as they do,or in their theology,or in their prophets,or god men are morally bankrupt ! what kind of god is this? bottom line God is just an extension of the human ego.
kufr also means anyone who rejects mohammad in other words anyone that questions mohammad's teachings or is critical of mohammad is a kufr based on islamic teachings in other words god doesnt want anyone to question him or mohammad! mohammad said anyone who hates me hates god. is this the man to whom you want to follow? grow up
no body is asking the big question!! what makes anyone of faith think they are better then others who dont believe as they do.?what's so special about such persons what because they worship in the right way ,so that makes them god's little special friend?such arrogance & hubris on the part of the faithful
they never question what they are told to believe! they just believe cause it makes them feel good anyone that believes in a god that takes sides & sends others to hell for not believing
he probably meant "the best", it happens a lot, just yesterday I was talking to someone about the story of moses and the sage ( the khedr ) in Quran and I wrote "siege" instead of sage,LOL
@truthandtruthonly.. I know what is going in muslim communities ,,, i am coonscious muslim,,, we can be in peace if only we understand the word "Islam" and if only we find the religious knowledge with sincerity,, this describing of bad islamic situations is not a solution,,, be active not passive okey !
Just how are the ongoing Sunni & Shia Muslims' bombing each other's heads, arms, legs, and organs off, in their mosques - peaceful, welcoming and a "?baot of happinessss"?
U are smoking Muslim Taliban produced & supplied Muslim Aghanistan Muslim hashish?
Switzerland shud just coat crafty Tariq Ramadan with a thick layer of Swiss' best chocolate before re-exporting him, live (preferably), to the land of his origin.
What Tariq Ramadan calls integration is just acquiring a passport! He is swiss but does not oppose stoning women to death! he wants to discuss it! He thinks we all should debate stoning women to death! Is that a Swiss Value mr Ramadan?
Literally, the word kafir is a noun, and it means farmer in the Arabic language. Kafir is also taken to mean one who covers up, and that is because a farmer while cultivating a land he/she sows the seeds and then covers them up with soil. However, Divine Revelation (Wahi) has turned to some terms which include the word Kafir and inflected them from their literal sense and gave them legislative meanings instead.
Ur "final prophet" Muhd A) did or B) DID NOT commit an act of KUF - when he counselled his with-uncomfortably-hardened-&-erect-penises companions (disciples) NOT to rape their woman captives via AL-AZL (coitus interruptus), but to fearlessly and confidently rape & ejeculate into them instead?
Ever since its inflection by Wahi, the word Kafir took the meaning of one who have knowingly covered-up and denied the truthfulness of Islam, or anything that pertains to Islam. Thus whenever the word Kafir is mentioned without a context, it is directly understood to mean the legislative sense of the term. However, whenever the word Kafir is mentioned in a context, the context defines the meaning of it. Make a note of it.
A very important discussion alhamdullilah. This is what Islam is - discussion, engaging in ideas and improving understanding through debate. It is the way of the learned scholars.
The word Kufr has many connotations like those already being addressed. The clearest is that anyone who does not believe in the existence of the One God is a Kafir. The Atheists, the Polytheists are likewise Kuffar. To use the term loosely is wrong. For one who calls others to be a Kafir and if it not true then the accusations in turn is thrown to the accuser himself.
Alhamdulilah these people are exposing their own ideas pretty well so maybe now the general ummah will not do blind taqleed to such people just because they hold titles before their names. How can the term which is already defined by Allah be changed by man?
It's good to hear moderate views from Muslims. I really like the Imam. When I believed in god I felt the same way as him, people are judged by their overall outlook and their intentions rather than their faith. Doing something like drinking alcohol is not evil or hurtful to anybody so why should it be a sin. As long as you are a good person and have empathy for others you will go to heaven (if there were a heaven that is)
If Christopher Hitchens was on this panel, he would draw out their true colors. They are simply trying to glibly avoid sounding dogmatic, but any rational person can see through such nonsense.
And I'm still waiting for that sign that Muhammad supposedly brought as a witness to back up his prophetic claims. So many posts and I havent seen one single piece of evidence.
you escpae from the truth but anyways you didnt answer my question: Why you think you are right in your belief? if you are christian can you convince me that you are right? or jew or hindou..whatever you are? dont escape from the answers like last times again!
I dont consider something that is demonstrably false (i.e. Quran) to be truth. But anyway, I dont want to convince u of the truth of my beliefs. I am curious about the truth of urs! Thats how this whole thing started, remember? U have made 8 posts to try to show that ur prophet gave us signs, yet they were al mirages. There WAS NO SIGN that Muhammad gave u, its all thru ur being indoctrinated that u see signs. So when u finally tell me the sign that Muhammad gave, I'll let u know my conviction.
8) from water. Science has discovered that it's true. A great percentage of anything alive is water.There are also many other examples. Excuse my language because when you cant translate the meaning of the Quran. It's always hard. My question to you is: What made what you believe in true? I dont know if you are christian. jew or atheist.. whatever you are what made you think you're right?
8) I urge you to do your research. A lot of things the Quran claims that are supposed to be scientific were already known of and written about centuries prior to Islam. Most of those writings have been proven scientific errors, yet we find them as "miracles" in the Quran. That is the funniest part. Also the different stories that the Quran claims are historical events, when they are just pilvered from Jewish folklore, Christian myths and pagan fables that predate Islam. The Quran is just FALSE!
Most of your claims have been debunked a few hundred years before you were even born. You should learn the history of this religious debate.
The only reason religion is still alive and kicking is because it functioned and still functions today in many countries as a totalitarian rule. Either you are a believer, or you are in for an unhappy social experience(either that or death of course).
Theistic arguments are very old arguments that have long since been proven moot. Many of which have been debunked and refuted many centuries ago.
Secondly, the goal of monotheism is a totalitarian rule. It wants to control how society thinks, eats, has intercourse, appearance etc. In doing this, it excludes all non-believers. In many countries today, those non-believers are killed and history shows that this was a common practice in earlier years as well.
This debate about the validity of religious claims is a VERY OLD debate. Intellectuals have been refuting the theistic arguments for centuries. Many of these arguments are still in common practice today. Read Christopher Hitchen's "Portable Atheist".
The only reason that atheism is growing and becoming more wide spread in modern day is merely because atheists in secular countries are not KILLED for being atheist. Religion is losing it's ability to rule over its flock with a totalitarian grip.
i note that you say that 'most' thistic claims have been debunked. but you should also accept that the debunking hasn't been convincing for those of us who are still believers. ofcourse, you could just assign it to brainwashing but then you'd have to discount the fact of philosophically educated believers.
I do not care what anyone believes, nor do I care about the beliefs of philosophers. Human belief in itself is a fallible method for determining what is true, and there is a track record to prove this. Science is our best method for determining the most probable truths to claims, and has seemingly the best track record for doing this.
If you think the beliefs of philosophers or the religious are the best way of determining what is true, then you are simply ignoring their bad track record.
gwiss: you failed to address the point of my comment. for instance, the kalam cosmological argument has not been debunked.
btw, how does science prove your parents love you? presumably you believe they do but have you conducted an experiment to determine this scientifically. without God, science & logic are merely adaptive evolutionary strategies that help genes to replicate developed as an epiphenomena of brain cells.
Firstly, in terms of science. There is no evidential reason to conclude that your hypothesis is even probable. It is simply without evidence and does not follow from previous scientific conclusions. There are a multitude of much more respectful, and much more probable scientific conclusions.
According to Occam's Razor, the most simplest of conclusions pertaining the least amount of entities is the more likely conclusion. The Cosmological argument by that means is overly complex for no reason.
first off, occam's razor is merely a hueristic assumption but in my judgement a theistic creator IS the most evident conclusion as opposed to multipl worlds, plural creators, infinite loops, etc.
also, the origin of the universe is beyond scientific research because it is untestable or amenable to mathematical modelling-all theoreticl science can do is postulate to the femtoseconds AFTER the origin. science has nothing to do with it. it is a question of metaphysics.
You do not understand the word 'evident' or 'conclusion' in the context of the scientific method. Because a 'theistic creator' has NO evidence. It is no more or less probable then claiming that the Universe was created by a magic moose or was created in the way suggested by Ancient Greek polytheism.
The scientific hypothesis for the origin of the "Big Bang" are based on currently found laws and understandings. Not theistic faith.
How is it a question of metaphysics? That is a non-sequitur.
Secondly, in terms of logic. The conclusion is a non-sequitur. You cannot arrive at a God from the premises established. You can only arrive at the conclusion that the Universe must have a cause, which, could be one of a multitude of hypotheses. The Deistic God is not an evident conclusion.
Thirdly, the cosmological argument is merely an argument for Deism. However, there is no reason to conclude that this is a theistic god or even a god at all. This is not an argument for Islam or monotheism.
watch some of william lane craigs vids here on utube. a theistic creator [meaning at the very least a volitional supreme supernatural unitary being] can be established logically from the very fact of a finite cosmos that had a temporal beginning. atleast i think he makes a more than adequate argument [and he's only reiterating what xtn and muslim theologians already determined].
"...and he's only reiterating what xtn and muslim theologians already determined."
The irony... Muslim regurgitated the nonsense from the earlier monotheism into a new religion "Islam", and now the earlier monotheism are regurgitating the nonsense arguments from Islam to prove their religious white noise. Fantastic.
Again, how is your claim of a 'finite cosmos' a fact? Have you testable proof? You do not understand the terms you use.
Love is a word to explain a complex variety of relations between one social primate and an other. It is very easy for science to explain why a mother is far more altruistic towards her offspring then, lets say, a stranger would be. Moreover, love between a wife and husband can ALSO be explained.
Altruism, love, nurture, etc are all products of our social evolution as primates that encourage the flourishing of social human genetics.
Neurology and Genetics give us sound conclusions of this.
so then the walking primates use of logic is a product of evolution? hat guarantee do you have that it correctly reflects reality? rather than merely a successful tool to pass on genetic info. love may be explained as somatic rsponses to others to ensure one's genetic survival but an explanation is not a proof. it's a hypothesis that succeeds IF you accept atheism.
a question: can u use science to prove science is the best way 2 establish empirical truth claims? hav u read about scientism?
"It's a hypothesis that succeeds IF you accept atheism"
A non-sequitur.
This is utter nonsense. As human beings, who are experiencing the world. We use methods and tools for understanding the world around us. Science, logic, and math are a methods and tools for determining most probable truths. How do we know these testable conclusions are the most probable truths? Because a pen falls every time I drop it.
checked wot troll means. now where were my comments controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, off-topic? they certainly weren't meant to provoke an emotional response or to disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
the term might be more appropriate for you considering your initial off-topic response to the video to which i then reponded. your comments r more relevant on the many theist bashing vids.
u get the no prize for name calling. i'll go back to my unhappy social experience, shall i?
You are someone that will continuously ignore perfectly valid points in order to keep pushing your close-minded religious biasness and agenda.
Even if we grant that Craig's argument is sound, it grants us no reason to conclude a deity. He uses merely a rephrased argument that was once used for the origin of life, which of course, has been long since been replaced with abiogenesis and then utterly crushed with Evolution.
Secondly, how do you get from a deistic god to a theistic God? Can you explain that? Can you actually lay out an equation or some testable theory that allows me to conclude that God cares about how I eat, what I drink, whether my genitals should be hacked at, how women dress, how I should have sex and with which gender I should have sex etc.
The problem is... You can't logically or scientifically conclude theism from Deism. Yet! You faithfully assume you can because you ARE A THEIST.
it shows that you don't understand the topic correctly when you include science as 1 way to derive theism from diesm.
i don't assume i can but i believe it has already been demonstrated but it is YOUR blinkered and obstinant atheism that fails to recognise it. the further details of God's care i accept because i accept the possibility of revelation & it's actuality in the Quran.
to end this, i sincerely havnt been convinced by atheist arguments & am convinced by theistic arguments
I'm pretty sure you can guess my views on religious divisionism.
Islam seeks to divide the world into believers and non-believers. It has been clearly laid out in words what happens to non-believers in the religious texts. Secondly, religion itself is a divisional system that seeks to pin it's 'in group' against the 'out group'.
Religion is immoral. As Christopher Hitchens espouses: "Religion poisons Everything". Including our chances of uniting the world towards a common interest of progress.
You shouldn't equate religious pratice with religious texts. The two are never synonymous, not even (and probably especially not) in the case of ultra-orthodox muslims. Also, religion is not an entity in itself. 'Islam' has no will, the millions of muslim (divided over 5 continents, speaking over a hundred languages) do. These millions of people should not be lumped together under the heading of 'Islam' as their religious and cultural views differ as much from each other as they do from ours.
On the subject of religion itself, it is innately a divisional ideology. To be religious is to state that others are non-religious, or non-believers. This immediately makes an evident 'In Group' and 'Out Group', which in human nature leads to conflict and war.
The customs and traditions may differ but this does not change the evident 'in group/ out group' division between religious and non-religious.
Female Genital Mutilation however is practiced by a significant Muslim population, and they USE Islam to justify the act of FGM. I agree that many traditions and practices have existed long before man produced monotheism, but these bronze age practices are kept alive through religious justification.
In a secular society when religion is absent, you will find it improbable that such a tradition of FGM is possible. Without "God" there isn't a way to justify such an act.
actually, more christians (copts, ethiopian) practise female genital mutilation than muslims do!
in most islamic countries it doesn't exist!
only somalia has a muslim majority that practise it! in ethiopia and sudan and egypt its mostly christians! also in nigeria, cameroun, liberia etc its mostly christians.
And those that do use an interpretation of their religious scripture as justification for an immoral act such as FGM fit nicely into the example I was attempting to make.
A significant populace of Muslims take FGM very seriously, and this is a disgusting practice that without religious justification would be completely and utterly unjustifiable.
Of course group formation is not limited to religion, but it is religion that makes the best use of it today. Before you even blink, you could easily conjure up two competing religions that are waring in the world today. Whether it be Muslims against Jews, or Christians against Muslims, or even Muslims against Muslims. All these wars are fought not for merely political reasons but are fed by the difference in religious conviction or over the ownership of a "holy" plot of land.
You keep suggesting that I'm implying that religion is conscious, which is not at all what I am implying.
If I was to suggest that Sports are innately competitive. I'm not implying that Sports are conscious. Sports as a social commune produce heightened amounts of competitive human nature. Religion produces heightened amounts of divisional "Us against Them" human nature.
Competition is not necessarily an immoral act, and sometimes can be progressive. Division is often regressive.
Duh. Religion, however, does a very good job at producing very divided 'in groups' and 'out groups' with a very hard line of unfalsifiable claims keeping these groups from compromise. Religion often even goes so far as to claim(the monotheism atleast) that humans on the 'other' side of the line are often promised eternal damnation for their lack of belief which is not a good way to unify people of different ideologies. This is a vile system that divides society OVERTLY.
No, that fact that religious claims are for the most part, unfalsifiable and therefore untestable and hence unprovable.This leaves religions all divided by void claims that cannot be proven false, nor proven true. These claims act like giant wedges in discourse and are often conversation stoppers. If they hold a claim that circumcision is a divine practice, then the high rate of infant children dieing from this practice will not shake their beliefs that this is an immoral practice.
Again, there is a strong bond among the 'In Group" and a increasingly stronger wedge between the "Out Group". This is precisely what I was stating before.
Religion is in itself, very parasite like. It does not have a conscience, but it has an evolved structure that allows it to ensnare victims and pin humans against one another in the hopes of growing a larger and larger "in group". The wedge is a defense against discourse and criticism of it's falsities. Faith is the hammer for this wedge.
Just a second finer point on the subject of faith as a hammer for the wedge that separates the religious 'in group' from the non-believer 'out group'.
Faith is often up held as a social virtue. To hold a belief on faith is often considered virtuous when living in an increasingly more religious society. Even a very moderate religious society may find this to be the case.
How could the belief in a claim without evidence ever be virtuous in any other context? It should not/is not virtuous.
My criticism of religion is based on the existing doctrine of monotheistic religions. You seem to be talking about humans innate neurological predisposition to Paternicity and Agenticity. Is Agenticity essential part of human development or are these neurological factors that give rise to religion the pinnacle of human existence. Maybe. However, my criticism is of the leading religions of modern day, the monotheism, their scripture and the ideology that comes along with them.
I think I understand your criticism, but I do not think that my criticisms fall by the waste side when attacking religion even in a general sense. For the most part, religions deal in 'beliefs' 'practices based on beliefs' and 'divine worship'. Whether it be polytheism, monotheism or animism. All of these fall victim to the same human issues such as Agenticity, Paternicity, "Big Brother" form of authority delusions and an absence of evidence for the beliefs in the ladder.
Secondly, it is the fact that religious practice can find justification for it's practice in the interpretations made from the religious scriptures which makes it problematic.
With careful scholarly work, one can justify their preferred practice using religious scripture. Genital Mutilation can be validated, or sending your child as a martyr to clear a mine field can be justified.
"With God, anything can be made justifiable also." - Christopher Hitchens
You do realize that the same unfalsifiable way in which Theism can be concluded from Deism can be applied to EVERY other religion and in every other area of discourse, such a logic is laughable.
You are simply bias and hold true to unfalsifiable claims merely because of social delusions that have been brainwashed into you.
What do you consider more useful then science for determining truths? Superstition? Faith? That is so far all you've been using.
7) that rasmsees or merneptah died drawning. Another example: modern science discovered that the air has different layers. Each one different by its pressure, So the more you go up in the sky the air flow is less and the breathing will logically be difficult. In one of the verses the Quran talked about the non-believers and their inner soul being bothered and hard to breath like someone who is going up in the air. Another example is the water. The Quran says that everything alive is made up from
7) yes and science hold that there are only 5 layers, the Quran claims there are 7. All those verses that are supposedly scientific are all forced and far fetched interpretations that no one outside ot Islam even takes seriously. The socalled embryology is WRONG and PLAGIARIZED. The mountains being pegs to stabilize the earth is WRONG! The Quran claims that all animals live in societies, which is WRONG! It claims that bees have healthy liquids in their abdomins, which is WRONG! And I can go on.
6) of the pharaof of exodus know as ramsees or merneptah. That was back in the 70's. They were able to determine the cause of his death as his body was fully preserved. We know that old egyptians used this technique to keep the bodies of their kings. In the Quran we have the story of pharaoh and moses. Pharaoh drawned in the sea trying to pursue moses and his people. The Quran said: "and today we shall save your body so that you'll be sign for those who come after". After examinations they found
6) This story of Moses and Pharao are in the Bible too. But here is a nice little detail. The Quran claims that Pharao threatened his servants to crucify them because they were drawn to Moses. But there was no cruficixion in the days of Moses. Crucifixion was only invented by the Assyrians in the 7th century BC. So the Quran is at least 600 years too early with its crucifixion and is therefore WRONG! U claim the Quran is miraculous. The only miracle of the Quran is that people still believe it.
5) the word Jesus has been said 25 times in the Quran vs Mohammed only 5 times. In the Quran is a full chapter about Marry the virgin or Maryam which the bible doesnt have such a thing. Besides the Quran being a languistic miracle it's a scientific miracle. The french scientist Maurice Bucaille wrote a book called: the bible, the Quran and science in which he admits the existence of scientific phenomenons that the Qurans talked about. One of them is the discovery
5) So when did mentioning Jesus and Mary in a book make it of divine origin? So I guess I'll compose a book where I mention the name of Muhammad a lot of times, make it sound eloquent in Dutch, claim that its eloquence only works in Dutch and claim that I'm the very last prophet sent from God and claim that the Quran you have is a forgery because the original Quran mentions me by name. Is this something you would accept? Yet this is exactly what you expect US to accept! No proofs, only claims!
4) the jews would kill him if they know. The jews and christians knew there will be a prophet coming at the end of times and it's in their books the bible and torah ( i am talking about true books not altered books). And by the way there is only one Quran book that exists unlike the bible which you'll see different versions of it. That means the Quran was preserved and protected by Allah for all these many years even though some people tried to falsify it they couldnt because it's Gods word
4) And I challenge you to produce the proof. What ur saying about altered books goes againt ur own Quran. For it says Jews and Christians could recognize him from the Torah and injeel that was WITH THEM AT THAT TIME! (S. 7:157) If this was about versions that they didnt have, then the Quran lies again, because there would have been nothing for them to recognize him by, since they didnt have the "original sources" to begin with. The Quran discredits itself. We dont even have to put in the effort.
3) will be 30 years. The khaifas after Mohammed SAW: Abu Bakr, omar, Othman and Ali reign for 3o years. He predicted the death of Yasser which was one of the compagnions. He told that Yasser will be killed by the unjust part and this what happened later on. I was gonna tell you the story of the moon that goes into 2 parts but i doubt you'll believe in that. Another story is when he met his wife Khadija, they went to a known christian priest that told him you;ll be a messenger of God and that
3) that is just belony, sorry to say that. But there is no way anyone could have known that Muhammad would be a prophet at all. There is nothing written about him, there is nothing said of him, prior to his supposed call to prophethood. In fact, the story about his calling in the cave of Hira puts major questionmarks to his "calling". The angel almost squeezed the life out of him and he thought he was demonpossessed afterwards. He even wanted to commit suicide. Again, no prophet material here.
1) First of all there is no verse in the Quran that say Allah has sons. it's against the faith of Islam in itself. Nothing like Ezra is the son of God, not even Jesus is a son of God like christians believe. The sign of Mohammed SAW is the Quran as a miracle book. There's no such book before or after Mohammed SAW. It is in arabic language. Arabs of the time use to master this language and were known for their wonderful poetry. They were amazed by the style of this book
1) That is exactly my point. NEVER in the history of mankind have Jews believed that Ezra is the son of God. So the Quran imputes LIES about others just to justify whatever agenda it has against certain people. The fact that a book has great poetry is hardly evidence for divine origin. No one composed a 5th symphony like Mozart. This means he was a prophet! No one wrote plays like Shakespear. This means he was a prophet? Sounds stupid right? Well, EXACTLY! Thats how stupid "surah like it" sound.
2) so here we are talking from a languistic point of view. Another thing Mohammed SAW was not trying to lie because his people know he was straight and from the best dynasty and tribes of arabs. He didn't claim to be a king or did he want to be rich even when they tried to make him so he refused. It was a message from God and he was a messenger from God. Some of the signs is that he was able to tell his compagnions the unseen. for ex: He predicted that his succession or al khilafa after him
2) So he was of the best dynasty (which can be disputed!) So what? Does that make you a prophet? NO! in fact, the God of Abraham always picked the lowest and the unattractive to glorify himself through them, so that there would be no question to whom the glory should go to. Also, his prophecy in the Quran about the defeat and retaliation of the Romans is proven to be false! he missed the mark by several years. So, no, there is no prophet material there. Not to mention the mans conduct!
of course, the muslim will immediately assume that I havent read the Quran. I have and its incoherent. There is nothing miraculous about a book that has no chronology or subject order. its as if the stories were all assembled, thrown in the air and randomly put together irrespective of pagenumber or subject.
Again, what is the sign(s) that Muhammad gave that he was a true prophet? For the third time.
no one needs to prove anything to you. if you are arrogant enough to think you understand the Qur'an because you've read it (and a translation at that I bet) then you need to check your biases before asking questions.
The Noble Quran in its' self is a sign. Muhammed PBUH was illiterate and yet, revealed words that are THE pretext now for the grammer of arabic language, but THAT requires you to understand arabic. IF you really read even a translated representation the signs are there.
SCIENCE even, which im sure YOU must believe in. It depicts the stages of a babys' development vividly, which through the study of embrology which is a VERY recent venture.. it only confirms the truth.
a truth sent down 1400 years ago. to an illiterate man. in the middle of the dessert.
...
it explain stage by stage, the water cycle. speak of the moutains as "pegs", and its now known that mountains do function to stop tectonic plates colliding. speaks of the invisible barrier between two seas, where they meet but dont mix. and NOW we know that there are two types of bodies of water, sweet; and salt, and that they do NOT mix, they switch characteristics and become: the other.
from a scientific point of view: The Quran talked about many scientific phenomenons that modern science just approaved recently. Another thing The Prophet Muhammed PBUH never been to school. How can someone illetrate say something like the Quran which no body else could say alike? Even those best knowledgeable people cant make even a phrase like the what in the Quran. The Quran for example talked about Romans defeat in the dead sea area and it happened many years after islam has came comed
It's a book but not like any book. It's a book from Allah. It talks about what happened in the past and what will happen in the future. an exemple is the Quran: it talked about the barrier between two seas which is a sweet water that one can drinks and that is true by science. Another example the human skin and it cells that help us with feeling. Quran talked about it when those who'll go to hellfire, their skin will be changed often so that they can feel the heat of the fire as a punishement
The Quran talked about how the universe started: the big bang theory in one of the verses. That the sun moves around itself. the east and the west, the night and the day. that the earth is turning around itself. that the earth is many levels. the steps of creating the foetus in many steps which the Quran talked about. it talked about mountains having roots deep inside the ground and this is true.abd so on which all the quran talked about 1400+ years ago, so its a miracle that no human can bring
Yeah sorry, but I dont buy that scientific miracles argument. The clear scientific blunders are abundant in the Quran, such as the embryological blunders. And dont start with Dr Keith Moore because that guy is getting embarrassed for that till this day in scientific circles. Furthermore, the men Galin and Hipocrates, writing hundreds of years prior to Muhammad, record the same stages that the Quran states. Furthermore, those men were proven wrong by modern science. Was Galin a prophet too?
there is a Surah ( chapter) in Quran called Surat Annaml ( or the chapter of Ants). In this surah there is a verse where an ants talked to the others telling them to enter their refuge before the army of Solomon will break you. why exactly "break" you? we can break a glass, a mirror not an ants. Recently they aproave that the ants body is made in a the majority of glass which can be broken.
The Quran has a lot more blunders in it tho. Such as Jews believing that Ezra is the son of God and stuff. Mary being part of the Trinity. Mountains being pegs to keep the earth from shaking. And I can go on. All those verses you refer to trying to prove that there is science in the Quran, are verses that have to be manhandled into something that they dont even say in order to make it look scientific.
Jews and Muslims believe in the One and same G-d. Why does modern Islam say Jews are Christians? Jews are same as Muslims. Christians worship a man and G-d.
Jews who follow Christians are the 'Jews' referred to in Q'uron, not believing Jews.
The 'Jews' AS Christians is the issue. This mis understanding is one the Christianity has created and injected into Islam. It is a false understanding as well. The root of evil, I might suggest.
The man may seek to inflate his ego by claiming all the scientific discoveries were due to his efforts alone, but little does he realise that he may have been guided by design and shown just enough to procure understanding the workings of an element or a facet of science which may be used for the benefit of humanity!
show where and when an"Offensive" Jihad has taken place and by whom it was instigated it?
To make a statement without historical evidence is hardly conducive to a good cause!
Defending the oppressed, repressed the helpless & poor is an obligation by Allah swt on all- it is therefore considered as defensive action & NOT AN OFFENCE to defend against the tyrants!
The many campaigns of the Prophet Muhammed (saaw) against the pagans of arabia, then the campaigns of companion and caliph Umar (ra) against the romans and persians, and eygptians etc etc etc......
The Rulers of each tribe were Tyrants, therefore, the action is considered as defending the rights of the oppressed & under privilaged whose belongings were taken for mere sustenace- do you think that was fair exchange?
The Muslim Ummah was going through the most traumatic time, struck with period of famine & fewer in number in comparison to the Roman troops.
Its was after this famine period, the Muslim Ummah looked weak & vulnerable because of food shortage- thats where Byzantines thought a perfect opportunity to take advatage & sought annihilate this perceived threat of "Islam".
The Muslims took defensive actions, with Allah swt's help,read 9: 123, & conqured!
Good discussion. Just that the introduction of the two other speakers is not proper in contrast to your own belief as simply Islam. Kufr is a complex topic. But I dont understand whats the contention in this dialogue. Both groups agree that kufr is not to be used for individuals in interpersonal interaction.
So whats the problem. Labelling a society conceptually as kufuristic shouldnt be a problem. Individuality is respected in the west. Ideologies are not a problem. Communism, capitalism, hinduism, christianity all express their non-supporters as failed people of the world.
Kufr in Islam is not to be used to to judge people but it can be used to designate systems, ideologies, ways of life and actions. Thus alcoholism in britain is a kufr way but it is not the diagnostic criteria for a Kafir. The diagnosis of a kafir is a set of disbelieving ideas and actions which only Allah can judge in their entirety. Zinna is the kufr way but not the diagnosis of A kafir.
There might be a group of kafirs who are non-alcoholics and non-zannis. Thus you can say in Britain kufr is prevalant but we cant call the british kafirs.
Good discussion. But the introduction to the clip is, the background of the speakers is seemingly quite underhanded and dishonest. For beliefs it describes Tariq and Usama as secular reformist, but Abdullah as Islam. Now as far as these three are concerned, all of them are Muslims and believe in Islam.
Tariq and Usama both are reformists, they also believe that hudood should not be implemented. Hudood is barbaric and old fashioned. This i have heard from usama....and tariq saying the same but not directly to the listeners. Usama is also working behind the scenes with Quilliam .
Ramadan attempts to diminish the Islamic concepts by reducing them to relativism. The reality of Islamic fiqh: there is no classic or contemporary fiqh. There is superior fiqh and inferior fiqh. 'Superior' fiqh contains superior scholarship: interpretation of arabic text, the more accurate application of arabic context, more accurate application of the context of the revelation....
Abdullah, It would be very interesting and entertaining to see you and Tj (TheAmazingAtheist) engage in some sort of intelligent discourse that deal with religiously related topics. Perhaps you could make a video directed at him, and call him out. :)
Mujtahid - your intros at the start of your films where you give bios of the speakers are obviously slanted. It's a clever psychological trick - you are implicitly biased and demonising the speakers you do not agree with. It is better to cut out those intros with the black background and white text as it slants the view before one has even started viewing. Let us think for ourselves please.
I think the biased media like fox etc, has broadcasted lies about islam and negative propoganda so many times that the muslims themselves have been brainwashed, into thinking that the interpretation of islam is not correct or that islam needs moderation.
I stick to islam and thats what we all need to do.
The only way to stop these divisions is to adhere to the teachings of the Quran and sunnah and the interpretation and practicing of these teachings as interpreted and practiced by Muhammed(pbuh) himself and the rightly guided sahabas. ISLAM IS COMPLETE.
Apologetic muslims are weak in knowledge and faith. Just because america says that something is bad it doesnt make it bad in reality. Somehow america has managed to make us believe that 'america is god',
KFR, KFFR, KPPR .... !?
jaimesssi 1 year ago
as they do,or in their theology,or in their prophets,or god men are morally bankrupt ! what kind of god is this? bottom line God is just an extension of the human ego.
kufr also means anyone who rejects mohammad in other words anyone that questions mohammad's teachings or is critical of mohammad is a kufr based on islamic teachings in other words god doesnt want anyone to question him or mohammad! mohammad said anyone who hates me hates god. is this the man to whom you want to follow? grow up
xspettacolare 1 year ago
no body is asking the big question!! what makes anyone of faith think they are better then others who dont believe as they do.?what's so special about such persons what because they worship in the right way ,so that makes them god's little special friend?such arrogance & hubris on the part of the faithful
they never question what they are told to believe! they just believe cause it makes them feel good anyone that believes in a god that takes sides & sends others to hell for not believing
xspettacolare 1 year ago
Eloquently right. Humane, universal and progressive Islam must move forward from the retroactivity of the present state of mind.
zatoichiable 1 year ago
Br. Abdullah is a beast
ansar90 1 year ago
@ansar90
beast??
mujtahid2006 1 year ago
@mujtahid2006
@mujtahid2006
he probably meant "the best", it happens a lot, just yesterday I was talking to someone about the story of moses and the sage ( the khedr ) in Quran and I wrote "siege" instead of sage,LOL
HAGROOS 1 year ago
@mujtahid2006 Some arabs use it as a compliment sometimes.. "wahsh" Like calling someone a lion or something
alpalestinienne 1 year ago
@mujtahid2006
I think he means it in a positive way !
Oo786oO 1 year ago
Abdullah did a great job may Allah preserve him
omarabdullah 2 years ago
Unfortunate are those who disobey Allah and his messenger, the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).
Nayaskunkblazer777 2 years ago
@truthandtruthonly.. I know what is going in muslim communities ,,, i am coonscious muslim,,, we can be in peace if only we understand the word "Islam" and if only we find the religious knowledge with sincerity,, this describing of bad islamic situations is not a solution,,, be active not passive okey !
by
sajokal20 2 years ago
Islam is peace ,welcome to the baot of hapineessss welcome my brothers and systers ..
sajokal20 2 years ago
(20,736)
Peace, sajokal20.
Just how are the ongoing Sunni & Shia Muslims' bombing each other's heads, arms, legs, and organs off, in their mosques - peaceful, welcoming and a "?baot of happinessss"?
U are smoking Muslim Taliban produced & supplied Muslim Aghanistan Muslim hashish?
truthandtruthonly 2 years ago
(19,786)
Switzerland shud just coat crafty Tariq Ramadan with a thick layer of Swiss' best chocolate before re-exporting him, live (preferably), to the land of his origin.
truthandtruthonly 2 years ago
What Tariq Ramadan calls integration is just acquiring a passport! He is swiss but does not oppose stoning women to death! he wants to discuss it! He thinks we all should debate stoning women to death! Is that a Swiss Value mr Ramadan?
view587 2 years ago
you know mabe its not absurd - think about it..its the perfect way to keep people from listenening to what he has to say.
franciso7 2 years ago
Calling Tariq Ramadan a seculiar reformist is the most absurd thing in the world. He is all but a secular reformist.
23Nogod 2 years ago
Literally, the word kafir is a noun, and it means farmer in the Arabic language. Kafir is also taken to mean one who covers up, and that is because a farmer while cultivating a land he/she sows the seeds and then covers them up with soil. However, Divine Revelation (Wahi) has turned to some terms which include the word Kafir and inflected them from their literal sense and gave them legislative meanings instead.
IbnDarwish 2 years ago
Masha Allah. Nice explanation
qirfa 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(20,736)
Hello, IbnDarwish, Abdullah, Tariq, Usama, Muslimahs & Muslims.
Islam's APPROVED Bukhari Hadith V5B59N459.
Ur "final prophet" Muhd A) did or B) DID NOT commit an act of KUF - when he counselled his with-uncomfortably-hardened-&-erect-penises companions (disciples) NOT to rape their woman captives via AL-AZL (coitus interruptus), but to fearlessly and confidently rape & ejeculate into them instead?
truthandtruthonly 2 years ago
Ever since its inflection by Wahi, the word Kafir took the meaning of one who have knowingly covered-up and denied the truthfulness of Islam, or anything that pertains to Islam. Thus whenever the word Kafir is mentioned without a context, it is directly understood to mean the legislative sense of the term. However, whenever the word Kafir is mentioned in a context, the context defines the meaning of it. Make a note of it.
IbnDarwish 2 years ago
there are notable spelling mistakes in the introduction.
hafizbz 2 years ago
parfait je voterai tarik ramadan moi qui vote depuit 5 ans bulletin blanc
melki7594 2 years ago
A very important discussion alhamdullilah. This is what Islam is - discussion, engaging in ideas and improving understanding through debate. It is the way of the learned scholars.
Consoleposterboy 2 years ago
The word Kufr has many connotations like those already being addressed. The clearest is that anyone who does not believe in the existence of the One God is a Kafir. The Atheists, the Polytheists are likewise Kuffar. To use the term loosely is wrong. For one who calls others to be a Kafir and if it not true then the accusations in turn is thrown to the accuser himself.
addeen7777 2 years ago
Phil is great guy
xSEFKETxRAMADANIx 2 years ago
Alhamdulilah these people are exposing their own ideas pretty well so maybe now the general ummah will not do blind taqleed to such people just because they hold titles before their names. How can the term which is already defined by Allah be changed by man?
farah1987 2 years ago
thank you guys. Usama made great points
and Tariq and Phil good job man!
teenagemuslim 2 years ago
i love the music that u included in the beginning, where does it come from?
farouqnimer 2 years ago
Usama Hasan talks sense
lampole 2 years ago
Tariq Ramadan under fire for Iran TV job
muslimsdebate 2 years ago
Comment removed
truthrules 2 years ago
It's good to hear moderate views from Muslims. I really like the Imam. When I believed in god I felt the same way as him, people are judged by their overall outlook and their intentions rather than their faith. Doing something like drinking alcohol is not evil or hurtful to anybody so why should it be a sin. As long as you are a good person and have empathy for others you will go to heaven (if there were a heaven that is)
bowezo 2 years ago
If Christopher Hitchens was on this panel, he would draw out their true colors. They are simply trying to glibly avoid sounding dogmatic, but any rational person can see through such nonsense.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Where is Br. Abdullah Andalusi??
campusalam 2 years ago
Where? He's in the film (guy with the cap on).
mujtahid2006 2 years ago
This doesn't sound like a debate...its more like a discussion...
campusalam 2 years ago
And I'm still waiting for that sign that Muhammad supposedly brought as a witness to back up his prophetic claims. So many posts and I havent seen one single piece of evidence.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
you escpae from the truth but anyways you didnt answer my question: Why you think you are right in your belief? if you are christian can you convince me that you are right? or jew or hindou..whatever you are? dont escape from the answers like last times again!
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
I dont consider something that is demonstrably false (i.e. Quran) to be truth. But anyway, I dont want to convince u of the truth of my beliefs. I am curious about the truth of urs! Thats how this whole thing started, remember? U have made 8 posts to try to show that ur prophet gave us signs, yet they were al mirages. There WAS NO SIGN that Muhammad gave u, its all thru ur being indoctrinated that u see signs. So when u finally tell me the sign that Muhammad gave, I'll let u know my conviction.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
8) from water. Science has discovered that it's true. A great percentage of anything alive is water.There are also many other examples. Excuse my language because when you cant translate the meaning of the Quran. It's always hard. My question to you is: What made what you believe in true? I dont know if you are christian. jew or atheist.. whatever you are what made you think you're right?
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
8) I urge you to do your research. A lot of things the Quran claims that are supposed to be scientific were already known of and written about centuries prior to Islam. Most of those writings have been proven scientific errors, yet we find them as "miracles" in the Quran. That is the funniest part. Also the different stories that the Quran claims are historical events, when they are just pilvered from Jewish folklore, Christian myths and pagan fables that predate Islam. The Quran is just FALSE!
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
No answer yet??!!!
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
Dude, some people actually have a social life and dont sit behind the computer all day trying to socialize. But I'll answer your question.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
Most of your claims have been debunked a few hundred years before you were even born. You should learn the history of this religious debate.
The only reason religion is still alive and kicking is because it functioned and still functions today in many countries as a totalitarian rule. Either you are a believer, or you are in for an unhappy social experience(either that or death of course).
Gwisss 2 years ago
what u said made no sense at all
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
I'll try and dumb it down for you.
Theistic arguments are very old arguments that have long since been proven moot. Many of which have been debunked and refuted many centuries ago.
Secondly, the goal of monotheism is a totalitarian rule. It wants to control how society thinks, eats, has intercourse, appearance etc. In doing this, it excludes all non-believers. In many countries today, those non-believers are killed and history shows that this was a common practice in earlier years as well.
Gwisss 2 years ago
This debate about the validity of religious claims is a VERY OLD debate. Intellectuals have been refuting the theistic arguments for centuries. Many of these arguments are still in common practice today. Read Christopher Hitchen's "Portable Atheist".
The only reason that atheism is growing and becoming more wide spread in modern day is merely because atheists in secular countries are not KILLED for being atheist. Religion is losing it's ability to rule over its flock with a totalitarian grip.
Gwisss 2 years ago
i note that you say that 'most' thistic claims have been debunked. but you should also accept that the debunking hasn't been convincing for those of us who are still believers. ofcourse, you could just assign it to brainwashing but then you'd have to discount the fact of philosophically educated believers.
786hanif 2 years ago
I do not care what anyone believes, nor do I care about the beliefs of philosophers. Human belief in itself is a fallible method for determining what is true, and there is a track record to prove this. Science is our best method for determining the most probable truths to claims, and has seemingly the best track record for doing this.
If you think the beliefs of philosophers or the religious are the best way of determining what is true, then you are simply ignoring their bad track record.
Gwisss 2 years ago
gwiss: you failed to address the point of my comment. for instance, the kalam cosmological argument has not been debunked.
btw, how does science prove your parents love you? presumably you believe they do but have you conducted an experiment to determine this scientifically. without God, science & logic are merely adaptive evolutionary strategies that help genes to replicate developed as an epiphenomena of brain cells.
786hanif 2 years ago
Firstly, in terms of science. There is no evidential reason to conclude that your hypothesis is even probable. It is simply without evidence and does not follow from previous scientific conclusions. There are a multitude of much more respectful, and much more probable scientific conclusions.
According to Occam's Razor, the most simplest of conclusions pertaining the least amount of entities is the more likely conclusion. The Cosmological argument by that means is overly complex for no reason.
Gwisss 2 years ago
first off, occam's razor is merely a hueristic assumption but in my judgement a theistic creator IS the most evident conclusion as opposed to multipl worlds, plural creators, infinite loops, etc.
also, the origin of the universe is beyond scientific research because it is untestable or amenable to mathematical modelling-all theoreticl science can do is postulate to the femtoseconds AFTER the origin. science has nothing to do with it. it is a question of metaphysics.
786hanif 2 years ago
You do not understand the word 'evident' or 'conclusion' in the context of the scientific method. Because a 'theistic creator' has NO evidence. It is no more or less probable then claiming that the Universe was created by a magic moose or was created in the way suggested by Ancient Greek polytheism.
The scientific hypothesis for the origin of the "Big Bang" are based on currently found laws and understandings. Not theistic faith.
How is it a question of metaphysics? That is a non-sequitur.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Secondly, in terms of logic. The conclusion is a non-sequitur. You cannot arrive at a God from the premises established. You can only arrive at the conclusion that the Universe must have a cause, which, could be one of a multitude of hypotheses. The Deistic God is not an evident conclusion.
Thirdly, the cosmological argument is merely an argument for Deism. However, there is no reason to conclude that this is a theistic god or even a god at all. This is not an argument for Islam or monotheism.
Gwisss 2 years ago
watch some of william lane craigs vids here on utube. a theistic creator [meaning at the very least a volitional supreme supernatural unitary being] can be established logically from the very fact of a finite cosmos that had a temporal beginning. atleast i think he makes a more than adequate argument [and he's only reiterating what xtn and muslim theologians already determined].
786hanif 2 years ago
"...and he's only reiterating what xtn and muslim theologians already determined."
The irony... Muslim regurgitated the nonsense from the earlier monotheism into a new religion "Islam", and now the earlier monotheism are regurgitating the nonsense arguments from Islam to prove their religious white noise. Fantastic.
Again, how is your claim of a 'finite cosmos' a fact? Have you testable proof? You do not understand the terms you use.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Love is a word to explain a complex variety of relations between one social primate and an other. It is very easy for science to explain why a mother is far more altruistic towards her offspring then, lets say, a stranger would be. Moreover, love between a wife and husband can ALSO be explained.
Altruism, love, nurture, etc are all products of our social evolution as primates that encourage the flourishing of social human genetics.
Neurology and Genetics give us sound conclusions of this.
Gwisss 2 years ago
so then the walking primates use of logic is a product of evolution? hat guarantee do you have that it correctly reflects reality? rather than merely a successful tool to pass on genetic info. love may be explained as somatic rsponses to others to ensure one's genetic survival but an explanation is not a proof. it's a hypothesis that succeeds IF you accept atheism.
a question: can u use science to prove science is the best way 2 establish empirical truth claims? hav u read about scientism?
786hanif 2 years ago
You are a troll.
"...But an explanation is not a proof"
What does this even mean?
"It's a hypothesis that succeeds IF you accept atheism"
A non-sequitur.
This is utter nonsense. As human beings, who are experiencing the world. We use methods and tools for understanding the world around us. Science, logic, and math are a methods and tools for determining most probable truths. How do we know these testable conclusions are the most probable truths? Because a pen falls every time I drop it.
Gwisss 2 years ago
checked wot troll means. now where were my comments controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, off-topic? they certainly weren't meant to provoke an emotional response or to disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
the term might be more appropriate for you considering your initial off-topic response to the video to which i then reponded. your comments r more relevant on the many theist bashing vids.
u get the no prize for name calling. i'll go back to my unhappy social experience, shall i?
786hanif 2 years ago
You are someone that will continuously ignore perfectly valid points in order to keep pushing your close-minded religious biasness and agenda.
Even if we grant that Craig's argument is sound, it grants us no reason to conclude a deity. He uses merely a rephrased argument that was once used for the origin of life, which of course, has been long since been replaced with abiogenesis and then utterly crushed with Evolution.
lol, find that def. on Wiki or something? haha.
Gwisss 2 years ago
all you have done is make blanket assertions that science has debunked religion.
i suggest you review craig's aruguments (or swinburne's, etc.) properly
yes i did! i want to be sure when i'm sworn at.
786hanif 2 years ago
Don't believe everything you read. haha, though, I can see that being difficult for you.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Secondly, how do you get from a deistic god to a theistic God? Can you explain that? Can you actually lay out an equation or some testable theory that allows me to conclude that God cares about how I eat, what I drink, whether my genitals should be hacked at, how women dress, how I should have sex and with which gender I should have sex etc.
The problem is... You can't logically or scientifically conclude theism from Deism. Yet! You faithfully assume you can because you ARE A THEIST.
Gwisss 2 years ago
it shows that you don't understand the topic correctly when you include science as 1 way to derive theism from diesm.
i don't assume i can but i believe it has already been demonstrated but it is YOUR blinkered and obstinant atheism that fails to recognise it. the further details of God's care i accept because i accept the possibility of revelation & it's actuality in the Quran.
to end this, i sincerely havnt been convinced by atheist arguments & am convinced by theistic arguments
786hanif 2 years ago
& the specific case of Islam.
you need to stop trolling around Muslim vids. it'd be more relevant for you to comment on the topic which was about the notion of kufr.
786hanif 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure you can guess my views on religious divisionism.
Islam seeks to divide the world into believers and non-believers. It has been clearly laid out in words what happens to non-believers in the religious texts. Secondly, religion itself is a divisional system that seeks to pin it's 'in group' against the 'out group'.
Religion is immoral. As Christopher Hitchens espouses: "Religion poisons Everything". Including our chances of uniting the world towards a common interest of progress.
Gwisss 2 years ago
You shouldn't equate religious pratice with religious texts. The two are never synonymous, not even (and probably especially not) in the case of ultra-orthodox muslims. Also, religion is not an entity in itself. 'Islam' has no will, the millions of muslim (divided over 5 continents, speaking over a hundred languages) do. These millions of people should not be lumped together under the heading of 'Islam' as their religious and cultural views differ as much from each other as they do from ours.
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
(this was a reply to Gwiss)
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
On the subject of religion itself, it is innately a divisional ideology. To be religious is to state that others are non-religious, or non-believers. This immediately makes an evident 'In Group' and 'Out Group', which in human nature leads to conflict and war.
The customs and traditions may differ but this does not change the evident 'in group/ out group' division between religious and non-religious.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
Female Genital Mutilation however is practiced by a significant Muslim population, and they USE Islam to justify the act of FGM. I agree that many traditions and practices have existed long before man produced monotheism, but these bronze age practices are kept alive through religious justification.
In a secular society when religion is absent, you will find it improbable that such a tradition of FGM is possible. Without "God" there isn't a way to justify such an act.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
actually, more christians (copts, ethiopian) practise female genital mutilation than muslims do!
in most islamic countries it doesn't exist!
only somalia has a muslim majority that practise it! in ethiopia and sudan and egypt its mostly christians! also in nigeria, cameroun, liberia etc its mostly christians.
antiiraqwar 2 years ago
And those that do use an interpretation of their religious scripture as justification for an immoral act such as FGM fit nicely into the example I was attempting to make.
A significant populace of Muslims take FGM very seriously, and this is a disgusting practice that without religious justification would be completely and utterly unjustifiable.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
Of course group formation is not limited to religion, but it is religion that makes the best use of it today. Before you even blink, you could easily conjure up two competing religions that are waring in the world today. Whether it be Muslims against Jews, or Christians against Muslims, or even Muslims against Muslims. All these wars are fought not for merely political reasons but are fed by the difference in religious conviction or over the ownership of a "holy" plot of land.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
You keep suggesting that I'm implying that religion is conscious, which is not at all what I am implying.
If I was to suggest that Sports are innately competitive. I'm not implying that Sports are conscious. Sports as a social commune produce heightened amounts of competitive human nature. Religion produces heightened amounts of divisional "Us against Them" human nature.
Competition is not necessarily an immoral act, and sometimes can be progressive. Division is often regressive.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
Duh. Religion, however, does a very good job at producing very divided 'in groups' and 'out groups' with a very hard line of unfalsifiable claims keeping these groups from compromise. Religion often even goes so far as to claim(the monotheism atleast) that humans on the 'other' side of the line are often promised eternal damnation for their lack of belief which is not a good way to unify people of different ideologies. This is a vile system that divides society OVERTLY.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
No, that fact that religious claims are for the most part, unfalsifiable and therefore untestable and hence unprovable.This leaves religions all divided by void claims that cannot be proven false, nor proven true. These claims act like giant wedges in discourse and are often conversation stoppers. If they hold a claim that circumcision is a divine practice, then the high rate of infant children dieing from this practice will not shake their beliefs that this is an immoral practice.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
Again, there is a strong bond among the 'In Group" and a increasingly stronger wedge between the "Out Group". This is precisely what I was stating before.
Religion is in itself, very parasite like. It does not have a conscience, but it has an evolved structure that allows it to ensnare victims and pin humans against one another in the hopes of growing a larger and larger "in group". The wedge is a defense against discourse and criticism of it's falsities. Faith is the hammer for this wedge.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
Just a second finer point on the subject of faith as a hammer for the wedge that separates the religious 'in group' from the non-believer 'out group'.
Faith is often up held as a social virtue. To hold a belief on faith is often considered virtuous when living in an increasingly more religious society. Even a very moderate religious society may find this to be the case.
How could the belief in a claim without evidence ever be virtuous in any other context? It should not/is not virtuous.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
My criticism of religion is based on the existing doctrine of monotheistic religions. You seem to be talking about humans innate neurological predisposition to Paternicity and Agenticity. Is Agenticity essential part of human development or are these neurological factors that give rise to religion the pinnacle of human existence. Maybe. However, my criticism is of the leading religions of modern day, the monotheism, their scripture and the ideology that comes along with them.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gottlichesalitter 2 years ago
I think I understand your criticism, but I do not think that my criticisms fall by the waste side when attacking religion even in a general sense. For the most part, religions deal in 'beliefs' 'practices based on beliefs' and 'divine worship'. Whether it be polytheism, monotheism or animism. All of these fall victim to the same human issues such as Agenticity, Paternicity, "Big Brother" form of authority delusions and an absence of evidence for the beliefs in the ladder.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Secondly, it is the fact that religious practice can find justification for it's practice in the interpretations made from the religious scriptures which makes it problematic.
With careful scholarly work, one can justify their preferred practice using religious scripture. Genital Mutilation can be validated, or sending your child as a martyr to clear a mine field can be justified.
"With God, anything can be made justifiable also." - Christopher Hitchens
Gwisss 2 years ago
You do realize that the same unfalsifiable way in which Theism can be concluded from Deism can be applied to EVERY other religion and in every other area of discourse, such a logic is laughable.
You are simply bias and hold true to unfalsifiable claims merely because of social delusions that have been brainwashed into you.
What do you consider more useful then science for determining truths? Superstition? Faith? That is so far all you've been using.
Gwisss 2 years ago
7) that rasmsees or merneptah died drawning. Another example: modern science discovered that the air has different layers. Each one different by its pressure, So the more you go up in the sky the air flow is less and the breathing will logically be difficult. In one of the verses the Quran talked about the non-believers and their inner soul being bothered and hard to breath like someone who is going up in the air. Another example is the water. The Quran says that everything alive is made up from
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
7) yes and science hold that there are only 5 layers, the Quran claims there are 7. All those verses that are supposedly scientific are all forced and far fetched interpretations that no one outside ot Islam even takes seriously. The socalled embryology is WRONG and PLAGIARIZED. The mountains being pegs to stabilize the earth is WRONG! The Quran claims that all animals live in societies, which is WRONG! It claims that bees have healthy liquids in their abdomins, which is WRONG! And I can go on.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
6) of the pharaof of exodus know as ramsees or merneptah. That was back in the 70's. They were able to determine the cause of his death as his body was fully preserved. We know that old egyptians used this technique to keep the bodies of their kings. In the Quran we have the story of pharaoh and moses. Pharaoh drawned in the sea trying to pursue moses and his people. The Quran said: "and today we shall save your body so that you'll be sign for those who come after". After examinations they found
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
6) This story of Moses and Pharao are in the Bible too. But here is a nice little detail. The Quran claims that Pharao threatened his servants to crucify them because they were drawn to Moses. But there was no cruficixion in the days of Moses. Crucifixion was only invented by the Assyrians in the 7th century BC. So the Quran is at least 600 years too early with its crucifixion and is therefore WRONG! U claim the Quran is miraculous. The only miracle of the Quran is that people still believe it.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
5) the word Jesus has been said 25 times in the Quran vs Mohammed only 5 times. In the Quran is a full chapter about Marry the virgin or Maryam which the bible doesnt have such a thing. Besides the Quran being a languistic miracle it's a scientific miracle. The french scientist Maurice Bucaille wrote a book called: the bible, the Quran and science in which he admits the existence of scientific phenomenons that the Qurans talked about. One of them is the discovery
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
5) So when did mentioning Jesus and Mary in a book make it of divine origin? So I guess I'll compose a book where I mention the name of Muhammad a lot of times, make it sound eloquent in Dutch, claim that its eloquence only works in Dutch and claim that I'm the very last prophet sent from God and claim that the Quran you have is a forgery because the original Quran mentions me by name. Is this something you would accept? Yet this is exactly what you expect US to accept! No proofs, only claims!
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
So, i am still waitinng for an answer. I see that you disappear. Do you have any answers for my questions???
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
4) the jews would kill him if they know. The jews and christians knew there will be a prophet coming at the end of times and it's in their books the bible and torah ( i am talking about true books not altered books). And by the way there is only one Quran book that exists unlike the bible which you'll see different versions of it. That means the Quran was preserved and protected by Allah for all these many years even though some people tried to falsify it they couldnt because it's Gods word
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
4) And I challenge you to produce the proof. What ur saying about altered books goes againt ur own Quran. For it says Jews and Christians could recognize him from the Torah and injeel that was WITH THEM AT THAT TIME! (S. 7:157) If this was about versions that they didnt have, then the Quran lies again, because there would have been nothing for them to recognize him by, since they didnt have the "original sources" to begin with. The Quran discredits itself. We dont even have to put in the effort.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
3) will be 30 years. The khaifas after Mohammed SAW: Abu Bakr, omar, Othman and Ali reign for 3o years. He predicted the death of Yasser which was one of the compagnions. He told that Yasser will be killed by the unjust part and this what happened later on. I was gonna tell you the story of the moon that goes into 2 parts but i doubt you'll believe in that. Another story is when he met his wife Khadija, they went to a known christian priest that told him you;ll be a messenger of God and that
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
3) that is just belony, sorry to say that. But there is no way anyone could have known that Muhammad would be a prophet at all. There is nothing written about him, there is nothing said of him, prior to his supposed call to prophethood. In fact, the story about his calling in the cave of Hira puts major questionmarks to his "calling". The angel almost squeezed the life out of him and he thought he was demonpossessed afterwards. He even wanted to commit suicide. Again, no prophet material here.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
So all in all I'm still waiting for this sign that is supposed to have been given to Muhammad. Please do provide it!
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
1) First of all there is no verse in the Quran that say Allah has sons. it's against the faith of Islam in itself. Nothing like Ezra is the son of God, not even Jesus is a son of God like christians believe. The sign of Mohammed SAW is the Quran as a miracle book. There's no such book before or after Mohammed SAW. It is in arabic language. Arabs of the time use to master this language and were known for their wonderful poetry. They were amazed by the style of this book
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
1) That is exactly my point. NEVER in the history of mankind have Jews believed that Ezra is the son of God. So the Quran imputes LIES about others just to justify whatever agenda it has against certain people. The fact that a book has great poetry is hardly evidence for divine origin. No one composed a 5th symphony like Mozart. This means he was a prophet! No one wrote plays like Shakespear. This means he was a prophet? Sounds stupid right? Well, EXACTLY! Thats how stupid "surah like it" sound.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
2) so here we are talking from a languistic point of view. Another thing Mohammed SAW was not trying to lie because his people know he was straight and from the best dynasty and tribes of arabs. He didn't claim to be a king or did he want to be rich even when they tried to make him so he refused. It was a message from God and he was a messenger from God. Some of the signs is that he was able to tell his compagnions the unseen. for ex: He predicted that his succession or al khilafa after him
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
2) So he was of the best dynasty (which can be disputed!) So what? Does that make you a prophet? NO! in fact, the God of Abraham always picked the lowest and the unattractive to glorify himself through them, so that there would be no question to whom the glory should go to. Also, his prophecy in the Quran about the defeat and retaliation of the Romans is proven to be false! he missed the mark by several years. So, no, there is no prophet material there. Not to mention the mans conduct!
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
Excuse me but you know not the master and Sheikh Tariq Ramadan who has spent his entire life in Dawa illa Allah in all mosques of Europe.
how you can say it is secular?
Tariq fake is one of the most intellectual Muslims in the world known
ouldahmed1 2 years ago
Tariq makes me sick give him jahnnam,
wepimpspaki 2 years ago
you are crazy
ouldahmed1 2 years ago
Mujtahid, you say in your video that when a prophet comes and gives his signs, he must be believed. What sign(s) did Muhammad give actually?
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
coran
Seigneurie19 2 years ago
Sorry, but the Quran is a book sir. that is not a sign. Seriously, what sign did he give?
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
Please read the Quran before making this judgement.
BrotherHumayd 2 years ago
of course, the muslim will immediately assume that I havent read the Quran. I have and its incoherent. There is nothing miraculous about a book that has no chronology or subject order. its as if the stories were all assembled, thrown in the air and randomly put together irrespective of pagenumber or subject.
Again, what is the sign(s) that Muhammad gave that he was a true prophet? For the third time.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
no one needs to prove anything to you. if you are arrogant enough to think you understand the Qur'an because you've read it (and a translation at that I bet) then you need to check your biases before asking questions.
anesthesia2011 2 years ago
The Noble Quran in its' self is a sign. Muhammed PBUH was illiterate and yet, revealed words that are THE pretext now for the grammer of arabic language, but THAT requires you to understand arabic. IF you really read even a translated representation the signs are there.
SCIENCE even, which im sure YOU must believe in. It depicts the stages of a babys' development vividly, which through the study of embrology which is a VERY recent venture.. it only confirms the truth.
kidilli 2 years ago
a truth sent down 1400 years ago. to an illiterate man. in the middle of the dessert.
...
it explain stage by stage, the water cycle. speak of the moutains as "pegs", and its now known that mountains do function to stop tectonic plates colliding. speaks of the invisible barrier between two seas, where they meet but dont mix. and NOW we know that there are two types of bodies of water, sweet; and salt, and that they do NOT mix, they switch characteristics and become: the other.
kidilli 2 years ago
and theres' so much more.
Just depends what kind of mind you sit down and really read it with.
And if you do, I mean REALLY do.. You'll know your self the Author of the Quran, can be NO other than Allah.
Peace.
kidilli 2 years ago
from a scientific point of view: The Quran talked about many scientific phenomenons that modern science just approaved recently. Another thing The Prophet Muhammed PBUH never been to school. How can someone illetrate say something like the Quran which no body else could say alike? Even those best knowledgeable people cant make even a phrase like the what in the Quran. The Quran for example talked about Romans defeat in the dead sea area and it happened many years after islam has came comed
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
It's a book but not like any book. It's a book from Allah. It talks about what happened in the past and what will happen in the future. an exemple is the Quran: it talked about the barrier between two seas which is a sweet water that one can drinks and that is true by science. Another example the human skin and it cells that help us with feeling. Quran talked about it when those who'll go to hellfire, their skin will be changed often so that they can feel the heat of the fire as a punishement
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
The Quran talked about how the universe started: the big bang theory in one of the verses. That the sun moves around itself. the east and the west, the night and the day. that the earth is turning around itself. that the earth is many levels. the steps of creating the foetus in many steps which the Quran talked about. it talked about mountains having roots deep inside the ground and this is true.abd so on which all the quran talked about 1400+ years ago, so its a miracle that no human can bring
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
Yeah sorry, but I dont buy that scientific miracles argument. The clear scientific blunders are abundant in the Quran, such as the embryological blunders. And dont start with Dr Keith Moore because that guy is getting embarrassed for that till this day in scientific circles. Furthermore, the men Galin and Hipocrates, writing hundreds of years prior to Muhammad, record the same stages that the Quran states. Furthermore, those men were proven wrong by modern science. Was Galin a prophet too?
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
there is a Surah ( chapter) in Quran called Surat Annaml ( or the chapter of Ants). In this surah there is a verse where an ants talked to the others telling them to enter their refuge before the army of Solomon will break you. why exactly "break" you? we can break a glass, a mirror not an ants. Recently they aproave that the ants body is made in a the majority of glass which can be broken.
CasbahdeTanger 2 years ago
The Quran has a lot more blunders in it tho. Such as Jews believing that Ezra is the son of God and stuff. Mary being part of the Trinity. Mountains being pegs to keep the earth from shaking. And I can go on. All those verses you refer to trying to prove that there is science in the Quran, are verses that have to be manhandled into something that they dont even say in order to make it look scientific.
Nakdimon316 2 years ago
Jews and Muslims believe in the One and same G-d. Why does modern Islam say Jews are Christians? Jews are same as Muslims. Christians worship a man and G-d.
Jews who follow Christians are the 'Jews' referred to in Q'uron, not believing Jews.
The 'Jews' AS Christians is the issue. This mis understanding is one the Christianity has created and injected into Islam. It is a false understanding as well. The root of evil, I might suggest.
knowitx 2 years ago
Islam IS Judaism. It merely reconciles the issue of a man as G-d and those who corrupt the G-d Of Avraham (Allah/Ellah).
The issue of Christianity is the core. Who Jesus was is explained, and the rest is academic.
knowitx 2 years ago
forget i even responded to u...i just read ur profile and im laughing my head off...thanks for the tickle.
traitor323 2 years ago
who says that jews are christians..and where?
traitor323 2 years ago
The word "spread" sounds rather harsh, forceful and devoid of any choice to the contrary!
You'll probable find that ppl; who came across the Muslim Ummah, chose to embrace Islam for many benefits it offered.
InshaAllah, Islam will continue its journey, guiding ppl into its folds without compelling, till the appointed time!
mawnyz1 2 years ago
Are you suggesting that Islam was spread by violent means?
mawnyz1 2 years ago
The man may seek to inflate his ego by claiming all the scientific discoveries were due to his efforts alone, but little does he realise that he may have been guided by design and shown just enough to procure understanding the workings of an element or a facet of science which may be used for the benefit of humanity!
mawnyz1 2 years ago
show where and when an"Offensive" Jihad has taken place and by whom it was instigated it?
To make a statement without historical evidence is hardly conducive to a good cause!
Defending the oppressed, repressed the helpless & poor is an obligation by Allah swt on all- it is therefore considered as defensive action & NOT AN OFFENCE to defend against the tyrants!
mawnyz1 2 years ago
The many campaigns of the Prophet Muhammed (saaw) against the pagans of arabia, then the campaigns of companion and caliph Umar (ra) against the romans and persians, and eygptians etc etc etc......
mujtahid2006 2 years ago
The Rulers of each tribe were Tyrants, therefore, the action is considered as defending the rights of the oppressed & under privilaged whose belongings were taken for mere sustenace- do you think that was fair exchange?
mawnyz1 2 years ago
Elle est vraiment pas adaptée cette musique de film !
athanabase 2 years ago
Youll find your research appears to be from dubious sources, therefore lacks conviction!
After the conquest of Makkah, the mighty Byzantine Empire felt threaten by Islam and Prophet Mohammad (saw).
The Roman troops were healthier; far greater in numbers, with the most powerful advanced armour.
mawnyz1 2 years ago
The Muslim Ummah was going through the most traumatic time, struck with period of famine & fewer in number in comparison to the Roman troops.
Its was after this famine period, the Muslim Ummah looked weak & vulnerable because of food shortage- thats where Byzantines thought a perfect opportunity to take advatage & sought annihilate this perceived threat of "Islam".
The Muslims took defensive actions, with Allah swt's help,read 9: 123, & conqured!
mawnyz1 2 years ago
Good discussion. Just that the introduction of the two other speakers is not proper in contrast to your own belief as simply Islam. Kufr is a complex topic. But I dont understand whats the contention in this dialogue. Both groups agree that kufr is not to be used for individuals in interpersonal interaction.
kenyanmuslim 2 years ago
So whats the problem. Labelling a society conceptually as kufuristic shouldnt be a problem. Individuality is respected in the west. Ideologies are not a problem. Communism, capitalism, hinduism, christianity all express their non-supporters as failed people of the world.
kenyanmuslim 2 years ago
Kufr in Islam is not to be used to to judge people but it can be used to designate systems, ideologies, ways of life and actions. Thus alcoholism in britain is a kufr way but it is not the diagnostic criteria for a Kafir. The diagnosis of a kafir is a set of disbelieving ideas and actions which only Allah can judge in their entirety. Zinna is the kufr way but not the diagnosis of A kafir.
kenyanmuslim 2 years ago
There might be a group of kafirs who are non-alcoholics and non-zannis. Thus you can say in Britain kufr is prevalant but we cant call the british kafirs.
kenyanmuslim 2 years ago
my God!! it is not that hard of a concept or term to understand lol.
Knowledge1Base9 2 years ago
Good discussion. But the introduction to the clip is, the background of the speakers is seemingly quite underhanded and dishonest. For beliefs it describes Tariq and Usama as secular reformist, but Abdullah as Islam. Now as far as these three are concerned, all of them are Muslims and believe in Islam.
shadowkill546 2 years ago
Tariq and Usama both are reformists, they also believe that hudood should not be implemented. Hudood is barbaric and old fashioned. This i have heard from usama....and tariq saying the same but not directly to the listeners. Usama is also working behind the scenes with Quilliam .
DeenCarrier 2 years ago
Ramadan attempts to diminish the Islamic concepts by reducing them to relativism. The reality of Islamic fiqh: there is no classic or contemporary fiqh. There is superior fiqh and inferior fiqh. 'Superior' fiqh contains superior scholarship: interpretation of arabic text, the more accurate application of arabic context, more accurate application of the context of the revelation....
usama2 2 years ago
Abdullah, It would be very interesting and entertaining to see you and Tj (TheAmazingAtheist) engage in some sort of intelligent discourse that deal with religiously related topics. Perhaps you could make a video directed at him, and call him out. :)
nerktord 2 years ago
interesting idea, but he probably gets a queue of theists all dying to respond to him :)
mujtahid2006 2 years ago
Funny, why is your remark not found to be a surprise, do you disagree with the comments?
It's for this reason, your flippant response is hardly worth a reply!
mawnyz1 2 years ago
good video,i luv press tv.
sepasgozaram 2 years ago
Mujtahid - your intros at the start of your films where you give bios of the speakers are obviously slanted. It's a clever psychological trick - you are implicitly biased and demonising the speakers you do not agree with. It is better to cut out those intros with the black background and white text as it slants the view before one has even started viewing. Let us think for ourselves please.
pedro23rt 2 years ago
It's an introduction, just like Tariq Ramadan giving his introduction. Obviously you're new to Abdullah's video's
abdullah1425 2 years ago
I think the biased media like fox etc, has broadcasted lies about islam and negative propoganda so many times that the muslims themselves have been brainwashed, into thinking that the interpretation of islam is not correct or that islam needs moderation.
I stick to islam and thats what we all need to do.
omarbinkhattab 2 years ago
The only way to stop these divisions is to adhere to the teachings of the Quran and sunnah and the interpretation and practicing of these teachings as interpreted and practiced by Muhammed(pbuh) himself and the rightly guided sahabas. ISLAM IS COMPLETE.
Apologetic muslims are weak in knowledge and faith. Just because america says that something is bad it doesnt make it bad in reality. Somehow america has managed to make us believe that 'america is god',
YOUR EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US.
omarbinkhattab 2 years ago
People dont understand that Muhammed(pbuh) came with the message of moderation itself. now 'moderation' has different meanings.
In an immoral society, letting your sisters, daughters and mothers be sold on the adverts is 'freedom'.
But in a moral society that is 'extremism'.
'Extreme immorality' that is.
Islam says 'get married, but dont fornicate'. This is the moderation that islam brings. And this leads to a peaceful world and an afterworld.
omarbinkhattab 2 years ago
these guys definitions are messed up & confused. Shotty arguements and mis-representations.
MashaAllah Mujtahid, keep up the good work.
keysa101 2 years ago
Excellent!
AhlulSunnahWalJamaah 2 years ago