Vanderbilt Muslim chaplain advocated capital punishment for gay people.

[Smoke]

This is the miracle of the qur'an. This is the miracle of Muhammad. Because Muhammad did in fact use the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. So to those who claim that this was the act of a man made religion, then why don't you do the same?

A religion that glories in violence, and considers effective violence the proof of truth, and yet can't figure out why other people dislike it.

 

[.lava]

A religion that glories in violence, and considers effective violence the proof of truth, and yet can't figure out why other people dislike it.

Islam does not glory violence, neighter would Christianity or Judaism. source of corruption has always been limited understanding of men and his personal choice following his own understanding that has roots only in his ego over religion of God


.

 

[Smoke]

Islam does not glory violence

I'm glad to know that your version of Islam isn't as morally bankrupt as Fatihah's version.

 

[.lava]

I'm glad to know that your version of Islam isn't as morally bankrupt as Fatihah's version.

so you think Fatihah would disagree with me?


.

 

[Smoke]

so you think Fatihah would disagree with me?

Fatihah is the one touting conquest as the great miracle of his religion, the proof of his religion, and the test for whether any religion is true.

 

[.lava]

Fatihah is the one touting conquest as the great miracle of his religion, the proof of his religion, and the test for whether any religion is true.

i think that's because he has faith, he is a Muslim. not sure if i call it miracle but in case you could see through his eyes, you would have tried to express similar emotion with different words. this is sort of personal i guess and i would not want to make it personal


.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Response: At no time have I said or provided evidence saying that the qur'an is free of discrepancy because it says so. Thus the only thing you have in common with Autodidact so far is adding to the post words which are not there, then disputing them. By doing so, your refuting another argument, not mine. The proof that the qur'an is free from discrepancy is due to the simple fact that neither you, nor anyone, can find a discrepancy in it. Not because it says so.

Okay Fatihah, thanks for clarifying. So this brings us back to the issue of whether or not the Qur'an contains errors, and as you know, this is a controversial issue. There are examples of potential errors, discussed in other threads, but people disagree about whether or not they are truly errors.

As for reading chapters which are far more technical than the qur'an, I say good for you. However, the challenge of the qur'an still stands, which is to produce a chapter like the qur'an. If the qur'an is the work of man and is humanly possible to create, then prove it to us. Produce a chapter like the qur'an, if you are truthful. And when you do so and fail, that alone will be the indisputable proof that the qur'an is from Allah(swt).

What do you mean by a chapter "like" the Qur'an? The only thing EXACTLY like any book is the book itself, of course. The issue of what is "like" the Qur'an relies crucially on a person's subjective judgment of similarity. I doubt I can provide anything that will satisfy your personal judgment of what qualifies. But in my personal judgment, there are many texts like the Qur'an and many texts which are far superior by every conceivable measure.

Respectfully, I think this challenge to produce something like a chapter in the Qur'an could only be posed by someone who has read very little besides the Qur'an. :sorry1:

Here are some writings that are like the Qur'an in my judgment. This is a remnant of Zoroastrian scripture which predates the Qur'an by over a thousand years (Much of Zoroastrianism and its scripture was destroyed, as you surely know, by Muslims and Christians):

1. Ahura Mazda spake unto Spitama1 Zarathushtra, saying:
I have made every land dear (to its people), even though it had no charms whatever in it2: had I not made every land dear (to its people), even though it had no charms whatever in it, then the whole living world would have invaded the Airyana Vaeja3.

2.4 The first of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the Airyana Vaeja5, by the Vanguhi Daitya6.
Thereupon came Angra Mainyu, who is all death, and he counter-created the serpent in the river7 and Winter, a work of the Daevas8.

3. There are ten winter months there, two summer months9; and those are cold for the waters10, cold for the earth, cold for the trees11. Winter falls there, the worst of all plagues. [Hum 35: "Ten are there the winter months, two the summer months, and even then [in summer] the waters are freezing, the earth is freezing, the plants are freezing; there is the center of winter, there is the heart of winter, there winter rushes around, there (occur) most damages caused by storm."]

4. The second of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the plain12 which the Sughdhas inhabit13.
Thereupon came Angra Mainyu, who is all death, and he counter-created the locust14, which brings death unto cattle and plants.

Here is part of the Analects which contains the teachings of Confucius, again it predates the hadiths by many hundreds of years:

XV.23: Tzu-kung asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

XIV.36: Someone said, "What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?" The Master said, "With what then will you recompense kindness? Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness."

VII.15: The Master said, "With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and my bended arm for a pillow; I still have joy in the midst of these things. Riches and honors acquired by inhumanity are to me as a floating cloud."

Part of the Laws of Manu, ancient Hindu scripture (again it happens to predate Muhammad by hundreds of years):

7. Whatever law has been ordained for any (person) by Manu, that has been fully declared in the Veda: for that (sage was) omniscient.
8. But a learned man after fully scrutinising all this with the eye of knowledge, should, in accordance with the authority of the revealed texts, be intent on (the performance of) his duties.
9. For that man who obeys the law prescribed in the revealed texts and in the sacred tradition, gains fame in this (world) and after death unsurpassable bliss.
10. But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law shone forth.
11. Every twice-born man, who, relying on the Institutes of dialectics, treats with contempt those two sources (of the law), must be cast out by the virtuous, as an atheist and a scorner of the Veda.

And by producing a chapter like the qur'an, it doesn't mean to write a book or poetry in arabic. For the qur'an is not just a book of arabic. The challenge is to produce the same miracle as Muhammad(saw). And what is that miracle?

That miracle is, that it is absolutely impossible for a person/s to create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation.

Oh. Nope, not impossible. Lots of people and groups conquered with or without the help of religion. Christianity conquered the Roman empire and then Europe and then the Americas. That includes the huge Aztec and Inca empires, which themselves were spread by fanatical devotion to their religions. The Egyptians, the Sassanids, Greeks and Romans conquered and spread their religion.

Ironically, this was the same argument I learned at my Catholic high school, Christianity must be true because it so inspired the early Christians to carry on and spread the Gospel, against persecution, and conquer the Roman empire, the most powerful empire in the world, and eventually spread to most of the world.

This is the miracle of the qur'an. This is the miracle of Muhammad. Because Muhammad did in fact use the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. So to those who claim that this was the act of a man made religion, then why don't you do the same? Why don't you create your own religion and see how far you get? And when you do, you will fail. Not only will you will fail, you will fail miserably. Muhammad conquered Arabia. I guarantee you, you won't even be able to conquer your own neighborhood. And once you fail, you will be forced to ask yourself the question "why was it possible for Muhammad but impossible for me and anyone else?" That is when you will come to realize that it was the help of Allah that made it possible for Muhammad. Without Allah, even Muhammad would have failed. You disagree, the 1400+ year challenge still stands.

(1) Actually the tremendous number of upstart leaders and religions, arguably, is evidence that the spectacular conquests were not miracles. If lots and lots of people start religions or conquests throughout history, then occasionally one or two will succeed spectacularly. No miracles required. (2) Alexander and Genghis Khan inspired more followers and conquered more of the world than Muhammad. A fanatical cult sprung up around Alexander and possibly it would have become a religion if it had been codified in writing. If Alexander or Khan had chosen to write books, I don't see how this would have prevented their conquests. (3) Joseph Smith provides a striking case of an upstart religion in the U.S. in the 1800s, and today his religion (Mormonism) I believe is the fastest growing religion in the world.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Really?

Yes. For example I remember in one thread someone mentioned:
51:49 And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.
...and this was considered profound evidence of the accuracy of the Qur'an. All things in pairs, male and female. But it isn't true, although it's easy to see why ancient people thought it was true.

You are confused about the nature of the Qur'an.

What am I confused about?

 

[Sahar]

Yes. For example I remember in one thread someone mentioned:
51:49 And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.
...and this was considered profound evidence of the accuracy of the Qur'an. All things in pairs, male and female. But it isn't true, although it's easy to see why ancient people thought it was true.

Actually, I replied to a similar point about this verse before:

The verse is speaking about the creation of two kinds, like tall and short, light and darkness, summer and winter, parent and daughter ...etc. And at the same time Allah is unique with no equivalent and with no opposite, He is able to create what He wants.

The verse doesn't need much debate.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually, I replied to a similar point about this verse before:

But it doesn't say "two kinds, like tall and short ... " It says all things.

If it said "And all things we have created in fours" you would say, oh, actually it means father/mother/daughter/son, and fall/winter/spring/summer, and 2 legs and 2 arms ... it could say anything and you could choose to interpret it in a way that makes sense. Listen to Christians or Mormons talking about their scriptures, they play the same game.

 

[Sahar]

... it could say anything and you could choose to interpret it in a way that makes sense.

Why assuming that it doesn't make sense in the first place?
Plus, if it's understood in a way that makes sense, is there anything wrong with this?

If it said "And all things we have created in fours" you would say, oh, actually it means father/mother/daughter/son, and fall/winter/spring/summer, and 2 legs and 2 arms

This is a silly argument.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn says:
{ وَمِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَا زَوْجَيْنِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ }

And of all things (wa-min kulli shay’in is semantically connected to His [following] words khalaqn&#257 We created pairs, two kinds, such as male and female, heaven and earth, sun and moon, plain and mountain, summer and winter, sweet and bitter, light and darkness, that perhaps you might remember (tadhakkarūna: one of the two original tā’ letters [of tatadhakkarūna] has been omitted), and hence realise that the Creator of pairs is [Himself] Singular, that you might then worship him.

 

[YmirGF]

This is a silly argument.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn says:
{ وَمِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَا زَوْجَيْنِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ }

And of all things (wa-min kulli shay’in is semantically connected to His [following] words khalaqn&#257 We created pairs, two kinds, such as male and female, heaven and earth, sun and moon, plain and mountain, summer and winter, sweet and bitter, light and darkness, that perhaps you might remember (tadhakkarūna: one of the two original tā’ letters [of tatadhakkarūna] has been omitted), and hence realise that the Creator of pairs is [Himself] Singular, that you might then worship him.

I agree, the above is a silly argument, though I can understand how some might think it has merit.

For example, sun and moon are not pairs, rather, it would be day and night that are complimentary, so that part is a mistaken assumption. Likewise a plain is not the best suited pair of a mountain, rather, a valley would be far more apt. Then, of course, there is the hermaphrodite that is a combination of male and female, which blows the whole concept of alleged pairs to smithereens.

 

[Kerr]

I agree, the above is a silly argument, though I can understand how some might think it has merit.

For example, sun and moon are not pairs, rather, it would be day and night that are complimentary, so that part is a mistaken assumption. Likewise a plain is not the best suited pair of a mountain, rather, a valley would be it far more apt. Then, of course, there is the hermaphrodite that is a combination of male and female, which blows the whole concept of alleged pairs to smithereens.

Don´t forget organisms that reproduce asexually.

 

[YmirGF]

Don´t forget organisms that reproduce asexually.

I didn't want to rub too much salt into the wounds... I was being merciful.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Why assuming that it doesn't make sense in the first place?
Plus, if it's understood in a way that makes sense, is there anything wrong with this?
This is a silly argument.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just reading the words as they are written. Not all things come in pairs. There's nothing profound or miraculous that ancient Arabs observed summer and winter and considered them a pair. Some of the pairs, like the Sun and the Moon, were not created together, and they are not a pair of anything unless we have an inaccurate, 7th century view of the universe. It would be more accurate to say the Earth and the Moon are a pair, since they were formed at the same time, together, and they both orbit the Sun together. Plains and mountains is not a very good pair -- that leaves out valleys. I wonder, what are caves paired with? What is a year paired with? This is the book that is supposed to be so perfect (according to Fatihah) that its perfection is obvious proof no human could possibly have written it.

There's nothing wrong with interpreting it to make sense, but in order to do so you have to allow a certain amount of wiggle room in the interpretation. Given this wiggle room, you could interpret ANY ancient scripture to make sense. But Fatihah clearly does not think any ancient scripture makes perfect sense. I suspect this is because (1) he has not read many other scriptures, and (2) he does not allow the same wiggle room when reading other scriptures.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn says:
{ وَمِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَا زَوْجَيْنِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ }

And of all things (wa-min kulli shay’in is semantically connected to His [following] words khalaqn&#257 We created pairs, two kinds, such as male and female, heaven and earth, sun and moon, plain and mountain, summer and winter, sweet and bitter, light and darkness, that perhaps you might remember (tadhakkarūna: one of the two original tā’ letters [of tatadhakkarūna] has been omitted), and hence realise that the Creator of pairs is [Himself] Singular, that you might then worship him.

The existence of pairs of things is supposed to indicate a Singular creator? Why doesn't it indicate a dual creator? Wouldn't singular things indicate a Singular creator? As usual, the scripture could say lots of things, as long as the statements are not too specific believers can always make the pieces fit.

 

[Sahar]

Mr Spinkles, you are focusing on trivial things that if I responded to, it would take us completely away from the main idea.
I am not that person who goes into sophistical arguments like this.

For example,
A good part of your post talked about the examples of the sun and the moon and the mountain and the plain. You also used this to prove imperfection of the Qur'an.
Yet, you forgot something that these were mere examples among others given by the Mufassir (exegete) as a way of elaboration.
Another thing, it's like you set criteria for the definition of the two kinds or pair; like being created at the same time, sorry? :sarcastic

In addition, we are not in a words competition here. The idea is you recognize things relatively to others. I mean you recognize the tall person relatively to the shorter and happiness relatively to pain or sadness (oh, is pain accurate here? ) and so on. This is how I understand it.

What I would really like to discuss is the last sentence of your post but later, isA, wallahu al musta'an.

 

[Kerr]

I didn't want to rub too much salt into the wounds... I was being merciful.

Lol, that is one way to look at it .

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr Spinkles, you are focusing on trivial things that if I responded to, it would take us completely away from the main idea.
I am not that person who goes into sophistical arguments like this.

For example,
A good part of your post talked about the examples of the sun and the moon and the mountain and the plain. You also used this to prove imperfection of the Qur'an.
Yet, you forgot something that these were mere examples among others given by the Mufassir (exegete) as a way of elaboration.
Another thing, it's like you set criteria for the definition of the two kinds or pair; like being created at the same time, sorry? :sarcastic

In addition, we are not in a words competition here. The idea is you recognize things relatively to others. I mean you recognize the tall person relatively to the shorter and happiness relatively to pain or sadness (oh, is pain accurate here? ) and so on. This is how I understand it.

What I would really like to discuss is the last sentence of your post but later, isA, wallahu al musta'an.

For the sake of argument I'll accept your interpretation. The passage is just conveying the idea that we often recognize things relatively to others, like tall and short. (And here you are accusing ME of focusing on trivial things! The nerve of you! Why is the Qur'an focusing on trivial things?)

In your opinion, is this a profound idea? Could a human have written it?

 

[Fatihah]

A religion that glories in violence, and considers effective violence the proof of truth, and yet can't figure out why other people dislike it.

Response: Yes. Such a religion should be criticized for violence and be disliked. Fortunately, this is not the case in islam. Conquest can take place in several ways. Let's say for example, a person used to fear dogs as a child. Today, they have conquered that fear. Does that mean that the person goes around beating up dogs? Again, conquest can take place in many ways. Yet, only Muhammad's conquest was miraculous. And there is nothing in islam that teaches glory in violence, thus your whole point is without merit.

 

[Fatihah]

Oh. Nope, not impossible. Lots of people and groups conquered with or without the help of religion. Christianity conquered the Roman empire and then Europe and then the Americas. That includes the huge Aztec and Inca empires, which themselves were spread by fanatical devotion to their religions. The Egyptians, the Sassanids, Greeks and Romans conquered and spread their religion.

Ironically, this was the same argument I learned at my Catholic high school, Christianity must be true because it so inspired the early Christians to carry on and spread the Gospel, against persecution, and conquer the Roman empire, the most powerful empire in the world, and eventually spread to most of the world.

(1) Actually the tremendous number of upstart leaders and religions, arguably, is evidence that the spectacular conquests were not miracles. If lots and lots of people start religions or conquests throughout history, then occasionally one or two will succeed spectacularly. No miracles required. (2) Alexander and Genghis Khan inspired more followers and conquered more of the world than Muhammad. A fanatical cult sprung up around Alexander and possibly it would have become a religion if it had been codified in writing. If Alexander or Khan had chosen to write books, I don't see how this would have prevented their conquests. (3) Joseph Smith provides a striking case of an upstart religion in the U.S. in the 1800s, and today his religion (Mormonism) I believe is the fastest growing religion in the world.

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof? Saying so is not proof that it is so. It always seems to amaze me when someone put forth this type of rebuttle. You see, if I were to say that Muhammad(saw) is a prophet, you would naturally ask for proof. Now if I showed you hundreds of hadiths and showed you the qur'an which says that he is, you would obviously not accept it. Why? Because just because some literature says so, it doesn't mean that it is so.

Now what do you do? You say that you are right by saying that the Christians and Alexander the Great, etc., have achieved the alleged miracle of Muhammad. But how do you know? Because it says so? Because a book told you so? You're practicing a double standard without realizing it.

However, let's look at your alleged proof. But first, we have to be clear. I never stated that a religion can not conquer another religion. I never stated that a person can not inspire people to conquer others. So from the start, your evidence is irrelevant, because your basing it off of things which were never stated. The miracle is:

It is impossible for a person/s to create their own religion, and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation.

These are my exact words. Please don't add or delete from it. Keep it, word for word, and in it's context.

So in the case of christianity, you would first have to prove to us who created christianity. Then prove to us that these creators of christianity used the religion and inspired enough followers to conquers a nation. I'm prepared to throw away my kufi and denounce islam this minute if you do so. But you will see that there is no proof of such happenings. Again, the catch is that the one who creates the religion must use the religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. Christianity conquered many nations. I agree. There is nothing impossible about that. But the conquest by christianity was not done so by the creaters of the religion. So there is no miracle. The miracle is for the creator of the religion to be the conquer, by using their religion to inspire followers to conquer a nation. The same is the case for Alexander the Great, and any other person you can think of. Neither Alexander, nor anyone else, has created their own religion, then used their own religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. They did conquer nations. I agree. But not in the manner as I've explained. Thus your evidence is not proof at all and the challenge still stands as proof that the qur'an is in fact the word of Allah(swt).