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 - iknowi

Pages: 1 [2] 3
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Should we add Jesus to the Shahada?
« on: September 23, 2016, 05:50:09 AM »
Society seems drunk from media indoctrination, the average person doesnt research religion and if they do it's only to a very superficial level. Muhammad pbuh is painted as a warlord in the media, if you put jesus in the Shahada it will dilute this false perception because Jesus is associated with love.


Laillaha Ilallahu, Muhammadur Rasool Allah, Jesus Rasool Allah...?

The original Shahada was just Laillaha illalahu, but they added Muhammad pbuh to it by tradition to honor him.

The scientific error was that Allah in the Quran stated that cows milk is palatable for all human beings, but that isn't true because some people are lactose intolerant.

Then i found out that it didnt say cows milk, but the milk of any animal, so the contradiction is cleared (e.g. goats milk causes minimal problems for vast majority of people).


If the correct translation says "livestock" and not "cattle" then there is no issue, because livestock includes all animals that make milk. Goats milk for example doesn't cause problems for lactose intolerant human beings.


Why would Muhammad indulge in such statements and topics???

Think about this before you vomit your next reply.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

That is what always struck me about the Quran, the author is very confident. Extremely confident, in fact. He is continuosly challenging the reader to find faults.

Is Abdullah Almadi a salafi?

According to what I have read, the accepted theory is that all humans used to be lactose intolerant, i.e. after breast feeding is stopped. Some thousands of years ago it was because of a mutation which allowed the LCT gene (which allows for making lactase) to remain turned on and humans were able to continue to consume milk.

The lactase deficiency also could be linked to certain heritages. Seventy-five percent of all African American, Jewish, Mexican American, and Native American adults are lactose intolerant. Analysis of the DNA of 94 ancient skeletons in Europe and Russia concluded that the lactose tolerant mutation appeared about 4,300 years ago and spread throughout the European population.
Different alleles for lactase persistence have developed at least three times in East African populations, with persistence extending from 26% in Tanzania to 88% in the Beja pastoralist population in Sudan.

Regarding the criticism of the verse, exactly what does the verse has to do with lactose intolerance? This is a straw man fallacy and probably a red herring too. The verse is talking about the blessing of Allah for creating a palatable drink, a drink consumable for humans (these are actually how other translators translate this verse, instead of "sweet to the drinker", source: From between the impure and disgusting matters such as "waste matter [or excretions] and blood", consumable milk is produced.

The verse isn't claiming that there are no humans in the world for whom milk is non-consumable. Additionally, as it would appear that around 75% of all Jews are lactose intolerant (source:,, if Prophet Muhammad was making the Qur'an up, he would've known about this intolerance.

I disagree. I think it does talk about cattle milk being palatable for all mankind when you look at other translations too. And the prophet didnt have access to cows in the desert, only goats and camels (could he wrong on that).

What i noticed is that it's talking about RAW unpasturised milk, this is why Abdul Haleems translation says "pure milk". Raw (pure) cows milk is hard to get, you have to go to a farm if you want it. And unlike the redditor claimed, it's not dangerous to consume raw milk, in fact it is very healthy, the raw milk has good bacteria which is killed in the pasturisation process and this bacteria helps disgest lactose (apparently).

"But the spokeswoman did cite a survey conducted by the foundation in 2007 that found that 81 percent of Michigan raw milk drinkers who say they were diagnosed with lactose intolerance reported that they did not suffer from symptoms after switching to raw milk."

Note that the study only looked at the affect over 8 days, we dont know if they'd adapt later if they continued:

imo it's not conclusive, they've only ever done one proper study on it. There needs to be further research.

"In livestock, too, you have a lesson- We give you a drink from the contents of their bellies, between waste matter and blood, pure milk, sweet to the drinker". [16:66] Abdul Haleem translation.

"Did you notice that your Allah (swt) did not know that there are so many humans that are lactose intolerant. Let that idea sink in for a moment, oh the irony, it burns. your imaginary friend that created the universe and all the people did not know that there are some humans that have lactose intolerant digestive systems.

also, science and history provide a better and more eloquent explanation for the milk production system and the evolution of cattle and their mammary glands.

I will also note that raw milk is medically unsafe for consumption and that's why there's a pasteurization process. Before pasteurization, cattle milk was rife with dangerous bacteria. your god does not know anything about the processing of milk.

pure indeed, ideal for harmful bacteria and germs. I would've submitted to this allah, sorry I mean Mohammed's ego, if he had mentioned bacteria or germs in milk or elsewhere".

« on: August 12, 2016, 01:45:56 PM »
To reiterate what submit says, if it distracts you from your duties then ditch the habit. Same thing goes for music, art, TV, even good things like studying or the gym.

Do it! We need that domain.

« on: August 06, 2016, 01:23:28 PM »
Asalamu alaykum,

You mention that all scholars agree that stoning is applied to the adulterer, Shabir Ally (arguably the most famous and best Muslim debator alive today) disagrees:

So clearly that isnt true.

And about modern scholars being greater than classical scholars, sorry but i didnt convey what i meant properly. What i meant was that we can utilize the classical scholars criticisms AND we are in the computer age, so everyone can he better equiped and build a more reliable picture of Islam, both academics and laymen, by using ALL available tools (including classical scholars remarks).

And i am not emotional/liberal over the issue, if the Quran stated capital punishment (rajm) as punishment for adultery then so be it, but it doesn't. And i completely agree that we are in the prime age of fitna, but 100 lashings is enough of a deterrent for adultery.

I remember attending a lecture, dont know if its on youtube, about scholars being given too much authority. I agree.

I was raised sunni but im not emotionally attached to the sunnah like you are; this life is merely a passing phase and i do not want shirk to be on my record.


« on: August 03, 2016, 03:56:18 PM »
Jzk for the clarification.

Asalamu alaykum,

They say that all the surahs initialed with A.L.M have a total occurance of the three letters taken together that is a multiple of 19. The same goes for the other initialed surahs e.g ya-seen, ha-meem etc.

How can we know that this is legitimate? For example, isnt the Alif a vowel, therefore its not compulsory to write it, therefore how can you still count all of the Alif-Lam-Meem letters together?

« on: August 03, 2016, 01:58:26 PM »
Assalamu alaikum,

 I see no contradicton between the hadith and the Quran. The verses that you mentioned only applies to the people who have a treaty with the Muslims (either by paying the Jizyah or by having a peace treaty with the Muslims) and the apostate CANNOT be a Mu'ahid. I honestly didn't expect you people to go as far as to say that the adulterer shouldn't be stoned! The prophecy is being fulfilled! The prophet (PBUH) stoned the adulterer and ALL scholars agree on that. The hadiths are from Umar (RA) and they are authentic. There is no doubt on that. Are you gonna reject what the second best man (after the prophets peace be upon them) on Earth said because of your personal emotions? The adulterer gets stoned in most religions. STOP trying to change our faith because of your emotions! What Umar (RA) said matters a LOT. So according to you, almost ALL the scholars are wrong and YOU are right!? What is so feminine about what I did? Are you kidding me? I'm sorry if I sound offensive, but I am afraid that what is happening to the Christians will happen to us. We will try to reform our religion and change because of our modern values and then we will be split into many sects. This is the religion of Allah, it is NOT a toy.

Asalamu alaykum,

Please read the following article:

The quran is very detailed, this can be seen by hijab rulings, inheretence percentages etc. If Allah wanted the stoning of the adulterer he would mention it in his book, surely. It is such a severe punishment and determines ones qadr... how do you know that this adulterer might not grow up to be an ardent defender/scholar of islam?

And i also encourage you to adopt a more solipsist mindset:

And you said "thank you for strenghening my faith in islam", this is textbook passive aggresiveness and i consider it one of the worse personality traits. Sorry if you didnt mean it that way but i dont know how else to interpret that line other than passive aggresiveness.

Finally, modern day scholarship trumps older scholarship, we are in a new computer age, we have connectedness that we never had before, it is a truly unique point in human history. Now we can commincate with eachother more easily and help eachother in deciphering this perfectly preserved text, examples include the reinterpretation of the wife beating verse 4:34 of which the translators have actually CHANGED their translation in light of modern day scholarship... And MANY others (most of which are scientific).

And if you say that Mohammed pbuh said that no one understood the Quran after me better than my sahaba (Umar, Uthman etc), what he really meant was at that specific time period, not now; did the sahaba have access to the number 19 miracle? Nope. Did they understand the verses on evolution? Nope. And so on.

May Allahs peace and blessing be on you, i do not want to attack you, only inform you. I want to end here because ive had these sorts of discussions before but they end up going nowhere, people will believe what they want to believe (most of the time, anyway).


« on: August 01, 2016, 10:28:39 AM »
Although, there have been made some criticisms on them, I personally do not absolutely deny the Hadiths. The issue I have is with their interpretation, like why is it supposed to be a part of the everlasting Shariah, or applied unconditionally on everyone, and above all the derivation of the ruling that: a person who didn't convert to Islam but was born in a Muslim family, when such a person adopts a religion other than Islam he should also be killed.

Asalamu alaykum,

Im assuming this is directed at me? Or in general.

Anyway, i do not reject all the hadith, but i certainly reject the hadith that stipulate laws that are not inside Allahs speech (the quran), this is what every follower of Allah's religion should do.

In the hadith (in accordance with al-Quran) there are many spiritual benefits for Muslims, this can only be a good thing.

« on: August 01, 2016, 08:11:20 AM »
But did Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh convert back to Islam?

 Yes, he did.

But the Quran directly said that who ever changes his religion to leave him alone. There is no punishment prescribed in the Quran.

 The Quran never said to leave them alone. Where did you get this from? The verses that you brought have nothing to do with the issue. They have to do with the kuffar. The punishment for adultery isn't found in the Quran. So does that mean that we shouldn't punish the adulterer? I remember Umar ibn Al-Khattab  (may Allah be pleased with him) said that he was afraid that people will stop the punishment of stoning because it is not found in the Quran. He also said that in the end of the times there will be people who will claim to follow the Quran but reject the Sunnah. And you are an example of that  (no offense). Thanks for strengthening my faith brother.

"That is because they believed, and then they disbelieved; so their hearts were sealed over, and they do not understand." 63:3

This is the religion of Allah. Stop trying to change it.

Asalamu alaykum,

We reject hadith when it contradicts the quran. The quran promotes freedom of religion.

And about adultery... it doesnt matter if Umar said that he was afraid that people would adandon the stoning of the adulterer, this is one dimentional thinking. Remember, Umar is a fallible human being who can make mistakes, and even if it was true that he said that, we cannot verify it for certainty because the hadith are the sayings of the sayings of the sayings of what the sahaba said.

And please do not be passive aggresive, "thank you for increasing my faith in islam"... it is one of the worse feminine personality traits.

May Allah protect you from polytheism, one of the greatest sins, the raising of the sayings of men as divine revelation i.e. granting common men godhood:

"Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers." [6:114]

Well, if that's the case, in the eyes of Allah his name suits him quite handsomely... FIREman Sam.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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