234 replies to this topic

[Rasul]

Al-hamdu lillahi rabbil 'alamin!

I readed "28 Issues With Quran" what can I say;


"If you follow the right guidance no hurt can come to you from those who are in error." Quran  [Al-Maaida, 5:105]


What I would do is to change the title of the; "28 Issues With Quran" to "28 Issues With Quran that M.K. Failed to understand and made misstatements"

"Feeling" I got from writer of  "28 Issues With Quran"

• Ignorance...
  
• No answer will be sufficient for him, in his "misguidance" (Ignorance)...

Wa Salam

Edited by Rasul, 13 September 2011 - 09:50 AM.

[Lanatin]

Ok then let me make grammatical corrections to this forgery of yours and then i'll give you my reply:

Qul Ya Ayuhal Kaffiroon
Ma'a ataba'a attabi'u ma tabttabai'oon
Wa ma antum tabai'aoona ma ataba' attabi'
Wa ma ana tabi'unoon ma tabttabai'oon
Wa ma antaumantum (<--ok this might have been a typo) taba'aoonatabi'oona ma ataba'a attabi'
Lakum Sabeelaukum Wa leena lanaa Sabeel

Here is where the inimitable nature of the Quran manifests itself. Any change in the words of the same chapter you've committed utterly destroyed the continuous rhythm of the original, the constant flow of the vowels in every verse. Also the word "a'bud" has many implications that provide sanctity to the 'thing' you speak of, specifically whatever relates to submitting to that very 'thing'. On the other hand, the implications of attabi' are very limited and understood to be relating to a fallible thing mostly. When the Quran said that God will say to those who will be condemned to hell:
"Enjoined I not on you, O' children of Adam, that ye should not worship (ta'budoo) Satan? for he is your open enemy. And that ye should worship Me, this is the right path? And yet hath he led astray a great multitude of you; did ye not then understand?" (36:60)

It gives us a great insight to the very implications of ubooda.
The more and more you follow the guidelines of a certain thing, the more you serve it and concur with its ideals, it comes to the point of 'ubooda where that thing is sanctified to such an exaggerated extent; a mystical exegesis surrounds the concept of ubooda and the causes and effects of it (besides the many different forms of it). Whilst attabi'u simply implicated following the guidelines of a certain thing. No mystical exegesis surrounds this term in any relevant sense. And - as said for Surat Al-Falaq- this indeed is a powerful language technique, balagha at its core.

Do you like me to give you the vital reason why your replica of the Qur'anic suras should be in arabic? It's because not only are the structures of prefixes and suffixes in the arab language completely different than english, you also have feminine and masculine letters (most notably the commonly silent expression of 't' for feminine words) for a wide array of inanimate objects and natural phenomena. Sentence structures have major differences as well when you consider where verbs and nouns are placed..and the rules of Qawaa'id. Finally there are words which simply don't exist in the english vocabulary, with some of these words conveying a wide meaning where the english equivalent would have to be a written sentence.

That's why you should undertake the challenge in the arabic original.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 13 September 2011 - 05:49 PM.

[Lanatin]

Quote

Say: Travel in the land, then see how was the end of those before; most of them were polytheists.
[Pickthal 30:42] Say (O Muhammad, to the disbelievers): Travel in the land, and see the nature of the consequence for those who were before you! Most of them were idolaters.
[Yusufali 30:42] Say: "Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those before (you): Most of them worshipped others besides Allah."

The fact is if the Arabs travelled in the earth, no way would they find evidence of destroyed people. They can travel and they would find nothing. This challenge is meaningless. There was no remains of destroyed nations for the Arabs to travel to.

This point has got to be the worst of them all.  

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 13 September 2011 - 07:17 PM.

[Lanatin]

Oh, how could I forget:

Quote

Qul Ya Ayuhal Kaffiroon

You just copied a whole verse of the original. That's plagiarism and increasingly decreases your rate of ever imitating surat al-kafiroon :/

[Ishraq]

The Persian Shah, on 20 August 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

One's level of disengagement (tajarud) from this world (mulk), marks their level of engagement with the next (malakut).

bah bah, che aali gofti! in az kiye? Mulla Sadra?

[MysticKnight]

Qul Ya Ayuhal Thalimoon
Ma attabi'u ma tatabi'oon
Wa ma antum tabioona ma attabi'
Wa ma ana tabi'un ma tattabi'oon
Wa ma antum tabi'oona ma attabi'
Lakum Sabeelukum Walayee Sabeel

Say: O You whom are Unjust
I don't follow what you follow
Nor do you follow what I follow
Nor will I follow what you follow
Nor will you follow what I follow
To you is your way and to me is my way.

Seems similar to me in English and Arabic. By the way your complaint of "follow" being the same word, well look at Suratal Nass, it has "nass" ending at each verse.

This talk of difference in Worship and follow is all irrelevant. I can say it's wrong to say humanity Worshipped the Devil by simply what worship means. To me that's not a strength of Quran, it just shows how loosely it used the word worship, which was not accurate use of the word. At any rate, it doesn't change it's similarity.

I even changed the first verse so that you don't complain of copying it.

Edited by MysticKnight, 16 September 2011 - 10:06 AM.

[Lanatin]

You didn't read my reply carefully. I wasn't complaining about the repetition of the word attabi', just the limited implications that it has in contrast with ubooda which destroys its universal appeal.

Talking about ibaada is not irrelevant, for it demonstrates the universal appeal and practicality of this sura. 'Accurate use of the word'... you're, how shall I put it, 'unaware' of the versatility of the arabic language and the use of this terminology hasn't been regarded as inaccurate in any sense by arab linguists. It's not loose usage of the word, it gives us an insight into what the Quran considers as the very limited form of ibaada, basically what leads to shirk. I'm pretty sure you're aware of the hadith of Prophet Muhammad in which he said that shirk is more hidden than a black ant on a black stone in a dark night. Moreover the fact that the Quran first and foremost addresses the 'kafiroon' just further demonstrated the endless practicality of this sura. As we know many can be kafirs, polytheists, jews, atheists... all of them are considered as falling sway to some form of shirk as their hearts are sealed to the message of Islam. Some take their desires as a deity (45:23), some worship Satan by subjugating themselves to his insinuations, some idolize any constituent of matter whether it be a grave (no im not a sunni), idol or nature itself.

Look at all of the above being deduced from Surat Al-Kafiroon. This is thanks to our deep reflection on this sura and relating it to the rest of the Quran; it's what the Quran itself orders us to do, it tells us to ponder over the Quran and not to simply take it for face value.

Quote

Seems similar to me in English and Arabic

Yeah it 'seems'. Too bad it isn't...

Do you like me to give you the vital reason why your replica of the Qur'anic suras should be in arabic? It's because not only are the structures of prefixes and suffixes in the arab language completely different than english, you also have feminine and masculine letters (most notably the commonly silent expression of 't' for feminine words) for a wide array of inanimate objects and natural phenomena. Sentence structures have major differences as well when you consider where verbs and nouns are placed..and the rules of Qawaa'id. Finally there are words which simply don't exist in the english vocabulary, with some of these words conveying a wide meaning where the english equivalent would have to be a written sentence.

Yeah that's right I copied and pasted a paragraph from my last post, and with good reason.
  
You changed the first verse? Congratulations, I would have mistaken it for the apocalypse had you not you clarified what complaint you were addressing. Anyway I already spoke of the plain usage of the word attabi' and how it stands inferior to the original, I don't see any need to reiterate that again. It destroyed the original rhythm because the second verse is 10 syllables, whilst the first is 8; in Surat Al-Kafiroon the first two verses are both 8 syllables. But that's hardly the downward spiral this sura has led itself to, as there's another factor of the original you have failed to keep up to with your forgery. The original says:
"Qul ya ayyuhal Kafiroon
La a'bidoo maa ta'bidoon
Wa maa antum 'aabidooona ma a'bud
Wa maa anaa 'aabidun maa abadtum..."  

The 2nd and 4th verse of your sura however ends with the same word, namely 'tattabi'oon'. Only one word has been repeated once for purpose of rhyme and emphasis, whilst you've repeated two pairs of the same word (i.e. tattabi'oon and attabi') in the end of verses 2-5. 'Atba'tum' is a non-existent word that you cnanot play with in your further revision of your sura, as it is gramatically innacurate.

You've been on this forum long enough to know the challenge is not to simply bring the same diversity of content in a single chapter, but also to imitate the many language techniques and devices employed for balagha  in the sura. This article will help explain much of what I, Jebreil and many others have been explaining to you. It's a scholarly article that deals with all the factors of balagha, what the nature of the Quranic challenge is, and addresses the same complaint of yours (except this time, they are addressing Christian missionaries)  which basically is that the challenge is supposedly subjective in some sense. There are also other articles in the website which document the plethora of suras composed by heretics throughout Islamic history, and provides the opinion of non-muslim scholars about the unique eloquence of the Quran.

You're right. A person like yourself who can barely give a viable transliteration of arabic words shouldn't be expected to meet this challenge of the Quran, as it is irrelevant and completely unfair in your case. If you want a proper final say why not read the suras of the most eloquent arabs throughout Islamic history in the link I provided; they were well versed in balagha and arabic linguistics. People have been trying to meet the challenge during the Prophet's presence and centuries after his death as well. It didn't stop at his death. But no-one's telling you this is the only way to confirm the divine origin of the Quran, look at it from other angles as well to ultimately determine whether it is of a divine origin or otherwise.

And this is where we return on topic once more, to answer your 28 issues in the forthcoming posts inshallah

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 16 September 2011 - 01:49 PM.

[MysticKnight]

Your picking irrelevant differences, at the end, it's still similar. If the standard of nit picking differences to show they are not the same implying they are not similar, then ofcourse no one will meet the challenge, because you can always nit pick differences. It seems similar to me, and I think it's given you won't admit it's similar because then the Quran challenge has been meant. This is why it's given the Quran challenge will always fail, because the people will always judge that Surah as not similar enough even if it's very similar.

The Quran tells people to follow what is brought down from God or follow the Prophet in other places or that the Prophet follows what is revealed to him, it tells us about following Satan, you can take it as "following God and truth" vs "following Satan and falsehood" and can have a deep discussion about it if you wanted too. At any rate, it doesn't do a difference, about how deeper you can talk about Worship vs talking about follow...

The Surah is very similar to Suratal Kaffiroon.

Edited by MysticKnight, 16 September 2011 - 02:12 PM.

[Lanatin]

Read the article in the link, it'll help explain everything much better than I or Jebreil ever could. It goes into detail about the many forms of rhyming poetry and metres, the 'bihars' if you will that was strikingly complex both back then and today. I cba explaining it here but I urge you to read the article, it'll help clarify what is ambiguous in our posts as we are only the followers of the ulama.

No but those verses specify who to follow, Surat Al-Kafiroon was very ambiguous and only said who you "a'bud', without specifying who you're worshipping. It could have began the Sura with "Say: Oh you who are idolaters" and then there truly would be no further implications of ibaada in this Sura. But that's certainly not the case here. This is nothing about this vs that, try reading my post carefully. Of course it's similar because you just substituted two root words with dhulm and tabi' (injustice and following), without even bothering to consider the metres, non-emphatic flow and other constituents of balagha that every arab understood. They've been trying to meed the challenge for 1400 years, and the article I posted has many details about how their imitations utterly failed in comparison. Read the article before replying. Have the decency to know more in your 'quest for the truth', as the website itself contains vital information from non-muslim scholars who are well-versed in this subject in comparison to your staggering ignorance.

The article provides the proof from the non-muslim scholars themselves, there's no guessing games here.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 16 September 2011 - 02:27 PM.

[MysticKnight]

La, on 16 September 2011 - 02:23 PM, said:

Of course it's similar

Well at least you admit, even if you didn't mean too.

[Lanatin]

Don't be a sloth and read the article. Your sura is only similar in wording, but with respect to the metres and rhythmic flow and many other factors which the article elaborates on, your replica of Surat Al-Kafiroon falls flat on its backside.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 16 September 2011 - 02:38 PM.

[MysticKnight]

The flow seems similar to me. I think your just going to nitpick and just say it doesn't flow, etc, it doesn't matter how similar the flow is, how similar the Surah is to the original, you will nitpick differences. The Quran didn't say it had to have "this and that", it just said to bring something similar to it. If it's similar, then all the nitpicking differences is all irrelevant. You even admitted it's similar, I find it similar, then that's that.

[Lanatin]

Forget me nitpicking, read on all the factors of balagha which the Goddamn article elaborates on which I unfortunately can't speak about as I have little knowledge of the subject. You've been here too long to know there's a huge amount of structure involved in poetry.

[Lanatin]

Sure we can discuss with your sura about who to follow, like whether you follow satan or God etc. but as said, the only implication of that is following the guidelines of that certain 'thing'. While "a'bud" has a much deeper and diverse exegesis surrounding its many implications, it relates to whatever act contributes to falling sway to 'idolizing' that thing being paramount to worship. The sura could have started with "Qul ya ayyhual mushrikun" (O you who are polytheists) and then there would be no further implications and it would have been obvious the whole sura is merely talking about the idols that were worshipped. It could have said "Qul ya ayyuhal nasaaraa" (O you who are Christians) and it would be clear the Sura was referring to the deification of Jesus. But no, it cleverly employed an all-encompassing term such as 'al-kafiroon' which every segment of humanity is vulnerable to; you get those who obstinately disbelieve from polytheists, christians, atheists, jews and many more. And so the implication of what is subsequently being 'worshipped' becomes endlessly suggestive to the many different acts that lead to an act that  implicitly worships a certain thing.  And this is shown by many verses of the Quran itself.  

As the article shows, balagha's a deep science which you didn't seem to bother recognizing. I am only refuting your sura based on the limited extent of my knowledge of the subject, and even then i'm finding much flaws. Besides your Sura is contradictory in nature and ultimately is disowned by any rational mind. Your sura addressed the thalimoon (unjust), and we know the unjust are those who reject guidance after being manifest unto them, and those who don't judge by the Quran's legislations (surat al-maida) but it also includes muslims as muslims are able to be unjust in other manners as well. The fact that you said you don't follow what they follow raises a vital question: just because they are unjust does that consequently mean you don't 'follow' the creed they follow? The statement becomes contradictory and the wording employed contribued to the downfall of this sura.

[MysticKnight]

The same can be said about disbelievers being set not to Worship God. This is while (contrary to what you say) most of them entered the religion of Islam at the end.

So when I had a discussion about that, it was said it was addressed to a specific group of disbelievers. Even though the `say:` makes it not really possible to be a specific group, but anyways. So in this way, my Surah can be addressed to a specific set of unjust people. It doesn`t have to be general.

I can change the word `thalimoon`back to `kaffiroon`or make it `mushrikoon`.

Edited by MysticKnight, 17 September 2011 - 09:25 AM.

[Lanatin]

Quote

The same can be said about disbelievers being set not to Worship God. This is while (contrary to what you say) most of them entered the religion of Islam at the end.

You don't seem to read history carefully. I told you before that during the period preceding the conquest of Mecca:  Abu Jahl was killed in the battle of badr (as was Utbah and Umayya and some other dudes), many of the meccans were killed in the many battles the Prophet was engaged in, and a new generation had already grown to maturity by the time of the conquest. Abu Sufyan and some of the new generation (e.g. Mu'awiyah) merely concealed their kufr, it's called hypocrisy. I don't think I need to recount the infamous story of Abu Sufyan urging his family members to play with the caliphate 'like a ball' and that Heaven and Hell are all non-existent. Indeed, the ringleaders of the meccan non-believers never came to the faith and their fatal end was in the battlefield.

Quote

So when I had a discussion about that, it was said it was addressed to a specific group of disbelievers. Even though the `say:` makes it not really possible to be a specific group, but anyways. So in this way, my Surah can be addressed to a specific set of unjust people. It doesn`t have to be general.

Many -if not most- verses of the Quran were revealed for specific events where the imperative 'say' was there, but they are understood by every researcher to be ultimately general as every aya of the Quran is meant to have a universal application, as it is a 'reminder to the nations' by the Quran's own words. We might as well say all the verses arguing for the Oneness of God were 'specific' but we know fully well the Quran doesn't simply covet the Arabs to become monotheists. If the Quran is ever specific it clarifies its position, like in Surat Al-Tauba where it elucidates on the many traits of the hypocrites and that it was referring to the hypocrites who refused to join the holy expedition; it told the Prophet that 'around' you are hypocrites, now that's specific.

The whole Quran was revealed specifically to the Arabs but it clarifies that all its content is for the 'alimeen (worlds/nations). So Jebreil (or whoever you discussed this with) is completely right when he said this Sura addressed a specific group of disbelievers, that's inevitable. But yeah whenever the Quran has 'say' in its aya, it evidently becomes general and not confined to an isolated group as was the case with Jews and their belief that they were the only beloved ones of God (Surat Al-Jumu'ah); obviously they're not going to be the only ones who believe this as the address was "Ya ayyuhal latheena haadoo" "O you who are Jews". Same case with Surat Al-Kafiroon as the whole sura was dedicated to only addressing the disbelievers.  So when you say 'thalimoon' it's going to be put in the context of all those who are unjust, which encompasses muslims as well. Therefore your sura has a very basic contradiction which decimates the whole content.

So change it to mushrikun if you want and that would only further demonstrate the limited implications of your Sura which I was speaking about earlier (being of a completely smaller magnitude than Surat Al-Kafiroon). Anyway, to ultimately determine whether you've ever come close to meeting the challenge, I suggest you read the sixteen Bihar which the link I posted spoke of.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 17 September 2011 - 06:13 PM.

[Maitham]

MysticKnight, on 19 August 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

Problems.rtf

I wrote 28 issues there. If anyone finds a solution to any of them, just post it.

Brother Imam advised it this way to a situation where someone made a book of so called contradictions of teh qu'ran it went like this "is it possible that the author of a book can mean something different then interpreters?" what you may see as a contradiction may not be  at all. take disbelief as an example how do we know that there is not certain levels of disbelief and belief? a  poof i can put forward for this is how the jews believe in Allah's existence but disbelieve in the prophet hood of Jesus and Muhammad some would fall into more disbelief as they reject things directly on and others would fall into ignorance by following those who rejected, they would however be both believing to a certain level and disbelieving to a certain level.

Edited by AlMuttaqi, 24 September 2011 - 06:44 AM.

[Hakimabidallah]

[Pickthal 95:4] Surely We created man of the best stature
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 95:4]
Ahsan means the best; and taqwim means mould, form, constitution. Refer to the commentary of Baqarah: 30 to 39, 112, 135; Ali Imran: 95. There is no fault in Allah's creation and there is no stigma of original sin. To man Allah gave intelligence, faculties of observation, judgement and action with free will and discretion. As the chosen representative of Allah man was exalted higher than the angels. Allah's creation is so perfect that there is no room for any change or alternation. See verse 30 of Rum. If man keeps himself safe from pollution and corruption, safeguards himself against evil with full awareness of laws made by Allah and follows the divine guidance, which he can do by using the freedom of choice and action given to him, he reflects in his character the divine attributes of Allah and reaches the highest level of perfection.


ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَاهُ أَسْفَلَ سَافِلِينَ {5}
[Pickthal 95:5] Then we reduced him to the lowest of the low,
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 95:5]
If man follows after evil, rebels against Allah and uses his freedom of choice and action to violate the laws made by Allah he is abased to the lowest possible position. See commentary of Araf: 179 and Furqan: 44.

[MWO]

salam mystic,

can i ask you a favour?

it seems that this thread is getting messy.. and some things have been resolved, where others clearly remain in the air.

Is it possible to edit your first post, and add underneath a new document that has the following

1. the questions with the answer that you are content with.
2. outstanding questions.

i've seen some questions where you have stated you can "scratch that off" or you were happy with the answer from one of the brothers.. so no point revisiting them.

I had already quite some time ago offered a discussion with you via PM as i believe i have the answer to all if not most of the questions.. i heard nothing from you.

the standard of answers that i have seen so far - a lot are "facepalm" quality and have totally missed the point of your question.

If you do this favour, then i will be more than happy to provide answers to you... so i hope your sincere attempts will be matched with sincere effort.

WS

[TheAwaitedSaviour]

Salam alaykum, if you could convert this into arabic. i could find someone to answer them for you

hello can you convert these into arabic

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Quote

I will start with Suratal Teen. In Suratal Teen it said:

لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ فِي أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِيمٍ {4}
[Shakir 95:4] Certainly We created man in the best make.
[Shakir 95:5] Then We render him the lowest of the low.
[Pickthal 95:5] Then we reduced him to the lowest of the low,
إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ فَلَهُمْ أَجْرٌ غَيْرُ مَمْنُونٍ {6}
[Shakir 95:6] Except those who believe and do good, so they shall have a reward never to be cut off.
.

Now the problem is that Islam didn't come to the whole world for it even to be rejected and to exist no good people but the believers whom did good. So why are all of humanity reduced to the lowest of the low except believers? Does it make sense that there is no good humans that morally improved elsewhere, weren't higher then animals?

Now if it is argued "believe" means in God, well the thing is Quran else where has put those whom reject revelation in the hell-fire. So it can't mean that, and it's obvious by how it's been used in Quran, it means those whom believe in Mohammad's message.

salamalaikum and I am sorry for seeing this thread too late. I have been in the thread where you first started doubting. Be it known that anyone who enters a religion through a man like him exits through him. You were one of the few people on shiachat who I liked much. Anyway, i FIND your questions really good. Although I cant answer all of them, I will try to fix some links.

Okay; keep in mind few principles and then we will begin with answer one.

1. Quran has three layers of understanding
a. Some ayaat the unbelievers can understand.
b. Some ayaat the believers can understand.
c. Some ayaat need interpretation from the ones whom it was addressed to, i.e., rasool Allah saww.

So the discussion on 95:4 Laqad khalaqna alinsana fee ahsani taqweemin

See Al Insan their. So this is talking about some one and is specific so I wont comment on it as it is neither me nor you. Let us say, if it addressed to all humans or a particular group of people.

Starts with best make to reducing it to nothing unless he/she believes and does Amal us Salihaat.

Amal us salihaat according to Imam sadiq a.s. is Gaining Marefath of Aimma a.s.

Now I hope you will reflect on it a bit and start reading all three verses together as I dont want to give my opinion on the two previous verses

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Quote

مَنْ كَانَ يُرِيدُ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا وَزِينَتَهَا نُوَفِّ إِلَيْهِمْ أَعْمَالَهُمْ فِيهَا وَهُمْ فِيهَا لَا يُبْخَسُونَ {15}

[Shakir 11:15] Whoever desires this world's life and its finery, We will pay them in full their deeds therein, and they shall not be made to. suffer loss in respect of them.

[Pickthal 11:15] Whoso desireth the life of the world and its pomp, We shall repay them their deeds herein, and therein they will not be wronged.

[Yusufali 11:15] Those who desire the life of the present and its glitter,- to them we shall pay (the price of) their deeds therein,- without diminution.

أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ لَيْسَ لَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ إِلَّا النَّارُ ۖ وَحَبِطَ مَا صَنَعُوا فِيهَا وَبَاطِلٌ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ {16}

[Shakir 11:16] These are they for whom there is nothing but fire in the hereafter, and what they wrought in it shall go for nothing, and vain is what they do.

[Pickthal 11:16] Those are they for whom is naught in the Hereafter save the Fire. (All) that they contrive here is vain and (all) that they are wont to do is fruitless.

[Yusufali 11:16] They are those for whom there is nothing in the Hereafter but the Fire: vain are the designs they frame therein, and of no effect and the deeds that they do

This verse is basically telling anyone whom has desire for this world will end up eternally in hell. Now how does that even give a remote concept of a Merciful Loving Forbearing God? Whom can not desire this world at all? Notice the verse doesn't say "only desire this world" or anything like that, it clearly states any desire for the world will result the fire forever.

Now the verse in fact has a contradiction. Paradise is promised to those whom believe and do good deeds. Now what if they like most believers probably do, have love of this world, and did some good deeds. They would be promised paradise by verses promising believers whom do good paradise, yet this verse is stating they would go hell, for desire of this world.

I am not doing tafseer of this verse rather taking you to some ahadees in general and then you would yourself understand these verses.

Bro, I hope you know about alam e arwa, alam e zarr stuff and that those who believed their believe here etc. Let us say you dont believe that anymore and you are born in this world without an objective and is marooned on an island. what will you think the purpose of your life would be? Maybe Food shelter and clothing and you have never known a messenger in your life to know that their is a God and Mohammad saww is His messenger and the 12 Aimma a.s are the awsiya and awliya etc etc.

Alright so for such people there are ahadees that they will have a spot examination in the hereafter and those who pass there will enter heaven. I know the test too but I wont reveal it.

Anyways, lets say you are born among shias and have inclinations towards the world. Who wouldnt have one. I too have it and each one here has it but how did you guess that this verse is talking about Momineen?

Because there are many ahadees that unbelievers would be given comforts of this life, health, wealth etc for the good things they do but they wont have a share in the benefits of the hereafter.

Then there is a stage for the Muslims in general who havent believed in imamath; their good deeds in this world will hang in the skies until they believe in the Imamath and if they dont believe in it until they die then the deeds remain there and do not travel further because they were commanded ""amal us salihaat""

And then Momineen; they sin, they have inclination to the worldly desires and there is a kaffara for it. From a small scratch to a bad wife to a painful death is what such a person has in store to relieve him of all his sins and enter the heaven without recokning or with a little hard time if the sins were too many or whatever Allah azwj willeth.

And the Merciful Allah azwj???

Dear, ask a Momin what Love of ahlulbayth a.s. is. I know you have it too, dont you. Imam sadiq a.s. was asked; Is religion Love, he a,s. said what is it other than that.

So, bro the religion of love has been potrayed as religion of fear; which is not the case. His mercy exceeds His wrath. I have read ahadees like.

1. Even if kuffar love the ahlulbayth a.s. they would go to heaven.
2. In the last era; women would have hard time making a living and some would turn to prostitution to earn money and they will be forgiven.
3. A prostitute among the bani israel, saw a stone in the way and removed it thinking someone would get hurt. Allah azwj liked her act and forgave her.
4. Children who havent reached the age of Bulugh will not go to hell.

Well the examples are many but then; the half-baked mullahs make people do amal by scaring them too much; rather than submission through love. Trust me if it wasnt for the love of Imam Ali a.s I would have been among Tareek us Salaat.

Now look back in to the verses and read them. Try to find out which waswas made you doubt that it is about Momineen and then look up tafaseer of Aimma a.s. if you still trust their Wilaya?


I think 3:145 which is your next question has been partially addressed above so i MOVE on to Thamud

Ya Ali Madad

Quote

Moving to another verse with a logical problem.

وَمَا مَنَعَنَا أَنْ نُرْسِلَ بِالْآيَاتِ إِلَّا أَنْ كَذَّبَ بِهَا الْأَوَّلُونَ ۚ وَآتَيْنَا ثَمُودَ النَّاقَةَ مُبْصِرَةً فَظَلَمُوا بِهَا ۚ وَمَا نُرْسِلُ بِالْآيَاتِ إِلَّا تَخْوِيفًا {59}
[Shakir 17:59] And nothing could have hindered Us that We should send signs except that the ancients rejected them; and We gave to Samood the she-camel-- a manifest sign-- but on her account they did injustice, and We do not send signs but to make (men) fear.
[Pickthal 17:59] Naught hindereth Us from sending portents save that the folk of old denied them. And We gave Thamud the she-camel - a clear portent save to warn.
[Yusufali 17:59] And We refrain from sending the signs, only because the men of former generations treated them as false: We sent the she-camel to the Thamud to open their eyes, but they treated her wrongfully: We only send the Signs by way of terror (and warning from evil).

This verse is basically stating the only thing that prevented from sending signs was that past people rejected them. The question is how can this be the reason and the one and only reason?

Assume it's reasonable, then we ask, why didn't it prevent signs being sent before. People before Isa time rejected miracles, but miracles were sent with him. Same is true for Musa.So this cannot be the reason. Now having discussed this, I've seen people say:

He didn't send signs because people would have rejected.
He didn't send signs because they were no longer effective
He didn't send signs because he didn't want them to be punished.

All these are other reasons that what is stated, the stated reason is simply one thing only: past people rejected the signs. So making different motives for not sending signs doesn't make sense.

I've seen it stated that some how the past people rejecting signs effected the people in the future. Some way magically it did and made in ineffective. Well the reason for not sending signs would be because it's ineffective as well, because he can still send signs even if it's ineffective. Now aside from that, if people in the past rejecting didn't stop people later receiving signs/miracles, then is it reasonable to assume its all together different for Mohammad people?

So this verse is illogical. In fact per other verse, a Sign was sent later, moon splitting supposedly. So it seems the reason didn't prevent from sending signs either way

I just yesterday read a hadees which I found very nice for your question. so this is a preface to your answer


7 ـ عن محمد بن خالد بن الحجاج الكرخى عن بعض أصحابه رفعه إلى خيثمة قال: قال ابوجعفر يا خيثمه القرآن نزل اثلاثا ثلث فينا وفى احبائنا، وثلث في اعدائنا وعدو من كان قبلنا وثلث سنة ومثل، ولو ان الآية اذا نزلت في قوم ثم مات اولئك القوم ماتت الآية لما بقى من القرآن شئ، ولكن القرآن يجرى أوله على آخره ما دامت السماوات والارض، ولكل قوم آية يتلونها ـ و ـ هم منها من خير أو شر.

7 – From Muhammad b. Khalid b. al-Hajjaj al-Karkhi from one of his companions going up from him to Khaythama. He said: Abu Ja`far said: O Khaythama, the Quran was sent down in three thirds: a third regarding us and regarding our lovers, a third regarding our enemies and the enemy of who was prior to us, and a third of tradition and example. And were the aya when it was sent down regarding a people, then those people died, the aya would die, so (?) nothing would remain of the Quran. However, the Quran its beginning flows upon its end so long as the heavens and earth (endure). And for every people is an aya, reciting it, and they are in regards to it good or evil.

www.tashayyu.org

so you see that Thamud were people before the time of Rasool Allah saww however Allah azwj used it as a lesson and that ayat actually refers to shia of this age and when Imam mahdi ajf comes back.

I hope brother macissac translates taweel ul ayaat uz zahira. In which I found the tafseer of this verse that Thamud refers to the Shia and the She camel refers to Imam Mahdi ajf from whom was knowledge to be sought but they killed the she camel is talking about our Imam ajf being killed after his ajf's return and then the ayat continues towards rajat.

Hope this was enough

So if you are not convinced with above and need more questions answered I will proceed but if you are convinced I will stop as whoever believes in Allah, He guides aright his heart; and Allah is Cognizant of all things.

Edited by siraatoaliyinhaqqun, 03 May 2012 - 04:20 PM.

[The Persian Shah]

Ishraq, on 14 September 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

bah bah, che aali gofti! in az kiye? Mulla Sadra?

nope, just from myself ..

[MysticKnight]

Salam Siraataliyunhaqun

Thanks for your response.

Verse 11:15, (and there others), to me is blatantly obvious simply by language that it means whomever desires the life of this world will have nothing but the fire in the next world. This is not even an interpretation and in the realms of hermeneutics, it rather is something that is clear by the language.

It stated whomever desires the life of this world.

What happens is that people realize this absurd. Whom doesn't desire the life of this world? Almost no one.

There also doesn't seem to be anything "evil" about it, and certainly not to the extent of deserving hell.

So people try to make the verse to say something else that it's not saying.  Why? Because they can't accept the words. So they will say, it means if you desire the life of this world without desire of the next. Yet this is not what is stated.

They will state it means if you only desire this world.

However you didn't make any such statements, instead you stated the following:


And then Momineen; they sin, they have inclination to the worldly desires and there is a kaffara for it. From a small scratch to a bad wife to a painful death is what such a person has in store to relieve him of all his sins and enter the heaven without recokning or with a little hard time if the sins were too many or whatever Allah azwj willeth.

Some key words to note in the word it says they will have nothing in the hereafter except the fire.  It didn't state they will be punished only, it stated that's ALL they will have in the next world.

This is not interpretation again, this is simply by the words. "laysa" "ila", these words have meaning.

So you are simply stating a third alternative.  A person may believe in Islam and do good deeds, yet desire the life of this world. It's not only impossible but rather seems to be the case that believers in general desire the life of this world.

There is another verse that state whomever desires the life of this world will have no share in the hereafter.

Again, your belief is such people will have a share in the hereafter.

Regarding Suratal Teen. I really don't see how it can possibly just be about a particular person. This reminds me of .Inshallah.'s "fix" towards the verses about why Quran says people didn't believe.  It's like God is deceptive in language. The norm of something, the obvious meaning of something, is not what it means, and instead he is being purposely obscure and confusing.

99.999+% of humanity coming to such a verse would understand in one way, and it seems to be meant that way, yet God intends a whole different meaning which he easily could've said in words that would not give the impression otherwise.

This paints an extremely bad image of God. What is further shown that it's general, is that the verse after states "except those whom believe and do good deeds". This makes it obviously clear it's not about one particular person.

As for God's Mercy, I honestly don't see any in Quran.

Quran shows you have to be good and obedient, while unjust people don't enter paradise. There is many verses condemning unjust to hell. There is also a verse that states all those astray will continuously be burned with increased burning.

Can it be said it's merciful of God not to send just and good people to hell? Of course that makes no sense.

The very idea of hell shows a lack of compassion and mercy. That extended to all "disbelievers" "those whom don't believe in Ayatallah" "those astray" "those whom associate with God", etc.. and I don't see mercy.

I don't see why if God is forgiving, why he can't forgive Shirk, specially to people whom worshipped him as the highest and only worshiped others to a lower degree.

I really don't see God being Merciful and Compassionate in Islam. I see the very opposite of that.

Now with the verses about destroyed people being a sign for them. The issue I have with this but I didn't write it well, is that let's say they come up with ruins. They have no real way of knowing that these people were destroyed by God for their sins. There is no real evidence that people were destroyed by God for their sins.  Natural disasters happen, civilizations leave buildings behind, but all this is not evidence of God destroying a people for their sins. They can't deduce God destroying people by simply traveling in the land. No such evidence exists. As such these verses are proven to be problematic.

Now from what I'm understanding from you, is that you are stating these verses are really intended to mean people in the future whom believe in Quran should take lesson. The context however shows it's the Arabs that were addressed whom weren't believers at that time.  But aside from that, if you read the verses, it's stating they should travel in the earth, and see what was done to them and take lesson from that. However you can't deduce that from simply traveling in the earth and you can't see God punishing them by this process.

One of the main problems I have and this was the central one that made disillusioned with Islam, is the issue of "Sign" asked for.

I've wrote about it and to me this issue, although is one of the repeated issues in Quran, I always had a mystical way of avoiding the issue. My mind could never fathom the idea that he was avoiding to bring a simple miracle like past Prophets were have suppose to have brought, until, one day,  I thought about one verse, and then I saw verses, and realized what it was really all about.

Unable to bring miracles - he had to reply to that objection by the disbelievers, which was a legitimate point.

Here is what I wrote:

The Quran spoke of past Prophets. For example it spoke of Moses. When Moses was asked for a proof/sign of his Prophethood, he made his stick turn into a snake. This was not the only proof, as miracles followed from that. Other Prophets also were said to bring such signs. It was naturally expected as such, for Mohammad to bring such miracles if he was truly a Prophet. Why would previous Prophets bring proofs but not Mohammad. As such, the disbelievers of Mohammad brought this point, and it was noticed by Mohammad, whom mentioned this objection in Quran. Let us look at how he responded to it.

Èóáú ÞóÇáõæÇ ÃóÖúÛóÇËõ ÃóÍúáóÇãò Èóáö ÇÝúÊóÑóÇåõ Èóáú åõæó ÔóÇÚöÑñ ÝóáúíóÃúÊöäóÇ ÈöÂíóÉò ßóãóÇ ÃõÑúÓöáó ÇáúÃóæøóáõæäó {5}
[Shakir 21:5] Nay! say they: Medleys of dreams; nay! he has forged it; nay! he is a poet; so let him bring to us a sign as the former (prophets) were sent (with).
[Pickthal 21:5] Nay, say they, (these are but) muddled dreams; nay, he hath but invented it; nay, he is but a poet. Let him bring us a portent even as those of old (who were Allah's messengers) were sent (with portents).
[Yusufali 21:5] "Nay," they say, "(these are) medleys of dream! - Nay, He forged it! - Nay, He is (but) a poet! Let him then bring us a Sign like the ones that were sent to (Prophets) of old!"
ãóÇ ÂãóäóÊú ÞóÈúáóåõãú ãöäú ÞóÑúíóÉò ÃóåúáóßúäóÇåóÇ ۖ ÃóÝóåõãú íõÄúãöäõæäó {6}
[Shakir 21:6] There did not believe before them any town which We destroyed, will they then believe?
[Pickthal 21:6] Not a township believed of those which We destroyed before them (though We sent them portents): would they then believe?
[Yusufali 21:6] (As to those) before them, not one of the populations which We destroyed believed: will these believe?

If we look at this response, it's clearly a red herring. Let us think about it. The people of the towns before it all rejected these Signs, yet God sent them these signs. People in the past rejected these signs, yet God sent these signs to the people that followed. Well without the Signs, what proof would the Prophets have? They brought these signs to prove it. Now a few people accepted per account of Quran while most rejected. So even if these people will not believe, it's poor excuse of not sending a signs. It's a red herring that most people rejected and they would follow suit. The people are saying why isn't their proofs in form of miracles like the Prophets in the past had. So we can see it's a lame red herring which even shows he should have sent signs, because people rejecting in the past didn't stop the Prophets from being sent with signs. In other words he is avoiding the question. They already know that previous Prophets were sent miracles as he claims, and were rejected, they are saying why isn't he sent with one like the past Prophets were per his claims.

æóíóÞõæáõæäó áóæúáóÇ ÃõäúÒöáó Úóáóíúåö ÂíóÉñ ãöäú ÑóÈøöåö ۖ ÝóÞõáú ÅöäøóãóÇ ÇáúÛóíúÈõ áöáøóåö ÝóÇäúÊóÙöÑõæÇ Åöäøöí ãóÚóßõãú ãöäó ÇáúãõäúÊóÙöÑöíäó {20}
[Shakir 10:20] And they say: Why is not a sign sent to him from his Lord? Say: The unseen is only for Allah; therefore wait-- surely I too, with you am of those who wait.
[Pickthal 10:20] And they will say: If only a portent were sent down upon him from his Lord! Then say, (O Muhammad): The Unseen belongeth to Allah. So wait! Lo! I am waiting with you.
[Yusufali 10:20] They say: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?" Say: "The Unseen is only for Allah (to know), then wait ye: I too will wait with you."

This obviously avoiding the question. The only way it seems to be relevant to the question, is that it's part of the Unseen knowledge of God, only God knows this. Also what does "wait" have to do with anything here? Is he stating that he will send a sign. This seems rather ambiguous but we see later it's stated that they would never believe in a Sign just as they didn't believe initially.

æóÃóÞúÓóãõæÇ ÈöÇááøóåö ÌóåúÏó ÃóíúãóÇäöåöãú áóÆöäú ÌóÇÁóÊúåõãú ÂíóÉñ áóíõÄúãöäõäøó ÈöåóÇ ۚ Þõáú ÅöäøóãóÇ ÇáúÂíóÇÊõ ÚöäúÏó Çááøóåö ۖ æóãóÇ íõÔúÚöÑõßõãú ÃóäøóåóÇ ÅöÐóÇ ÌóÇÁóÊú áóÇ íõÄúãöäõæäó {109}
[Shakir 6:109] And they swear by Allah with the strongest of their oaths, that if a sign came to them they would most certainly believe in it. Say: Signs are only with Allah; and what should make you know that when it comes they will not believe?
[Pickthal 6:109] And they swear a solemn oath by Allah that if there come unto them a portent they will believe therein. Say; Portents are with Allah and (so is) that which telleth you that if such came unto them they would not believe.
[Yusufali 6:109] They swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that if a (special) sign came to them, by it they would believe. Say: "Certainly (all) signs are in the power of Allah: but what will make you (Muslims) realise that (even) if (special) signs came, they will not believe."?
æóäõÞóáøöÈõ ÃóÝúÆöÏóÊóåõãú æóÃóÈúÕóÇÑóåõãú ßóãóÇ áóãú íõÄúãöäõæÇ Èöåö Ãóæøóáó ãóÑøóÉò æóäóÐóÑõåõãú Ýöí ØõÛúíóÇäöåöãú íóÚúãóåõæäó {110}
[Shakir 6:110] And We will turn their hearts and their sights, even as they did not believe in it the first time, and We will leave them in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.
[Pickthal 6:110] We confound their hearts and their eyes. As they believed not therein at the first, We let them wander blindly on in their contumacy.
[Yusufali 6:110] We (too) shall turn to (confusion) their hearts and their eyes, even as they refused to believe in this in the first instance: We shall leave them in their trespasses, to wander in distraction.
æóáóæú ÃóäøóäóÇ äóÒøóáúäóÇ Åöáóíúåöãõ ÇáúãóáóÇÆößóÉó æóßóáøóãóåõãõ ÇáúãóæúÊóìٰ æóÍóÔóÑúäóÇ Úóáóíúåöãú ßõáøó ÔóíúÁò ÞõÈõáðÇ ãóÇ ßóÇäõæÇ áöíõÄúãöäõæÇ ÅöáøóÇ Ãóäú íóÔóÇÁó Çááøóåõ æóáóٰßöäøó ÃóßúËóÑóåõãú íóÌúåóáõæäó {111}
[Shakir 6:111] And even if We had sent down to them the angels and the dead had spoken to them and We had brought together all things before them, they would not believe unless Allah pleases, but most of them are ignorant.
[Pickthal 6:111] And though We should send down the angels unto them, and the dead should speak unto them, and We should gather against them all things in array, they would not believe unless Allah so willed. Howbeit, most of them are ignorant.
[Yusufali 6:111] Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).

This is really poor reasoning. Instead of providing the proof that they are demanding, it's just stating to them that the would not believe. What are they suppose to make out of that? That they would not believe no matter what? And how would they believe that but except by believing him. It seem like this objection bothered Mohammad because it was a very good objection towards him. If we think about, miracles are PROOF of Prophets being Prophets. If some people accepted Mohammad, then showing them miracles would increase their faith, it would also cease the excuse of disbelievers. But without miracles, this gives a pretty solid argument and excuse for disbelievers rejecting. Previous Prophets were sent with miracles per Mohammad's claim, yet he isn't sent with any? This is a very good objection. And it's a reasonable one. The thing is these verses are painting them as people that would never accept Mohammad but turns out most disbelievers ended up becoming Muslim after the victory of Muslims. In fact, I will get into that with the verses that paint disbelievers as hopeless and that they would never believe.

æóíóÞõæáõ ÇáøóÐöíäó ßóÝóÑõæÇ áóæúáóÇ ÃõäúÒöáó Úóáóíúåö ÂíóÉñ ãöäú ÑóÈøöåö ۗ ÅöäøóãóÇ ÃóäúÊó ãõäúÐöÑñ ۖ æóáößõáøö Þóæúãò åóÇÏò {7}
[Shakir 13:7] And those who disbelieve say: Why has not a sign been sent down upon him from his Lord? You are only a warner and (there is) a guide for every people.
[Pickthal 13:7] Those who disbelieve say: If only some portent were sent down upon him from his Lord! Thou art a warner only, and for every folk a guide.
[Yusufali 13:7] And the Unbelievers say: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?" But thou art truly a warner, and to every people a guide.

This again a red herring. He doesn't need to be more of a warner to send miracles, just as Prophets before him weren't more then Warners but were sent with miracles. Again, avoiding the question totally because he has no good response.

æóãóÇ ãóäóÚóäóÇ Ãóäú äõÑúÓöáó ÈöÇáúÂíóÇÊö ÅöáøóÇ Ãóäú ßóÐøóÈó ÈöåóÇ ÇáúÃóæøóáõæäó ۚ æóÂÊóíúäóÇ ËóãõæÏó ÇáäøóÇÞóÉó ãõÈúÕöÑóÉð ÝóÙóáóãõæÇ ÈöåóÇ ۚ æóãóÇ äõÑúÓöáõ ÈöÇáúÂíóÇÊö ÅöáøóÇ ÊóÎúæöíÝðÇ {59}
[Shakir 17:59] And nothing could have hindered Us that We should send signs except that the ancients rejected them; and We gave to Samood the she-camel-- a manifest sign-- but on her account they did injustice, and We do not send signs but to make (men) fear.
[Pickthal 17:59] Naught hindereth Us from sending portents save that the folk of old denied them. And We gave Thamud the she-camel - a clear portent save to warn.
[Yusufali 17:59] And We refrain from sending the signs, only because the men of former generations treated them as false: We sent the she-camel to the Thamud to open their eyes, but they treated her wrongfully: We only send the Signs by way of terror (and warning from evil).

Finally there is an answer to the objection. But is it a good answer? Is it a reason at all? People in the past rejected Signs, but that didn't prevent God from sending signs to other people after those people rejected. So why is it different in this case?

Notice it didn't state because God didn't want to punish them, or didn't state it's because they would reject, but really can there be any good reasons not to send miracles when he sent them in the past?

Out of all excuses to make, this one is a very bad one. People have free-will, and can always choose to believe what they know as true or reject it. Some people say the rejection of miracles of past people somehow caused them to become ineffective in people of Mohammad. But this is rather impossible. At most it can be a factor. The very fact they have free-will and can choose how to be, whether to accept miracles and proofs, or not, shows that such a notion is not possible.
Would people in the past rejecting miracles make the proofs of miracles less manifest? Would it be less of a proof? No ofcourse not. And there being some people whom believed in Mohammad, how can it be stated they would not caused anyone to believe. Even if disbelievers would reject them, believers would still benefit by them and it would increase their faith. So this is not a reason at all. There is no way however that people rejecting in the past in itself could cause them to become ineffective. At most it can be argued it's a factor to that with many other reasons and factors. But even that's weak, because miracles are always proof. If they by their nature can be not be effective due to a mindset of a people, then they would not be proof. It is always irrational to reject it, and it's always manifest that they prove the case of Prophets. That's why they are proofs. That's why people have no excuse of rejecting them. And people always have a choice to be whom they are, to be rational or irrational, so what people did in the past cannot be stated to be the reason they are for whom they are. Of course it was reason of being "ineffective" it should stated that instead of stating it's due to people rejecting in the past, by which those hearing it would not knowing it meant that caused it to be come ineffective. In fact, if he did state that, the disbelievers would have reasons to object to this and explain how it caused it to become ineffective, which would be such a lame excuse and have no justification.

At the end, we see nothing but a lame excuse to why he didn't send miracles. What it makes more worse, is that this reason didn't prevent a future miracle per Quran.

ÇÞúÊóÑóÈóÊö ÇáÓøóÇÚóÉõ æóÇäúÔóÞøó ÇáúÞóãóÑõ {1}
[Shakir 54:1] The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder.
[Pickthal 54:1] The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.
[Yusufali 54:1] The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.
æóÅöäú íóÑóæúÇ ÂíóÉð íõÚúÑöÖõæÇ æóíóÞõæáõæÇ ÓöÍúÑñ ãõÓúÊóãöÑøñ {2}
[Shakir 54:2] And if they see a miracle they turn aside and say: Transient magic.
[Pickthal 54:2] And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion.
[Yusufali 54:2] But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."

So if God didn't send signs because people in the past rejected them, then why did he sent this one later? Things are obviously not adding up.

And the end, these very people ended up believing in Islam. This makes it even worse. Something God could have done if Mohammad was his Messenger, was provide these miracles, and then argue why they should accept these miracles and showing reasoning why it's unreasonable to call it magic. This would look a whole lot better for future readers then making up excuses as to why he would not send miracles. This specially since all people in the past were sent miracles, so what was so different about the Arabs for all these other people that they could not be sent miracles? No reason provided except that people in the past rejected Signs. What kind of reason is that. Of course no reason at all. How this would look for future readers would also be something you expect of a Wise Creator to take account into. Even if those people would have rejected, at least the Quran would have said they were sent miracles and signs, continuously, and be reasoning against them telling them they are being unreasonable denying these signs and asking them what other proof would they accept if they reject this and what would make them believe, if they disbelieve in miracles. But instead it was a lame excuse, and red herrings. What are future unbiased readers suppose to make out of this? How does it look?


This was the main issue hovering over my head for a while. I thought about this issue for such a long time.

I do appreciate what you're trying to do for me, as obviously you believe you are on guidance and I'm misguided right now.

I do appreciate it when Christians,  Bahais, Muslims including Shiites, Sunnis, Salafis, etc, all try to guide me. It's a noble intention.

I have that intention of spreading what I believe is true as well. I don't do it out of malice towards Muslims or anything like that.

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Bro its  not like disbelieved and I believed.  Read carefully

1. Rasool Allah saww did bring miracles with him and the biggest of those miracles is I'm ali a.s.

2. You are probably mixing up past with future events and future with past events as in signs of God. Because miracles were sent with rasool Allah saww but people denied them and few accepted them too with infirmity. At the end remained few who never asked for miracles like Salman Abu dharr and a few others

3.  The very objective of quran is to take a person to the imam appointed by Allah azwj so that he explains Allah azwj's intention behind Allah azwj's speech. It is not to confuse people but to raise a question in the mind of deep thinkers like you which would ultimately lead to two options one to deny it and the other to investigate and find who shareek al quran is.

As it has been ordered by aimma a.s I cannot do tafseer of the verses and be a hindrance between you and I'mam of our time. All I can do is give you few ahadees if u want regarding many verses in which there is apparent contradiction.

Ya ali madad