This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

D&D Theology's "Ask About Islam" Thread Mk. IV

Scroll to see replies

I don't congratulate them for a festival which has no basis in the shari'ah because, as far as I know, by congratulating someone for their festival you inadvertently are approving of the celebration itself. This isn't my opinion so I'm answering your question with the opinion that I "follow", rather than what I think personally.

And how would you respond to someone greeting you with "Happy New Year"?

Reply 261

mel0n

Original post by SaintSoldier

In the English translation of the Qur'an, I've noticed that it says stuff like; "We" did X or "We" have X, a lot. Who is "we"? Isn't Allah alone?

Insha'allah this will be helpful.

Reply 262

gltw

Original post by Perseveranze

Ok, lets see a source, a link. :rolleyes:

edit; Lmao, "The True Furqan" was basically plagurism of the Quran -

[INDENT] Other critics called it "poor in quality and ridiculous in content" and "a pathetic attempt to distort the Quranic teaching by reproducing what looks like Quranic verses."[11]
[/INDENT]
Basically taking verses from the Quran and altering the words.

That's why I havn't heard of it, nor is there much about it on Wiki. Some people even believe it's just a hoax.

The point was that it was written maintains the same style of Qur'anic Arabic without ever being similar to the Qur'an, due to it's Christian-like teaching. I am not saying it is a valid document within itself, quite the opposite but that it can imitate the Qur'an to the point that people mistake it for the Qur'an if they are not told otherwise.

See Strobel, Case for Christ, 191-257

Original post by Perseveranze

Your link -

1. There's Music in the background
2. The person(s) are singing.

The Quran;

1. No Music in background, just speech.
2. No singing (your not allowed to "sing" God's word)

And it's still beautiful.

It is a song. Most of the Psalms are songs for God's praise. You're link is very like singing rather than talking.

Reply 263

mel0n

Original post by zxh800

And how would you respond to someone greeting you with "Happy New Year"?

Probably quite rudely. I just ask them what they've been up to. Or something like that. This has made me wonder whether it is permissible to say "thank you" rather than returning the greeting as I'm not sure whether this would still constitute as finding their greeting 'ok'. Normally I just smile, but I do that anyway - confusing. Allahu A'lam.

Reply 264

Organ

Original post by mel0n

Why what is wrong with that greeting?

Reply 265

mel0n

Original post by Organ

Why what is wrong with that greeting?

What greeting?

Reply 266

Organ

Original post by mel0n

What greeting?

"Happy New Year"

Reply 267

mel0n

Original post by Organ

"Happy New Year"

Read my post before the one you quoted.

Reply 268

Tpos

Original post by mel0n

Why rudely? :/

Reply 269

mel0n

Original post by Tpos

Why rudely? :/

I said rudely but then went on to explain the way in which I try to respond, as I tend to half-ignore the greeting and ask them a question about their day or something. Some may find that rude - though in all honesty noone that I've ever done that with has ever said anything or stopped me and said 'Hold on, why haven't you returned my greeting?!'.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 270

Perseveranze

Original post by gltw

You don't understand, it was never "similar" to the Quran. It was basically the Quran, copy and paste and changing words, it basically broke the unique rhetoric and rythm.

As critics said, it is poor in quality. And that's why it was never publicised much.

[INDENT]The language of the True Furqan is extremely weak. As you keep reading the pages of their book, you will discover that the language of their handy-work gets progressively insulting, cursing and totally human in its tone. They claim, "Huwa Hadhaal furqaan-ul-Haq" (This is The True Furqan). The use of the words "Huwa" and "Hadhaa" are common layman choices used by every Arab speaking person. In contrast, the Quran with its "Balagha" reads as follows: "Alif Laam Meem. Dhalikal Kitaabu laa raiba feeh hudallil mutaqeen...". As mentioned earlier, the Holy Quran doesn't use "Hadhaa" (this is), rather "Dhaalika" (that is). What an amazing, but subtle difference. So, Allah Almighty is telling mankind, “That is the Quran” and Anis is saying, “This is the True Furqan”. By using the word “that” Allah ta’ala is showing that the Quran is not just any book, it is a book that is above all and is protected.
[/INDENT][INDENT]http://truth-sincerity.blogspot.com/2009/03/furqan-answer-to-anis-shorrosh.html
[/INDENT]

Original post by gltw

It is a song. Most of the Psalms are songs for God's praise. You're link is very like singing rather than talking.

If that seems like singing to you, then that proves my point. The person speaking is not singing, he's reciting it beautifuly.

When you recite or read it properly in Quranic Arabic it naturally produces the rhythm and different pitches anyway; it has to because of the length of vowels, diphthongs and abrupt stops etc. One only has to accentuate this sound slightly to produce an almost music like melody..

And that's why it seems like singing to you. But if you actually did "sing" it, it would sound very different and out of melody.

[INDENT]"And recite the Qur'an with Tarteel (in a slow pleasant tone and style)." [Al-Qur'an 73:4]

When asked about the meaning of Tarteel, Ali (r.a.) replied, 'It means that the Qur'an should be recited with Tajweed (proper pronunciation and tone) and with due observance to the rules of Waqf (pausing or stopping at the end of the verse).' [Sahih Hadith]
[/INDENT]

Reply 271

Rtcw

I know the rules of Hijab of women. Whenever I visit relative's house, females at there usually hurry up and wear hijab before she sees me because I'm male, even if I'm in same family as hers. So, what happens if I move in relative's house for few years. Should they wear hijab everyday inside house?

Reply 272

amerzeb

Original post by Rtcw

well if you are their mahrem, then its up to them, if they can take it off or not, otherwise no

Reply 273

gltw

Original post by Perseveranze

You don't understand, it was never "similar" to the Quran. It was basically the Quran, copy and paste and changing words, it basically broke the unique rhetoric and rythm.

But it fooled muslim scholars when it was read to them. It does not copy the Qur'an and change the words because that in itself would break any flow which was not detected by the scolars. Unless the Qur'an has Christian teaching :biggrin:

Original post by Perseveranze

If that seems like singing to you, then that proves my point. The person speaking is not singing, he's reciting it beautifuly.

No... You can do that with any text, you can do it with poems and plays ect. I would not say it is unique in the sense you are portraying. It was standardised by Uthman who reportedly left out 20% for political reasons and altered the words resulting in a book was not fully accurate and was ultimately changed by four fallible men who made judgement according to their wisdom. Therefore the flow cannot be unique if it was basically changed by men who were like any other. It gives the Qur'an no more rhythmic value than Shakespeare plays.

Reply 274

In2deep

Original post by Rtcw

If you are a mahram then no they wouldn't need to wear it at all. If you are not then no they can't in any circumstance except if you marry them.

Reply 275

Perseveranze

Original post by gltw

I doubt any "Muslim" scholar was fooled. This is such a poor attempt to imitate the Qu'ran.

You said; "it was not detected by scholars", are you trolling, do you know how bad the language is that it uses? Did you even read the link I gave you?

This part is hilarious - [INDENT]In their preface, the authors of "The True Furqan" have clearly stated that no one is allowed to copy, paste, print or use any part of their booklet without written permission. Why would someone want to impose copyrights? Their book, insha-Allah, will be challenged in a US court for plagarism. To the amazement of the readers, Anis Shorosh has actually written a chapter in his book titled "Plagarism (Muharrif)". “The True Furqan” fails to meet the challenge of the Holy Quran; hudal lin naas – meaning that the Quran is a guidance for mankind. If Anis's book is meant for the entire human race, like the Quran, than why limit the distribution of the book? How can someone in a remote village in Nigeria order Anis book online? But going to the most remote and isolated villages in the world will show that the Holy Quran is rehearsed, memorised, taught and written; without purchasing it online! This is the first failure of their work. Secondly, I plan to distort their work and re-publish it to see if they catch our ability to twist their work or not. Here is a flavor of their distortion: one would read in their booklet, "fahuwa Aaab lam yalid, kalimatun lam yuulad". The words in "Bold", as you can see, are taken from Surah Al-Ikhlaas. The other wordings are their additions. In a court of law this book can be challenged for plagiarizing the Quran and imposing illegal copyrights! It is not about spreading truth, but making money; forcing people to buy the book from online bookstores. Any work done for the sake of God, and of such proportions should be free. As mentioned earlier, the Omega booklet is a masterpiece in Plagarism. In the chapter titled "Plagarism", Anis writes, "May the hands of Plagarizers be restrained". He didn't say, "May the curse of God be on the Plagarizers". Because Anis is a master plagarizer.
[/INDENT]

Original post by gltw

No... You can do that with any text, you can do it with poems and plays ect. I would not say it is unique in the sense you are portraying.

Except the Quran is nor peotry or a play. You have not understood anything I told you, nor have you understood that the Quran in itself is a language.

[INDENT]Literary structures are composed of many elements that are too numerous to be discussed in detail in this article. They include diction, phonology, rhetoric, composition, morphology, syntax, architecture, rhythm, and style, in addition to matters related to tone, voice, orality, imagery, symbolism, allegory, genre, point of view, intertexuality, intratextual resonance, and other literary aspects – all of which are set within a historical, cultural, intellectual, and psychological context. These elements combine with each other in the Qur’an in myriad ways that produce the Qur’an’s unique character
[/INDENT]
Feel free to show me something better then the recitation video's I gave you, without any music or "singing", even though either still isn't going to beat it.

Original post by gltw

It was standardised by Uthman who reportedly left out 20% for political reasons and altered the words resulting in a book was not fully accurate and was ultimately changed by four fallible men who made judgement according to their wisdom.

I guess you've been listening to your priest too much. So you have to lie about other faiths to try and feel comfort with your own flawed faith.

Anyways, please do bring your proof of this "incompleteness" so I can easily refute it.

Original post by gltw

Therefore the flow cannot be unique if it was basically changed by men who were like any other. It gives the Qur'an no more rhythmic value than Shakespeare plays.

A shakespeare play lmao? Yeah, you're clueless.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 276

gltw

Original post by Perseveranze

I doubt any "Muslim" scholar was fooled.

And you chat so much crap lol, "it was not detected by scholars", did you even read the link I gave you?

Believe what you want.

Original post by Perseveranze

Except the Quran is nor peotry or a play. You have not understood anything I told you, nor have you understood that the Quran in itself is a language.

That's irrelevant, it is still written word. It is still recited.

Original post by Perseveranze

Feel free to show me something better then the recitation video's I gave you, without any music or "singing", even though either still isn't going to beat it.

So there is no point in me even posting a video if you are close minded.

Original post by Perseveranze

I guess you've been listening to your priest too much. So you have to lie about other faiths to try and feel comfort with your own flawed faith.

Original post by Perseveranze

Anyways, please do bring your proof of this "incompleteness" so I can easily refute it.

I just did and you didn't. It is estimated 25% is missing from your standardised Qur'an.

But one main question: Can you trust your Qur'an's account of Jesus if it was written 599 years after he was resurrected?

Original post by Perseveranze

A shakespeare play lmao? Yeah, you're clueless.

It has flow and rhythm, it is subjective if you think your Qur'an recites better.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 277

Perseveranze

Original post by gltw

I just did and you didn't. It is estimated 25% is missing from your standardised Qur'an.

Ok, I say; 100% of the Bible is missing from the standardised version.

Would you believe me, if I didn't prove this to you? Typical Christian, takes quotes from Priests without checking facts.

Original post by gltw

But one main question: Can you trust your Qur'an's account of Jesus if it was written 599 years after he was resurrected?

Can you trust the Bible's account of Jesus(pbuh) if it was written 300 years after his death?

And atleast the Quran makes a clear statement: Jesus never said he's the son of God. And nowhere, not even "Paul's bible" did Jesus ever mention out of his own mouth that he was the "son of God".

Original post by gltw

It has flow and rhythm, it is subjective if you think your Qur'an recites better.

When it comes to beauty, that is subjective (everything to do with beauty is subjective). Even though;

[INDENT]“It has a rhythm of peculiar beauty and a cadence that charms the ear. Many Christian Arabs speak of its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its excellence. When it is read aloud or recited it has an almost hypnotic effect…” - Alfred Guillaume
[/INDENT]
When it comes to uniqueness, that is not subjective, as I've proven to you before.

[INDENT]Literary structures are composed of many elements that are too numerous to be discussed in detail in this article. They include diction, phonology, rhetoric, composition, morphology, syntax, architecture, rhythm, and style, in addition to matters related to tone, voice, orality, imagery, symbolism, allegory, genre, point of view, intertexuality, intratextual resonance, and other literary aspects – all of which are set within a historical, cultural, intellectual, and psychological context. These elements combine with each other in the Qur’an in myriad ways that produce the Qur’an’s unique character
[/INDENT]

If it's difficult for you to understand, then that's really not my problem.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 278

Rtcw

I guess that's no. I'm not mahram.

Reply 279

gltw

Original post by Perseveranze

Would you believe me, if I didn't prove this to you? Typical Christian, takes quotes from :hahaha:

Priests without checking facts.

Original post by Perseveranze

Can you trust the Bible's account of Jesus(pbuh) if it was written 300 years after his death?

You need to take a 0 off that. Marks Gospel was written in 60AD. All the gospels were written before the 2nd century began. That is why scholars use the Gospels to make up a clear picture of the historical Jesus, no scholar (non-muslim) has ever used the Qur'an's account of Jesus to get a historical view of him.

Original post by Perseveranze

And atleast the Quran makes a clear statement: Jesus never said he's the son of God. And nowhere, not even "Paul's bible" did Jesus ever mention out of his own mouth that he was the "son of God".

Paul's Bible?

Joh_3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh_5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
Joh_9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
Joh_10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh_11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
Rev_2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

Demons even declared this
Mat_8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

It was Prophesied in the OT
Dan_3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

The Early Church believed it
Act_9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
1Jn_4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1Jn_5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

(edited 12 years ago)