₦airaland Forum

Did you even read the article at all? It addresses people who don't believe in any God, not those who believe in a god different from the Islamic God.

1. Atheist disbelieve in the existence of God/gods. Actually they do not tell us what they mean by God but we know that influencial men and natural entities are also god. Disbelieving in thw existence of these entitites is a typical example of insanity.

2. Acknowleging that God does not exist is atheism, disbelieve in God is simply non-believe.

3. Islamic concept of God depict a being that does not exist.

Thanks and goodnight

onetrack:
Nothing. But it's not falsifiable. That is, if the moon really did generate its own light then the Quran could be interpreted in a manner which supported that as well. Just like the flat earth. If the earth really was flat and the heavens were a solid dome, the Quran has plenty of verses to back it up, yet Islamic scholars now interpret such verses to try to show that it supports the claim that the earth is round. In the past some Islamic scholars have supported the flat earth theory.




And it's unfortunate that the religion has so many interpretations that Islamic scholars can find ways to support almost anything they want (just like Christians of course)



For me faith is never a good thing. I can have trust in something, but that is based entirely on past evidence. Faith has no past evidence or any basis to make a trustworthy claim. I reject it 100%

Jesus, Abraham, e.t.c are not enough evidence? Please stop living in denial...God bless!

Ultimate001:
Jesus, Abraham, e.t.c are not enough evidence? Please stop living in denial...God bless!

No more evidence than Harry Potter, or Zeus, or Sango.

FOLYKAZE:
1. Atheist disbelieve in the existence of God/gods. Actually they do not tell us what they mean by God but we know that influencial men and natural entities are also god. Disbelieving in thw existence of these entitites is a typical example of insanity.

2. Acknowleging that God does not exist is atheism, disbelieve in God is simply non-believe.

3. Islamic concept of God depict a being that does not exist.

Thanks and goodnight

And your point is?

dalaman:
This is actually not true. The hadiths were written about 200 years after Mohammad died. Everything we know about him was written long after he died from Islamic sources that had already dominated the Arabian peninsula. There are no writings about Mohammed from non Islamic sources during the time he was alive. All what we know about Muhammed and Islam we know it from Muslims and their biased views. You can not produce any independent writing from any Arabic non Islamic source that says anything about Mohammad when he was alive. You can only show Islamic writings about him that came very long after he died, so it is to be taken at face value. Nothing you have said is true, you are just repeating the Islamic claim.

Lol! Hadiths were passed down right from the prophets time, through oral or written means. There's a whole concept of verification of hadiths, mostly when things are reported through more than one reliable source, it's usually regarded as Sahih or true,

Debatable. Infact the general consensus is that they are not.

They are both Muslims aren't they?

Tell me one major issue in which the schools of jurisprudence argue over.

There is no standard Islamic view that is why there are different schools of thought with regards to Islamic jurisprudence. If there is a standard Islamic interpretation of the Koran there will be no sects, no different Islamic movements and different schools of thoughts, their existence shows that there is no single standard of interpreting the Koran.

Disagreements between most Islamic sects is minor except Shias whose status as muslims is questionable.


How can you disagree with them but accept their movement? Please explain.

Not respected by who? The Wahabbis for example have many followers that accept their movement and school of thought, they are dominant in Saudi Arabia, many disagree with them while many also accept their movement.

Shia vs Sunni conflict.

Again, Shias vs muslims, like I said, they aren't muslims.

When it comes to Palestine, both the Jews and the Palestinians are culpable. There is nothing the Muslims in the world can do to the Jews. The entire Muslim army in the middle east have attacked them and failed. They now have nuclear weapons, even if the whole Arab armies have nuclear weapons they will only self destruct. They will just throw the weapons at each other and annihilate each other. If the Arab world gangs up against them the USA and other European powers will interfere and destroy the whole Muslim nation in the middle east. There is nothing the Islamic world can do to the Jews in reality. They can only fantasize about what is writing inside the hadith but they can never actualize it in reality.

It has been prophecised that the JEWS will become the world power, directly or indirectly, besides, the Middle East has enough arsenal to atleast level Israel before Anything happens. Maybe that's why the Kaaba will eventually be destroyed.

ZoranderGraeme:
Lol! Hadiths were passed down right from the prophets time, through oral or written means. There's a whole concept of verification of hadiths, mostly when things are reported through more than one reliable source, it's usually regarded as Sahih or true,

Hadiths were alleged to have been passed down during the prophets time. The hadiths were written by his companions who already have an agenda(Selling Mohammed as the last messenger of their God) besides all the hadiths were biased , they weren't neutral. You can not show me any 6th century Arab writing from a non Muslim writer or source about any Mohammad. No non Islamic Arab writer any where has anything to say about Mohammed being an illiterate, so that claim remains a Muslim claim that needs not be taken seriously. The sources are not reliable because they are not independent. The hadiths we have were written 200 years after Mohammad.

Debatable. Infact the general consensus is that they are not.

Who among them is not a Muslim? Sunni or Shia? And whose general consensus?

Tell me one major issue in which the schools of jurisprudence argue over.

Judicial views on apostates for example.

Disagreements between most Islamic sects is minor except Shias whose status as muslims is questionable.

Questionable according to who? You or them?

How can you disagree with them but accept their movement? Please explain.

I mean the wahhabis, have Muslims that disagree with them, and also have Muslims that agree with them.

It has been prophecised that the JEWS will become the world power, directly or indirectly, besides, the Middle East has enough arsenal to atleast level Israel before Anything happens. Maybe that's why the Kaaba will eventually be destroyed.

It's a wrong prophecy, the Jews can not become the world power and they have never been the world power at any time in history. The middle east has nothing to fight Israel with. All their fighter Jets and most of their arsenal are bought from the USA. if they try to fight Israel the USA will Immobilize all the fighter Jets. They will become non functional. The Israeli Air force has better and more fighter Jets than all the Arab Air force put together. They tried to obliterate them 3 times in the past and failed. Israel is the only country with atomic bombs in the middle east today. According to some estimates, they have between 600-800 atomic bombs enough to completely destroy and level the entire middle east Arab nations. The Arab nations know that reality supersedes their beliefs and will never try it. They can only act through agents like Hezbollah and the many Palestinian factions that will forever be routed by the Jews. So in reality there is nothing they can do to the Jews, they can only think wishfully.

dalaman:
Hadiths were alleged to have been passed down during the prophets time. The hadiths were written by his companions who already have an agenda(Selling Mohammed as the last messenger of their God) besides all the hadiths were biased , they weren't neutral. You can not show me any 6th century Arab writing from a non Muslim writer or source about any Mohammad. No non Islamic Arab writer any where has anything to say about Mohammed being an illiterate, so that claim remains a Muslim claim that needs not be taken seriously. The sources are not reliable because they are not independent. The hadiths we have were written 200 years after Mohammad.

If they were written during his time, what makes you think he'll allow them to lie about him or why will they need to on their own. These are people that went to battles they knew under circumstances they could never win, people who gave away their wealth for the good of islam, if they felt they needed to lie, shouldn't it tell them the religion is false? Besides, the prophet (SAW)says that whoever innovates or lies about him is not one of us, they have no reason to lie, and how can multiple sources report the same Hadith then? There are liars, but those liars when put under scrutiny always fail. You are just being speculative here, you or any historian have no reason to reject those claims or the Hadith. The Quran mentions Muhammad was illiterate, the Quran was written right from his time, but yet no one opposed that, and no non muslim source can say he is literate, I see no reason to reject these claims.



The general consensus, be it salau or Wahhabi or sunni or any sect, is that Shias aren't complete muslims.

Who among them is not a Muslim? Sunni or Shia? And whose general consensus?

Even though opinions matter, the theories range from it doesn't apply in modern days or that it's only applicable to those who instigate against islam, that's the most acceptable range, the minority who go out of this range are always questioned. There was a reason the punishment for apostasy was what it was back then and there is Sahih hadiths that prove Muhammad let an apostate live under circumstances. And you may not know this, but apostasy or its punishment is not as big a deal as you think to us.

Judicial views on apostates for example.

Muslims around the world.

Questionable according to who? You or them?

followers of the wahabbi movement follow wahabbi scholars. But what about their movement do you think is so far out of the box from what other muslims believe? It's just they are a bit stricter, like how all muslims believe in protecting women, but when Wahhabis try to engorce that they introduce strict laws like forbidding them from driving.

I mean the wahhabis, have Muslims that disagree with them, and also have Muslims that agree with them.

I did tell you directly or indirectly did I? You just confirmed that the Americans are puppets of the Jews. And all those atomic bombs you mentioned won't stop them from annihilation a if all Arab and Persian countries rise up against them? And you think Iran doesn't have atomic weapons? Saudis are planning on making theirs, the only reason they still don't have one is their location is sensitive, they have to be diplomatic, they don't want anything that will lead to sacrilege in holy cities, besides, it won't necessarily be muslims who will deck them, history shows that God has used multiple non muslim countries to do his will, he promised to continue piling history on the Jews and check out their history, from pharaoh to hitler.

It's a wrong prophecy the Jews can not become the world power and they have never become the world power at any time in history. The middle east has nothing to fight Israel with. All their fighter Jets and most of their arsenal are bought from the USA. if they try to fight Israel the USA will Immobilize all the fighter Jets. They will become non functional. The Israeli Air force has better and more fighter Jets than all the Arab Air force put together. They tried to obliterate them 3 times in the past and failed. Israel is the only country with atomic bombs in the middle east today. According to some estimates, they have between 600-800 atomic bombs enough to completely destroy and level the entire middle east Arab nations. The Arab nations know that reality supersedes their beliefs and will never try it. They can only act through agents like Hezbollah and the many Palestinian factions that will forever be routed by the Jews. So in reality there is nothing they can do to the Jews, they can only think wishfully.

ZoranderGraeme:
If they were written during his time, what makes you think he'll allow them to lie about him or why will they need to on their own. These are people that went to battles they knew under circumstances they could never win, people who gave away their wealth for the good of islam, if they felt they needed to lie, shouldn't it tell them the religion is false? Besides, the prophet (SAW)says that whoever innovates or lies about him is not one of us, they have no reason to lie, and how can multiple sources report the same Hadith then? There are liars, but those liars when put under scrutiny always fail. You are just being speculative here, you or any historian have no reason to reject those claims or the Hadith. The Quran mentions Muhammad was illiterate, the Quran was written right from his time, but yet no one opposed that, and no non muslim source can say he is literate, I see no reason to reject these claims.

The people that wrote down the hadiths wrote them very long after Mohammad died, 200 years is enough to invent anything, remember they were trying to exalt Mohammad and make him look good and great, so they had to write down good things about him claiming he was God sent. There are no outside and neutral sources to corroborate anything they wrote down about Mohammad. Everything we know about Mohammad we know through Islamic sources, this can not be trusted because they were bias and were trying to sell Mohammad to the whole world as the last messenger of God. People tell lies for various reasons, it is not uncommon for people to tell lies that are detrimental to them.
So your assertion that the people gave away their wealth and fought battles is nothing new, remember that the early founders of Christianity were persecuted and many were killed for the faith, most of the apostles that founded Christianity lost their lives for the religion, even Paul was written to have been executed for his faith. Stephen was stoned to death for his belief in Jesus, others were executed for their faith according to the writings that were passed down to us, if we are to go by your analysis then Christianity must be true since most of its founding fathers not only lost their wealth but also lost their lives. Even some of the followers of Joseph Smith the founder of the Mormon religion were killed for their faiths, about 200 years ago. That is nothing new. It is not uncommon.

Nothing written by the people that wrote the hadith is to be believed because there are no outside sources to corroborate anything they wrote down. We all know they were trying to sell a man to the outside world. So nothing they write is to be taken seriously without outside corroboration. If you can provide non Islamic Arabic sources from the 6th to 8th that say that Mohammad was an illiterate then you'll have a case, but since you can't then nothing you say is to be taken seriously by objective observers.

The general consensus, be it salau or Wahhabi or sunni or any sect, is that Shias aren't complete muslims.

But the Shias do not agree that they are not complete Muslims. As long as they are concerned it is the other sects that are misguided.

Even though opinions matter, the theories range from it doesn't apply in modern days or that it's only applicable to those who instigate against islam, that's the most acceptable range, the minority who go out of this range are always questioned. There was a reason the punishment for apostasy was what it was back then and there is Sahih hadiths that prove Muhammad let an apostate live under circumstances. And you may not know this, but apostasy or its punishment is not as big a deal as you think to us.

This is what am getting at. Apostasy is a big issue in the Islamic world and there are different opinions with regards to that. I just gave you an example just to show you that opinions vary and there isn't a universal consensus on some issues when it comes to interpreting the Koran.

followers of the wahabbi movement follow wahabbi scholars. But what about their movement do you think is so far out of the box from what other muslims believe? It's just they are a bit stricter, like how all muslims believe in protecting women, but when Wahhabis try to engorce that they introduce strict laws like forbidding them from driving.

Yeah, but it still supports my point that there isn't a universally acceptable way the Koran needs to be interpreted that is why we have the Wahabbis movement, the Salafi movement and Ahl al-Hadith movement. They all differ in their view and interpretations. Some are more moderate than others. it isn't universal.

I did tell you directly or indirectly did I? You just confirmed that the Americans are puppets of the Jews. And all those atomic bombs you mentioned won't stop them from annihilation a if all Arab and Persian countries rise up against them? And you think Iran doesn't have atomic weapons? Saudis are planning on making theirs, the only reason they still don't have one is their location is sensitive, they have to be diplomatic, they don't want anything that will lead to sacrilege in holy cities, besides, it won't necessarily be muslims who will deck them, history shows that God has used multiple non muslim countries to do his will, he promised to continue piling history on the Jews and check out

All the Arab countries stood up against them but failed 3 times, they have tired it before when Israel was not half as strong and advanced as they are today but failed. Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapon, to have a nuclear weapon you will need to test it and there is no way they can test it without people knowing. Iran has no nuclear weapon, the Saudis lack the technology to create any nuclear weapon on their own. they will need the help of the western nations, a help they will never get. As long as reality is concerned there is nothing the Arab Muslims can do to the Jews, even if they have atomic bombs and use it to attack them they will also be completely destroyed because Israel has enough atomic bombs to level the entire Arab nations in the middle east, so all of them will lose out. Which actually doesn't make any sense. Muslims can only wish, but they can't do anything to the Jews in reality.

dalaman:
The people that wrote down the hadiths wrote them very long after Mohammad died, 200 years is enough to invent anything, remember they were trying to exalt Mohammad and make him look good and great, so they had to write down good things about him claiming he was God sent. There are no outside and neutral sources to corroborate anything they wrote down about Mohammad. Everything we know about Mohammad we know through Islamic sources, this can not be trusted because they were bias and were trying to sell Mohammad to the whole world as the last messenger of God. People tell lies for various reasons, it is not uncommon for people to tell lies that are detrimental to them.
So your assertion that the people gave away their wealth and fought battles is nothing new, remember that the early founders of Christianity were persecuted and many were killed for the faith, most of the apostles that founded Christianity lost their lives for the religion, even Paul was written to have been executed for his faith. Stephen was stoned to death for his belief in Jesus, others were executed for their faith according to the writings that were passed down to us, if we are to go by your analysis then Christianity must be true since most of its founding fathers not only lost their wealth but also lost their lives. Even some of the followers of Joseph Smith the founder of the Mormon religion were killed for their faiths, about 200 years ago. That is nothing new. It is not uncommon.

You contradict yourself. Hadiths were written down right from the prophets time, and why will they need to exalt him when what he was was enough for them? Again i told you how inventions and lies against islam are both condemned strongly in both the Quran and Hadith, and these were true believers. Why can't hadiths be trusted? When a dozen of reliable sources narrate or confirm most hadiths? I merely pointed out them giving away their wealth and body to tell you how much they truly believed in islam, inventing anything other than what Muhammad taught to these people is worse than blasphemy, and early companions of the prophet were persecuted and killed as well, this is what led to migration. You really need to rethink your theory.

Nothing written by the people that wrote the hadith is to be believed because there are no outside sources to corroborate anything they wrote down. We all know they were trying to sell a man to the outside world. So nothing they write is to be taken seriously without outside corroboration. If you can provide non Islamic Arabic sources from the 6th to 8th that say that Mohammad was an illiterate then you'll have a case, but since you can't then nothing you say is to be taken seriously by objective observers.

No! Why will they need to add anything extra? When what he was was enough for them and countless others? I reiterate! Again these hadiths can be verified from multiple reliable sources, how can two sources who may sometimes not even know each other confirm the same story and narrate it the same way?





Ask any muslims from any other sect which will make up atleast 85-90 percent of muslim, the general consensus is they are not, if that's what the overwhelming majority opinion is then that's what the Islamic world accept,

But the Shias do not agree that they are not complete Muslims. As long as they are concerned it is the other sects that are misguided.

Ahh, it's not. Like I told you, the majority opinion is within a acceptable circle that doesn't contradict most interpretations, anything outside the circle of acceptability is sanctioned.

This is what am getting at. Apostasy is a big issue in the Islamic world and there are different opinions with regards to that. I just gave you an example just to show you that opinions vary and there isn't a universal consensus on some issues when it comes to interpreting the Koran.

No! They believe in the same laws, they just differ on how they should be enforced, like I said, both salafis and Wahhabis will tell you they protect their women but the Wahhabis believe for this to be possible there must be greater measures, if you look closely, the different isn't much and there's once again a circle of acceptability in everything, that's why a sheikh or mufti can tell you both ways these people interpret certain issues and tell you they are both acceptable.

Yeah, but it still supports my point that there isn't a universally acceptable way the Koran needs to be interpreted that is why we have the Wahabbis movement, the Salafi movement and Ahl al-Hadith movement. They all differ in their view and interpretations. Some are more moderate than others. it isn't universal.

All the Arab countries stood up against them but failed 3 times, they have tired it before when Israel was not half as strong and advanced as they are today but failed. Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapon, to have a nuclear weapon you will need to test it and there is no way they can test it without people knowing. Iran has no nuclear weapon, the Saudis lack the technology to create any nuclear weapon on their own. they will need the help of the western nations, a help they will never get. As long as reality is concerned there is nothing the Arab Muslims can do to the Jews, even if they have atomic bombs and use it to attack them they will also be completely destroyed because Israel has enough atomic bombs to level the entire Arab nations in the middle east, so all of them will lose out. Which actually doesn't make any sense. Muslims can only wish, but they can't do anything to the Jews in reality.

3 times? Please recount these events. Yes Iran doesn't, but if they did, I don't think testing is an issue. In Saudis case, everyone knows it's not technology that's holding them back, like I to,d you, the Saudis are in a sensitive place. And Israel can't take out the Middle East without taking themselves out first, that's if you're naive enough to believe they have that sort of fire power. Again, the muslims don't need to touch the Jews, there's always going to be people like hitler.