Mustansir,
I agree with you. I should have been little careful in choosing my words while pasting the link. My post does mislead and I acknowledge that.
Now talking about Islam in general, there are few things about Islam that proves its authenticity. First of all prophet (pbuh) was illiterate. Hence, it was not possible for him to write a book like Quran on his own. This means that it was revealed to him by someone. This someone can definitely not be a human being. Because if it was a human being he would have definitely taken the credit for this book instead of giving it to another illeterate man. The existence of Quran in its authentic form itself is an big acheivement of Islam and proves its authenticity that no one can deny. Also, if you have read Quran you will realize that all the previous prophets like Christ, Moses and others have been mentioned. Jews and Christians have been acknowledged. This acts as a common link between Islam and other religions. In fact Muslims do keep names like Mussa i.e. Moses. The jews follow the concept of a single universal god. Islam has inherited this concept from Judaism alongwith other beliefs. E.g. Jews do not eat pork for relegious purpose and so do muslims. Thus as a relegion Islam does acknowledge other relegions along with providing its own unique concept of Allah.
As far as your comparison of Syedna with prophet is concerned, I would again say that you are making an apple to orange comparison. Prophet(pbuh) is founder of Islam. Syedna is a follower of Islam. Syedna has brought about many innovations in original Islam. A follower is suppose to follow a relegion. He is not suppose to change it as per his own whims and fancies. If Syedna comes up with his own relegion and calls is Bohraism that has nothing to do with Islam, than your argument will be valid. Unless he does so he has to follow Islam the way Quran expects muslims to follow it.
As far as the reformists are concerned, I think their fight is against the corruption and unaccountability in our community. They are keen on social reforms and want to install a democratic machinary in our community.
OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
With every post made by anajmi, it becomes more and more evident how massive is his level of ignorance and to be honest...his severely limited cognitive capacity to comprehend basic sentences. Evidently, the guy has not even read the one and only book he claims to have read...I guess he doesn't know the difference between reading and reciting. Just as I guessed, the guy was again trying to change the topic instead of trying to answer any raised questions... and it is obvious at this point why he is doing that... because he has nothing of his own to offer. The guy copies lines from wikipedia and puts them here without even reading any of it. Even to what Fatwa pointed out, likes of anajmi directly jump to the standard defense that - "these verses have been taken out of context". Then what is the real context? Has anyone, who claims the above ever bothered to go back to the book and find the relevant context? No. Most likely, you just ignore the numerous uncomfortable verses and continue to tout the 1400 yr old book as the best book ever written...even before reading the whole thing (not reciting) once! My conversation is to the people who have at least read & know their own religion first if not others...but the likes of anajmi don't even make it that far...
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
mustansir,
It is obvious from your post that you are more obsessed with anajmi then with figuring out religion. It is flattering that I can do that to a person. But, I would suggest that you save your time. Go read cosmos or something.
It is obvious from your post that you are more obsessed with anajmi then with figuring out religion. It is flattering that I can do that to a person. But, I would suggest that you save your time. Go read cosmos or something.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
fart,
Those two ayahs apply to people like you. Can someone remind the fart about what Bush said while talking about Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Instill terror into their hearts? Find them wherever they are and kill them? The fart was very happy with that wasn't he? The quran considers people like you Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
And if I were to have a wife like fart, I would beat the shit out of her and would still be in line with the quran.
Those two ayahs apply to people like you. Can someone remind the fart about what Bush said while talking about Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Instill terror into their hearts? Find them wherever they are and kill them? The fart was very happy with that wasn't he? The quran considers people like you Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
And if I were to have a wife like fart, I would beat the shit out of her and would still be in line with the quran.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Mustansir,
You might get information about the ayahs that Fart posted from my above post.
You might get information about the ayahs that Fart posted from my above post.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01 ... ation.html
ho ho ho ho ha ha ha ha. Looks like Al-Qaeda has already won. No more kissing at American airports.
ho ho ho ho ha ha ha ha. Looks like Al-Qaeda has already won. No more kissing at American airports.
-
Fatwa Banker
- Posts: 697
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:01 am
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Al-Qaeda won you guys over by killing innocent civilians (mostly Muslims) and if regulating kissing is just as much a victory for you, then the world is a better place for it.
Taking of innocent lives is no laughing matter.
Taking of innocent lives is no laughing matter.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Oh you poor thing. Now you are suddenly worried about Al-Aqeda killing innocent muslims. Awww how sad. Of course, let us not forget that it was Al-Qaeda that attacked and destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan and it was Al-Qaeda that has made Palestine a living hell. And now they are targeting kissing at American Airports. Damn them!!!
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Aarif,
Thank you for bringing the thread back to a sane and productive level. You have directly & genuinely tried to answer some of the main questions raised and I sincerely appreciate that. To begin with..I know that Quran does mention most if not all the important figures from Judaism and Christianity...and is sort of an extension of the original storyline of the Bible and treated as the final revelation by Muslims. However, of course there are fundamental differences with some parts...a popular one would be that according to the Quran, Jesus was not actually crucified but taken up alive into heaven. All these ancient scriptures thus cannot be work of the same god.
When it comes to the authenticity of the Quran, I agree that according to historical writings including the hadiths, prophet Muhammad was illiterate. And producing the Quranic verses might seem at first the work of some supernatural being as a consequence. But it is also possible that someone else was asked to write for him who wasn't illiterate..like 'ghostwriting'. For all who do not know what that is, it is a very common thing happening even today in the publishing world where a professional is paid to write a piece of work, which is officially credited to someone else. Celebrities are notoriously known to do this, as many times, they either lack the time, talent or both to do the work themselves. Now on what basis I am saying this? Do I have any sort of evidence for this claim? No, nothing at all. It is not even a claim but pure speculation on my part because of my personal bias. I accept that. But take a moment and consider this - how many confirmed cases we now know of ghostwriting? And how many cases we know of a celestial being writing a book? Which one is more likely to happen based on the things we already know for sure? Whenever there is a mystery or something unexplained, shouldn't we first try to exhaust all the possible natural explanations before jumping to a supernatural one?
On it owns, this argument is not convincing enough to challenge the authenticity of the Quran. But when you consider other factors, such as - numerous factual inaccuracies, strong patriarchal view common in that period, inequality of women, asking for killing of apostates or nonbelievers, injustices done in the name of war spoilage, numerous paradoxical or contradictory verses and the constant fear-mongering for those who don't accept it as the final word of god.... - what can you make of it? Do all these ideas seem to come from a single supreme loving being or inferior tribalistic human being? At least to me, it is more likely that the Quran was written by mortal men who were primarily interested in expanding their power, wealth and property & use religion as a tool to control the mass... so much so, that initially it was forcefully done at the edge of a sword... nothing holy about that.
As for the comparison between Syedna and prophet Muhammad, my point was not to compare them but compare their followers. I do think that Bohraism under Syedna has become a separate religion and cannot in any sense be taken as a component of true Islam. People in the mosque have most likely forgotten the word Allah by now as they now directly pray to Syedna & follow whatever rules he makes, even if they are in complete contradiction with was is written in the Quran. Challenge any "Abde Syedna" and they will assert that Moula is infallible as he is the dai and the messenger of god. So this is where I make the comparison... how can one say that when Syedna claims to be in direct communication with Allah, his followers are taken as gullible sheep, ready to be manipulated at his whim. But when Mohammad claims the same thing, it is believed unconditionally?
If anyone is familiar with the religion of the Mormons (which comes under Christianity), one would know that the founder Joseph Smith started the religion in 1830's in United States, and claimed to have two golden plates from celestial sources and that he was the chosen one to spread, yet again, the 'final word' of god. Even though it is a documented fact that Joseph Smith was a con man before he started the religion, good number of people still followed him then as the latest prophet and now it is a flourishing religion. He used the idea of god in many ways, including as a tool to convince many women into marrying him and also passing on their wealth to him. If any Muslim reads about this guy, it will be in matter of minutes before they would see the scam it is using their critical thinking & skepticism. If a person like Joseph Smith could start a successful religion, pretty much on nothing in the early 1830's... imagine the credulity & gullibility of people at the time 1400 yrs ago... world was bogged down with superstitions, diseases, poverty, famine and the likes. How easy would it be in that time to get away with claims similar to the ones made by Joseph Smith?
All I am saying here is that people should use the same level of skepticism & critical thinking for one's own beliefs & religion, as they usually do in rejecting others...
Thank you for bringing the thread back to a sane and productive level. You have directly & genuinely tried to answer some of the main questions raised and I sincerely appreciate that. To begin with..I know that Quran does mention most if not all the important figures from Judaism and Christianity...and is sort of an extension of the original storyline of the Bible and treated as the final revelation by Muslims. However, of course there are fundamental differences with some parts...a popular one would be that according to the Quran, Jesus was not actually crucified but taken up alive into heaven. All these ancient scriptures thus cannot be work of the same god.
When it comes to the authenticity of the Quran, I agree that according to historical writings including the hadiths, prophet Muhammad was illiterate. And producing the Quranic verses might seem at first the work of some supernatural being as a consequence. But it is also possible that someone else was asked to write for him who wasn't illiterate..like 'ghostwriting'. For all who do not know what that is, it is a very common thing happening even today in the publishing world where a professional is paid to write a piece of work, which is officially credited to someone else. Celebrities are notoriously known to do this, as many times, they either lack the time, talent or both to do the work themselves. Now on what basis I am saying this? Do I have any sort of evidence for this claim? No, nothing at all. It is not even a claim but pure speculation on my part because of my personal bias. I accept that. But take a moment and consider this - how many confirmed cases we now know of ghostwriting? And how many cases we know of a celestial being writing a book? Which one is more likely to happen based on the things we already know for sure? Whenever there is a mystery or something unexplained, shouldn't we first try to exhaust all the possible natural explanations before jumping to a supernatural one?
On it owns, this argument is not convincing enough to challenge the authenticity of the Quran. But when you consider other factors, such as - numerous factual inaccuracies, strong patriarchal view common in that period, inequality of women, asking for killing of apostates or nonbelievers, injustices done in the name of war spoilage, numerous paradoxical or contradictory verses and the constant fear-mongering for those who don't accept it as the final word of god.... - what can you make of it? Do all these ideas seem to come from a single supreme loving being or inferior tribalistic human being? At least to me, it is more likely that the Quran was written by mortal men who were primarily interested in expanding their power, wealth and property & use religion as a tool to control the mass... so much so, that initially it was forcefully done at the edge of a sword... nothing holy about that.
As for the comparison between Syedna and prophet Muhammad, my point was not to compare them but compare their followers. I do think that Bohraism under Syedna has become a separate religion and cannot in any sense be taken as a component of true Islam. People in the mosque have most likely forgotten the word Allah by now as they now directly pray to Syedna & follow whatever rules he makes, even if they are in complete contradiction with was is written in the Quran. Challenge any "Abde Syedna" and they will assert that Moula is infallible as he is the dai and the messenger of god. So this is where I make the comparison... how can one say that when Syedna claims to be in direct communication with Allah, his followers are taken as gullible sheep, ready to be manipulated at his whim. But when Mohammad claims the same thing, it is believed unconditionally?
If anyone is familiar with the religion of the Mormons (which comes under Christianity), one would know that the founder Joseph Smith started the religion in 1830's in United States, and claimed to have two golden plates from celestial sources and that he was the chosen one to spread, yet again, the 'final word' of god. Even though it is a documented fact that Joseph Smith was a con man before he started the religion, good number of people still followed him then as the latest prophet and now it is a flourishing religion. He used the idea of god in many ways, including as a tool to convince many women into marrying him and also passing on their wealth to him. If any Muslim reads about this guy, it will be in matter of minutes before they would see the scam it is using their critical thinking & skepticism. If a person like Joseph Smith could start a successful religion, pretty much on nothing in the early 1830's... imagine the credulity & gullibility of people at the time 1400 yrs ago... world was bogged down with superstitions, diseases, poverty, famine and the likes. How easy would it be in that time to get away with claims similar to the ones made by Joseph Smith?
All I am saying here is that people should use the same level of skepticism & critical thinking for one's own beliefs & religion, as they usually do in rejecting others...
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
"I know that Quran does mention most if not all the important figures from Judaism and Christianity...and is sort of an extension of the original storyline of the Bible and treated as the final revelation by Muslims."
Mustansir,
Quran cannot be said as an extension of storyline of bible, since bible now has many different versions and texts since its originally written whereas Quran hasnt been changed at all , its still intact and original since revealed.
Hence your statement " All these ancient scriptures thus cannot be work of the same god" isnt true.
Mustansir,
Quran cannot be said as an extension of storyline of bible, since bible now has many different versions and texts since its originally written whereas Quran hasnt been changed at all , its still intact and original since revealed.
Hence your statement " All these ancient scriptures thus cannot be work of the same god" isnt true.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
"But when you consider other factors, such as - numerous factual inaccuracies, strong patriarchal view common in that period, inequality of women, asking for killing of apostates or nonbelievers, injustices done in the name of war spoilage, numerous paradoxical or contradictory verses and the constant fear-mongering for those who don't accept it as the final word of god.... - what can you make of it? Do all these ideas seem to come from a single supreme loving being or inferior tribalistic human being?"
Mustansir,
If for argument sake I accept your above point , how do you explain the incredible mathematics in quran , the science which explains earth's gravitational force, the birth of a human being , the moon's orbit to name a few ?
Do you reckon a tribalistic human being can discover these and ask some one else to write it...like ghostwriting !
Mustansir,
If for argument sake I accept your above point , how do you explain the incredible mathematics in quran , the science which explains earth's gravitational force, the birth of a human being , the moon's orbit to name a few ?
Do you reckon a tribalistic human being can discover these and ask some one else to write it...like ghostwriting !
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Zeal,
What I meant with extension of the original storyline was the main story & premise from Adam & Eve (Adam & Hawwa) to Abraham (Ibrahim) to all the characters after that. Bible having many versions over the years has nothing to do with the argument...unless you are suggesting that the original bible written had a complete different story to tell without any of these main characters. If my statement is wrong - are you saying then that the Bible and the Quran were not written by the same god? In that case, since the Bible was written first, are you suggesting that the Quran was basically plagiarized for the most parts from the Bible?... well than I have nothing more to add.
What I meant with extension of the original storyline was the main story & premise from Adam & Eve (Adam & Hawwa) to Abraham (Ibrahim) to all the characters after that. Bible having many versions over the years has nothing to do with the argument...unless you are suggesting that the original bible written had a complete different story to tell without any of these main characters. If my statement is wrong - are you saying then that the Bible and the Quran were not written by the same god? In that case, since the Bible was written first, are you suggesting that the Quran was basically plagiarized for the most parts from the Bible?... well than I have nothing more to add.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Mustansir,
If Jesus Christ was crucified, then how did he manage to write that into the Bible? Ever think about that? So Bible couldn'tve been written by Jesus Christ as he was crucified. If the Bible was written by Jesus Christ, then he wasn't crucified. That validates the quran. That also validates the fact that the original Bible and the Quran come from the same source. The current Bible however is not from the same source as the quran because of these discrepancies.
Absolutely. And a lot of people have done so. Besides, you do not want everyone to come up with the theory of evolution do you? You just want the rest of us to believe in it right? Another example is E=mc2. Am I asked to discover it before I am allowed to use it? Similarly, a lot of people exhausted all possible natural explanations and came to that conclusion. All I needed was to do was to believe one of them for any reason. If you do not, then you are welcome to continue your own research.
Consider ayah 4:34 which fart keeps quoting. The reason I say 'taken out of context' is because the fart will never quote the full ayah. Do you know what the full ayah says?
004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
Men are asked to protect and maintain the women and women are asked to guard their chastity. If they don't however, then we come to the part that fart loves.
Here are some examples from the quran that you will never see farts quote.
004.019
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.
004.020
YUSUFALI: But if ye decide to take one wife in place of another, even if ye had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, Take not the least bit of it back: Would ye take it by slander and manifest wrong?
004.124
YUSUFALI: If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them.
042.049
YUSUFALI: To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills (and plans). He bestows (children) male or female according to His Will (and Plan),
033.035
YUSUFALI: For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.
Ofcourse the biggest deal for the disbelievers is that men are allowed to have 4 wives and women are not allowed to have 4 husbands. First is, how many women, muslim or non-muslim, have you come across who actually want to have more than 1 husband? None. Women are not created that way. In the west, it is illegal for a man to marry more than once, however, it is ok for him to have sex with as many women as he wants and impregnate as many as he wants to. Of course, women have the same right, however I have many white colleagues who worry about their daughters precisely because of this issue. I prefer the Islamic system. Which makes me a believer.
Besides, law on every land is incomplete without specifying the punishment for breaking it. The law states that you cannot kill someone. That is not the end of it. It also says that you will get the injection or the noose if you break this law. Do you refer to that as fear-mongering?
If Jesus Christ was crucified, then how did he manage to write that into the Bible? Ever think about that? So Bible couldn'tve been written by Jesus Christ as he was crucified. If the Bible was written by Jesus Christ, then he wasn't crucified. That validates the quran. That also validates the fact that the original Bible and the Quran come from the same source. The current Bible however is not from the same source as the quran because of these discrepancies.
The quran is a 'ghost written' book. It wasn't written by Prophet Muhammad. It was written by his companions based upon his dictations. His dictations did not come from another book because he couldn't read either. How many ghost written books have claimed to be divinely inspired?'ghostwriting'
An illogical question. I know of one case of a book of divine origin. So do a billion others and billions of others before them. You, however, do not know of a confirmed case. How did we arrive at the conclusion that the case is a confirmed case? That has been discussed before on this thread.how many confirmed cases we now know of ghostwriting? And how many cases we know of a celestial being writing a book?
shouldn't we first try to exhaust all the possible natural explanations before jumping to a supernatural one?
Absolutely. And a lot of people have done so. Besides, you do not want everyone to come up with the theory of evolution do you? You just want the rest of us to believe in it right? Another example is E=mc2. Am I asked to discover it before I am allowed to use it? Similarly, a lot of people exhausted all possible natural explanations and came to that conclusion. All I needed was to do was to believe one of them for any reason. If you do not, then you are welcome to continue your own research.
You will have to be more specific for someone to be able to answer them.numerous factual inaccuracies
That is common even today all over the world. A father is the head of the family, otherwise you end up with a divided family. A lot of families in the west today are divided. There might be individual households where women have the controlling power. Doesn't mean it is wrong. Hazrat Khadija was the stronger party in the prophet's household and was his support during hard times. But the father should be the responsible party. And by saying that I am not saying that men should beat their wives, which is the common interpretation amongst educated scientists, I am just saying that since a man is stronger mentally and physically [there are exceptions of course], he should take more responsiblity.strong patriarchal view common in that period
Consider ayah 4:34 which fart keeps quoting. The reason I say 'taken out of context' is because the fart will never quote the full ayah. Do you know what the full ayah says?
004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
Men are asked to protect and maintain the women and women are asked to guard their chastity. If they don't however, then we come to the part that fart loves.
This has been answered so many times, but still keeps coming up. Before Islam women were treated as objects. They had no rights. Womanization was rampant in pre-Islamic Arabia. Female genocide was common. Women were allowed no inheritance. Men could marry and divorce as many times as they wanted. Islam changed all that. Islam prohibitied killing of female children. Islam gave women the right to choose their husbands. Islam gave women the right to inheritance ( I do not want to deal with the numbers right now because obviously, that is going to be the next question), Islam gave women the right to seek divorce.inequality of women
Here are some examples from the quran that you will never see farts quote.
004.019
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.
004.020
YUSUFALI: But if ye decide to take one wife in place of another, even if ye had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, Take not the least bit of it back: Would ye take it by slander and manifest wrong?
004.124
YUSUFALI: If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them.
042.049
YUSUFALI: To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills (and plans). He bestows (children) male or female according to His Will (and Plan),
033.035
YUSUFALI: For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.
Ofcourse the biggest deal for the disbelievers is that men are allowed to have 4 wives and women are not allowed to have 4 husbands. First is, how many women, muslim or non-muslim, have you come across who actually want to have more than 1 husband? None. Women are not created that way. In the west, it is illegal for a man to marry more than once, however, it is ok for him to have sex with as many women as he wants and impregnate as many as he wants to. Of course, women have the same right, however I have many white colleagues who worry about their daughters precisely because of this issue. I prefer the Islamic system. Which makes me a believer.
In a war, what is the advise given to the soldiers? Kill the enemy. If you don't kill the enemy, the enemy will kill you. This is another example of taking ayahs out of context. I am not being asked to kill unbelievers at all times. Otherwise I would have to go to work with a machine gun. Of course, the disbeliever interpretation of this ayah is that it has to be at all times and that we are ignoring the parts of the quran that we don't like. Fortunately, that is only the interpretation of the disbelievers. The believers are pretty sure about the context. That is why they are still believers.asking for killing of apostates or nonbelievers,
Again, you will have to be more specific for someone to address these.injustices done in the name of war spoilage
Specifics?numerous paradoxical or contradictory verses
Well, look at it this way. Are you afraid of the punishment specified in the quran? If the answer is no, then there is no fear-mongering. If the answer is yes, then you are a believer, you will be going to heaven and not to hell. So, you need not be afraid as the quran gives you the remedy for avoiding hell.constant fear-mongering for those who don't accept it as the final word of god
Besides, law on every land is incomplete without specifying the punishment for breaking it. The law states that you cannot kill someone. That is not the end of it. It also says that you will get the injection or the noose if you break this law. Do you refer to that as fear-mongering?
A single supreme loving being. If you look at it from my point of view as explained above.Do all these ideas seem to come from a single supreme loving being or inferior tribalistic human being?
The massess were already in control by the wealthy in Arabia at that time. Infact, Islam restricted or rescinded a lot of the rights that their wealth gave them. They now had to share their wealth with the less privileged and they now had to treat other humans with respect. Womanization was banned. Liquor was banned. Prostitution was banned.At least to me, it is more likely that the Quran was written by mortal men who were primarily interested in expanding their power, wealth and property & use religion as a tool to control the mass...
Now that is what a factual inaccuracy truly is. Initial spread of Islam was only through the message of the quran. If it were through the sword, then these men wouldn'tve had to write a book now would they?that initially it was forcefully done at the edge of a sword
This should be very easy for the educated to figure out. The reason we call orthos stupid is precisely because they haven't being able to figure this out. Prophet Muhammad's communication with Allah resulted in the quran and the dawn of Islam. What has the communication of the Dai with Allah resulted in? Let the orthos know when you figure it out.how can one say that when Syedna claims to be in direct communication with Allah, his followers are taken as gullible sheep, ready to be manipulated at his whim. But when Mohammad claims the same thing, it is believed unconditionally?
Correct. But do not expect them all to arrive at the same conclusion that you have. Otherwise you are expecting them to be exactly what you are blaming them for being. Not too logical is it?All I am saying here is that people should use the same level of skepticism & critical thinking for one's own beliefs & religion, as they usually do in rejecting others...
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Mustansir,
When I was referring to prophet's illiteracy and Quran, I brought the human angle just to clarify my stand. I do not think it is possible for any mortal to write a book like Quran. In fact scholars agree that the style in which Quran is written is quite different from the style of communication prevailing in Arabia at that time. Also, even people whose mother tongue is arabic find it extremely difficult to understand the true context and meaning of Quran many a times. The point I am trying to make out here is that, producing a scripture of the level of holy Quran cannot be a man's work. If it would have been, historians and scholars would have found out by now. If you think that a book like Quran was written by a man than you need to provide some concrete evidence, as a book like Quran is not written everyday and it happened only once. Unless you come up with some concrete proof your argument is meaningless.
Now coming back to Syedna. Are you aware that Syedna calls himself a representative of Imam Husain(pbuh), the grand son of prophet(pbuh) who was slained in Karbala? Are you aware that the Islam as followed by dawoodi bohra community is promoted as pristine Islam by Syedna? Are you aware that Syedna calls himself a true muslim? Now if Syedna calls himself a Muslim, than logically he must be a follower of Islam. My point is if he is a follower how can he bring about innovations in Islam??? If he is not than why he calls himself a Muslim. If he is a Muslim you cannot compare him with Prophet(pbuh). In fact the funny part is he calls himself a slave of Imam Husain who was the grandson of Prophet. And just so that you know ironically present day Bohras are ridiculing Islam rather than following it.
When I was referring to prophet's illiteracy and Quran, I brought the human angle just to clarify my stand. I do not think it is possible for any mortal to write a book like Quran. In fact scholars agree that the style in which Quran is written is quite different from the style of communication prevailing in Arabia at that time. Also, even people whose mother tongue is arabic find it extremely difficult to understand the true context and meaning of Quran many a times. The point I am trying to make out here is that, producing a scripture of the level of holy Quran cannot be a man's work. If it would have been, historians and scholars would have found out by now. If you think that a book like Quran was written by a man than you need to provide some concrete evidence, as a book like Quran is not written everyday and it happened only once. Unless you come up with some concrete proof your argument is meaningless.
Now coming back to Syedna. Are you aware that Syedna calls himself a representative of Imam Husain(pbuh), the grand son of prophet(pbuh) who was slained in Karbala? Are you aware that the Islam as followed by dawoodi bohra community is promoted as pristine Islam by Syedna? Are you aware that Syedna calls himself a true muslim? Now if Syedna calls himself a Muslim, than logically he must be a follower of Islam. My point is if he is a follower how can he bring about innovations in Islam??? If he is not than why he calls himself a Muslim. If he is a Muslim you cannot compare him with Prophet(pbuh). In fact the funny part is he calls himself a slave of Imam Husain who was the grandson of Prophet. And just so that you know ironically present day Bohras are ridiculing Islam rather than following it.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Thanks anajmi for bringing the thread back to a sane and productive level. You have directly & genuinely tried to answer some of the main questions raised by Mustansir and the likes...he should be satisfied this time atleast with your effort if not with the logic in the answers!
-
Fatwa Banker
- Posts: 697
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:01 am
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Asswipe,anajmi wrote:Consider ayah 4:34 which fart keeps quoting. The reason I say 'taken out of context' is because the fart will never quote the full ayah. Do you know what the full ayah says?
004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
Men are asked to protect and maintain the women and women are asked to guard their chastity. If they don't however, then we come to the part that fart loves.
That is an excuse, not context. Beat your wife (lightly), but be nice to her first. Only a Wahabi can read that and go "wow, divine ! Definitely not written by man !"
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Aarif,
As I wrote before, I am not comparing Syedna with prophet Muhammed but I am comparing followers of Syedna with the followers of Prophet Muhammed. Both religious leaders make the positive claim about having two-way communication with the almighty, without proving it or giving any evidence for it. Followers of Syedna believe the claim solely based on faith and so do the followers of Muhammed.
Now in your opinion, the Quran is not the work of mortal men but of a higher celestial being. Yes, there are historians and scholars (dominantly all Muslims) who do support that claim. So are many other scholars & historians who completely reject that claim. If there was no difference of opinion on the authenticity of Quran, then pretty much every human being on this planet, including me would obviously accept Islam as a true religion. The book of Mormons is also claimed to be the work of a higher celestial being...Mormons make the same assertion that the book simply could not be the work of a human. But I am sure you don't take their claims seriously. To say that Quran is a product of god because you cannot imagine it to be work of humans is not a good argument to make. People felt exactly the same way for crop circles when they started appearing, first in South East England and then later in other parts of the world. Because they appeared overnight, the initial conclusion drawn by the fringe group was that it had to be the work of extraterrestrials, as it is humanly impossible to have such sophisticated patters on such large scales in just a few hours. But now we know that crop circles were indeed a hoax, initially orchestrated by two mere mortal men. To say that...just because a phenomenon is too complex or sophisticated for your current understanding, it has to be the work of some supernatural being is an argument from ignorance... and is a logical fallacy.
If a piece of writing is genuinely inspired by some kind of god, you would agree that there can be no mistake in it as the almighty is supposedly infallible. And since the Quran is claimed to be exactly the same over the last 1400 years, then the question of copying error doesn't come. Well, then how do you explain that according to the Quran, the sperm is supposedly generated in the backbone and not the testicles [86:6]? And this idea was not even original as it was first proposed by the Greeks well before Muhammed. I don't want to copy and paste all the inaccuracies, contradictions and paradoxes here as I am sure most of the people reading this have access to a copy of the Quran. Instead of reading selective verses that I provide, why not read the whole book in its entirety & carefully without ignoring any ayah and judge for yourself...
As I wrote before, I am not comparing Syedna with prophet Muhammed but I am comparing followers of Syedna with the followers of Prophet Muhammed. Both religious leaders make the positive claim about having two-way communication with the almighty, without proving it or giving any evidence for it. Followers of Syedna believe the claim solely based on faith and so do the followers of Muhammed.
Now in your opinion, the Quran is not the work of mortal men but of a higher celestial being. Yes, there are historians and scholars (dominantly all Muslims) who do support that claim. So are many other scholars & historians who completely reject that claim. If there was no difference of opinion on the authenticity of Quran, then pretty much every human being on this planet, including me would obviously accept Islam as a true religion. The book of Mormons is also claimed to be the work of a higher celestial being...Mormons make the same assertion that the book simply could not be the work of a human. But I am sure you don't take their claims seriously. To say that Quran is a product of god because you cannot imagine it to be work of humans is not a good argument to make. People felt exactly the same way for crop circles when they started appearing, first in South East England and then later in other parts of the world. Because they appeared overnight, the initial conclusion drawn by the fringe group was that it had to be the work of extraterrestrials, as it is humanly impossible to have such sophisticated patters on such large scales in just a few hours. But now we know that crop circles were indeed a hoax, initially orchestrated by two mere mortal men. To say that...just because a phenomenon is too complex or sophisticated for your current understanding, it has to be the work of some supernatural being is an argument from ignorance... and is a logical fallacy.
If a piece of writing is genuinely inspired by some kind of god, you would agree that there can be no mistake in it as the almighty is supposedly infallible. And since the Quran is claimed to be exactly the same over the last 1400 years, then the question of copying error doesn't come. Well, then how do you explain that according to the Quran, the sperm is supposedly generated in the backbone and not the testicles [86:6]? And this idea was not even original as it was first proposed by the Greeks well before Muhammed. I don't want to copy and paste all the inaccuracies, contradictions and paradoxes here as I am sure most of the people reading this have access to a copy of the Quran. Instead of reading selective verses that I provide, why not read the whole book in its entirety & carefully without ignoring any ayah and judge for yourself...
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
mustansir,
What does 86:6 say?
086.006
YUSUFALI: He is created from a drop emitted-
The ayah you are talking about is actually 86:7 and it says
086.007
YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
Read it properly. Let me post it once again.
086.007
YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
You want me to post it one more time?
It is not saying that sperm originates from the backbone. It says it is proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs. Now go talk to a doctor what that means. But considering how you have read the quran, you probably won't make much sense of what the doctor says.
There are some interpretors who say that the ayah actually refers to the male and the female as per classical arabic and the word used for sperm in the previous ayah could refer to both the sperm and the egg.
You keep telling people to read the quran but are you reading it?the sperm is supposedly generated in the backbone and not the testicles [86:6]?
What does 86:6 say?
086.006
YUSUFALI: He is created from a drop emitted-
The ayah you are talking about is actually 86:7 and it says
086.007
YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
Read it properly. Let me post it once again.
086.007
YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
You want me to post it one more time?
It is not saying that sperm originates from the backbone. It says it is proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs. Now go talk to a doctor what that means. But considering how you have read the quran, you probably won't make much sense of what the doctor says.
There are some interpretors who say that the ayah actually refers to the male and the female as per classical arabic and the word used for sperm in the previous ayah could refer to both the sperm and the egg.
Well, not all of them. Just a few. Or maybe just a couple more. I am right here waiting to explain them all. You don't have to dig deep on the web. You will find a lot of accusations against the quran which is what you are already doing. And I promise you, I won't run like the scientists do.I don't want to copy and paste all the inaccuracies
Last edited by anajmi on Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
fart,
I personally, said "wow, divine ! Definitely not written by man !" when it told me how I am supposed to treat farts.
I personally, said "wow, divine ! Definitely not written by man !" when it told me how I am supposed to treat farts.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Actually the prophet has given a lot of evidence. During his prophet hood, we saw the quran come into existence and we saw the dawn of Islam. We saw a new way of life that united the Middle East and created a new way of life. During the Dai's time we have seen safai chitthi and maatam.Both religious leaders make the positive claim about having two-way communication with the almighty, without proving it or giving any evidence for it.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Here are three translations of 86:7
086.007
YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
PICKTHAL: That issued from between the loins and ribs.
SHAKIR: Coming from between the back and the ribs.
Now from your posts, you are doing with the quran exactly the same thing that you are accusing me of doing with science. You are posting ayahs without doing any research, or any understanding. There is a reason why we never come back to the same ayah or accusation. Because you do not have a follow up question. You haven't done enough research. Your mind is made up.
086.007
YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
PICKTHAL: That issued from between the loins and ribs.
SHAKIR: Coming from between the back and the ribs.
Now from your posts, you are doing with the quran exactly the same thing that you are accusing me of doing with science. You are posting ayahs without doing any research, or any understanding. There is a reason why we never come back to the same ayah or accusation. Because you do not have a follow up question. You haven't done enough research. Your mind is made up.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
First, just because an idea was proposed by someone else earlier doesn't mean that it was exclusive and shouldn't be included in the quran. For e.g. the idea that stealing is bad was proposed by prophet Moses thousands of years before prophet Muhammad in the quran. Doesn't mean that it cannot be included in the quran.And this idea was not even original as it was first proposed by the Greeks well before Muhammed.
Second, since the quran actually doesn't propose the erroneous idea that you reported but the Greeks do, we can safely say that the Greek ideas can now be rejected.
-
Fatwa Banker
- Posts: 697
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:01 am
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
086.007
YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
You can post it as often as you want but unless you are insinuating that it refers to oral sex, [ ], you are making a fool of yourself yet again.
You want me to post it one more time, asswipe ?
YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
You can post it as often as you want but unless you are insinuating that it refers to oral sex, [
], you are making a fool of yourself yet again.You want me to post it one more time, asswipe ?
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Well, in your case, that might be true.
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Mustansir,
You again missed the point.. When you are talking about Dai's followers than they are following Islam as well per se. They consider themselves Muslims. In fact the Dai is using the trump card of Karbala to control and hypnotize the gullible bohras. Have you heard words like "Khuda tamhaare Imam Husain na gum sivai koi gum naa bataawe". Here he is selling his innovated Islam to his followers. And the followers are gladly buying it. Actually, he is using Islam to fool his followers. E.g. Prophet said that a Muslim should only worship Allah through salaat and if he follows five pillers of Islam he will go to jannat in afterlife. I heard a bohri mention when he was asked by another bohri to join him in namaz that "Humme toh Moula nu daaman thaami lidhu che, hamaare namaz chuthi jawaano dar nathi". Now you see, Syedna who claims that he is a muslim, is duping his followers by claiming that he will take them to Jannat in their afterlife whether they follow Islam or not. The point is if the followers who consider themselves as Muslims (because that is what bohras are) along with their Dai should follow the basics of Islam. Thus, even the followers cannot remain Muslims without following Islam. If tommorow the Dai starts a new relegion called Bohraism, saying that he is the founder (without using Islam) and IF THE FOLLOWERS STILL FOLLOW HIM, I will accept your comparison. The problem out here is bohras are following syedna's innovated relegion rather than Islam in the name of ISLAM...
As far as Quran goes, I have mentioned earlier that if you have concrete proof that it was written by a man, please provide it and we will discuss it. Since, you have mentioned the Greeks, you must be knowing about Homer, the guy who wrote Iliad and the Odyssey. Do you know that modern scholers believe that he might not be the actual writer of these great epics. The point I am trying to make out here is that Homer was in 8th century BC. I.e. 1400 years before prophet and Islam. If historians can track that, I am sure by now they would have found the original writer of Quran if it was a human...
You again missed the point.. When you are talking about Dai's followers than they are following Islam as well per se. They consider themselves Muslims. In fact the Dai is using the trump card of Karbala to control and hypnotize the gullible bohras. Have you heard words like "Khuda tamhaare Imam Husain na gum sivai koi gum naa bataawe". Here he is selling his innovated Islam to his followers. And the followers are gladly buying it. Actually, he is using Islam to fool his followers. E.g. Prophet said that a Muslim should only worship Allah through salaat and if he follows five pillers of Islam he will go to jannat in afterlife. I heard a bohri mention when he was asked by another bohri to join him in namaz that "Humme toh Moula nu daaman thaami lidhu che, hamaare namaz chuthi jawaano dar nathi". Now you see, Syedna who claims that he is a muslim, is duping his followers by claiming that he will take them to Jannat in their afterlife whether they follow Islam or not. The point is if the followers who consider themselves as Muslims (because that is what bohras are) along with their Dai should follow the basics of Islam. Thus, even the followers cannot remain Muslims without following Islam. If tommorow the Dai starts a new relegion called Bohraism, saying that he is the founder (without using Islam) and IF THE FOLLOWERS STILL FOLLOW HIM, I will accept your comparison. The problem out here is bohras are following syedna's innovated relegion rather than Islam in the name of ISLAM...
As far as Quran goes, I have mentioned earlier that if you have concrete proof that it was written by a man, please provide it and we will discuss it. Since, you have mentioned the Greeks, you must be knowing about Homer, the guy who wrote Iliad and the Odyssey. Do you know that modern scholers believe that he might not be the actual writer of these great epics. The point I am trying to make out here is that Homer was in 8th century BC. I.e. 1400 years before prophet and Islam. If historians can track that, I am sure by now they would have found the original writer of Quran if it was a human...
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Aarif,
I know what you are trying to say but it is you who is missing the point repeatedly. What the followers of Syedna consider themselves is irrelevant to the debate. The fact is that both, Syedna and Prophet Mohammed make extraordinary claims to their followers without providing extraordinary evidence and ask for blind & unquestionable faith. It is the process of how followers of both, Syedna & Mohammed, choose to believe everything their leader claim without question. Syedna may provide an alternate version of Islam to his followers... whatever that alternate version is, on what basis do the followers of Syedna choose to believe in it? To me it is very similar when a Muslim follower chooses to believe in the alternate version of some other religion that Mohammed provides... and it is in how (and not what) the followers of each of the self-proclaimed spiritual leaders believe is where I am making the comparison.
You have partly answered this by claiming that Mohammed provided the Quran and that itself makes you believe that Mohammed was not just another fake prophet, but was the actual messenger of Allah. Of course, I & every other non-Muslim think that Quran is the work of mere mortal men 1400 yrs ago and not inspired by any celestial god. It is you who is making the extraordinary claim that just this one book (out of all other books ever written) in the entire human civilization was not actually written by people but by some kind of god. The burden of proof is on you who is making such an extraordinary claim, not the other way round. It is like a Mormon asking you to provide the human author of their sacred books and until you can find one, you then logically have no "concrete proof" to dismiss the claim that the Book of Mormons was in fact inspired by a god through an angel.
Now I know you can provide me with a long list of prophecies, "facts", and "revelations" found in the Quran as some people have done... thinking that they have proven their case simply because they talked or wrote a lot, as if truth somehow correlates with the number of words spoken or written. Instead, in order to waste as little time as possible, according to you, what would be The Best evidence? Can you give the single most astonishing detailed prediction that has come true or the single most amazing fact (according to you), which no man at that time could possibly have known? If your whole worldview depends on this book, I am sure you would have some strong reasons to believe in it and I am just asking for the best one...
I know what you are trying to say but it is you who is missing the point repeatedly. What the followers of Syedna consider themselves is irrelevant to the debate. The fact is that both, Syedna and Prophet Mohammed make extraordinary claims to their followers without providing extraordinary evidence and ask for blind & unquestionable faith. It is the process of how followers of both, Syedna & Mohammed, choose to believe everything their leader claim without question. Syedna may provide an alternate version of Islam to his followers... whatever that alternate version is, on what basis do the followers of Syedna choose to believe in it? To me it is very similar when a Muslim follower chooses to believe in the alternate version of some other religion that Mohammed provides... and it is in how (and not what) the followers of each of the self-proclaimed spiritual leaders believe is where I am making the comparison.
You have partly answered this by claiming that Mohammed provided the Quran and that itself makes you believe that Mohammed was not just another fake prophet, but was the actual messenger of Allah. Of course, I & every other non-Muslim think that Quran is the work of mere mortal men 1400 yrs ago and not inspired by any celestial god. It is you who is making the extraordinary claim that just this one book (out of all other books ever written) in the entire human civilization was not actually written by people but by some kind of god. The burden of proof is on you who is making such an extraordinary claim, not the other way round. It is like a Mormon asking you to provide the human author of their sacred books and until you can find one, you then logically have no "concrete proof" to dismiss the claim that the Book of Mormons was in fact inspired by a god through an angel.
Now I know you can provide me with a long list of prophecies, "facts", and "revelations" found in the Quran as some people have done... thinking that they have proven their case simply because they talked or wrote a lot, as if truth somehow correlates with the number of words spoken or written. Instead, in order to waste as little time as possible, according to you, what would be The Best evidence? Can you give the single most astonishing detailed prediction that has come true or the single most amazing fact (according to you), which no man at that time could possibly have known? If your whole worldview depends on this book, I am sure you would have some strong reasons to believe in it and I am just asking for the best one...
-
Muslim First
- Posts: 6893
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 86:6]
See commentary of Anam: 2; Araf: 12; Kahf: 37; Hajj: 5; Rum: 20; Muminun: 12 to 16 and Fatir: 11 for creation of man.
In the spinal cord and in the brain is the directive energy of the nervous system, and this directs all actions, organic and psychic.
Aqa Mahdi Puya says:
The creator who has created man, the most complicated form of an organic being, from an emitted drop can surely let him take a higher intricate form to proceed unto its maker by making use of the special qualities and capacities given to him by Allah. Refer to Yasin: 77 to 82.
[Shakir 86:7] Coming from between the back and the ribs.
[Yusufali 86:7] Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
See comments 6070 and 6071
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 86:7] (see commentary for verse 6)
Mawdoodi- Towards Understanding the Quran
(86:6) He was created of a gushing fluid, (86:7) emanating from between the loins and the ribs.3
*3 "Sulb" is the backbone and "tara'ib"the breast- bones, i.e. the ribs. Since the procreative fluid in both man and woman is discharged from that part of the body which is between the back and the breast, it is said that tnan has been created from the fluid issuing out froth between the back and the breast. This fiuid is produced even in case the hands and feet are cut off. Therefore, it is not correct to say that it issues out from the whole body of man. In fact, the principal organs of the body are its source and all these are located in the trunk. The brain has not been mentioned separately because the back-bone is that part of the brain through which connection between the body and the brain is established. (Also see Appendix I).
Tafseer Ibn Katheer
How Man is created is a Proof of Allah's Ability to Return Him to Him
Allah says,
[فَلْيَنظُرِ الإِنسَـنُ مِمَّ خُلِقَ ]
(So, let man see from what he is created!) This is alerting man to the weakness of his origin from which he was created. The intent of it is to guide man to accept (the reality of) the Hereafter, because whoever is able to begin the creation then he is also able to repeat it in the same way. This is as Allah says,
[وَهُوَ الَّذِى يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ وَهُوَ أَهْوَنُ عَلَيْهِ]
(And He it is Who originates the creation, then He will repeat it; and this is easier for Him.) (30:27) Then Allah says,
[خُلِقَ مِن مَّآءٍ دَافِقٍ ]
(He is created from a water gushing forth.) meaning, the sexual fluid that comes out bursting forth from the man and the woman. Thus, the child is produced from both of them by the permission of Allah. Due to this Allah says,
[يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَآئِبِ ]
(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman, which is referring to her chest. Shabib bin Bishr reported from `Ikrimah who narrated from Ibn `Abbas that he said,
[يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَآئِبِ ]
(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) "The backbone of the man and the ribs of the woman. It (the fluid) is yellow and fine in texture. The child will not be born except from both of them (i.e., their sexual fluids).'' Concerning Allah's statement,
[إِنَّهُ عَلَى رَجْعِهِ لَقَادِرٌ ]
(Verily, He is Able to bring him back (to life)!) This means that He is able to return this man that is created from fluid gushed forth. In other words, He is able to repeat his creation and resurrect him to the final abode. This is clearly possible, because whoever is able to begin the creation then he surely is able to repeat it. Indeed Allah has mentioned this proof in more than one place in the Qur'an
See also Muhammad Asad’s Translation and comments
See commentary of Anam: 2; Araf: 12; Kahf: 37; Hajj: 5; Rum: 20; Muminun: 12 to 16 and Fatir: 11 for creation of man.
In the spinal cord and in the brain is the directive energy of the nervous system, and this directs all actions, organic and psychic.
Aqa Mahdi Puya says:
The creator who has created man, the most complicated form of an organic being, from an emitted drop can surely let him take a higher intricate form to proceed unto its maker by making use of the special qualities and capacities given to him by Allah. Refer to Yasin: 77 to 82.
[Shakir 86:7] Coming from between the back and the ribs.
[Yusufali 86:7] Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
See comments 6070 and 6071
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 86:7] (see commentary for verse 6)
Mawdoodi- Towards Understanding the Quran
(86:6) He was created of a gushing fluid, (86:7) emanating from between the loins and the ribs.3
*3 "Sulb" is the backbone and "tara'ib"the breast- bones, i.e. the ribs. Since the procreative fluid in both man and woman is discharged from that part of the body which is between the back and the breast, it is said that tnan has been created from the fluid issuing out froth between the back and the breast. This fiuid is produced even in case the hands and feet are cut off. Therefore, it is not correct to say that it issues out from the whole body of man. In fact, the principal organs of the body are its source and all these are located in the trunk. The brain has not been mentioned separately because the back-bone is that part of the brain through which connection between the body and the brain is established. (Also see Appendix I).
Tafseer Ibn Katheer
How Man is created is a Proof of Allah's Ability to Return Him to Him
Allah says,
[فَلْيَنظُرِ الإِنسَـنُ مِمَّ خُلِقَ ]
(So, let man see from what he is created!) This is alerting man to the weakness of his origin from which he was created. The intent of it is to guide man to accept (the reality of) the Hereafter, because whoever is able to begin the creation then he is also able to repeat it in the same way. This is as Allah says,
[وَهُوَ الَّذِى يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ وَهُوَ أَهْوَنُ عَلَيْهِ]
(And He it is Who originates the creation, then He will repeat it; and this is easier for Him.) (30:27) Then Allah says,
[خُلِقَ مِن مَّآءٍ دَافِقٍ ]
(He is created from a water gushing forth.) meaning, the sexual fluid that comes out bursting forth from the man and the woman. Thus, the child is produced from both of them by the permission of Allah. Due to this Allah says,
[يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَآئِبِ ]
(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman, which is referring to her chest. Shabib bin Bishr reported from `Ikrimah who narrated from Ibn `Abbas that he said,
[يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَآئِبِ ]
(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) "The backbone of the man and the ribs of the woman. It (the fluid) is yellow and fine in texture. The child will not be born except from both of them (i.e., their sexual fluids).'' Concerning Allah's statement,
[إِنَّهُ عَلَى رَجْعِهِ لَقَادِرٌ ]
(Verily, He is Able to bring him back (to life)!) This means that He is able to return this man that is created from fluid gushed forth. In other words, He is able to repeat his creation and resurrect him to the final abode. This is clearly possible, because whoever is able to begin the creation then he surely is able to repeat it. Indeed Allah has mentioned this proof in more than one place in the Qur'an
See also Muhammad Asad’s Translation and comments
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
Backbone is not the same thing as testicles... Semen production has nothing to do with the backbone!
-
Fatwa Banker
- Posts: 697
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:01 am
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
A reasonable request by any stretch of the imagination. You should be able to fill these pages as you are betting your life on a book you believe to be from out of this world, instead we are being barraged with this "between backbone and ribs" BS. If this is all you got, write your own book, and claim it is not written by Man and you will be just as credible.Mustansir wrote:according to you, what would be The Best evidence? Can you give the single most astonishing detailed prediction that has come true or the single most amazing fact (according to you), which no man at that time could possibly have known? If your whole worldview depends on this book, I am sure you would have some strong reasons to believe in it and I am just asking for the best one...
-
accountability
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:01 am
Re: OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS
"This has been answered so many times, but still keeps coming up. Before Islam women were treated as objects. They had no rights. Womanization was rampant in pre-Islamic Arabia. Female genocide was common. Women were allowed no inheritance. Men could marry and divorce as many times as they wanted. Islam changed all that."
There is no historcial evidence for the above. Actually to the contrary, in pre islamic arab society, women were very powerful, Prophet's aunt safia was very independent. Abu sufiyan's wife was a dominant figure settiling disputes etc. Hazrat khadija was very rich and powerful lady and prophet married her. There is no historical evidence that there ever was female genocide in pre islamic arabia. You just quoted it from grade V islamiat book. Or you should give some historical evidence to prove. One more thing women (and men) were sold and bought both in preislamic and post islamic era. Islam did not forbid slaves and concibines.
There is no historcial evidence for the above. Actually to the contrary, in pre islamic arab society, women were very powerful, Prophet's aunt safia was very independent. Abu sufiyan's wife was a dominant figure settiling disputes etc. Hazrat khadija was very rich and powerful lady and prophet married her. There is no historical evidence that there ever was female genocide in pre islamic arabia. You just quoted it from grade V islamiat book. Or you should give some historical evidence to prove. One more thing women (and men) were sold and bought both in preislamic and post islamic era. Islam did not forbid slaves and concibines.