Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AhmadFarooq

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... 21
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca!
« on: October 17, 2016, 12:17:29 PM »
Theories like Prophet Muhammad not being from Mecca, Islam being a religion created centuries later for the purpose of controlling the expanding Arab empire, are repeatedly presented by people who usually don't happen to be scholars. These theories are pretty old. The late professor Patricia Crone is one of the famous personalities who started with the claim of Prophet Muhammad being a fictional character; one theory she later recanted.

One obvious and simple question has to be asked for the supporters of such theories: In just fifty years after the Prophet's death the Arab empire had expanded from Egypt to the end of Persia and thousands or hundreds of thousands of non-Arabs came under Arab rule; how is it possible that all these non-Arabs were also involved in this wide ranging extraordinary conspiracy of rewriting history on such a magnificent scale, especially the Persians who were very resistant to losing their centuries old empire.
Some relevant links to go through:

« on: October 08, 2016, 11:42:12 PM »
First of all, "child marriages" as in mere marriage contracts without consummation of marriage, which in practical terms makes it no more than an engagement - although discouraged - are nevertheless allowed in Islam, if they serve some benefit to the child. According to at-least some scholars, at the time of maturity, these "children" have the right to go along with the marriage or to part ways which would require a simple verbal rejection.

Regarding, Qur'an 65:4, although it is true that some Muslim scholars do use this as allowance for marrying children, this is not the only interpretation. For details see: 65-4.htm

« on: October 05, 2016, 09:43:14 AM »
All the created things of Allah, worship Him and all have their own ways of doing it. For example, the spread of wings by birds is one such method of exalting Allah.

Do you not see that Allah is exalted by whomever is within the heavens and the earth and [by] the birds with wings spread [in flight]? Each [of them] has known his [means of] prayer and exalting [Him], and Allah is Knowing of what they do.

The Sun similarly has its own, unknown to us, way of worshipping Allah.

Muslim rebuttals:

Why exactly did you not use: for this?

Keeping in view your previous experiences and discussions which have happened here, can you please enlighten us why exactly you visited that particular site?

The red section which apparently is supposed to "prove" Osama's apostasy is regarding all the Comapnions (or at-least, most of them). How is that related to Osama? Additionally, while distrusting all of the Companions should logically make a person not believe in Islam too but I wanted evidence from original Islamic sources about the opinion of the Prophet on the matter. As you know, Saheeh al-Bukhaari (6104) and Saheeh Muslim (60) applies to you too, here.

... And similarly it is "impossible" for you not to "across the works of" the scholars that I mentioned, "on the internet". What exactly does that prove? Why can't a person be both, a "scholar" and an "apologist"? Shabir Ally has done specialization in "Quranic Exegesis". Yasir Qadhi is a graduate from Medina University, Nauman Ali Khan knows enough to be teaching Qur'an Arabic. Whether, they are "apologists" or not, a lot of people wouldn't have a problem with calling them "scholars" too. I personally have never seen a "scholar" who fights the Sharia Law. Note that debating and criticising whether or not a particular law is actually a part of "God given laws that have to remain unchanged until the Judgement day", is not fighting the Sharia Law.

Regarding the half-diyya issue, as the Hanafis apparently use the relevant verse to prove equal compensation, so I don't have a problem with this interpretation; but as I don't know Arabic, I do not understand why the word just "compensation" has to unequivocally and in all scenarios mean "100% equal compensation"?

Regardless of how "useless" the question might be, what Ramihs97 was asking, "what are the odds of it [i.e. Jesus' birth] being Allah sending Jibril [for a miraculous birth] and not another man [responsible for a natural birth]".

Why does the half diyya concept has to unequivocally be contradicting the Qur'an? Why can't both concepts of less blood-money and equal blood-money be true at the same time, the difference being just for different times and conditions? The hadith, as far as I know, does not indicate that the half-diyya law was a part of God's unchanging Shariah. It could simply have been a law relevant to its time and people. If it is accepted that this wasn't part of Shariah, then it is up-to the Muslim societies to decide whether they want to continue the law or change it for what they believe to be better.

From what I read:

He [Ghazálí] also holds to the principle that traditions can be overridden when conditions change. We have already seen this illustrated in the case of jihád and shúrá, but there are other examples as well. So, for example, ‘Uthmán equalized the amount of diya (blood money) for dhimmís (protected minorities) in order to assure their security, although diya for a dhimmí had stood at half that of a Muslim. On the basis of the precedent set by ‘Uthmán, according to Ghazálí, the modern Pakistani law equalized diya for men and women, despite traditions that set the diya for women at half. On the basis of the equal value of all life, diya for everyone is equal under Hanafi law.
Source: Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, Cambridge University Press, Page: 123

Just wanted to ask, what is the evidence from original Islamic sources that concludes insulting a companion of the Prophet means apostasy?

And exactly why do you think that "almost all of the scholars who benefit this ummah ... [are] from Saudi Arabia"? A person who lives in a particular region is more likely to know the scholars of that region. I, personally, at the moment cannot think of even a single Saudi scholar's name, partly because they have difficult names to remember, but many notable names who come from my part of the world. Additionally, most of the really famous Islamic personalities that I have come to know of, such as Ahmad Deedat, Dr. Zakir Naik, Nauman Ali Khan, Abdullah Green, Dr. Shabir Ally, Yasir Qadhi, none of them hail from Saudi Arabia.

... and that is why he talked about some of them.

I am confused, in your previous reply you were addressing Ramihs97 with the understanding that there are rebuttals to the articles that he was asking about, and now you are saying that those articles do not have any rebuttals.


I think Ramihs97 was talking about the alleged internal contradictions in the Qur'an as being the ones "already refuted" and not the Islamic-Awareness articles.

And I meant to say that what difference my assurance would make that hasn't already been made by what so many others have told you here, previously? I personally don't really understand the reasons for your anxiety, but if you really want to be certain about Islam, I would suggest to commit yourself and formally learn about the religion which would require some hard work, instead of using stop-gap measures and reading up brief articles (which in my opinion is, at the end of the day, just a shortcut and is used because it is more convenient).

What difference would it make to you, even if I were to tell you, that I don't think there are.

How did you get to that conclusion? The sun and stars being referred to as lamps is not an incorrect description, but are the lamps burning right now or had they burnt out thousands or even millions of years ago; without us knowing about it or being able to directly observe any difference in the night sky. The two issues are unrelated.

« on: September 25, 2016, 02:24:22 PM »
That hadith and the criticism on such an interpretation of it have been discussed in the above referenced Dr. Ahmad Shafaat's article.

So if Brother Abdullah was talking about scientific concepts, then he is saying that in a theory, with evidence, it can contradict Islam. Which is impossible...

A theory with evidence can definitely contradict reality. For example, when we look up at the sky and see burning stars lighting up the night sky, simple observation concludes that they are continuously burning even now, at this very instant. But science today tells us that this "theory [of burning stars], with evidence [of simple observation]" is actually incorrect as some of those stars we see in the sky had burned up a long time ago.

I try to just ignore individuals who instead of staying on topic and trying to provide non-fallacious arguments become personal and hurl insults on the other person's character, not to mention commit paragraph-long straw man fallacies but since I'm already here (and don't have anything better to do) I may as well give a response.

First of all, since you believed he was a trite in his arguments, then you had the moral obligation to speak.

Well, first of all, I did not say that I "believed" his arguments were trite, I just said they "can be argued to be [so]". And even if I believed as such, why is it my "moral obligation to speak"? Hundreds, if not thousands of times all over the internet trite and old arguments are made against Islam, do you spend your entire day, answering those?

"silent satan"

I suppose the following narration was being referenced to:
“One who keeps silent rather than say the truth is a silent Satan.”

I was unable to find any reference to this, so its authenticity is at the moment suspect for me. Additionally, there could be a number of reasons why I shouldn't have responded, like maybe the subject requires knowledge of the Arabic language which I just might not have, or maybe even that I already knew, the individuals involved in the discourse were, regarding their points-of-view, too "excited" to even hope they would change their original opinions when faced with defeating arguments.

I was fiercely defending the Holy Quran against the rubbish that this buffoon was quoting left and right from the anti-Islam sites on the internet.

It would be more accurate to say that you were defending your interpretation of what the Qur'an says and not the Qur'an itself. The authenticity of the Qur'an or whatever was never put into question.
Additionally, the sites which were quoted,
Which of these are "anti-Islam sites on the internet"? The only reference that can be called as "anti-Islam" was, if I'm not mistaken, a single video from YouTube (hardly a case of "quoting left and right").

Just sitting silently watching the trite attack your Holy Book?

It was your interpretations and understanding of the book that were being attacked and not the Qur'an itself.

He was also talking from his (...) about the Numerical Miracles in the Glorious Quran...

If I'm not mistaken, he pretty much didn't say anything about the numerical miracles (at-least not in this post). He claimed they were a "lie" a few times, but gave no evidence or arguments for it.

... So if you read it, then you are a trite like him.

OK, you've lost me there, completely. "Trite" would be something overused, repeated etc. When did I post something similar to my post above? And why the need to bold and underline the sentence, it isn't like being called a "trite" is something really offensive and insulting, is it?

And after he got banned, you came forward...

The only thing I pointed out was the apparent contradiction between what you said before and what you later on actually did. Otherwise before your saying that you will not insult and not ban the person, you had previously insulted (several times) and banned him (at-least once) already. I pretty much didn't say anything at the time, one reason for it being that there wasn't a contradiction then.

So what did you want me to do?  Continue wasting my personal time on this garbage and his satanic cult to entertain him?

Maybe then, you shouldn't make promises that you can't keep.

You're not getting banned.  I don't ban people based on the genuine information that they post.  No worries :).

As'salamu Alaikum,

I would like to apologize to brother Abdullah Almadi for being harsh and rude with him.  He was within his rights to post his view or opinion on whether the Noble Verses were literal or not.  I had no right to insult him.  I have modified my post above and kept it only to the answer to brother Abdullah's post.

I am very sorry brother Abdullah for losing myself.  It won't happen again.  Please feel free to post what's in your mind freely.  I will not respond with insults to you ever again.

I hope you accept my apology.

When Allah Almighty says that He Expanded the EARTH SPHERICALLY...

Again, that is your interpretation of the verse, whether you like it or not, there is a significant difference of opinion on the matter.

...this is not a statement of fact to you?

How did I come into this? Science is being talked about here, not my personal opinions. As I said before, it can be argued that Science is always open to the possibility that anything and everything we know about the Universe can just simply be false.

And as I already challenged the rotten salafi multiple times on, what about the Numerical Miracles in the Glorious Quran, and Allah Almighty Saying that it is a Warning to Mankind?  I already elaborated on this above?

Why exactly are you telling me this? Did I in my comment say anything that would suggest I consider one opinion to be correct and the other incorrect?

The Scientific Miracles in the Glorious Quran are based on clear statements from Allah...

Depends on the definition of "clear". Others can argue "clear" would mean a negligible difference of opinion on the matter both in past and the present and that is "clearly" not the case.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... 21

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube