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

[Kriterion]

regarding 54:1 vis a vis your beliefs... Muhammad obviously did NOT split the moon since he was a fake Messenger. However, he claimed he did, and cited it as a "miracle" even though no one could have truthfully confirmed it, since it didn't actually happen. According to the Hadith, some people did confirm such a "miracle". which proves 2 points: 1) that the hadith are un-trustworthy, since the words of liars have been incorporated into it. 2) Muhammad could not have been certain that anyone would falsely confirm his false "miracle" before the fact. Hence Muhammad could not have Dared to say such a thing, unless he actually split the Moon. the only other alternative is that Muhammad was pyschotic and actually mistakenly believed he split the moon. this would have caused at least SOME if not most/all muslims to abandon their faith. however, there is no such Islamic record of this, despite the fact that Islamic sources have plenty of records of Muslims becoming apostate, especially during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. however, we also know that Muhammad could not have been psychotic, because there is no history in the science of medicine of psychiatry of any human having such a short-term episode of hallucinations. Brief psychotic disorder is a condition which has to last at least an entire day...not a few moments. Muhammad could not have been schizophrenic either, since schizophrenia usually has a very early age of onset (late teens, early 20s), and primarily because untreated schizophrenia is always a debilitating disease. it is not the trademark of a man who leads an under-manned community in war against terrible odds, and succeeds. so if Muhammad was not schizophrenic or psychotic, and if since no sane individual would dare to claim a miracle he is not performing without at least offering an optical illusion, then Muhammad must have either: a) actually split the Moon or b) never claimed that, instead claiming something different.

[Kriterion]

No it is not. Because Uthman ordered a lot of copies that he didnt like ... burnt down. There is simply no guarantee as to the accuracy of Uthmans project other than the word of the companions. And you have categorically stated that these guys are also fallible. In any case the oldest known Quran that exists in its entirety is the one that was written nearly a couple of centuries after Muhammad died and not the Uthmani one. So in other words its pretty much like the Hadith. So if you dont trust the Hadith because they were written by fallible humans then the same is true for the Quran as it exists today.

which is why it is important to realize the difference between the "written Quran" and the "oral Quran". the word Quran itself means "recitation" and not "scripture" (kitab). its true, that Uthman destroyed many "copies" of the quran. but the only difference was that those Qurans weren't the in the same serial order as his version.

There is simply no guarantee as to the accuracy of Uthmans project other than the word of the companions.

unlike the hadith, which contradicts itself as well as the quran, there is no way in which the Quran's words could have been: a) confused for the hadith due to structure, diction, syntax, and style b) had something missing or had something added, because although this is humanly inevitable, the presence of the Huffaz (those who memorized the quran) is an inherent inhibitor of such errors. this isn't something which exists in theory, but rather something i have seen in practice. its tangible. again, just look at a famous poem or statement. JFK said "ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you". that statement will never be forgotten or corrupted because it is so well known by millions of people. you can try it yourself if you don't beleive me with this "the rain in Spain falls mainly in the drain" will never be confused for "the rain in spain falls mainly in the plain" no matter how much you argue that it will.

To complicate matters the Arabic script as it existed during Muhammads time had serious drawbacks - the most serious one being the absence of Diacritical points( because that concept simply did not exist at that time and was invented much later ... I wonder how God did not know about this problem in Arabic !! ). Without these you cannot make head or tail out of any Arabic written text. You can ask any kid in Arabia if he would get more than a Zero if he wrote a Essay without Diacritical notations.

LOL. wow. Arabic is written without diactrics, and there exists zero ambiguity about what the words mean. in fact, the whole reason the diacritics came about was so that non-Arabs could read arabic text. if you look at the street signs in Arab city you will notice a complete absence of diacritic marks, and languages such as Urdu don't have them at all, because no non-Urdu speaker will ever need to read Urdu without actually learning the spoken language.

These got corrected over a period of time and there is no guarantee that the correct version i.e the one that Muhammad originally intended was retained unless you take the words of your beloved "fallible" friends : Islamic Scholars.

then how are you so sure that Muhammad was this supposedly evil man that he was, since there is no way to be sure?

I dunno how else I can explain this but I cannot simply take your interpretations. Primary reason is you are not neutral (let alone a reputed and widely accepted scholar ). Just as you wouldnt take my interpretations. Iam sorry to dissappoint you if I led you into thinking that this debate was about YOUR OWN interpretations of Quran. Iam NOT interested in such a discussion. IF and ONLY IF you want to discuss the Quran as it is widely interpretated among Islamic community thru works of reputed scholars then let me know and we can sit and shortlist a bunch of scholars whose works we can use for the debate. Otherwise many thanks for the debate so far and dont expect me to respond if you continue to try and convince me how it is perfectly fine to use YOUR interpretations over that of people like Dr. Muhsin Khan, Muslim, Maududi, Shakir, Y. Ali , Pickthall etc etc etc who spent considerable amount of their lives on this topic. Just no way at all whatsover.

you want me to give you a list of fallible scholars - who i disagree with - so that you can prove to me that they're wrong, and thereby beat me in a debate? or do you believe that only Islamic scholars possess perfect logic and critical thinking?

[The Outsider]

Kriterion, do you believe in the 'sunnah' of Muhammed ie. he lived the perfect life and one that should be emulated by Muslims?

[kumble_rocks]

Prophet did live a perfect life , ask the Meccan tribe !:winky:

[Kriterion]

Thats YOUR OWN opinion that all those scholars are useless. The worldview out there is exact opposite of yours. And what ends up happening if we go by your logic is we end up discussing a version of Islam that isnt practiced at all. Example is 54:1 and what the vast majority interprets it as. You want me to ignore the interpretation of millions and go by YOUR Interpretation ? Whats the point of such a discussion ?

I, Kriterion, am the one who is posting in this thread and conversing with you. Of course I am going to peddle my personal beliefs here and not those of some third party Joe Blow. I'm regretful if you believed that my objective or my understanding was to speak the beliefs of someone else.

To repeat again : 1. Iam not interested in a discussion that revolves around YOUR ( or mine infact ) interpretation. Iam ONLY interested in what the vast majority of Muslim scholars believe in.

that is absolutely valid. and i assume you disagree with these "scholars". however, what is not valid is the fact that lump all Muslims - even the many who share my views - in with your condemnations of these said scholars and their interpretations. in addition, you never clearly stated that you wished to discuss the scholars instead of the religion. that was your fault, not mine, but i do appreciate and have enjoyed this discussion.

2. Not interested in wasting time arguing with you who claims that Muslim, Muhsin, Shakir, Pickthall, Y Ali , Ghazali, Ibn Kathir , Maududi etc etc are ALL wrong.

it doesn't matter. the fact that you yourself acknowledge that these scholars contradict themselves and engage in verbal and logical gymnastics is proof enough of their frailties. do you not claim the above? so how can you, sit and tell me "these guys make no sense, but we must use them as the authority, even though the Book they claim to have authority on never ever placed that authority on them at all".

[Kriterion]

Kriterion' date=' do you believe in the 'sunnah' of Muhammed ie. he lived the perfect life and one that should be emulated by Muslims?[/quote'] Of course I do. How can I be a muslim if I believed otherwise? Now what is an authentic Sunnah and what is not, is the matter of the discussion between me and Boss. a lot of people, muslim and otherwise would believe whatever they read even if the book was titled "sahih al bakwas"...hey, that sounds pretty ROP-ish to me, it must be authentic because some people said so. i guess the magic number is that as long as more than one person believes something, it is automatically proven to come from its claimed origin, since 2 or more people cannot "ALL be wrong".

[The Outsider]

Of course I do. How can I be a muslim if I believed otherwise? Now what is an authentic Sunnah and what is not, is the matter of the discussion between me and Boss. a lot of people, muslim and otherwise would believe whatever they read even if the book was titled "sahih al bakwas"...hey, that sounds pretty ROP-ish to me, it must be authentic because some people said so. i guess the magic number is that as long as more than one person believes something, it is automatically proven to come from its claimed origin, since 2 or more people cannot "ALL be wrong".

Mohammed married a 6-9 year old as a man in his mid 50s, and consummated the marriage within another few (2-5) years depending on the source you want to believe. Do you believe that to be a perfect action to be emulated by all Muslims? Further he married his cousin (which now science has proven has ill effects on off springs). The cousin he married happened to be the former wife of his adopted son. Do you believe that it is a perfect action to marry your son's divorcee, who happens to be your cousin and should be emulated by all Muslims? Maybe I am wrong on these 'facts'. In that case can you refer me to some alternate, neutral sources.

[Kriterion]

Mohammed married a 6-9 year old as a man in his mid 50s, and consummated the marriage within another few (2-5) years depending on the source you want to believe. Do you believe that to be a perfect action to be emulated by all Muslims?

this is essentially a question of moral or societal relativism. Muhammad was not the only man in his society who married a child at an much older age, nor was his society the only one which practiced it. most, rather, everything that society holds as taboo are based on the prevailing culture or the norm - which often times is based upon the predominant religous beliefs of that area. now the question is did God allow "pedophilia" back then and does he now think that its "wrong"? i cannot answer this question, but i will suggest that God judges people based on what they know at the time. in other words, the quran states - explicity or implicitly - that people who lived in times or places without hearing the true message of Islam are not held accountable. Now the answer is how God allows or would allow such a thing to happen. The honest answer to this that there was no ill effect of Aisha's child marriage, by all accounts. The only issue was that she was an infertile woman, but early marriage does not cause infertility. By all accounts Aisha grew to be one of most esteemed women through whom much of Islamic knowledge was taught, in her time. Some of that knowledge is still preserved to date. Harm or benefit from Child marriages, like any other human relationship matters on the way the people are treated. A woman could marry at age 80 and be worse off for it.

Further he married his cousin (which now science has proven has ill effects on off springs). The cousin he married happened to be the former wife of his adopted son. Do you believe that it is a perfect action to marry your son's divorcee, who happens to be your cousin and should be emulated by all Muslims?

The risk of serious birth defects in the general population is something like 2-4%. The risk in children born of consanguinous matings between first cousins only increases that percentage to 4-8%. Obviously, as genetic concordance between parents decreases (2nd cousins, 3rd cousins, etc) the risks will approach that of the general pop. Is there an increased risk, surely. Is it something unreasonable? depends. societies which practice cousin marriages generally due so for reasons of wealth or preserving bloodlines. because blood-purity, caste-ism, or racial exclusivity is generally anathema to Islamic teaching, wealth and political reasons were the basis of many marriages in Arabian society (and some non Muslim societies as well). so cousin marriage as a general principle often provides the involved in financial and societal benefits which outweigh the slightly increased risks involved. as for the issue of Zayd bin Harith, he was not at all related to Muhammad. he was merely an orphan who Muhammad looked after. there was no blood relation. Muhammad's marrying his ex-wife was no different than anyone marrying anyone else.

Maybe I am wrong on these 'facts'. In that case can you refer me to some alternate, neutral sources.

at present there doesn't seem to be any Islamic evidence to NOT believe these sources.

[The Outsider]

this is essentially a question of moral or societal relativism.

So is Muhammad's life morally and socially relativistic? The maybe his teachings and the Quran are as well? Then why is Muhammad's life considered to be the ideal life a Muslim should adhere to, if it's all relative to the morals of the society prevailing at the time?

Muhammad was not the only man in his society who married a child at an much older age, nor was his society the only one which practiced it. most, rather, everything that society holds as taboo are based on the prevailing culture or the norm - which often times is based upon the predominant religous beliefs of that area.

I never said Muhammad was the only person who married someone much much younger to him and I completely agree it was a prevalent practice of those days, perhaps not only in Arabia but in a lot of other cultures as well. But was Muhammad sent on earth by God to follow the already prevalent cultures or was he sent on earth to rectify the wrong ones?

now the question is did God allow "pedophilia" back then and does he now think that its "wrong"? i cannot answer this question, but i will suggest that God judges people based on what they know at the time.

I think there is a major logical fallacy here. Firstly, I did not accuse Muhammad of being a pedophile. Secondly, and more importantly if God was to allow having someone having sex with a 10-12 year old by a man 40 years older in one time and not in another, should he not let us know that from this date you are not allowed to do this. Specially, if the person who lived the ideal life indulged in the act?

in other words, the quran states - explicity or implicitly - that people who lived in times or places without hearing the true message of Islam are not held accountable.

Could you elaborate? I did not get the meaning of the above.

Now the answer is how God allows or would allow such a thing to happen. The honest answer to this that there was no ill effect of Aisha's child marriage, by all accounts. The only issue was that she was an infertile woman, but early marriage does not cause infertility. By all accounts Aisha grew to be one of most esteemed women through whom much of Islamic knowledge was taught, in her time. Some of that knowledge is still preserved to date. Harm or benefit from Child marriages, like any other human relationship matters on the way the people are treated. A woman could marry at age 80 and be worse off for it.

Maybe Aisha would have been even more influential if she had not got married off as a child? Just a thought. But the above was merely a rhetorical question. The core of the argument still remains that if marrying 10 year olds to 55 years old is not considered harmful to the 10 year old, why isn't this custom adopted in the entire world. Without the aim of getting personal, I certainly would not see any benefit my 10 year old niece can have in getting married to my 55 year old uncle. Can you please explain how it will help my 10 year old niece to learn about life, education, science etc. while being married to my 55 year old uncle?

The risk of serious birth defects in the general population is something like 2-4%. The risk in children born of consanguinous matings between first cousins only increases that percentage to 4-8%. Obviously, as genetic concordance between parents decreases (2nd cousins, 3rd cousins, etc) the risks will approach that of the general pop. Is there an increased risk, surely. Is it something unreasonable? depends.

No, it does not depend. It's twice the risk in general, much more if in breeding continues within the same genetic pool.

societies which practice cousin marriages generally due so for reasons of wealth or preserving bloodlines. because blood-purity, caste-ism, or racial exclusivity is generally anathema to Islamic teaching, wealth and political reasons were the basis of many marriages in Arabian society (and some non Muslim societies as well). so cousin marriage as a general principle often provides the involved in financial and societal benefits which outweigh the slightly increased risks involved.

Again you are dwelling into contexts and societies. Muhammad's life is supposed to transcend all that. It is supposed to be equally valid and applicable in every context and society. Can you please explain how increasing the chance of birth defects in a kid is beneficial to me in the modern society if I choose to have a child with my cousin?

as for the issue of Zayd bin Harith, he was not at all related to Muhammad. he was merely an orphan who Muhammad looked after. there was no blood relation. Muhammad's marrying his ex-wife was no different than anyone marrying anyone else.

He was Muhammad's adopted son, and from the little I know of Islam once someone is adopted he assumes the same rights as a sired son. I might be wrong here, and do correct me if I am.

at present there doesn't seem to be any Islamic evidence to NOT believe these sources.

Cool. For the present argument, I will restrict myself only to these facts and let's think about them before moving on later perhaps. But it's nice to know we have established a baseline.

[seedhi]

He was Muhammad's adopted son' date=' and from the little I know of Islam once someone is adopted he assumes the same rights as a sired son. I might be wrong here, and do correct me if I am.[/quote']Actually, adoption is forbidden in Islam in the sense that it does not confer the formal status of son or daughter. Interestingly, the revelation came to Mohammad at a time when he wanted to marry Zaynab, but faced an objection as to how could he do so when she was already married to his adopted son. Then it was "revealed" to Mohammad that adoption does not mean that Zayd was his son only that he was in Mohammad's custodianship.

[Kriterion]

So is Muhammad's life morally and socially relativistic? The maybe his teachings and the Quran are as well? Then why is Muhammad's life considered to be the ideal life a Muslim should adhere to, if it's all relative to the morals of the society prevailing at the time?

Is Islam (or Muhammad's teaching) morally and socially relativistic? Yes and/or No, based upon the time and place of the person concerned. God is known in arabic as Arhamar Rahimeen...i.e of Infinite Justice and Mercy. From this we can logically infer that a Merciful God cannot punish or hold people accountable for things beyond their control. He would thus not hold a person to account who has never heard of an unbiased account or version of Islam as "disbelievers". This is what is meant when the Quran states in Surah 26, Verse 208 "...never have We destroyed any community unless it had been warned." Similarily, in Surah 5, verse 3 it is said that "from this day..." only Islam is accepted as a religion from humanity. "From this day" meaning from the time and place people had come to know about it. So moral and social relativism exists so long as one has not heard God's Word. Once he/she has, then he/she has the option of either obeying or disobeying, his/her position in the hereafter being contingent upon the choice they've made in this dunya. this relativsim is why, from an Islamic standpoint, different religious cultures have their own legal systems. what is halaal for a Muslim may not be Kosher for a Jew and vice versa. this is why i think it is imperitive for Muslims to be allowed to practice shariah be they in a non-muslim country or not. Of course, i do not - if its not clear from this thread - already believe that "sensitive" issues should be raised. for example, the Quran commands the amputation of a thief's hands. I have no issues with that. however, i don't think that muslims should do that in the US for example, simply due to PR reasons. if anyone asks "do you really think a robber should have his hand cut off?" i'd tell them yes sir, but its another thing to actually go out and do it.

But was Muhammad sent on earth by God to follow the already prevalent cultures or was he sent on earth to rectify the wrong ones?

If someone wishes to follow Muhammad's example and marry a child bride, thats fine. But will they do it after they first marry a woman 15 years their senior? If not, then they aren't really following the "sunnah". But does this mean that one has to marry a old and widowed woman? Is that a "sunnah"? I certainly don't think its a requirement necessary to "prove" one's commitment ot Islam. Rather that is is something permissible.

I think there is a major logical fallacy here. Firstly, I did not accuse Muhammad of being a pedophile.

no you didn't. however you did ask whether Muhammad married a child bride or not, and that is generally accepted to be considered "pedophilia". however, part of the diagnostic aspects of DSM IV, holds that socially acceptable behaviors don't count. thus cannabilism may be abhorent to the average westerner, but from particular Pacific Island cultures, it would not be anything to raise eyebrows at, even if it not the general rule. thats primarily what i meant about relativism in addition to the above.

Secondly, and more importantly if God was to allow having someone having sex with a 10-12 year old by a man 40 years older in one time and not in another, should he not let us know that from this date you are not allowed to do this. Specially, if the person who lived the ideal life indulged in the act?

Not if the date and location aren't fixed, or if there are overlaps. For example, my father grew up in a Bangladeshi village in the 1950s and 60s without electricity or a mobile phone. He had not ever heard of email. Obviously, things are different now, and even if no one has yet heard of gmail, everyone has electricity. What flew 50 years ago, may not necessarily fly today, even though the physical location hasn't changed. On the flip side, right now today, it may be perfectly legitimate for a 25 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl in say Somalia, where the life expectancy of both is not much more than 35 or 40 (just my guess for argument's sake). However, personally, I think my 22 year old sister is "too young" to get married, but thats because I live in an mid-sized American city. Here, the time frame is the same, 2010 AD...however physical location has changed. thus, i will posit that it is the combination of time and place (as well as the actions and behaviors of people) which should determine whether something like a child-marriage should or should not take place. its a relative issue, IMO, and i believe so due to reasons above.

Could you elaborate? I did not get the meaning of the above.

Yeah. Quran verse 26:208 which i quoted above and just below: And withal, never have We destroyed any community unless it had been warned

Maybe Aisha would have been even more influential if she had not got married off as a child? Just a thought.

definitely a possibility. but the absence of a greater effect doesn't an ill effect make.

But the above was merely a rhetorical question. The core of the argument still remains that if marrying 10 year olds to 55 years old is not considered harmful to the 10 year old, why isn't this custom adopted in the entire world.

because most of world has developed to a degree where it is harmful. as i've said, time and physical location both components of whether this is "harmful" or not, but one key i forgot is technological development.

Without the aim of getting personal, I certainly would not see any benefit my 10 year old niece can have in getting married to my 55 year old uncle. Can you please explain how it will help my 10 year old niece to learn about life, education, science etc. while being married to my 55 year old uncle?

if your uncle knows about life, education, and/or science he pass on that knowledge.

No, it does not depend. It's twice the risk in general, much more if in breeding continues within the same genetic pool.

It does depend, otherwise the societies that practiced them wouldn't practice it. But its due to the "opportunity costs" involved.

Again you are dwelling into contexts and societies. Muhammad's life is supposed to transcend all that. It is supposed to be equally valid and applicable in every context and society. Can you please explain how increasing the chance of birth defects in a kid is beneficial to me in the modern society if I choose to have a child with my cousin?

Muhammad never used a car or a train or a bus. thats not to say these things are "un-islamic" or a worldly distraction, as some christian sects believe. Muhammad also never uploaded the Quran onto youtube or used a "prayer times" app on an iPhone. That doesn't mean i should NOT do those things. again cousin marriages have historically only occurred in cultures that valued "keeping it" in the family. to some cultures/families, "it" was more important than the 1/30 extra risk of developing some problem - and mind you thats just a birth defect. IIRC, the risk of serious birth defects is even lower than that. i.e if hemophilia has a general prevalence of 1/10,000 and risk in first cousin matings is twice that, the risk is still only 1/5000. If i told there is a 1/5000 chance risk of you dying on your drive to work, will that cause you to seek an early retirment? Of course not. But if i told you had a 1/100,000 chance of getting Hepatitis from shooting heroine would that prevent you from shooting? Yes. Its about the opportunity costs involved. The benefit of you going to work, outweighs the relatively large risk of dying to get there. The benefit of drugs is not worth the risks involved, even if it were relatively low risk. so in most consanguinous cultures, the "it" they're trying to keep in the family is property or money...i.e the lifeline of life itself. the old royals of Europe were trying to keep their royal bloodlines, that was their "it". eventually, probably with the Romanov's, the price of keeping their "it" intact, was deemed to high to continue paying.

He was Muhammad's adopted son, and from the little I know of Islam once someone is adopted he assumes the same rights as a sired son. I might be wrong here, and do correct me if I am.

I'm pretty sure, thought not 100% certain, but *adopted* children do NOT have the same rights as biological kids, in fact the Quran doesn't even mention legal adoption. However, orphans be they "adopted" or not are guaranteed zakat, which sired children don't get unless they too are poor.

[Kriterion]

Yeah but Iam not interested in YOUR own personal beliefs . Iam more interested in whats prevalent out there in the real world which is followed by the avg joes and the ulema and not something that is imaginary. Which is why the need to depend on reputed scholars.

then you should, just a suggestion, make sure to specify that you do not have any opinion on Islam since you cannot interpret anything on your own, and that your problem is with muslims and the crazy scholars they follow. somehow i doubt you will agree to this despite the obvious contradiction.

I have answered this many times before and infact in this post above ... they make no sense because the original source is flawed ( atleast to anyone who is bound by logic and science ). But these guys ( the scholars ) arent bound by rules or science or logic.

They are only bound by Quranic dictats.

You are however willing to let science and logic to get in the way ... hence all the incongruity. You take away science and logic out of the equation and no one can prove you wrong. As simple as that.

so which Quranic "dictate" gives them the blank check approval that they (the scholars) seem to enjoy? gotcha! *************** I just don't see how you can believe, with a straight face, that Muhammad was this dangerous dude, when he was such a failure at achieving his military objectives.

[Kriterion]

You agree to the rules of debate and I will explain. Otherwise there is no point me wasting time.

Actually my acceptance of your "rules" are totally irrelevant. You stated the scholars have mandate through the Quran:

There are bound only by Quranic dictats

I know my Quran relatively well. Do you honstly think I would ask for a verse if you all you had to do was google search "quran verse that says islamic scholars are perfect"? Not in this life. I know for a fact that no such verse exists, and that you are wrong in that statement which is the basis of your entire argument. In other words, you are right, there is not much point wasting time, because I've just won the game, the set, and the match.

[ravishingravi]

Actually my acceptance of your "rules" are totally irrelevant. You stated the scholars have mandate through the Quran: I know my Quran relatively well. Do you honstly think I would ask for a verse if you all you had to do was google search "quran verse that says islamic scholars are perfect"? Not in this life. I know for a fact that no such verse exists, and that you are wrong in that statement which is the basis of your entire argument. In other words, you are right, there is not much point wasting time, because I've just won the game, the set, and the match.

So, are you saying that scholar's opinions should be promptly discounted ? To my understanding almost every religion in the world has spread on the back of preachings of Scholars, evangelists or propogators and that continues to be the case till this date. Or are you suggesting that every being who embraced Islam over the centuries first learnt Arabic , then interpreted the text and then made a conscious to choice yo embrace it as per his interpretation.

[Kriterion]

The dictat Iam talking about is this un-questionable belief that Quran is the word of God and hence beyond critical analysis (Iam sure I dont need to produce any verse) ....

that is NOT what you claimed above. if you mis-spoke, or rather mis-posted, thats fine, but if you stand by what you posted a few posts back, then you are contradicting yourself. you stated, unequivocally, that scholars are considered infallible by the QURAN.

So if modern critical analysis finds any errors in the book ... the problem is with modernity ... not the Quran ...

not at all, the problem lies within people's understanding of either the Quran, science, or both. You are a prime example. You are an educated person. You're not some imporverished fakir from a remote village high up in the Himalayas, who has never heard of the internet. Yet even you, have made several serious errors of interpretation of BOTH the Quran and modern science itself. You have erroneously claimed that semen is produced by the testicles, when any first year medical student can tell you that the "gushing fluid" of the quran, by whatever name you wish to call it, comes from the prostrate, bulburethral, and other glands. You have erroneously claimed that the Quran spoke of Dhul Qarnain building some magic, high-tech wall - when the Quran never stated anything unreasonable for an ancient time period. You have marvelled at the Quran claiming the sun rises on the western horizon, as viewed from ALL habitable regions of earth. furthermore, i find it rather amusing that you are attempting to "take the side" of science or as you put it "modernity" when you are anything but. as the following post shows: http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1162430&postcount=56 you don't really believe in science after all, or not if science fails to argue that Monkeys can talk and that airplanes weren't invented by the Wright bros in 20th century North Carolina, but thousands of years ago in Asia. i understand we're all strangers posting stuff on an anonymous forum, but the fact that you display such a blatant lack of intellectual integrity means that you may very well be a prejudiced person with insincere intentions towards anyone who is not of the same cookie-cutter mould as yourself. your repeated condescension towards your own fellow hindus, whose religion you ironically claim to "defend" illustrates this even further. you have not only maligned all muslims, but in the past you've maligned Malayali Christians, have had unsavory opinions of Abrahamic people's (which of course would include jews), and my guess is when you cannot even disagree without vitriol towards other HINDUS, your "love" for Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and other "dharmic" peoples is probably just a smokescreen created to garner some brownie points against me.

You will even go so far as to say that only you have the correct understanding of Quran ( Case in point 54:1 and the verses that describe creation times. )

no two people have EXACTLY the same exact views. but there are many other muslims who have nearly identical beliefs to mine (i.e the "correct" one).

Otherwise I simply dont have time to keep banging my head when you start saying things like past-tense = future tense , and = then ... etc etc.

i've never said anything other and wa = and, and thumma = then. likewise, i've never said past tense = future tense...thats what some "scholars" have opined. what is obviously evident is that Books such as Paul's revelations and 54:1 are obviously referring to prophecy. The fact that "the Hour" is mentioned EXPLCITLY in 54:1 is the give-away. Not only that, but SAME EXACT term exists in dozens of other places in the quran of which NONE have ANYTHING to do with any supposed "moon splitting". I have asked you several times to explain why this would be the one verse that has a different meaning for the term "the Hour".

Or are you suggesting that every being who embraced Islam over the centuries first learnt Arabic , then interpreted the text and then made a conscious to choice yo embrace it as per his interpretation.

not all conversions are equal. of course some, maybe even most muslims were converted by force. if and when that occurred, those conversions are of course (Islamically as well as logically) invalid. how can you "force" anyone to believe anything? can you force yourself to believe that Zimbabwe is the currently #1 ranked Test side in the world? you can be forced to say it, you can be forced to admit it, but you cannot ever be forced to really believe it with your soul. so there could very well be, and in fact there were, many many people who converted to Islam without a sound knowledge of the religion; it happens all the time. I have seen many converts to islam who have very little knowledge of islam. some of them end up not being able to accept all the precepts of the religion and many of them end up leaving Islam for their original faiths. I know of at least one such person, myself. I myself was a steadfast believer in Islam before really knowing much about it. I dabbled with atheism/agnosticism for a while, before realizing that i HAD to believe in what I had to believe.

[ravishingravi]

not all conversions are equal. of course some, maybe even most muslims were converted by force. if and when that occurred, those conversions are of course (Islamically as well as logically) invalid. how can you "force" anyone to believe anything? can you force yourself to believe that Zimbabwe is the currently #1 ranked Test side in the world? you can be forced to say it, you can be forced to admit it, but you cannot ever be forced to really believe it with your soul. so there could very well be, and in fact there were, many many people who converted to Islam without a sound knowledge of the religion; it happens all the time. I have seen many converts to islam who have very little knowledge of islam. some of them end up not being able to accept all the precepts of the religion and many of them end up leaving Islam for their original faiths. I know of at least one such person, myself. I myself was a steadfast believer in Islam before really knowing much about it. I dabbled with atheism/agnosticism for a while, before realizing that i HAD to believe in what I had to believe.

This is interesting. Genuinely interested what got you back towards faith. My argument wasn't necessarily about Voluntary v/s Forced acceptance of religion although that has happened in great numbers. My point was about relevance of scholars. To give an egs:- I was deeply disturbed by the "stoning" pronouncements against women in Sharia law and even more enraged by the fact that none of the muslims ( layman or scholars ) had voiced their discontent over the affair, while all of them were up in arms over prophet's "picture". Not being well versed with Quran I looked up for the verses for this specific act. In Quran I found a verse calling for "lashes" which is also pretty barbaric for a religion and the present times for an act like extra marital affair. But no mention of "stoning". However in Hadith Al Bukhari I found a para which stated that prophet approved of this action. According to some people, I spoke Hadith cannot be relied on. But this is what is followed in some Islamic countries and their actions are not being protested as subversion of Islam. So, in a situation like this, one has to go to the scholarly interpretation of the verses. It is a fairly logical step to look for different interpretations and practices in order to form an opinion and to get a stand of the religion on that issue. To make a long story short, your denouncement of scholars while it might be valid is really a personal rhetoric. On the ground, the layman just looks to be guided by anyone who can provide a firm hand and these scholars invariably do. To me, it wouldn't have been an issue if Islam was only one's personal relationship with God. However, the reason why the ambiguities and interpretation is a matter of great contention is because it is a way of life and a form of governance. Hence any interpretation will have a direct effect on lives of every being in the society.

[Kriterion]

no Iam not contradicting. You have lost track of the sub-discussion. Heres the summary. You asked why I believe scholars who have been caught saying unscientific and illogical stuf. Well from their perspective the problem lies in science as the possiblitiy of Quran being wrong is simply not even on the table for discussion and I dont even need to provide you a verse about Qurans infallibility from the Quran itself ( talk about logic :D) .

I have NEVER disputed that the quran fails to establish its own infallibility. Even a bullshit text like Mein Kampf will claim to be error-free. But what you have stated was "Quran says scholars are infallible". I'll quote you again.

They [scholars] are only bound by Quranic dictats [sic].

So I asked you for the verse which establishes this "dictat".

You have completely mis-understood what I say there. I simply dont want to digress anymore.

What I understood - and please correct me if I'm wrong rather that just saying I'm wrong - is that science trumps all in this thread, but in the other thread religion is superior to science. Again I'll quote you:

does that equation tell you who and how the universe was created ? Does it tell you how to lead life ? Does it tell you why you are here ? Not everrything can be explained by science (yet) which is why there is Religion.

[The Outsider]

Kriterion, you are 'debating' with a guy who has sung praises of Gandhi in this very thread comparing him to Buddha, and trashed him in numerous other threads on ICF.....just giving you an idea of the level of moronity you are up against here.

[The Outsider]

Iam aware of it ...

Chalo good, diagnosis is the first step of cure.

[Kriterion]

This is interesting. Genuinely interested what got you back towards faith.

Well, even when I was questioning God and religion, I wouldn't say I had completely left the pale of religion. So I wasn't an "atheist" which to me means that a person absolutely does NOT believe in teh existence of a God(s). I was more an "agnostic" one who is unsure or doesn't really care. I can't say i didn't care, but i was certainly unsure. What made me confirm or re-confirm the religion of by birth - and one can argue that it was inevitable since i was born into it - was that from my perspective, Islam offered the most complete explanation of life and humanity's purpose. To the extent that Islam is imperfect, it seems to me to be a result of the imperfections of humanity and/or of the world we live in. Of course, I may not be the most objective judge of that, as I was raised in a fairly religious household. But I have grown up in the US and have been exposed to the churches and Kingdom Halls while growing up.

My argument wasn't necessarily about Voluntary v/s Forced acceptance of religion although that has happened in great numbers. My point was about relevance of scholars. To give an egs:- I was deeply disturbed by the "stoning" pronouncements against women in Sharia law and even more enraged by the fact that none of the muslims ( layman or scholars ) had voiced their discontent over the affair, while all of them were up in arms over prophet's "picture". Not being well versed with Quran I looked up for the verses for this specific act. In Quran I found a verse calling for "lashes" which is also pretty barbaric for a religion and the present times for an act like extra marital affair. But no mention of "stoning". However in Hadith Al Bukhari I found a para which stated that prophet approved of this action. According to some people, I spoke Hadith cannot be relied on. But this is what is followed in some Islamic countries and their actions are not being protested as subversion of Islam.

And that is precisely the problem with the Hadith (as opposed to the Quran): internal contradictions, which aren't merely paradoxes. If you examine some more hadith, you will find one in which an Arab beduin man approached Muhammad and confessed three times to having committed adultery. Muhammad then instructed his followers to take the man, bury him waist-deep in sand, and stone him to death. His followers came back after the deed was done and claimed it was difficult since the man had managed to dig himself out and run away. To this Muhammad allegedly said something along the lines of "why did you not stop? if he managed to escape it was God's will that he not be killed, and Rajm (stoning) is merely to discourage such acts more than it is a punishment."

To make a long story short, your denouncement of scholars while it might be valid is really a personal rhetoric. On the ground, the layman just looks to be guided by anyone who can provide a firm hand and these scholars invariably do. To me, it wouldn't have been an issue if Islam was only one's personal relationship with God. However, the reason why the ambiguities and interpretation is a matter of great contention is because it is a way of life and a form of governance. Hence any interpretation will have a direct effect on lives of every being in the society.

i agree with you completely. but just to clarify, I am not denouncing scholars in any absolute form, nor am i rejecting every single hadith because a few of them are suspect. rather i am wholly rejecting BLIND FAITH in the scholars and the hadith as a whole. complete and total faith should, in my opinion, only be put in the words of Quran. that is the crux of the argument between Boss and myself. Let me give you an example, since this thread is insanely long and no one including Boss and myself have an idea of everything thats been said. Boss has cited Quran verse 54:1 which states "The Hour approached, and the moon was Split". His argument is that this proves that Muhammad claimed to perform miracles. And therefore the Quran contradicts itself since I claimed that "the quran says Muhammad cannot or will not perform any miracles, per se". Well it turns out, that I was wrong. The Quran actually does NOT ever lay stake to that claim. Did Muhammad split the Moon? Well maybe. If Moses split the red sea and Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead, then all things are possible, since God (the vehicle of a "miracle") is of infinite power and might. Can I prove any of these things? No, I can't, much as I would love to. Can anyone prove it did not happen? Pretty much. There are no accounts from anywhere else in the world of the Moon magically splitting into 2 completely different pieces around that time. In other words, Muhammad, according to Boss claimed to split the Moon when in fact he didn't. Now, how any rational person, and by "rational" i mean mentally competent from a pyschiatric or medical standpoint, can claim to perform a miracle in front of thousands of people, when he knows for a fact he cannot, is what I'd like to ask Boss. This has nothing to do with scholars or interpretations. Boss has offered up holy men such as Sai Baba and other optical illusionists as an incorrect example that "yes, this is possible". But its not a valid comparison because Sai Baba and others like David Copperfield at least provide the ILLUSION of their "miracles". Magic does not exist. So how Muhammad, in the absence of Divine help, could offer the illusion of the Moon splitting is also a question I'd like to ask. So this leads us to one of only 2 logical possibilities: 1) Muhammad was "crazy" (i.e schizophrenic) 2) Muhammad never claimed to split the Moon, and the past tense of verse 54:1 was a verse of prophecy similar to the Biblical book of Revelation, entirely written in the past tense by the Apostle Paul. Was Muhammad a schizophrenic? Probably not. Schizophrenia generally does not have such a late onset, usually manifesting itself in a persons' teen-age years or when they're in early adulthood. Muhammad did not start receiving his revelations until age 40. Most important is the fact that schizophrenia is a socially debilitating disease. It does not get better, and it inevitably results in a person being unable to perform his occupation (preaching), affects on his relationship with friends and family (none of which exist, according to the documentation). In fact, Muhammad's case was the opposite. He went from leading a bunch of rag-tag ex-slaves, to achieving military and bloodless victory over a vast area just before his death. A person suffering from schizophrenic hallucinations is simply not capable of achieving this kind of worldy success against all numerical and logistical odds. Even the hadith, the ones which can be believed, paint a picture of a fairly lucid individual. Again, one does not need to rely on scholars for their interpretation to understand this, yet Boss is not willing to acknowledge that. I will bring this up, and ask him, where we need a religious scholar to shed some light on what I have posted above. You see a person who is neutral, won't care. "So what if Muhammad is not a schizophrenic? Doesn't mean I have to believe him..." However, Boss has an agenda, one which he will openly attest to, although he will not confirm or deny its logical implications. The logical implication is that Boss will be wholly unable or unwilling to discuss the above situation, precisely because there is no room for bringing "scholars" into the debate. He knows my position very well. He knows I disagree with much of what the scholars say, when it can't be backed up by neutral evidence. Yet he insists on a need to discuss scholars, knowing full well my position. It is nothing short of an attempt at "fixing" the debate because he knows he cannot win. I'm a pretty rational guy. I have purposely not debated the actions of Muslims throughout history, I have NEVER disputed with Boss on the heinous violence perpetrated by my co-religionists and those who claim to be my co-religionists throughout history after the death of Muhammad. However, Boss is not satisfied. He wishes to assert that the Quran is the source of this, rather an a misinterpretation of the Quran. As a result he is yet to give me an acceptable answer on why the Quran mandates war for one group of "disbelievers" in verse 9:5, but advocates peace with another group in the very preceding verse, 9:4. And btw, its a very simple question, one which does not require any scholar for interpreting. Have a look at it yourself. That is exactly what Boss' tactics have been anytime he faces something uncomfortable he attempts to wriggle away with "Oh, I'm not a scholar and i don't understand a lick of arabic...so I can't comment". But one mention of the word "Kashmir" and all of a sudden a Middle East expert appears out of nowhere armed with chapter and verse.