLUTELY no way you are going to tell me that a grammatical construction that uses words like "was" , "did" , "has" , "is" etc etc can refer to a future date. Not acceptable. You have also agreed that the right way to structure that sentence to refer to a future event would have been to write it as : "The Moon will be split into two when the Hour arrives". No scholar gives you that translation.

then what does "the Hour" refer to?

What this means is there is not ONE SINGLE trustworthy scholar out there who has understood the entire Quran CORRECTLY

true.

And Precisely as it should be given its claim that its a crystal clear book. This claim again fails the logic test (and actually disproves the Qurans claim of it being a crystal clear book because there wouldnt be soo many variations of Quranic translations if it were to be indeed a crystal clear book .. a question something you never responded. ) so not acceptable.

false. the 100% correct understanding of the quran is NOT a function of the Quran's clarity but rather a function of the fallible intellect of humankind.

do you really think any poster on this board would interpret 54:1 to be in future tense ? I can create a poll here and ask if you want to.

i never said the tense was future. what this is "prophecy" of the future. the noun of the sentence "the Hour" indicates that since there cannot be 2 "the Hours".

Again this is YOUR rational thinking that has arrived at this conclusion because of modern thinking. You are not allowed to twist the meaning of verses to suite modern sensibilities and understanding - A fundamental mistake that Asad and you do which is why you try to indulge in all sorts of jugglery to get out of difficult situations. Dismissing the Authentic Hadiths is the first step in that direction because there is just simply too much mind numbingly damning evidence in them hadiths. The next step is to blatantly assign meanings to words such that it sits well with modern reasoning and logic. All Old tricks of Muslim apologists. Wont fly though.

this has nothing to do with modern thinking. and assigning dictionary definitions to words is hardly an "old trick of muslim apologists".

Not all of them ... look at the list of 28 items under Abbrogation. For example wine is forbidden on Earth but not in Heaven.

please look up the definition of abrogation, this is not a case of abrogation.

Lust is forbidden in one verse and then 4 wives and concubines and sex slaves are permitted in another and ofcourse lust is ok in heaven too. What "logic" and "common sense" can explain this ludicruity ?

the quran never argues against the inherent biological drive of humans to reproduce...it only sets rules to regulate it expression.

[Kriterion]

Heard of Hitler ? Man was the most deadliest mental cases ever. Caused far more destruction in his liftime than Muhammad ever could in his lifetime and that too in modern times.

Muhammad was allegedly a schizophrenic, since he believed he split the moon, when in fact he had NOT, and then supposedly bragged about it (surah 54:1). unless hitler also suffered from schizophrenia or bragged about swallowing a Panzer tank after he had NOT done it, you don't have a point. hitler may have been a fanatic, hitler may have made tactical errors, heck hitler may have even been worried about having jewish blood himself...but unless you can prove that hitler was mentally ill (and i'm specifically talking about schizophrenia here), you don't have a point.

ok at this rate I will take you up on Hitler = Saint . I will take you on a nice round trip given this new rule where nothing is absolute. And translating a freaking sentence from one language to another isnt as profound as the "Earth is flat" case that you are using to justify your case. Iam simply not going to bother explaining that. If you dont understand this there is simply no point continuing this debate as it is just simply frustrating and irritating to debate with someone who stoutly believes that past tense = future tense.

not sure where the hitler = saint issue comes up, at least from my end. but one would imagine you to be hitler-ite, no? hitler saw a threat in a minority population, hitler attempted to eliminate that threat. it seems that that would be logical conclusion to your arguments on ICF.

There can only be ONE interpretation of it and you simply cannot be the only person to have interpreted it correctly.

certainly. there are many people who have "interpreted" islam and the quran correctly. amongst the well-known translators, Muhammad Asad's is the most close to being perfect. but even he has his shortcomings, as you've pointed out.

[ravishingravi]

serves us right with the most insipid govt. in power. Anybody raising bounty on Arundhati Roy ?

[Kriterion]

they both had the same type of mental illness ... heres what Carl Jung a renowned Pshychiatrist has to say : We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future. http://www.andrewbostom.org/content/view/61/55/

notice that statement and the link you provided contains not a single Diagnosis or any DSM-IV accepted pyschopathology. all we have are the words "islamic", "warlike", and "drunk". none of which are medically diagnostic terms.

A detailed pscyhoanalysis of Hitler : http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/oss-profile-06.html

problems with this source are the following: it lacks a definitive diagnosis of schizophrenia for hitler...the best it says is "hitler has many characteristics which border on schizophrenic..." in fact, the Nizkor says about Hitler: "He has not lost complete contact with the world about him and is still striving to make some kind of psychological adjustment which will give him a feeling of security in his social group." but see how Muhammad claiming to split the moon, when he didn't, and believing it, is a "complete loss of contact with the world". so once again, your comparison lacks logical and this case medically scientific congruency.

You miss the point. The point is since you have been conducting this debate based on such logic where past tense = future tense , "then = and", 4=6 etc I can also undertake a debate wherein I can argue that Hitler was a saint and that Mein Kampf is a holy book (using the sort of logic that you are using )

no one has ever said anything about past tense = future tense...what i've said is that Prophecies of the future are written in the language of past tense. check out the last book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelation. you don't have to believe in it, just look at the verb tenses. then ask any christian if they are confused as to the timing of such events: i.e did they already happen or are they future predicitions.

You tried one another scholar too earlier in this debate. We can try all of them till your hearts content . Indeed I have put up works of roughly half a dozen other scholars alongside Asad - who BTW are far more renowned than Asad. But when they get caught out failing logic & common sense test YOU cannot fallback on your usual claim that you pocess a better understanding than all of them. If you agree to this we can continue examining the works of the next scholar.

i hope that you can see that you are resorting to "debate-fixing" in order to win this discussion. you have asked me, point blank, to accept the validity of scholars when they are clearly in the wrong. i can prove that i have a better understanding than these scholars because i rely on logic, not on a vast store of aquired knowledge - which doesn't help the scholars any at all. my logic is simple. if Muhammad was really bragging about splitting the moon, then he's a SEVERE schizophrenic. but this is impossible since even moderate schizophrenia is enough to prevent patients from holding down jobs, not leading short-armed armies to resounding victories against the odds. there is no need to bend words or offer twisted interpretations to anything here. its just plain common sense. if Muhammad was not a schizophrenic, he wouldn't have dared to make up such a blatant lie which could be confirmed by the naked eye, because Muhammad was a very shrewd tactician. again, it requires tactical acumen to build a nation out of scratch and lead it to victory. unless of course God was helping him out all along, in which case the entire debate becomes a moot victory for Kriterion's arguments.

[Kriterion]

http://www.uccs.edu/~faculty/fcoolidg//Hitler%20PDF%20unproof.pdf The main hypothesis was that Hitler would have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoid type. Although it was not his highest Axis I elevation, the mean consensus T score for the Schizophrenia scale was nearly two standard deviations above the normative mean. Hitler’s clinical elevations on the Psychotic Thinking and Paranoid scales also support this diagnosis. It could, of course, be questioned whether someone with a schizophrenic disorder could rise to such a high position of power and control of others, given that schizophrenia is generally such a debilitating disease, particularly socially and occupationally. However, there are other documented cases of murderous schizophrenic persons who have had extraordinary influence on groups of others (e.g., Charles Manson, James Jones, etc.)

according to your own link above (last paragraph of page 3) - as well as a number of other sources - Hitler "had not yet gone insane" by 1943. he died in 1945. the fact that this Langar character admits that Hitler's single alleged episode of a hallucination occurred when he was suffering from nerve gas exposure, further shrouds the schizophrenic claim in doubt. also, DSM IV, the manual your sources claim to be using, clearly states on page 298 that: "Schizophrenia is a disorder that lasts for at least 6 months, and includes at least 1 month of active phase sympoms (2 or more of the following: delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, catatonia, or negative symptoms)..." Hitler's one-off vision of "providence" while he was under the influence of nerve gas does not count. bear in mind, that many exogenous substances can create psychotic symptoms in otherwise [mentally] healthy people. for example, Dopamine agonists given to Parkinson's patients will inevitably create "schizophrenia-like" symptoms of delusions and hallucinations. further your article states the following bakwas:

"On Axis I of the DSM-IV, it was hypothesized that Hitler would be diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoid type. This hypothesis was based upon his frequent preoccupation with delusions of persecution (e.g., by his disapproving father, those unwilling to recognize his “talents,” and Jewish protagonists), and grandiosity (e.g., fantasies of unlimited success and recognition, his “prophesies”, etc.), his early academic/interpersonal/occupational dysfunction, his extremely virulent and paranoiac delusions about Jews, and his debatable grandiose delusion at Pasewalk. Hitler’s callous disregard for human life would make it highly likely that he would be diagnosed with antisocial and sadistic personality disorders. His persistent sense of self-importance and entitlement makes it likely that he would have had a narcissistic personality disorder. His preoccupation with Jews as Germany’s antagonists and his irrational beliefs of Jewish disease contagion makes it likely he also had a paranoid personality disorder."

1) preoccupation with "delusions" of persecution. a) all politically motivated bigots are motivated by such ideas of persecution. republicans in the US and the BJP in India have "delusions" about the average Joe Muslim in their respective nations. neither group qualifies for schizophrenia or any other mental conditions asides from flat out incompetence perhaps. b) delusions/hallucinations, are from a medical perspective, actual events which the patient cannot differentiate from reality. political beliefs such as "muslims are anti-state elements" or "jews control the world" do not qualify as delusions/hallucinations in a medical/psychiatric sense. 2) early academic dysfunction Einstein was a poor student as a child, does that mean he too was schizophrenic? gimme a break... 3) delusions about Jews again these are political beliefs and no matter how incorrect, they are not medical "delusions" or "hallucinations". 4) Hitler was most probably Narcissistic as are most dictators who mould a nation around their personality cult. in this manner, it would be acceptable for one to assert that Muhammad was also a Narcissit. but Narcissits do not have delusions of "splitting the moon".

No fixing-wixing happening here as these scholars are not under my control. Heck Iam not even adamant that you pick scholars that I approve of.

but you want me to stand by the scholars even when i disagree with them and know that they're making mistakes. thats discussion-fixing because you're asking another player in the discussion (me) to act in a pre-determined manner. the scholars are merely the bat and ball in the game. the players are you and i.

They are NOT wrong. The Quran is wrong. Hence you (and Asad) are getting caught up in all sorts of logical problems . Which is why Asad and you are bending rules to wiggle away from the tough spots. Not acceptable.

thats your belief. there is no way to prove that one way or the other.

What you cannot prove is that you are the only person who has had this superior understand and that it eluded 1000s of scholars over 1400 yrs. I aint even going to elaborate or entertain any discusion on that topic. This goes back to my question earlier to you i.e : Is there a single scholar who CORRECTLY translated every single verse of the quran ? You said yes and offered Asad.

whoa, easy buddy...i've never said Asaad was "perfect"...only that he was most nearly perfect out of the well-known scholars we have to choose from. big difference.

Later you admitted that he made mistakes. Thats the end of that. If you want to try some other scholar thats fine but otherwise I have established that Quran has errors and it most certainly isnt crystal clear book because of the various translations that have been offered by Islamic scholars and unless you lookup the Hadiths you cannot explain many things.

you haven't proven anything. you have however so far managed to claim (among many other ridiculous claims) that semen comes from the testicles and not the seminal vesicles/prostate glands, that the sun setting in the western horizon is scientifically false, and that a wall built out of metal was beyond the technological prowess of ancient peoples.

actually that moon splitting verse was just a starter or appetizer. There is more faaar more yet to come but we continue IF and ONLY IF you accept the rules. Decide and let me know.

i know. i've seen your arguments before, in fact i've seen more intelligently constructed arguments to be brutally honest. there's only one rule in a true discussion: following common sense and the rules of logic. any other rules and its not an honest discussion, but a manufactured excercise artificially steered in one direction or another. i've let you steer the discussion in whichever direction you please, i've stomached your ceaseless insults (worded however intellectually) towards my faith without once denigrating your own, and yet you are not satisfied? you want to impose some more "rules"?

[Kriterion]

now to counter this annoyingly incorrect tripe that somehow i'm the only muslim who feels the way i do (even as we keep hearing how my arguements are the "usual tools of the muslim apolegist"), here's comedian and lawyer, Azhar Usman's thoughts published as a facebook note 3 days ago. after meeting with Hilary Clinton at her Iftar dinner, Usman was asked for his honest opinions...after carefully perusing this letter, i can't find much fault with it, and i think it summarizes the opinions of a great number of young and educated American Muslims, educated being the more operative word here. so far the note has received 33 "likes" and 19 comments, all of them positive and none of them disagreeing.

Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Special Representative Farah Pandith 10 September 2010 Dear Madam Secretary and SR Pandith: It was my pleasure to meet you earlier this week. It was an honor for me to be included in the inaugural meeting of "Generation Change," as well as at Secretary Clinton's iftar in Washington, D.C. Thank you for asking me to submit my thoughts on these experiences, as this has forced me to organize them into a digestible set of ideas. There are lots of things that I would like to say, but I have chosen to share from the heart, and to let the chips fall where they may. As my American currency reminds me constantly: "In God We Trust." Truthfully, I would be lying if I said I wasn't somewhat conflicted about accepting Secretary Clinton's invitation to have iftar at the United States Department of State. There are two reasons for this. First, as the Sufi teaching goes: "Bi's al-faqir ila baab al-amir. Wa ni'ma al-amir ila baab al-faqir." Which means, in rough translation: "How wretched is the fakir who goes to the door of the rich; And how blessed is the rich man who goes to the door of the poor." As a spiritual aspirant, going to the State Department--one of the seats of American power--came with some emotional and psychic cost. I felt like a wretched fakir. But I went anyway. Why? This has to do with the second reason. Secondly, I felt conflicted because although I am proud to be an American, I also consider myself a citizen of the world. I subscribe to a cosmopolitanist worldview, and I feel generally that the world should move further toward cosmopolitanism, and away from statism, nationalism, and patriotism. I love my country, but I am not always a big fan of what my government does, especially in its perpetuation of the military-industrial complex. As a person of moral conscience in general, and a follower of the Islamic religion in particular, I can say that it has become increasingly difficult to voice balanced, critical views about problematic U.S. policies (both domestic and especially foreign), without being branded anti-American, un-American, or, as is often the case, much worse. This is as true about speaking in the public square as it is in political and policy circles. But therein lies the rub; if given the opportunity to be included in such circles as an artist, I felt that I should avail myself of such an opportunity, and then speak my heart and mind openly and honestly. So I thank you again for asking for my thoughts on this subject. The United States of America is now an unrivaled global superpower. Like all nation-states, it wishes to perpetuate its own existence and dominance on earth. When she lives up to her moral ideals and humanist promises, I have no problem with this aim; in fact, I support it and pray for it to continue. However, when the United States behaves like an imperialistic juggernaut, invading sovereign countries, decimating their populations and natural environments, and devastating their national infrastructures, I feel I must speak out to voice my objection. It would be immoral to remain silent. This is especially true given that the countries often targeted by American interventionist foreign policy agendas are Muslim-majority countries. Who dies when such invasions happen? Not just American soldiers, but also thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, my Muslim brothers and sisters. This is not only unconscionable, per se, it is also strategically unwise, because the blowback is obvious: more invasions of Muslim countries --> more anti-Muslim hysteria at home --> more anti-Americanism abroad --> more propaganda material for extremist/fanatic Muslim terrorists to recruit impressionable pissed off Muslim youth --> more terrorism --> more invasions. Repeat cycle. This is a recipe for utter disaster. In pursuit of similar agendas, all previous empires in human history fell into some form of such a vicious cycle, and all, ultimately, with utterly disastrous consequences. Let me be unambiguously clear: I understand completely that terrorism is a very real problem that threatens the stability and security of the entire world. I understand further that Wahhabi distortions of Islamic theology mixed with politico-religious fundamentalism/fanaticism and radical Islamist movements, are causing untold damage to the world, especially to Muslims themselves (who are overwhelmingly the victims of terrorist acts committed by criminals who claim to be Muslims, and who kill in the name of Islam). From a religious standpoint, this is perhaps the single biggest problem of our age: that a small fringe has so managed to distort Islamic teachings, and has further managed to carry out so many highly publicized terrorist attacks, that the average person on earth now has come to believe that Islam itself must somehow be the problem; that there must be something in the religion itself that promotes indiscriminate violence against civilians. And I understand further that the moral responsibility of the Muslim scholars of our age is to refute the ideology of these criminals--a responsibility in which most have been failing miserably, perhaps with the notable exception of the orthodox mainstream Pakistani-Canadian Imam Tahir-ul-Qadri who argues, forcefully and convincingly, that terrorists are not even Muslims--through their distortions of the religion, and their criminal acts of mass murder, they have left the pale of Islam, and they die in suicide bombings to find themselves in hell. This is the type of unequivocal condemnation required from Muslim scholarship if mainstream Islam itself is to be once again totally de-linked from terrorist violence. However, we return to where we began. The United States cannot condemn "Muslim" terrorism out of one side of its mouth, but then condone blatantly terroristic counter-terrorism by itself (and its allies) out of the other side. This is moral hypocrisy of the worst kind. She must strive to live up to her own stated aims, aspirations, and ideals. Great Americans throughout our nation's history have regularly appeared to remind America of this moral imperative. The whole world can see that it is a bad joke when the world's sole superpower/empire condemns ragtag bands of Muslim paramilitary-terrorist groups as "the greatest threat facing the world" when America herself has: (1) a defense budget larger than the entire rest of the world combined; (2) a stockpile of nuclear weapons that can destroy the entire planet several times over; (3) a history of literally dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations in Japan, and testing nuclear explosives underground around the world (and even once planning to detonate an atomic bomb on the moon!); (4) war games scenarios of how the U.S. can literally invade any other country on earth in rapid military deployment scenarios; and (5) a track record of regularly using militarism and employing brutal force--even outright occupation--to protect U.S. strategic and economic interests. And somehow this is all not relevant to discussions on violence in our world? Patently absurd. As a conscientious American Muslim, I am grateful for the opportunity to voice my concerns and thoughts to U.S. government officials. Classical, prophetic Islam teaches us: (1) to respect the laws of the lands in which we live; (2) to be grateful for the safety and security that our governments provide us as citizens; (3) to pay our taxes faithfully and diligently; and (4) to be civically engaged and actively involved in improving our societies. All of this, in my view, requires me to be honest, sincere, and forthright about both my admiration and love for the American constitution and the genius of the American experiment, as well as my critique of some American policies in the world--misguided policies that belie American ideals themselves, and arguably make the world less safe and secure than it should be. "Generation Change" is a good idea, but in order for real change to actually happen, we must begin to create space in the middle for those who can see both what is wrong with Muslim societies but also American policies. This necessarily includes honest critique of imperialistic tendencies and behaviors of the United States. And it must begin with at least an acknowledgment of the elephant in the room: that the American invasions of Muslim countries has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and this fact will invariably breed more terrorists targeting the United States. This argument is further bolstered when American allies also engage in brutal occupation, in reliance on American military and financial support, as is the case in Israel-Palestine. When we refuse to believe that our government is basically upholding an apartheid state in Israel, despite the warnings of global peacemakers like Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and our very own former President Jimmy Carter, then we continue to deny reality at our own peril. Thank you for reading. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. And God bless all of creation with Light, Love, and Mercy always. I remain, at your service, Azhar Usman

Azhar Usman is not an Islamic "scholar" per se. but how do you define an "alim"? does one need a PhD? does one need to have studied at Harvard or al Azhar? i submit that as long as one does not violate the principles of logic or contradicts onself then his opinions or "scholarship" is of infinite more authenticity and accuracy than a person with 10 doctorate degrees who still cannot fathom the difference between possibility and impossibility. a doctorate degree or other mark of scholarship is not a guarantor of perfection or a stamp of insurance against ever being wrong. thus, the scholar's ideas are essential, but only so long as they conform to logic and reason and do not contradict what we know as indestructably true.

[Kriterion]

Why are we getting into this problem in the first place if YOU had agreed that whoever the scholar you had nominated had indeed CORRECTLY translated the quran in its entirety ? Either there is someone who has done it in the past or not. Decide and let me know. If there is someone who has CORRECTLY translated the book there will be no need for you to disagree with them(infact you are not allowed to). Asad appears to be nearest to you and its no surprise that he had broken a no.of rules to arrive at a sanitized translation of the book that covers modern sensitivities and logic. I can almost guarantee you the same problem will happen with the next apologist scholar you pick. Your brand of Islam is not new.

i have never stated that any scholar is perfect or that their interpretation of anything is perfect. that is more of what you are trying to assert, the infallibility of human beings...which is preposterous as no one is perfect or even close to it.

The problem here is that according to you past tense = future tense. Is this logic ? Even a primary school student knows this is not right. So why does the supreme allmighty not know this ? How do you expect me to continue debating with you when there are no rules ? Heres how the discussion will progress going by your rules Me : Heres a verse that says the moon was split and no less than half a dozen reputed scholars think likewise. [since when does reputed = incapable of making mistakes?] You : No that didnt happen. Its something thats supposed to happen in the future. And Everyone of those scholars got it wrong including a substantially large chunk of Muslim world. Only me(Kriterion) got it right [thats where you've begun putting words in my mouth...i'll correct if for you] Me : But the verse is written with past tense and the probability of soo many people being wrong is non-existant. You : past tense = future tense and scholars and people can all be wrong because once upon a time such a thing did happen in the case of Earth=Flat. [i've never said past tense = future tense] Me : Nope. past tense = past tense and this isnt as profound as proving Earth is not Flat. You : No past tense = future tense. Me : Nope. past tense = past tense You : No past tense = future tense Me : Nope. past tense = past tense You : No past tense = future tense Me : Nope. past tense = past tense

So if a vast majority of them say moon was split then thats what that verse means.

a vast majority of scholars also believe that the Quran speaks about the "big bang" theory...is that what that specific verse also means?

I have found faults. Can you substantiate his implicit claim that its a recent phenomena that Islam has been linked to terrorism from this tidbit .... and their criminal acts of mass murder, they have left the pale of Islam, and they die in suicide bombings to find themselves in hell. This is the type of unequivocal condemnation required from Muslim scholarship if mainstream Islam itself is to be once again totally de-linked from terrorist violence.

technically speaking, he is correct since his host (Hillary Clinton) asked him to comment on the "war on terror" which is less than a decade old, and has its roots being perhaps only as old as the arab-israeli conflict, which is relatively modern in the grand scheme of American history which dates back some 400+ years. in the sense that you want to speak about certain things that have happened in after the death Muhammad, then you'd be "correct" and he would be "wrong". but even then, Usman, is correct in illustrating the fact such acts have no basis in the words of the Quran or the Hadiths which conform to the Quran in content and spirit.

Can you name some Islamic country that has not been setup after a truck load of death and destruction (i.e terrorism) ? In other words there is never been a substantial time period during the last 14 centuries when Islam has co-existed peacfully with other religions without trying to annhilate the non-muslims one way or the other.

certainly. 1) the 23 year rule of Muhammad in Medina. 2) Islamic conquest of Jerusalem, to which wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Arab_rule): In 638 the Islamic Caliphate extended its dominion to Jerusalem.[58] With the Arab conquest, Jews were allowed back into the city.[59] The Rashidun caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab signed a treaty with Monophysite Christian Patriarch Sophronius, assuring him that Jerusalem's Christian holy places and population would be protected under Muslim rule.[60] When led to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest site for Christians, the caliph Umar refused to pray in the church so that Muslims would not request converting the church to a mosque. He prayed outside the church, where the Mosque of Umar (Omar) stands to this day, opposite the entrance to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. [wiki page on Jerusalem] 3) Caliphate of Harun al Rashid 4) modern day countries such as Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Senegal, the Gambia, etc.

Can you name a Islamic country that comes anywhere near the tolerance level of Western or Indian ideology based countries ?

lets get one thing straight...most societies have two broad political groups: conservatives and liberals. 75-90% of people can be stuffed into either of those two designations. the "tolerance" that exists in most Western nations and in India are 100% the product of the liberal movements within those societies (Democratic, Labour, Congress parties, etc). Parties such as the Republican, Conservative, or BJP have contributed at most, next to nil, to the "tolerance" of those societies. there is a reason why liberlism is called "liberalism" and not "conservatism." the policies, statements and poll answers reveal exactly what kind of society would exist if the earth contained only political/religious conservatives.

Can you name a single modern non-Islamic country where Muslims havent demanded Sharia even when they are in minority ?

Sharia is only applicable to muslims, and as such I see no reason why Muslims cannot practice that in their own private affairs. how i live my life should have no bearing on what tom, dick, and harry do in their house next door.

[Kriterion]

And we go back to the same old again ... YOU(kriterion) simply cannot be the ONLY person in 1400 yrs to have understood and translated the Quran correctly. If you are claiming otherwise it just proves my case. What is more preposterous is your claim that it is perfectly normal for this to have happened(100s of scholars to have mis-interpreted the quran over centuries except you ofcourse) . Iam not going to waste my time again explaining you why and you can ask anyone else. If you want this to continue you will have to agree to name a prominent scholar(s) whos translation will be used in this debate. I will not respond to the rest of your post as it is just simply pointless to debate with no rules.

have i stated that i'm the only one in 1400 years who has understood the Quran perfectly? i don't think so. an understanding of anything is limited because the human mind is limited. this doesn't mean that the Quran is not the kitabun mubeen 'the lucid scripture'...but that the lucidity is a function of the intention of those who study it. you are a good example. In a verse of prophecy (54:1), wherein it is clearly stated the reference is to "THE hour" (arabic = As-sa'ati)...clearly demarcted by the arabic article "al(s)" which means "THE"...(where the Spanish get their cognate "el" from, btw) its rather much that your interpretation necessarily means that there are at least 2 (or more) seperate "the Hours". which makes no sense, because the definite article "the" is used. In the New Testement, the Book of Revelations of Paul is similarily replete with the past tense. But ask any Christian or Secular Theologian if this means that these things like the Dragon, the 7-headed Beast, the Great ***** sleeping with all the world's rulers definitely happened in the past or are Future Apocalyptic events. In fact, many Christians are of the opinion that Revelations is merely metaphorical, and thats quite another story, but regardless the fact is that its written in PAST tense, but no Christian believes these events to have already occurred. Quran 54:1 is not unique in describing Apocalyptic events, and neither is Revelations...but they are unique in using the past tense. I'm pretty sure your personal background has limited your understanding of certain concepts within "Abrahamic" faiths or the "eccentricities" surrounding their language. Earlier in this very thread you had a difficulty grasping the concept of the Abrahamic use of the Divine singular personal pronoun "We" and incorrectly inferred that to refer to Muhammad and his followers. Such a cultural disconnect is perhaps inevitable, which is why I usually abstain from commenting on non-Abrahamic faiths unless i'm quite sure of the context of what it is i'm talking about. It would be prudent if you followed the same protocol.

[Kriterion]

by rejecting the Authentic Hadith and ofcourse various translators spanning centuries you are explicitly saying that you are the only one that got it right. But if you now agree that this cannot be right I ask you again the name of the scholar who we take as reference for this discussion.

1) i haven't rejected ALL of the "authentic" hadith...just the ones that don't conform to the spirit of the quran...since the Quran is the Primary text of islam, and since it came BEFORE the hadiths did, whether from the lips of Muhammad or the scribes of centuries afterwards. 2) the hadith cannot all be authentic since there are by some accounts 700,000 of them. even if the average hadith is repeated 7 times (rather exaggerated)...there are AT LEAST 100,000 different hadiths. this means that Muhammad would have to narrarrate 12 hadiths every day, for the 23 years of his Messengership. besides, writing the Quran, and planning his "wars of conquest", and meeting with friends and foes alike, and preaching to people near and far, there aren't enough hours in the day to do all that. oh and don't forget he also had a "harem" of women to please every night, which according to the "authentic" hadith he slept with ALL 10-12 of them EVERY night. and this was before Viagra, need i remind you. 3) once again your are guilty of using a non-sequitor - which is why the only rule should be to use logic and common sense. just because i have rejected SOME of the hadith does not mean that I am the only one who understands Islam "correctly". that is a total case of completely disconnected ideas. its akin to saying Michael Jackson is gay because Sachin is a right handed batsman. complete and utter non-sequitor. even if i rejected ALL the hadiths - which i do not, btw - it still doesn't mean i'm the "only one on earth who gets it". there just has to be 1 other person out of 1.5 billion others who need to feel the same way. and trust me, there are plenty of other people, not just one more. this thread should illustrate that fact: http://www.banglacricket.com/alochona/showthread.php?t=24057

BTW try telling some genuine Alim that the Sahih Hadiths and the interpretations given by Muslim,Shakir, Yusuf, Maududi, Ibn Kathir,Pickthal,Ghazali etc are all wrong as far as 54:1 is concerned and see what happens.

sure. but why is that relevant? the "genuine Alim" is not a master of a logic or of philosophy, because then he would be a logician or a philosopher. the alim is merely a scholar of religion as it was taught to him. therefore he is legit only so long as one agrees with his opinions. and in the case of contradicting logic, there is no room for compliance. your problem, and i don't know if this is due to your mentail frailty or due to your personal bias, is that you believe that an "expert" in any field is physically incapable of making mistakes. clearly this is not true, because then physicians with MD or MBBS degrees would never get sued for malpractice, because they are the medical experts of our society, and they are incapable of making mistakes. when you understand that human beings are not perfect, and that islam never gives a guarantee of perfection to muslims, then perhaps we can make some progress in this enlightening discussion.

[Kriterion]

BTW try telling some genuine Alim that the Sahih Hadiths and the interpretations given by Muslim,Shakir, Yusuf, Maududi, Ibn Kathir,Pickthal,Ghazali etc are all wrong as far as 54:1 is concerned and see what happens.

on the basis of which evidence can you suggest that the following scholars are PERFECT and INCAPABLE of any type of mistake? is there any Quranic doctrine which allows you to make this assumption without first verifying it?

[Kriterion]

these are most widely followed and analyzed scholars. the probability of all of them having erred on 54:1 is next to none. Next is the consensus opinion or "common knowledge" on 54:1. All these point to 54:1 as a event that took place during Muhammads time.

erred in what sense? erring in the sense of content? yes, there is zero probability of multiple people making the same mistake in erring on content, just as its impossible for multiple people to mistake the common phrase as "the rain in span fails mainly in the drain". but erring in interpretation? entirely possible, since interpretation is wholly within the eye of the interpretor. its somewhat like looking at the mona lisa, although not quite as abstract, but one should get the point.

In any case the point is since you said there are other scholars besides you who got 54:1 right I would like to see their names and their interpretation of 54:1.

actually many of the ones you have falsely cited as agreeing that this was an even in Muhammad's lifetime actually interpret it the SAME EXACT WAY I DO. we have Asad - who you don't like: 54:1 (Asad) THE LAST HOUR draws near, and the moon is split asunder! but we also have someone you do like: 4:1 (Y. Ali) The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. note that the parenthetical use of "judgment" indicates that this is explicitly Ali's interpretation and not in the literal arabic. the use of the the term "the hour" replete with the definitive article "the" or "al" in arabic, indicates that there is only one such "hour' and that it is the same one referenced in some 40+ other places in teh quran.

Simple common sense says you pick a bunch of scholars and see what the overwhelming majority says. If you cannot agree to such a rudimentary logic there is simply no point in continuing this discussion as we clearly come from different worlds with different rules on what constitutes logic.

no, simple common sense is that you pick a bunch of scholars, and analyze them on the basis of academic common sense. NOT on the the basis of religion x, y, or z. we have different religious persuasions, why on earth would use religion as a basis of judging the validity of an issue. not to mention the fact that using religion to judge the validity of religion is a fallacy of circular reasoning i.e "i'm right, because i'm right".

Feel free to run this by any of the "liberals" on this forum and see if they disagree to my logic as being unreasonable .

most if not all of the "liberals" already disagree with your logic of collective punishments for Indian muslims, among many other bizarre ideas. i remember not long ago, i had to create your logic arc, as you were totally unable to even figure out what logical premise you needed for your argument, let alone actually make the connections in a step by step fashion. but if it came down to it, my guess would be that any educated person, liberal or conservative would disagree with you on the following: a) that semen comes from the testicles b) that an ancient wall made of metal is technologically impossible c) that the sun setting on the western horizon is false thats just the stuff i can remember off the top of my head. i'm sure there are other blatantly non true things you've said here and there. frankly keeping up with all of them is almost as impossible as counting the US national debt penny by penny. ********************* with all that being said, it appears as though the Quran does not actually exclude the the possibility of a "moon split" type "miracle". however, the fact that the term "the Hour" is singular...that is, there aren't multiple "the Hours" and the presence of the past tense, indicate that this is a prophecy, in the mould of the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation written by the Apostle Paul. in fact, 54:3 and 54:7 are clearly talking about the Final Day of Reserrection/Judgment...not an event within Muhammad's life. furthermore, verse 54:2 which you have agreed is talking about the same subject as 54:1, says "IF they were to see a portent, they say it was mere magic". this is the same translation offered by all of Asad, Yusuf Ali, and Pickthall. the LITERAL ARABIC, according to my Babylon dictionary says: "were they to see any offer and say the magic continues". the babylon dictionary btw, is a completely secular tool which can be downloaded for free and translates many languages. clearly, if the thing had happened in Muhammad's time, more certain words would be used apart from "if" and "were they to see".

[Kriterion]

Feel free to run this by any of the "liberals" on this forum and see if they disagree to my logic as being unreasonable .

one of the problems is that, while you shown half an iota of logic in this thread, your behavior on other threads has been sporadic at best. for example from the Babri/Ram decision thread we have this:

To reduce this dispute to a simplistic "Ownership of a piece of land" would be to completely miss the point. The entire point of this dispute was to resolve the question of whether the spot was birth place of Ram. The court has answered that without leaving anything to anybodies imagination.

please explain to me what logic one uses to prove the birthplace of Lord Ram, who if i'm not mistaken was born 1,000,000 million years ago. in other words, i can tell you that I was born at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and I have a birth crtificate that says otherwise. in other words, without that, even I cannot be certain of where i was born since i wasn't *there* to witness it. we aren't even sure where William Shakespeare was born exactly, most scholars believe stratfor on avon. and he was born some 2000 times nearer to the present time than Lord Ram. but i suppose since the all-knowing and perfect hadiths scientifically prove that Muhammad split the moon, Abu Huraira also made sure to slip in records from Lord Ram's attending obstetrician.

[kumble_rocks]

BB , neeve muslims ge ishtu yaakhe hate maad tera! While I understand your` grievance .. don't you think Indian muslims by and large are tolerant bunch ?

[Kriterion]

The court has gone by popular beliefs. To ascertain that these beliefs were put into actual practice ( and not concoted by parties to persue obvious agendas ) the court has used ASI report to ascertain that rituals were held at that spot and idols were worshipped.

right, but that only proves that there was a temple there, not that Lord Ram was actually born there. you said that the court's job was one of ascertaining the birth place of Lord Ram.

You forget the other claim of Quran that it is the most crystal clear and unique book and challenges anyone to come up with a similar work. So when you say that people can interpret a siimple verse in more than one way you proving that other verse wrong.

not at all. it is crystal clear. but does that mean that it will be perfectly understood by a cat? cats are highly intelligent animals. but how much will they understand? in a similar vein, humans, especially those with an agenda, will deny - at the cost of everything around them if need - the clear and unmistakable truth. and i'm not talking about believing in Islam here. thats a matter of belief. for example, you still haven not, after 400+ posts in this thread, explained correctly the meaning or the context of verses 9:1 through 9:5, and why there are 2 seperate rulings on dealing with "disbelievers". its more obvious than the back of your hand, but you cannot admit that there are two different groups of "disbelievers": those which attacked muslims and those who hadn't. and you cannot accept that Muhammad only waged war against those who did attack. and fulfilled the treaty with the Pagans who remained peaceful. thats in the "violent" chapter, chapter 9. even in your favorite surah, "the spoils of war", it says in verse 8:61 to accept peace from the disbelievers, EVEN AFTER THEY INITIATE HOSTILITIES. so i ask you, what is ambiguous about that, apart from your own nebulous thinking?

In any case the most widely used and popular interpretation of 54:1 is that the event took place in Muhammads time. Which is why it is simple commonsense to use that interpretation. ( Again pls dont get into Earth = flat argument ).

the idea that Mossad was behind the 9/11 attacks is also quite widely held in many muslim circles. particularily amongst the "scholars" in Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, and elsewhere. so you must agree that that is a correct viewpoint, since its "widely" and "popularly" held, no? in terms of Quranic scripture, the most widely and popularly interpreted method also states that its OK for a man to beat his wife for disobedience. that too is wrong. the fact that you think mere numbers are definitive proof of being right, speaks volumes about your logical acumen. it reminds of Nazi propoganda against Einstein where they published an article titled "100 scientists against Einstein" to which Einstein famously replied "if i was wrong, one would have been enough".

[Kriterion]

I actually like him ... he is the classic Muslim Apologist and hence very easy to spot his preposterous translations. Moreover the man actually leaves a trail of his erorrs in his own words when he does things like prononounce then = and , claim that smoke refered in one of the creation verses = Hydrogen gas or acknowledge that the claims of classical commentators reg 54:1 is authentic and right but still it doesnt stop him from pronouncing his own interpretation of 54:1. So when he does such ludicrous things he immensly helps me kill 2 birds in one stone i.e the amount of confusion that prevails over a simple matter of interpreting simple sentences ( there by debunking Qurans claim of being a very clear book ) and clearly point others to verses that make no sense because Asad ( unlike the other orthodox scholars ) is constrained by modern sensitivities and logic but he is so hell bent on making sense out of things that are bleedingly obvious to any sane neutral observer that they dont make much sense. So I absolutely love him. Reg Yusuf Alis translation ... the man actually has arrived at 3 different interpretations out of one single verse ( 54:1 ) ... enough said.

see, now you would have a point IF Asad was the author of the quran. but he's not. he's merely the author of an imperfect translation/commentary on it. according to your argument Muhammad wrote the Quran. therefore, blasting Asad's credibility to pieces, no matter how correct, does nothing about validty of the Quran since Asad didn't write it. its akin to me blasting the Outsider for the problems of your posts. here's what i think, you've tried blasting the Quran but you've been unable to, and hence you're choosing to discuss the interpretations, the hadiths, and so and so scholar, instead of dealing with Muhammad/Quran based on what the academics refer to as "primary" sources. all other "after-the-fact" issues wouldn't even exist in the first place, without the Quran.

[Kriterion]

You were the one that introduced Asad into this debate. You werre also candidly and honest to admit that his work is erroneous. But later on you told me in post#405 that I dont like him. Hence I am merely correcting you on that count.

yes but you are the one mistakenly believing that by attacking Asad's interpretation you have somehow underminded the Quran, which was written by Muhammad.

What sort of logic is this ? Is the book meant for cats or Humans ? Are Asad, Shakir, Pickthall, Muslim, Maududi, Kathir etc etc etc .... cats or Humans ?

clearly the ability to infer is rare these days... i'll try something simpler. suppose for argument's sake that you are a rather competent biologist. does this mean that you will understand everything in every journal article ever written about any biology topic? did Einstein understand everything there was to know about physics at his time? what you are telling me is that whatever field or profession you are in, whenever you come across something you don't understand you accuse the other person of "being wrong". is that so?

I will repeat this ONE LAST TIME .... I will never ever accept your assertion that it is perfectly normal and logical for a whole list of eminent scholars to have grossly erred on 54:1 and that you know better. If that were not enough we have what is called "common knowledge" amongst Muslims. If that were still not enough we have the Authentic Hadiths. If that is still not enough then all it means is that you are in denial and there is nothing I can do about it. Thats the end of that.

for someone who has "nothing" he can do about things, you sure make a lot of noise. like i said, common knowledge indicates that the Quran commands men to beat disobedient wives. however, that is clearly not the case.

If you still have doubts go put up a poll on your BD forum and ask them if Shakir, Pickthall, Muslim, Maududi, Kathir , Ghazali, Muhsin are ALL wrong on 54:1. You can also put up a poll on whether it is reasonable to pick a bunch of renowned scholars and see what the overwhelming majority says in order to understand any verse.

i'm probably not going to post a poll on BC, only to have you completely deny the outcome of it. i know having a discussion with you is fruitless in terms of getting you to agree to anything. the only reason i'm here is because it gives me a chance to learn. that and its funny to watch you meander this way and that. so far, i've seen you argue that semen comes from the testes, that the sun does not set on the western horizon, and believe that an ancient metal wall is technologically impossible, even while you most likely maintain that airplanes existed thousands of years ago. nevertheless, here is a thread on the authenticity of the Sunnah, for your entertainment. i've already postesd this a few posts ago, so if you want to ignore it, then let me know and i can re-post it again as many times as necessary. http://www.banglacricket.com/alochona/showthread.php?t=24057 i counted the posters and by my count - feel free to count it yourself - there were 3 "pro Hadith" posters in that thread, and there were 11 "Quran supercedes Hadith" posters. that is 80% majority believes in the superiority of the Quran >> Hadith. and here is one from the "green dump" to further add some perspective: http://www.**********.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=85505&highlight=hadith even on PP, based on my count of those with clear opinoins the "Quran-crew" wins again, albeit by a smaller margin of 7-6...including a known atheist (joseph k) who calls into question the validity of hadiths and the obvious political motives behind them. however, at least one of the 6 "hadith boys", says that only "authentic" hadiths are to be followed, which is my point all along. so thats really 8-5 in favor of the Quran >> Hadith view. combinin BC and PP together, you get 19-8 in favor of the Quran. thats more than 2/3 majority. so i'm hardly alone in this.

So if you want to continue accept that condition else many thanks for the discussion and kindly excuse me as I cannot debate on your terms wherein you reject translations of renowned scholars. With due respect your interpretations cannot be accepted over those of the scholars. This is true for my own interpretations as well. Sorry.

no its not. you hold your own interpretations above the literal meaning of the quran, and you want me to believe that you value the scholars' interpretation over your own? yeah, right, and i'm the second coming of Christ. so when a scholar claims Islam is a peaceful religion, you defer to their opinion and disregard your "interpretation"?

[Sir john]

खास बातचीत: नक्सलियों के रोमांटिज्म पर अरुंधति को गर्व अंग्रेजी की ख्यात लेखिका और बुकर अवार्ड से सम्मनित अरुंधति राय को इस बात से कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता है कि सरकार उनके बारे में क्या सोचती है। अरुंधति की नजर में सरकार निजी कंपनियों के हितों को पूरा करने के लिए संकल्पबद्ध है। उसे लोगों और खासकर पिछड़ों और गरीबों में कोई रूचि नहीं है। आदिवासियों के पास खाने और पहनने को कुछ है या नहीं ये सरकार की रूचि का विषय नहीं है, सरकार को मतलब है तो सिर्फ कॉरपोरेट का घर भरने में। कुछ इसी तरह के मुद्दों पर अरुंधति से खास बातचीत की दैनिक भास्कर डॉट कॉम के आशीष महर्षि ने। माओवादियों को आप रोमांटिज्म के साथ पेश करती हैं। हां और मुझे इस पर गर्व है। आखिर इसमें गलत भी क्या है? मुझे एक बात समझ में नहीं आती है कि लोग रोमांच से क्यों डरते हैं? उनसे रोमांच करने में क्या बुराई है। जो गरीब के हिस्से की लड़ाई लड़ रहा है, उससे इतनी दूरी क्यों। उनकी लड़ाई को कमतर क्यों मानते हैं, हम लोग। फिर चाहे वो मीडिया हो, पुलिस हो या प्रशासन। अयोध्या फैसले को आप कैसे देखती हैं? बहुत अफसोसजनक। आखिर कोर्ट यह कैसे तय कर सकता है कि भगवान राम कहां पैदा हुए थे। इस फैसले से यह साबित होता है कि न्यायपालिका का भी सांप्रदायिकरण हो चुका है। भगवान राम को कोर्ट ने इंसान मानकर छोटा कर दिया है। यह फैसला देते हुए कोर्ट का दिमाग कहां गया था। आप अकसर गृहमंत्री के खिलाफ क्यों खड़ी रहती हैं? गृह मंत्री पी चिंदबरम आदिवासियों, दलितों और गरीबों के हितों के खिलाफ हैं और मैं इन सब के साथ। तो खुद ब खुद गृहमंत्री की विरोधी हो जाती हूं। वे आदिवासियों की लड़ाई और उन्हें समर्थन देने वालों को माओवादी घोषित कर देते हैं और उन्हें प्रताड़ित करने का कोई मौका नहीं छोड़ते। यही मंत्री विदेशों में जाकर देश के हर उस चीज के निजीकरण की बात करते हैं जो गरीबों से जुड़ी है। माओवादियों की हिंसा पर आप क्या कहेंगी? ऐसा नहीं है कि माओवादी सिर्फ बंदूकों के बल पर ही पूरा आंदोलन चला रहे हैं। तीस सालों से वे लगातार लड़ रहे हैं। माओवादी जंगल में बसे आदिवासियों और गरीबों के लिए लगातार लड़ रहे हैं। वे सिर्फ बंदूकों से नहीं लड़ रहे अगर ऐसा होता तो वे इतने लंबे समय तक टिक नहीं पाते। वे आदिवासियों के लिए लगातार कुछ न कुछ करते रहते हैं। भाजपा-कांग्रेस में कोई अंतर ? बिलकुल नहीं। दोनों ही पार्टियों का मकसद निजी कंपनियों को अधिक से अधिक लाभ कमवाना है। इसके लिए चाहे आदिवासियों की जमीन उन्हें देनी हो या फिर किसानों को जमीनों से बेदखल करना। वे इसके लिए हमेशा तैयार हैं। english translation Exclusive interview: Arundhati on Maoist Roommantijme proud Noted English author Arundhati Roy and the Booker Award Sammanit with it no matter what the government thinks about them. Arundhati private corporate interests in the eyes of the government is committed to meet. It backward and poor people and especially not interested. Tribal wear something to eat or not this government is not a matter of interest, the Government means to fill only the corporate house. Some similar issues Arundhati exclusive interview with Ashish Maharishi by the New York Times dot com. Maoists Roommantijme with you offer. Yes, and I am proud of. After all, it's wrong? One thing that I do not understand why people are afraid of adventure? What's wrong with him to adventure. The poor is part of the battle, why such a distance from him. Why consider undermining their fight, we. Whether it be media, police or administration. How are you see Ayodhya verdict? Very regrettable. After the court may fix this where Lord Rama was born. This decision proves that the judiciary has also been Sanpradayaikaron. Lord Rama, the court assumes the person is truncated. Where was the mind of the court would decide. You often remain standing against the home minister? Home Minister P Chidambaram tribals, Dalits and the poor against the interests and I with all of them. Home itself is the anti-I B himself. They support those tribal fighting and declared the Maoists do not miss a chance to torture them. This minister went abroad to the country to privatize everything that is attached to the poor. Maoist violence will say you? Not only guns on the strength of the Maoists run the whole movement. Thirty years, they are constantly fighting. Maoist tribes settled in the forest for the poor are constantly fighting. They are fighting not only with guns that happens they can not survive for so long. They do something to constantly keep the tribals. BJP - a difference in Congress? Not at all. Both parties aim to Kamaaana greater benefits to private. Whether it is tribal land, or give them to farmers evicted from the land. They are always ready for it. :((

[Kriterion]

That discussion on BD & PP is about Hadiths vs Quran ... NOT about interpretations of the Quran itself by reputed scholars ... you are contending that you know better than those various scholars I listed in my previous post and hence can provide a better translation of verses than these scholars... Please go ask them that question and see what they have to say about it.

where did the hadith come from? nevermind that a HUGE crux of your ENTIRE argument is that all muslims or nearly all muslims hold the hadith as some sort of equal to the Quran. clearly, amongst the educated classes, this is far from the truth. they are the products of that same body of scholarship, the ulema. in fact, these folks are calling into question the absolute authenticity of the hadith which by most accounts was codified some 100 years after Muhammad's death. in contrast to Ibn Kathir's tafsir, which was penned another 600 years after Bukhari's hadith collection. perhaps in your view, "most popular" or "celebrated" is tantamount to "flawless" and "infallible", but not so in Islam. Islam has never been about "blind faith" in anyone, with the exception of Muhammad since he is held to be the Messenger of God Himself. verses 9:31 and 9:34 are very clear in warning everyone of the fallacy of taking "scholars" be they ulema, rabbis, priests, or monks as "gods beside God"...i.e whatever they say is 100% the way it is. the Quran, perhaps unique to any other religious text, makes over a dozen calls for people to excercize critical thinking, the exact opposite of blind faith, which is generally ascribed to religion. http://quranicteachings.co.uk/tafakkur.htm the word "tafakkur" (to think, to contemplate) is mentioned 18 times in the quran. so how on earth can any true muslim, blindly follow Mullah tom, dick, or harry, and say that is Islamically permissible is beyond me.

AFAIK I have never provided my own interpretations for the simple reason that I dont understand a word of Arabic. I completely rely on works of scholars. If it appears to you that I have done such a thing let me apologize. But I assure you that Iam not so un-reasonable as to pressure you into accepting my own versions and interpretations when I bluntly demand the exact opposite from you.

then let me here your take on 9:1 through 9:5 once again. you're a smart guy, these days you can find a dictionary online or someone who understands arabic, and you can find out the meaning what is written. personally, i use the Babylon dictionary, which is pretty decent. this website actually breaks down the literal arabic along with a few translators: http://www.yaqb.org/ your whole point has been that since we dont understand arabic, we must rely on scholars to interpret it for us. well now problem is solved. so no need for scholars and they're contradictory ways.

[Kriterion]

I never said this. The Hadiths purpose in life is to shine light on the Sunnah which is not contained in the Quran but it orders the beleivers to follow the Sunnah. Further when there is confusion in understanding anything from the Quran or you need better clarity the Hadiths are refered ( eg : 54:1 ).

but happens when the bulb on that "light" is out? what happens when that which sheds "clarity" actually contradicts that which it is supposed to clarify?

And how do you think the written version of Quran came about ? Do you see any seal of authenticity from Muhammad himself on any of the Qurans ? It was also authored many decades after Muhammad passed away by scholars appointed by the Sahabas.

Which is exactly why, the "oral version" of the Quran is actually the Quran. the written version was obtained from the oral version as memorized by various persons, and was actually first compiled - albeit in a different order than the present - by Abu Bakr more or less immediately after Muhammad's death. all Uthman did, was create a standardized version, in which the verses were put in the order we have them today. Now obviously, people's memories are not perfect and prone to error. I've seen it myself, every Ramadan when a Hafiz stumbles through a particular verse, only to be corrected by another Hafiz standing behind him. They never have to stop the prayers, bust out a copy of the Quran, and figure out where they made a mistake. In such a manner, even with just 2 persons who have imperfect memories of the Quran, it is possible to obtain the complete and perfect transmission. Further, since this is an oral scripture, and because each letter of arabic has a unique pronunciation (unlike english where "F" and "PH" or "C" and "K" can be pronounced identically), the issue of ambiguity with regards to diacratics, etc is an non-issue.

1. Quran claims to be the most clear book. 2. There are numerous scholars who have translated the Quran over centuries 3. A vast majority of them come to the conslusion that 54:1 is a event that took place in Muhammads time 4. You say that this vast majority has been wrong ( for centuries ) except you. 5. I say that is improbable and also illogical because soo many learned people cannot all be wrong. 6. Further in light of item 1 even if you do come up with a substantial no.of scholars that have interpreted 54:1 inline with your interpretation it will still prove my larger point i.e Quran has errors ( because a clear book cannot lead to multiple interpretations that too by reputed scholars and ofcourse a huge no.of avg Muslims ) and hence it cannot have been Authored by God. 7. In light of all this I asked you to accept my condition that we will stick by majority interpretions of a set of scholars to avoid a he-said-she-said situation.

1) yes it does 2) yes there are 3) yes, many have...maybe a majority 4) yes, i have....since the scholars are fallible humans, and 54:1 should be taken in context with subsequent verses, which speak of the Final Day of Judgement. based on that and based on the noun of the sentence "the Hour", 54:1 is a verse of Prophecy. 5) complete logical fallacy. please show me how "learned" = "incapable of mistake" 6) another logical fallacy...even the cut and dry commandment "Thou shalt have no other god besides Me" has been and can be interpreted in various ways. this does not mean it was not authored by God, nor does it mean that the statement is ambiguous. all it means is that each person will interpret it based on his own psychological state of mind. 7) only if you can prove that majority is a guarantee of correctness. And heres the various translations from that website for 54:1

Didnt I provide the exact same translations except that they came from a different website ? What is the new information that we have here? Are you refering to the "Literal" one ? If so isnt that also in past tense ?

i dont know if you have or not. if you have, then no worries. The Book of Revelation is also written in past tense. Your point? Do Christians believe that the events of the Book of Revelation happened during Paul's lifetime, 2000 years ago?

I dont have a problem following www.yaqb.org but promise me that you will not resort to "I (Kriterion) knows better" when that website proves you wrong eventually. If not this discussion ends right here.

its very foolish to blindly follow one thing, especially when you have no idea from where it originates. hence the repeated Quranic injunction to "tufakkur"...hence no such promises can be made as that would be a violation of my religion.