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

[Kriterion]

Bossbhai: when the Hadith contradicts the Quran, which one is "right?" [you answered already, to which i proved above the contradictions between the hadeeth and the quran regarding public miracles or spectacles of divine power. if you agree to concede this point, i'll check this Q off, otherwise you will need to address it, as everyone here can see that only one of us is selectively answering questions here] why does the Quran urge "offensive" war, as you claim, in verse 9:5 when 9:4 says "peace"? [you totally skirted around this question, so i'm not striking it out. further you accused me of introducing interpretations, when all i did was quote the verse number. what part of the numbers 9,5, and 4 amount to an interpretation. i'm not continuing to bring up irrelevant tafsirs - which are interpretations after the fact.] why does the Quran repeatedly mention provocations as the only justification for war? [as i've shown you, surah 8 and 9 couldn't be the last ones since Meccans were still waging war] if you condemn islam for condemning "wicked sinning", is it then correct to assume that you support "wicked sinning" or that dharmic religions support "wicked sinning"? if abrahamic peoples are so "violent" today, how do you believe the pagan arabs and arabian jews were perfectly peaceful to Muhammad 1400 years ago? [inccorect, the muslims did not worship openly in the Kabaa or anywhere else, until Umar converted to Islam, thereby significantly weakening the Abu Jahl - Umar - Abu Sufyan "triple entente". put another way, if they were so tolerant, why the boycott from 617-619?] AND fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors [surah 2, verse 190] this is the very first call to war to occur in the Quran, textually speaking. none of the preceeding 197 verses makes any mention of warfare or fighting. what part of "do not commit aggression" do you find to be so aggressive and/or offensively violent? [also answered, but not necessarily correctly. again i await a response.]

[Kriterion]

I will be replying to this thread sporadically over the next week, but will be free from the Tuesday after tomorrow. if I don't reply for several days, its because i'm recharging my batter :) in the meantime, i think 7-8 days is enough time for you to come up with the "heavy artillery" you were telling me about.

[Kriterion]

There are verses that clearly mention in the "Hereafter" and some where both "this life" AND the "hereafter" are mentioned. So clearly this particular verse(9:74) about what happens to the apostates in this life. And as far as Muhammad not being responsible for what happened to the apostates well in that case he is clearly disobeying Allah. There are plenty of verses that tell Muhammad to do things and this is simply just one among them.

plenty of verses which go something like this "say o Muhammad..." a) the verse you cited ain't one of them. b) even if it were, it would, AFAIK, only proclaim "say o Muhammad..." and not "kill o Muhammad..." or "attack oh Muhammad..."

You conveniently forgot to continue reading after the highlighted part ... why ? Perhaps because it goes on to explain how religion was central to the wars ? And how did Khalid, AbuBakr fight these wars ? They would first propose to the tribes to submit to Islam and would fight them only if they refused. Tells us what ? Yep my way (Islam)or the highway(death). How is this anything but religious ?

i haven't forgotten. i read it, and for the record, i believe it, or at the least believe it is possible. remember that i have always agreed that the majority of wars waged by Muslims leaders after Muhammad were offensive. i just highlighted the part to show that this link which you provided does not support your position. when you did the "same" thing for my link, i also showed you how the "scholar" who "refuted" my argument, contradicted herself, by arguing that Muhammad waged offensive and defensive wars AT THE SAME TIME.

I posted stuff from this Sahih (And Sahih Muslim) earlier in this thread which didnt go down well with you ? Are you sure you want to use this as a "Authentic" source .... the thread will reach an abrupt end in that case :--D

not really relevant since in this case Sahih itself is admitting its limitations vis a vis the Quran. so yes, i do want to use this as an "authentic" source.

I knew you would say that which is why I have these 7 different translations of those verses by various scholars ( Bukhari,Muhsin, Pickthal,Shakir,YusufAli, Dr. Ghali and a Tafsir) . Out of those only one - Yusuf Ali - talks about Day of Judgement. And if you look at the next verse (54:2) it becomes clear that the event is supposed to have taken place - atleast according to Muslims anyhow - because the Quraysh rejected this as Magic or illusion. And those who were witness to this event were atleast 3 Sahaba ( Ibn Abbas, Anas bin Malik, Abdullah bin Masud ). So your case that it talks about a future event is very very weak. In fact Yusuf Ali has 3 different explanations of that event ( so much for clarity of the Quran ehh ?) of which you conveniently picked the one about Judgement Day. http://quran.com/54/1

actually Muhammad Asad's translation also mentions a future event ie Day of Judgment. http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/ now, let me try to understand your position: Muhammad was not a true prophet, hence he could not have split the moon, but he claimed to do it anyways, and then bragged about it in this verse. furthermore 3 of his companions bore witness to observing this fictional event. because the event never happened, this would mean the companions bore false witness (that is, they are LIARS). and you want to continue to accept their testimony, which the hadiths are based on, as ABSOLUTELY authentic??? i hope you understand now, why i take the hadiths with a grain of salt.

Sure :--D. So lets first rationalize the fundamental concept of Islam i.e Muhammad being a messenger of God and that too suddenly after he is 40 yrs old and God requiring 22 years to deliver his rules and regulations whereas he only needs a few days to create the entire universe. You cannot rationalize these things unless you give in to certain amount of blind belief. This is the cornerstone of any manmade religion. I hope you see the fallacy of your argument ?

everyone has to have a certain amount of blind belief in something. on the one hand you blindly believe in the 100% authenticity of the hadiths, even though one of them (moon splitting hadith) seems to overturn all of other beliefs. talk about "cognitive dissonance!"

(BTW why cant God create perfect humans given how that he is all powerfull and mercifull ? Why does he have to go to the extent of sending many messengers to get his word across unless he is not mercifull and likes to toy with those errant humans in hell by torturing them ? )

why can't your god(s) rid you of the Islamic menace...why does he in all his might and wisdom, allow humanity's fate to rest upon a plan A of some internet cricket poster?

Nope. Making mistakes is a human trait and Muhammad has been caught doing that (albeit not immediately after the verse was delivered). If the verses were to have come from God first of all there would only be one verse that clearly tells the details of universe creation not 2 or 3 ... that too with totally different meanings. The reason why you see the descrepancy is that these verses were narrated at different times and there was no way to cross check immediately with what was said earlier regarding creation as there was no meticulous record keeping. By the time they decided to consolidate all the revelations the entire freakin Arabia was bowing to Muhammad and it was too risky to question anything. This is why there are sooo many holes in Islam ( and indeed the Quran ).

making a mistake while calculating the interest on your credit card bill without a calculator is one thing. forgetting how many days there are in a week, is another thing. like i said, ask a moderately retarded kid how many days there are in a week, and he'll probably come up with the same number as you.

[bTW The one man (I forget his name) who did smell foul-play in the messaging business quit Islam and later when Muhammad conquered Mecca he went after this guy.]

there were a lot of people who disbelieved in Muhammad. no one man was unique in this regard.

[Kriterion]

There is no point repeating this silly post everytime. Simply because you refuse to accept simple commonsensical explanations. The one on 9:5 and 9:4 is a classic example. The key to that is in 9:1 which I have told you repeatedly ... what do you expect me to do if you prefer to pretend that immunity means something else in your world ? Not much I can do then bang my head isnt it ? And not only that your own Sahih Hadiths have tons of narrations on how offensive Jihad and surprise attacks on unarmed populations are permitted which you simply refuse to accept because somewhere in the Quran it talks about peace and tolerance. What is the point of this discussion if you are going to harp about 2:256 everytime there is a mention about violence ? I also explained to you how the earlier verses are over-ridden by the later ones but you dont accept that as well. Which is why we kind of diverted into the Quran is not reliable/complete/clear/error-free/contradictory discussion.

my intention is not to annoy, but rather to make sure these (in my opinion) important questions don't go unheeded. i didn't ask you about 9:1, i asked you about 9:5 vis a vis 9:4. and 9:1 says "no treaties"...so it doesn't explain 9:4 which says "observe the treaty to the end". so what is the difference with these 2 groups? the answer is right there in the first 5 verses of the quran. i'm not going to cease with this question till i get the answer to this exceedingly simple question.

But WTH lets get this done with .. you havent proven anything yet. Your position is based on the typical claim by muslims that Quran=Perfect in every sense and quite literally. I dont subscribe to that if it wasnt obvious already :--D. As it stands now that is still being contested and at last count you had started exploring the unchartered territories of "rationale" to cover up the obvious error regarding creation of earth heaven and the in between as mentioned in various verses.

seems a little too obvious to me, if we disregard the explanation of God necessarily being limited to working in a piecemeal fashion. God has no limits. creation times has already been explain unless you believe that perfectly normal people often get confused as to how many days of the week there are. why would he set himself up so easily? and if he's so dumb? how'd he manage to usurp so much power to make sure he won for at least 1400 years?

Once you are done explaining the error in creation times we can proceed to the verses that exhort followers to follow the footsteps of the Rasool without bothering to detail all of these "footsteps" in the quran itself. If you dont trust the Hadith,Seerah,Tafsir where do you get the details of these footsteps from? Can you tell me the no.of wars Muhammad fought and the events/situations that lead to these wars and Muhammads actions without looking into those evil Hadith ? You cant. You simply assume that they were all defensive wars. I being a hardass need evidence and you cant find that in the Quran. And again I have told the same thing many many times so I dont know why you keep badgering about me evading your questions.

i already explained to how we get the details such as how many times to pray, how to make hajj etc. if it doesn't contradict the quran, it must be assumed to be true, since we've already made that initial "leap of blind faith" as you mentioned earlier.

I have answered this many times... See this is YOUR opinion. The many many Sahih hadiths , Seerahs, Actions of the Sahabas and Tafsirs dont support your viewpoint. Nor do many of the scholars. So who is right ? If you want to claim to be right you need to tell me how the entire Islamic world except the few apologists is wrong. My case is pretty simple and I have not only the actions of the prophet but literally centuries worth of emperical data to back up my case. The probability that you are right is just negligible to put it mildly.

an opnion is an unverifiable statement. a fact is something which can be tested or verified empirically. my statement was "why does the quran repeatedly mention provocation in reference to war". this is NOT an opinion. this is a fact, because this statement can either be proven TRUE or FALSE. "repeatedly" means more than once, or at least twice, so... surah and verse numbers are given first: 2:190 (Asad) AND fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors. 2:193 (Asad) Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone; [170] but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [wilfully] do wrong. bam, there you go, two times...thats one more than once. oh wait, theres more: 2:194 (Asad) fight during the sacred months if you are attacked: [171] for a violation of sanctity is [subject to the law of] just retribution. Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him. 3:167 (Asad) and mark out those who were tainted with hypocrisy and, when they were told, "Come, fight in God's cause" - or, "Defend yourselves" [128] - answered, "If we but knew [that it would come to a] fight, we would indeed follow you." Unto apostasy were they nearer on that day than unto faith, uttering with their mouths something which was not in their hearts, [129] the while God knew fully well what they were trying to conceal: 4:75 (Asad) And how could you refuse to fight [89] in the cause of God and of the utterly helpless men and women and children who are crying, "O our Sustainer! Lead us forth [to freedom] out of this land whose people are oppressors, and raise for us, out of Thy grace, a protector, and raise for us, out of Thy grace, one who will bring us succour!" 8:39 (Asad) And fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone. [39] And if they desist-behold, God sees all that they do; 9:12 (Asad) But if they break their solemn pledges after having concluded a covenant, [18] and revile your religion, then fight against these archetypes of faithlessness [19] who, behold, have no [regard for their own] pledges, so that they might desist [from aggression]. thats 7 verses right there - all or almost all from Medina surahs so no question of being "over-ridden".

The point was not about condemning "wicked sinning". The point was who gave Muhammad the right to decide that the Pagan practices amounted to "wicked sinning" ? Clearly the Quraysh didnt think he was a Gods messenger.

he's talking about female infanticide, persecution, adultery, pimping, slander, usury, and fraudulent business dealings, none of which are overt religious practices.

Didnt they let him preach for 10yrs in Mecca without harming him ? Given the power that they wielded they could quite easily have killed him long before the hijra. Further more they tried to negotiate with him on more than one occasion. For those times these acts constitute far more than being "peacefull". And again I have answered this question before.

3 years, not 10. and those 3 years of tolerance was only because Islam was unknown to anyone who was not personally associated to Muhammad (i.e Abu Jahl, Umar, Abu Sufyan). once they came ot know about it, things changed, and 10 years after that the hijrah happened. again, you do not understand basic history as agreed upon by all academics. Muhammad's pagan uncle, Abu Talib - a senior Hashemite - protected him and even during this protection, the boycott against Muslims took place, ending only with Abu Talib's death (along with Khadijha's death).

As explained above these verses were over-ridden by the later verses in chapter 9.

how can a Medina verse over-ride a medina verse? moreover, how does one war verse over-ride another war verse? abrogation is a concept related only to the use of alcohol, given its obvious crippling psychologic effects of quitting cold turkey. there is no other instance of the quran mandating a change in laws or rules, so there is no issue of "over-riding".

BTW Shall I keep banging about the numerous things that you have evaded just like you do ? It makes no sense and is a utter waste of time. The reason is because its such a wide discussion and I cant keep replying to every single subtopic that we digress into. Almost all the time when you get stuck you revert back to the usual apologist excuse of "but ohh it says in chapter X that dont harm anybody" or in chapter Y it preaches "religious tolerance" or that I and the entire world sees violence where you dont. This is classical circular logic and the only way to get out of the circle one way or the other is by going to the root of Quran and its authenticity,clarity and such .... which is NOW the core discussion as detailed in the previous post. In anycase as you can see from my answers in this post that I had touched upon most of these points before and they all kinda move to the same point : Is the Quran error free/perfect/clear book. So concentrate on replying to the previous post in the best interest of making it a meaningfull discussion. Trust me I aint the type to run-away.

it is not circular logic, because the verses which speak of tolerance and peace never contradict the verses which speak of war. tolerance and peace are offerred whenever the other party wishes to reciprocate (surah 2:256, 109:5). war is mandated only against those who attack one first (surah 2:190, 9:5, et al.). peace is obligated during a war if the other party surrenders (surah 8:60-62). these are MEDINA VERSES (except surah 109), the so called violent ones AFTER MUHAMMAD ATTAINED AN ARMY AND WAS "POWERFUL". yet it still does not, logically, nor historically, contradict the so called "peaceful" MECCAN surahs. **************** as for debating the Quran's authenticity, etc. I am open to discussing it as long as you are. this is nothing new for me, and i'm reasonably well verses in all the topics discussed on this thread so far. but lets understand one fundamental point. i've already proven to you how at least some portion of the hadiths and tafsir is nothing more than non-sensical babble, perhaps with an ulterior political motive of whoever penned them in the CENTURIES AFTER MUHAMMAD'S DEATH. there is no way you can simaltaneously hold the hadith at full face value, and believe that Muhammad DID NOT SPLIT THE MOON. something has to give. now if we debate the origins of the Quran, and IF, if the Quran is also of murky authenticity...you realize that nothing can be stated about Muhammad or Islam in his time, right? all of the scholarly work is based on ultimately religious sources and the logical deductions gained from the the Quran. the islamophobes only got their cannon fodder much later once contradictory information arrived in the form of the tafsir and hadiths. and of course there was the real world example of many Islamic conquorers. so we can continue down this line of thought if you wish...however, if all sources are uncertain, than how can you make any positive accusations about the Character of Muhammad and Islam?

[Kriterion]

For the time being Iam ONLY going to respond to the main sticking point : Is Quran Error free and absolutely perfect as every single Muslim stoutly believes. So dont get upset if you dont see answers to the million other things in this thread (they all come down to the same thing in anycase ).

as long as all the questions are eventually addressed, the precise order in which they're answered is not important. i don't mind letting the discussion go wherever you wish to take it.

So on that note regarding the descrepancy in creation times you wrote : Isnt this proving my point that Quran has errors ? Before responding please bear in mind the base assumption that God and Muhammad are infallible (according to Muslims).

unless its perfectly reasonable for a healthy person to forget the number of days in a week - which is what the Abrahamic creation story is based on - i'd venture to say "no". now the assumption is that a person who rises quite literally from nothingness to becoming the most "powerful" man in the region, must have some basic level of cerebral functioning.

Reg moon splitting : The point is very very simple : The moon hasnt been split into two (and then glued back again) as per science. But the Quran says otherwise in 54:1-2 . Many muslim scholars agree to that interpretation. I produced interpretations of no less than 7 such scholars. Vast majority of Islamic community agrees with them.(I wont even bother bringing in the hadith). So either your interpretation is wrong or everyone else is wrong except you.

7 scholars is hardly "everyone else". maybe in a tiny community of a few million, but not in a quarter of the world's population. i've even cited a translation which mentions it being as a "doomsday" event. if you check the Quran link at www.islamicity.com, you will find that BOTH the translations of Muhammad Asad and Yusuf Ali link surah 54's moon splitting with the Day of Judgement. why do i lend more credibility to Asad and Ali's translation as opossed to that of Pickthall and the one you've provided? and even Pickthall mentions "the hour" although his translation does not capitalize it as "Hour". however this is irrelevant, because Pickthall NEVER refers to the day of judgement as the "Hour" but ALWAYS as the "hour". now you might argue that the verb tense indicates a present or past event and not a future event. however this is not true. Pickthall's translation often, if not always, uses the present tense to denote the coming Day of Judgement: They indeed are losers who deny their meeting with Allah until, when the hour cometh on them suddenly, they cry: Alas for us, that we neglected it! They bear upon their back their burdens. Ah, evil is that which they bear! [surah 6, verse 31] notice it doesn't say "when they hour will come, they will cry..." although it is clearly referring to the future "doomsday" event. now while, Asad is a far lesser known translator (despite being more accurate, in my opinion), Ali and Pickthall are perhaps the most well renowned English translators of the Quran. so the argument that they are a fringe element among the scholars is not at all valid. secondly, 5 verses later, in 54:6, we see a clear reference to the Day of Judgement, and understand that 54:1 was referring to a cataclysmic event and not to a supposed "miracle" of Muhammad. thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, your position that the sahaba have lied in transmitting this hadith, casts a very big shadow on your prime argument that the hadith/sunnah/tafsir/seerah are PERFECTLY RELIABLE avenues of studying the life and times of Muhamamad. fourthly, and perhaps most logically cogent is this idea: most "miracles", are made up by zealous followers in an effort to legitimize the authenticity of their religious figures. for example, Sikhs believe Guru Nanak's body magically disappeared after his hindu followers wanted to cremate him and his muslim followers wanted to bury him. Jesus himself never spoke about walking on water or raising Lazarus from the dead. it was only written by his followers matthew, mark, luke, and john after his death. in other words, from the skeptics POV, none of these men performed the "miracles" they are said to have performed. so now, lets look at it logically. there are only 2 possibilities: 1) Muhammad did indeed split the Moon or 2) Muhammad did not split the Moon thats it. this is binary. there is no third possible option. now you and i both agree that Muhammad did NOT split the moon. but my position is irrelavent here. your position and its incongruency with the logic is whats of prime importance. if Muhammad did not split moon - as you believe - that means the moon was never split. if the moon was never split, no one saw the moon being split. do you follow, me? if no one saw the moon being split, how could Muhammad, being a clever individual, publicly claim to do something people saw with the own eyes that he did NOT do? the hadith does not, to my ability claim that Muhammad split the moon while everyone was sleeping...that defeats the whole purpose of performing a miracle (duh). the hadith says "Muhammad is splitting the moon, and we are watching him do it right now". do you see what i'm saying here?

[Kriterion]

So you agree there was an error made by Muhammad and that God did not correct him ? Will take up the response to moon splitting laters.

no errors with regard to the "compilation" of the Quran, unless of course you are willing to acknowledge that Muhammad was brain-dead, since he clearly had no idea how many days there were in a week - is it 7 or 9???. but then he couldn't such a dangerous influence to all of humanity, so i'd say i'm pretty safe. nowhere does it say God created the earth in 8 days. it merely gives a breakdown, with the implicit understanding of concurrent events leading to an overall universal creation in 6 days. the fact that you can multitask, but aren't willing to attribute that the Creator of the Universe has even lesser time constraints, means that you either don't believe in any god, or your conception of him is as a wholly miniscule and feeble entity (which is in my opinion, not correct). God is Great, not frail and inept.

[ViruRulez]

I did not read the whole thread as my thread seems to have been hijacked from a Maoist thread to something else :giggle: Anyways I just saw in the only post I read above that what is important .. Hadeeth or Quran for a Muslim .. just to clarify Quran is the main and only source of proper knowledge as per Islam .. Hadeeth is not a religious book which HAS to be followed .. nobody told anybody to follow Hadeeth and Allah also never recommended or told anybody to follow it .. so I dont accept Hadeeth as any valid source of information except for maybe mere reference ... anyways nobody in my whole family or maybe in my khandaan has ever followed Hadeeth but everybody I spoke to only follows the Quran and says that is the only right source of religious knowledge .. and personally speaking for me as a person my own brain and logic is the most important source of knowledge ... I consider no religious book to be better than the human brain .. if there is any conflict of opinions between anything and the human logic then I just believe that we should apply our brain and think unbiasedly and then judge it .. our own judgment is the best source of knowledge and reference possible

[ViruRulez]

Sue me hombre :tease:

Sorry I dont have my lawyer ready :P

The Quran repeatedly commands its followers to obey God and his messenger ( eg: 33:21, 3:32 ) . It says in the messenger you have a very good example to follow. So where do you find his life history for you to follow since most of it is not recorded in the Quran ?

Hadeeth was properly documented upto hundreds of years after the death of Prophet Mohammed .. so I dont accept its validity because it had word of mouth for several generations and that might be wrong .. secondly many of the Hadeeths contradict each other on various issues and so it is nearly sure that many wrong things might have been documented.. thirdly nowhere is it written in the Quran to obey the last Prophet .. it is a sunnah to follow the Prophet and that is not a Faraz whch means necessary Lastly I am very less religious and so I am not the best person to carry this discussion forward as I have less religious knowledge .. but as I said it is not necessary and secondly the Hadeeths were documented upto centuries later and so I dont find their validity especially as they contradict with each other .. my family has never followed the Hadeeth and even during my childhood the Imam (religious head) of all the nearby mosque told that Hadeeth should not be taken word for word

What this means is you dont blindly trust everything in your holy book which is a good thing ... the bad news is you are questioning quran and hence you are not a Muslim :--D

I am not questioning Quran but if there is a conflict of opinion my logic and that too unbiased logic will reign supreme over any religious books .. regarding anybody questioning me a Muslim including any religious leader I just say SUCK MY ASS :finger: .. I have ripped apart the arses of many religious people too and have always came out convincingly well because whenever I debate I have always been on the right based on human logic ... anyways though I am hardly religious but I have got respect each and every place and even religious people respect me as a person though they might sometimes debate with me too ... I try to be a good human and to do for the nation and thats what matter for me

[ViruRulez]

I know .. I probably know more about your religion than you do :(( but your position is nothing new . This is a typical stance of modern day Muslims and scholars ( usually the apologists) because they are pretty embarrased by the contents of Hadith. But the truth is you cannot explain large chunks of the Quran without additional material in the form of Hadith,Seerah,Tafsir. For example try exaplining all the battles ( and the events surrounding them ) fought by Muhammad without using the Hadith. You simply cannot. Iam afraid you are questioning the quran ( or not using logic) because you cannot logically explain Alexander building a metal wall between two mountains or splitting of the moon or the night journey or the descrepancy in creation times of the earth and heaven and so on and so forth. Yes you can always resort to deriving a completely different meaning of these verses - which very few scholars agree - something Kriterion is attempting.

In reply to the first bolded sentence, I never get embarrassed because I know I am in the right. I dont fear or care anybody in this world or the universe to be frank. Many people consider me somewhat of a rebel too. And I am not of any typical kind. I lead my own life and believe in my own thoughts and actions. So, I wont be embarrassed nor will I act as any other typical person. :P Regarding the importance of Hadeeth I would say that the Bible is more important as per religious directions for us than the Quran. Bible is one of the 5 aasmani (spiritual) books which were conveyed to Allah through their prophets and Jesus, Moses etc. were our prophets too as they are of the Christians or the Jews. Hadeeth is not even an aasmani book and is nowhere in the Farz (must) for Islam. So, I wont agree that Hadeeth is so important as I have told you the reasons in the above posts too. And there has never been one constant interpretation of the Quran and that is also true. Secondly, Prophet Mohammed was illiterate if I am not incorrect and he is said to be by-hearted the Quran in a cave over a long period of time by Allah. So, your logic that the Hadeeth can only explain the Quran is flawed IMO as the Quran was conveyed to the last Prophet when he was illiterate if I am not incorrect. Hadeeth is completely different from the Quran and it is not a necessity in any manner or even as big for the Muslims as even the Bible or the other aasmani books I have never been much religious and so wont try to explain different meanings of different verses. Anyways I would more likely try more logical scientific explanations than religious ones if I have to give one. :P Most importantly I hardly care about all these. For me humanity is the greatest religion and that is what everybody should concentrate IMO. I respect every religion but to be quite frank religions itself are not perfect and that is well known fact. So, I wont waste my time or make my DIMAAG KI DAHI to think so much or discuss so much about it. Anyways I was just saying about Hadeeth and not about right or wrong as I personally defy a lot of religious sayings of various religions and hence I said my mind and logic is above anything else. :--D

[Kriterion]

The multitasking thing is a red-herring and is a convenient excuse to get out of jail. If you are going to resort to such things you can practically explain any and all errors through such clever manipulation.

red herring? not at all...i am willing to discuss each and every point, no matter how ridiculous to the sensible observer (muslim or not). how is it a red herring? it takes me 1 minute to urinate and 2 minutes to brush my teeth in the morning. the fact that you are claiming that i physically CANNOT accomplish these 2 tasks in less than 1+ 2 = 3 minutes, is not at all an example of a limitation in my thinking.

Another classic example is how Quran explains Sunset in 18:86 .... it claims Dhul-Qarnayn(Alexander) followed the Sun and reached the place where the sun set, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found people ! Wait it gets better he then came upon a place with two mountians and he is credited with building an enormous wall of iron and brass between two mountains, which was tall enough and wide enough to keep an entire army out ! (18:96). Without resorting to trickery and excuses no-one can honestly explain such things. I could list these errors on and on but its kinda futile if you are going to continue to lie thru the teeth and go to the extent of rejecting major scholarly translations. You are in denial and no-one can help in such cases. Your only re-course is to bring yourself to stand back and look at things very objectively.

one of the problems of analyzing the Quran as an overtly scientific text, is that it isn't an overtly scientific text. in other words, Muhammad did not write the Quran as a doctoral dissertation in some scientific field. now, Muhammad's Asad's translation (one which i have mentioned at least a few times above as my preferred translator, owing to shortcomings of the more established bunch such as Pickthall and Yusuf Ali) mentions this: [And he marched westwards] till, when he came to the setting of the sun, it appeared to him that it was setting in a dark, turbid sea; and nearby he found a people [given to every kind of wrongdoing]. We said: "O thou Two-Horned One! Thou mayest either cause [them] to suffer or treat them with kindness!" [surah 18, verse 86] Dhul Qarnayan travelled west, till nightfall, at which point he observed the sun setting into a dark ocean. I am not sure exactly, why this is such a revelation to you, since I can tell you that I have witnessed the same thing at the Gulf of Mexico, during a trip to Florida in March of 2006. I observed the sun setting into the sea. Even more astonishing, the Gulf of Mexico was very blue around noon time that same day, but as the Sun set into it, it was much darker! I was truly astonished as to the color change of the water. The sky also turned from bright blue to pitch dark by 10 pm. Pickthall and Yusuf Ali's rendition of the verse, paints a similar picture of the observer and what he views as opposed to "objective" viewing, to borrow your word: Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout: We said: O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness. and Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness." Now in anticipation of your argument that this needlessly, taking a literal interpration of words, i offer the following question? if this was needless detail, or superfluous extrapolation by the commentators of Asad, Pickthall, and Ali, then why mention Dhul-Qarnain's "frame of reference" in each of the translations? in other words, the verse could have been easily written as such: "he traveled west, till he reached the sunset, and the sun sank into a murky puddle of water". but why is there an emphasis on what Dhul Qarnain's observation, which, is in fact, the same thing observed by many a happy couple in beaches all over southern california? why is there no mention of an "objective" reality?

[Kriterion]

BTW I was once discussing 86:5-7 with a guy ... these verse tells us that man is created from a gushing fluid that originates from between the loins and the ribs. Therefore' date=' in this sura we find that the semen which creates a child originates from the back or kidney of the male and not the testicles. So this guy quite frankly told me that one day science will eventually rectify the mistake as Quran couldnt be wrong !! :--D[/quote'] LOL, that guys stupid, oh wait...it appears as though that "one day" has actually past us... now i'm no expert at reproduction - courtesy of Trojan, haha - however, i learned a bit from sex-ed when i was in high school, courtesy of the liberal, American education system ;) now, the verse says "between the loins and ribs". now, this is actually a pretty wide area, but doesn't include what was the prevalent idea of the day that human reproduction came solely from a man's penis or testicles (clearly an idea which you are still clinging onto in the 21st century). hence the need for sex-ed in conservative countries outside the US, Canada, and EU, but thats another discussion. now, the verse in question, says thus and so: خُلِقَ مِن مَّاء دَافِقٍ Khuliqa min main dafiqin For those who cannot read Arabic, the last word, " دَافِقٍ" is transliterated as "DAFIQ". Now Dafiq, does not mean "seed", or "cell", or "spermatozoan" or "ovum." All of these eminate from the gonads, i.e the testis and the ovaries. Dafiq has been translated by Asad as "seminal fluid", reflecting his 20th century modernity as an Eastern European Jew, by Pickthall as a "gushing fluid", and Ali calls it a "drop emitted". [note: feel free to verify ALL quran citations here: http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/] now, it would appear to any rational reader that fluid and drop, indicate the reference to "semen" and not to "sperm" or "ova", which are single cells, and not even liquid forms of matter. But where does semen come from? Semen is largely a product of the prostate, the seminal vesicles, and some other minor glands. None of which are located in the scrotum, as you may have been led to believe. Don't believe me? ask your doctor. actually, 65-75% of semen is produced by the seminal vesicle, and the rest is also from "between the loins and ribs". none of the Dafiq fluid comes from the testis, which only produce several hundred million sperm CELLS. i apoligize if i've once again, "cleverly manipulated" the words written in the quran, an ingenious tactic called "reading" which i was unfortunately brain-washed with as a child in an torturous place known as the American public school system. this precisely why i am a firm proponent of illiteracy and will never send my children to school.

[Kriterion]

Its got nothing to do with whether you can multi-task. Point is no scholar interprets it that way AFAIK. With due respect you - and indeed me - arent scholars. Further more you cannot simply introduce such concepts when no-where there is mention of multi-tasking. And why does not God simply provide one single account of the creation process ? Isnt this book supposed to be as clear and perfect as they come ? Cant the all knowing God figure out that this 2 different version of events is going to cause confusion ?

it appears i have a a very slight mistake - which needs clarification, since its absence could be misconstrued into the arguement that since sperm is the actual fertilizing force, the verse is still wrong regardless of my above explanation, which is otherwise 200% sound. so here is the revised response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loin according to this the dictionary definition (as well as popular usage) of the term "loins" also includes the testis, as well as the seminal vesicles, prostate, and other glands. hence the Quran STILL does not err, in terms of the scientific origins of the fluid known as semen, sperm, and/or Dafiq. but your assertion that semen issues forth from the testicles is just not correct either way.

[Kriterion]

Its got nothing to do with whether you can multi-task. Point is no scholar interprets it that way AFAIK. With due respect you - and indeed me - arent scholars.

religious scholarship is a branch of philosophy. this why every University in the world houses their religious studies departments with or related to philosophy departments, not with engineering or business. as such, any individual is qualified to philsophosize. it does not mean he is "right" or "wrong" or that everyone else must agree, but its valid. its very interesting that you have adopted the closed minded approach to religion, from what i can glean with my many discussions with you on the topic. it is also interesting that Quran contains aproximately 18 injuctions for people to think freely for themselves and not rely on some clergymen. and all this is additional to the fact that the scholars you have mentioned are not considered even by themselves as being infallible. the roman catholic doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Islam. and i don't know if hindu/dharmic faiths beleive in blind adherence to the priestly classes, but Islam has never done so, and this is Quranically manifest.

Further more you cannot simply introduce such concepts when no-where there is mention of multi-tasking. And why does not God simply provide one single account of the creation process ? Isnt this book supposed to be as clear and perfect as they come ?

the words, "holy war" also do not exist in the quran. yet you and i both know that it exists (but only defensively as the quran has mentioned in at least those 7, still unasnswered verses, i have provided).

Cant the all knowing God figure out that this 2 different version of events is going to cause confusion ?

only in the rationally challenged and those who seek confusion to further their agenda. this is in fact, the meaning of the arabic word "kafir". one who "conceals" not one "disbelieves". you see disbeliever does not contain an inherently hostile meaning. it simply means one who does not believe as you believe. further, you wrote that there is no mention of multi-tasking...it is a logical fallacy to say that since A is not mentioned, A cannot exit. the only thing which exludes the possibility of A's existence, is the statement "not A" or its logical equivalent. and that statement does not exist in the Quran. hence all possibilities, however improbable must left open.

[Kriterion]

I added to my previous post dunno if you noticed ... but here it is again :

thanks...i too added something small in post 302.

And dont forget to explain 18:96 ... the metal wall erected by Alexander. BTW Quran implies that Alexander was not a idol-worshipper and was empowered by Allah. Which is false. Further more this guy was a alcohol drinking, whoring and live on the edge type of guy which ultimately lead to his death at the young age of 33. Further more he claimed to be the son of Egyptian god Amun which is makes Quran's version as erroneous.

1) which is why Alexander could not have been Dhul Qarnain. this was the guesswork of your "infallible" scholars. so which is it? fallible or infallible? can't be both... btw, forgot to mention, that these "infallible" scholars always end their fatwas and such with the phrase Allahu 'alim or God Knows Best, clearly establishing that even their opinions and rulings may very well be WRONG. this is something they admit themselves. so i have no qualms in putting my interpretation above theirs, especially when my knowledge of secular affaris is greater than 99% of these scholars. thats not to say i reject them when they are right, but they're wrong awful lot of times to justify blind faith. 2) Dhul Qarnain is not at all related to the Arabic word for "Alexander" which if i recall correctly, is "Sikander", which was the name of my great great grandfather. In fact, the Egyptian city of Alexandria, named after Alexander the Great, is الإسكندرية al-Iskandariyya. It does not bear any resemblence to Dhul Qarnain, which is a purely Semitic name, and Alexander which is a purely Indo-European name.

[Kriterion]

It doesnt matter who it was ..... a metal wall between two mountains has never been built.

i'm glad you acknowledge that Dhul Qarnain = Alexander is at best a wild guess, and most probably completely wrong given the information you have provided about his morals and personal life. as for the metal wall, i apologize for ignoring it before - i'm finding it slightly challenging to keep track of all the things you're throwing at me :)...18:98 states: Said [the King]: "This is a mercy from my Sustainer! Yet when the time appointed by my Sustainer shall come, He will make this [rampart] level with the ground: and my Sustainer's promise always comes true!" [surah 18, verse 98] now most of classical translators, including Muhammad Asad, understand this to be a reference to the Day of Judgement. now it may very well be that such an ancient wall, presumably much smaller than China's Great Wall, exists somewhere in the Middle East, and is yet to be discovered. similar to the yet to be discovered (if they are still intact, that is) Noah's ark, the holy grail, Moses famous staff, Joseph's multi-colored coat, and many other Biblical items. allegedly, a museum in Istanbul claims to have on display, the turban worn by Joseph, as well as the sandals of Muhammad. how they are positive it is what it claimed to be, is anyone's guess. however, the existence of ancient ruins in yemen, italy, africa, indeed all over the world indicate that there is no way to know that it does NOT exist, or that it NEVER existed in the past. now, as i mentioned, most commentators take this to be the Day of Judgment. however, I am not so sure for the following reason: there is are two different terms in the 2 verses to refer to "the day" in question: 18:98 does not contain the word, "yawm" or the phrase "yawm ad deen" to refer to the day when the wall comes down. 18:98 however does use the world "yawm" in reference to the Day. this to me indicates that the two days are seperate, since the Day of Judgement is frequently referred to as either "yawm" or "the hour" (as in the moon split verse). 18:100 also uses the word "yawm", indicating that the Quran has made a segue and that 18:98 concludes the one-time story of Dhul Qarnain, and 18:99 begins the oft-repeated generalized story of the Day of Judgement. AND ON that Day We shall [call forth all mankind and] leave them to surge like waves [that dash] against one another; and the trumpet [of judgment] will be blown, and We shall gather them all together. [surah 18, verse 99] And on that Day We shall place hell, for all to see, before those who denied the truth- [surah, 18, verse 100] so we see that verse 98 uses the word "time", whereas BOTH verses 99 and 100 use the word yawm = Day, indicating that these are two completely different days and times. the implication of this is that, it is possible - depending on if "time" referes to an event after 2010 AD or before - that the reason no metal wall has been found is because it has long been gone. but one thing is certain, verses 98 and 99/100 refer to 2 seperate days/times/periods. 2 reasons to believe this are: 1) the usage of different terms to refer to when 2 specific events will occur (destruction of wall, day of judgment). 2) subject matter change from Dhul Qarnain/Gog and Magog in one (i.e the past relative to Muhammad's time), to Heaven/Hell/Judgment in the other (i.e the future relative to Muhammad and everyone else). ********************* for the purposes of summarizing for you, me, and any other readers, re: the other verses you mentioned: * i take it you agree that testicles, prostate, seminal vesicles, bulbourethral glands, etc are all located between the "loins (technically defined as outter thighs according to wikipedia) and ribs"...as a quick glance at Gray's Anatomy textbook removes any doubts one might have. ** i also assume you aknowledge that "the Hour" in reference to the moon split referes to the future Day of Judgement, since thats the same term used throughout the Quran...and all the major translators agree have used the term hour to desribe the moon split and the Day of judgement...regardless of what ridiculous tafsir or bukhari hadith alleges about the verse - since they haven't broken it down word for word, and are merely giving an wild guess without any supporting rationale. *** i also assume that since "holy war" doesn't exist in the Quran the concept of it is nonetheless true (albeit strictly defensively), you also acknowledge that Quran's absence of the term "multi-tasking" in reference to the creation of the universe is similarily unnecessary, as well as goofy sounding. but very possible since by definition nothing is impossible for an infinite being. similarily, i assume that you acknowlege, since you have never challenged it, that it is unreasonable to expect a person of average sanity and average intelligence to not remember how many days there are in a week.

[Kriterion]

for some reason my firefox cannot open it, maybe yours can, and if not it means the site has been taken down or moved or something. but in order to facilitate this duscussion answering-islam.org has a pretty extensive list of "contradictions" in the Quran. i'm assuming you have a copy or something since a lot of the stuff you've cited is found there. if you have it, u can just post it here, and that way i can address those points which aren't ludicrious (and for the record, yes, there are a few *meritorious* supposed "contradictions" listed by the group, rare though it is that their general lack of intelligence and awareness is bypassed by some primitive form of intellectual clarity, lol).

[Kriterion]

It doesnt matter who it was ..... a metal wall between two mountains has never been built.

just to illustrate the slippery slope of this post, i'll say this. there is no reason, scientifically, to assume that Lord Ram was born on that hilltop. now if you had a medical record from the attending OB that yes indeed a being by the name of Lord Ram was born at such and such a date and time, thats one thing. that being said, Babur was still wrong to demolish a temple and build a mosque. and even if Lord Ram was born in Wycoff Hospital in Brooklyn, Babur would still be wrong to tear that temple down. do you see what i'm saying? in other words, there is no "scientific" proof, that Muhammad existed at all. he could be a made up figure like Zeus or Johnny Appleseed.

[Kriterion]

Hehehe ... this is similar to the logic of that guy who when countered with scientific and factual errors in the Quran would use the idiotic (sorry but there is no other way to describe this) excuse that "ohhh one day science will figure out the correct thing" meaning ... untill the rest of the world gets fedup (most likely forced into ) towing the Islamic line ..... its going to be Quran is right and everything else is wrong. So what is the point of this discussion if you are going to use such obtuse logic ? Building a metallic wall as described in that verse would have been an Engineering marvell for those times and even if it were to have been destroyed there would have been some references to such thing in historical accounts (other than the Quran). Sorry not buying this.

not really. its construction based upon the verses of the Quran are fairly crude even by ancient standards. it was just a metal wall with molten copper poured in to fill it up. the quran never even mentions it being a "great" or "mavelous" structure, and even predicts its own demise. the wall is not, as described by the quran, some engineering marvel you are talking about, and hence not miraculous in nature. there are no infrared heat sensors, no cameras wired to booby traps, nothing of the sort. it is no more miraculous than say the great wall of china. its unsurprising that you disagree with such "obtusities", since its not in line with your practice of conjuring up words/meanings/contexts either from thin air, figments of one's imagination, or blatantly inauthentic summaries written centuries after the fact. there is no "science will figure out the correct meaning"...its just a wall, plain and simple. a wall which no longer exists. we don't need to science to prove that some man built a wall a few thousand years ago, as much greater and more marvelous things have been built and no one reallly knows how the specifics went (pyraminds and stonehenge being prime examples).

[Kriterion]

No i dont. Because there exists no proof of existence of any Hindu dieties (or for that matter any major religion). But in this day and age none of these religions -except for one- go about wiping populations because they dont subscribe to their religion. Very easy to figure out the odd man standing. We wouldnt be having this discussion if it werent so.

did you really type this post? you do you realize that what you've written cannot even be classed as a logical fallacy since the points are TOTALLY irrelevant. here is my next argument: french pastries are expensive, and this proves that Islam is a peaceful religion.

[Kriterion]

Indeed you have already started using the typical muslim responses to these questions. ( Science will one day correct itself to allign with the Quran till then the Quran is right and current day science is wrong ).

but it has with regard to the sun dipping below the horizon, and semen issuing from between the loins and ribs. ----------

The term "loins" does not exist in many translations ( Muhsin, Sahih, Yusuf Ali, Shakir and possibly many others ) instead it is ribs.[ which then begs the question about the supposed clarity of Quran why are soo many reputed scholars arriving at different meanings if this is supposedly a very crystal clear text ? ] . Infact most of these translations call the fluid as water :D. In any case its pretty large area and is not precise at best. ( Unless ofcourse Medical science will one day declare that they dont really know the precise location where this "fluid" originates from ).

fair enough...the literal translation is between "spine and ribs"...which is an area of the pelvis and abdomen that still includes the prostate and seminal vesicles (which constitutes 75% of semen). not to mention that this is also the region where every single males testicles originate, which is why many baby boys (3-4%, higher in premature infants) are born without undescended testicles which are located in their pelvis/abdomen - so this isn't even some vestigial embryonic development.

This is on the back burner. Comes down to the clarity/error-free/latter verses superseeding the previous ones topic that we are discussing right now. The point is most of the quran is unclear unless you refer to the Hadith/Seerah/Tafsir and use the events and details surrounding them to arrive at the true meaning of the verses and indeed the Sunnah.

unclear without rationale thought. but then so too is the statement "raise your hand". to a drunken man in a stupor that is not a very clear command. similarily to those who are in the stupor of a pre-conceived notion or agenda, and this applies even more so to the radical Islamists among us, what is clear as day to the right-thinking will become murkier than a glass of chocolate milk. this is the test of religion. this is the test of life. this is why the Quran makes at least a dozen references throughout for critical thinking and asks so many rhetorical questions.

Well if he is aware of Multi-tasking then he would obviously be aware of Serial-tasking. So how do you know it was Multitasking and he was not doing things in serial order ? Most importantly why is he not aware of the confusion it would cause in us mere-mortals if he uses two different time lengths ? Isnt clarity and brevity a simpler concept than Multi-tasking ?

thats a very good question. and the answer lies that if we assume that if it was serially tasked, then it implies that there are 9 days in a week. given that Muhammad knew there were 7 days in a week, there are ONLY three possibilities: 1) he forgot that there were 7 days in a week and not 9 (zero probability of this) 2) he remembered that there were 7 days in a week, but couldn't add 2 + 4+ 2 correctly (also zero probability since he was by all accounts a very clever/intelligent man, and even a retard can add those numbers). 3) multi-tasking, which cannot be excluded by any of the words in that or other verses of the quran. (some non-zero probability). are there any other possibilities i might have missed?

Also do you acknowledge that none of the scholars use the multi-tasking explanation including your own favorite scholar - Asad - while explaining these verses. And BTW this guy is a apologist ... but thats a seperate topic and although it is in my interest to address this but in the best interest of time lets move forward.

doesn't matter, islam does NOT hold scholars to be infallible, even the Prophet Muhammad was not infallible, let alone scholars. and for the record, Muhammad Asad was quite moderate, far from an apologist, he was eventually disillisioned by both the establishments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both countries where he held high posts in governance.

None of the these Translators - Muhsin,Pickthall,Shakir,Dr. Ghali remotely mention anything about judgement day. Infact Yusuf Ali has 3 different versions IIRC ( so again the question arises of the clarity of this text ). Further more the event is narrated in both the Sahih's with various chains of narration tracing it back to Muhammads companions. These Hadith are considered authentic.

wrong and incorrect. the literal arabic word uses the phrases "hour" which does not mean "60 minutes" or "1/24th of a day" in the Quranic context, even once. this is clear as a cloudless day, and then quite a bit clearer. http://www.yaqb.org/ the following site should illustrate it. even the french translation uses the term " l'heure ". your Shakir is included there. and so is pickthall. all use the term "hour" because the LITERAL ARABIC itself uses the term "hour". Asad also uses the term Hour. Yusuf ali even parenthetically includes "day of judgement" for those who can't decipher the obvious reference. the quran uses the term hour dozens of times to refer to the beginning of the day of judgment. from my understanding this is the idiom to emphasize the very instance of the start of the day of judgement, whereas the term "yawm" refers to the entire day without focusing on its precise starting time.