Obadiah77:



Do you know other Islamist that are stronger that kabiru, cuz I doubt kabiru' can withstand what I have for him.

The name is KABIR, the full name is ABDULKABIR, which means, servant of the Great one, you saying Kabiru is like saying VOLUME pronouncing the "eh sound" at the end, now how funny does that sound? Yeah thats same way the Arabs will laugh you so wickedly if you say Kabiru.

RealLordZeus:

Firstly, The name is Muslim not muhammedan, as per your question, in the first ayah, it was stated clearly that there is no Compulsion in religion which holds. The punishments mention in the second verse were not of this world and not to be prescribed by anybody except Allah SWT. I think that Should be clear enough. @lexiconkabir. I am sorry but I cant just miss the opportunity to pass the good message

The explanation is not acceptable because there are numerous hadith and quran that preached and taught aggression against people of non-islamic faith. Most the the peaceful verses like 'there is no compulsion in religion...(quran 2:256)' were revealed in mecca when mohammed had few converts and was always at loggerhead with the mecca pagans.

However the tone of his message changed significantly after his migration to medina where he formed the islamic state with enough military men to fight and defeat the meccans. He also became aggressive against the christians and the Jews who took him for a fake prophet (quran 9:29)

true2god:
The explanation is not acceptable because there are numerous hadith and quran that preached and taught aggression against people of non-islamic faith. Most the the peaceful verses like 'there is no compulsion in religion...(quran 2:256)' were revealed in mecca when mohammed had few converts and was always at loggerhead with the mecca pagans.

However the tone of his message changed significantly after his migration to medina where he formed the islamic state with enough military men to fight and defeat the meccans. He also became aggressive against the christians and the Jews who took him for a fake prophet (quran 9:29)

go and preach to the different atheist that came to nairaland as strong Christians but are no more christians......they need your help not us, even the OP is one of them, you guys arent even ashamed at all.

lexiconkabir:


The name is KABIR, the full name is ABDULKABIR, which means, servant of the Great one, you saying Kabiru is like saying VOLUME pronouncing the "eh sound" at the end, now how funny does that sound? Yeah thats same way the Arabs will laugh you so wickedly if you say Kabiru.

KABIRUU

annunaki2:


KABIRUU

You didnt disappoint me by behaving as someone with sense.

annunaki2:


KABIRUU

Ahh, and i thought this guy was an adult sha. Anyway just can't stop showing how immature he is. @lexiconkabir, Eid mubarak in advance.

Oladim001:
Ahh, and i thought this guy was an adult sha. Anyway just can't stop showing how immature he is. @lexiconk.abir, Eid mubarak in advance.

Shukran ya akh, how are we gonna celebrate it?? Shey i go see meat?

lexiconkabir:


Shukran ya akh, how are we gonna celebrate it?? Shey i go see meat?

You go see na. But na eyes u go use see am, you no go fit shop am. I go send am through e-mail

lexiconkabir:


Shukran ya akh, how are we gonna celebrate it?? Shey i go see meat?

You go see na. But na eyes u go use see am, you no go fit shop am. I go send am through e-mail

Oladim001:
You go see na. But na eyes u go use see am, you no go fit shop am. I go send am through e-mail You go see na. But na eyes u go use see am, you no go fit shop am. I go send am through e-mail

Lol..

Lexiconkabir
Does your request of you being the only one to attend to him still stand?

udatso:
Lexiconkabir
Does your request of you being the only one to attend to him still stand?

Actually no, you can as well contribute and any other Muslim.

lexiconkabir:


Actually no, you can as well contribute and any other Muslim.

I was about to advice other brothers to leave him for you so the attention won't be divided. You are doing a great job. Ride on.
Please ignore the NOISE MAKERS

udatso:

I was about to advice other brothers to leave him for you so the attention won't be divided. You are doing a great job. Ride on.
Please ignore the NOISE MAKERS

Shukran ya akh, jazakAllah, Actually anyone with a better answer to his questions can reply him, cuz I'm kinda busy, I'm just squeezing out time to reply him what i will just request is anyone replying him should be sure of what he or she is saying......about the noise makers, they are obviously pained that Muslims dont take them seriously on this forum again.....they are just looking for a way to start baseless arguments here which wont work insha Allah.

lexiconkabir:


This has been answered, islamic theology you said? You don't know something as basic as tawheed and here you are talking about Islamic theology, you see why you need to study Arabic?

Unless you want to tell us that Allah is more than one. Allah that supposes to be one entity yet always referring to Itself with plural pronouns.

It's left for you to tell me why Allah always use pronouns like 'I', 'me', Us', 'We', 'Him', 'He' e.t.c when It's not multi personal

Obadiah77:


Unless you want to tell us that Allah is more than one. Allah that supposes to be one entity yet always referring to Itself with plural pronouns.

It's left for you to tell me why Allah always use pronouns like 'I', 'me', Us', 'We', 'Him', 'He' e.t.c when It's not multi personal

Ive dealt with this, read!

lexiconkabir:


Allah refers to himself, he swore by himself since nothing is above him, the Arabs do take swearing very serious, so to make the issue serious he swore by himself.

You are only helping Allah claim this. For example in the Bible, whenever Yahweh wants to swear, he would say, "i swear by myself' and not "I swear by the God of Israel". But in this scenario Allah was swearing by the lord of the east and west which makes it clear that he wasn't swearing by himself but rather by the lord of the east and west.

This is too clear for any discerning mind, but then Islamic apologists will try to rationalize it.

lexiconkabir:


The angels were the ones speaking here not Allah, Allah is quoting them.

First you said the angels were the one speaking and not Allah, but then you quickly change that by saying Allah was quoting them, you should show you prove that he was quoting them.

Analysis of Moses encountered with Allah.

I'll insert my word in bracket.

So, when he(Moses) came to it, he(Moses) was called 'Blessed is he who is in the fire, and he who is about it. Glory be to God, the Lord of all Being! Moses, behold, it is I, God, the All-mighty, the All-wise.

From this surah many problems arise:
1) The underlined statement was already indicated that Moses was called by someone.
Then if Moses was called, who called Moses?

2) We see the narrator trying to made us know that another person is now talking which suppose to be Allah inside the burning bush.

3) The person who called Moses firstly praised him/herself with the statement "Blessed is he who is in the fire...."
NOTE: the HE in this phrase suppose to be referring to Allah BUT the question we must ask here is who is talking when the underlined statement "....who is in the fire" already made it clear that it's Allah that is actually in the fire?

4) The narrator still goes on to say "Glory be to GOD" remember after Moses was called by the one who is in the fire who supposedly to be Allah is when the conversation begins.

5) To tell you that this is purely wrong linguistic composition the narrator/writer finally identified Allah as the SPEAKER by this statement "Moses, behold it is I, God

Doesn't the same God first says "Blessed is he.......or....Glory be to God"? whose God Blessed or Glory be to?
Could it be Allah who later identified Itself as God again or angel Jibril who is narrating the story?

Definitely it could not be Jibril because MOSES was already called by the one in the fire.

So it is Allah who is praising Itself or another God.

Sample 2 is coming!

Lexiconkabir, demmzy15, Oladim001, udatsi

Obadiah77:

You are only helping Allah claim this. For example in the Bible, whenever Yahweh wants to swear, he would say, "i swear by myself' and not "I swear by the God of Israel". But in this scenario Allah was swearing by the lord of the east and west which makes it clear that he wasn't swearing by himself but rather by the lord of the east and west.

This is too clear for any discerning mind, but then Islamic apologists will try to rationalize it.

And he says he isnt a christain. Whats even the essence of this when you won't believe at the end of the day.

Obadiah77:


First you said the angels were the one speaking and not Allah, but then you quickly change that by saying Allah was quoting them, you should show you prove that he was quoting them.

Here are few translations

Wahiduddin Khan [The angels say], Every single one of us has his place assigned:

Abdel Haleem [The angels say], ‘Every single one of us has his appointed place:

Ahmed Ali "There is not one of us who does not have his appointed place," (declare the angels.)

Ali Ünal (The angels whom they assert to be God’s daughters say): "There is none among us but has his duty and position assigned,

Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali And in no way is there one of us, (i.e., the angels) except that he has a known station,

Muhammad Taqi Usmani And (the angels say,) .There is no one among us who does not have a known station,

Umm Muhammad (Sahih International) [The angels say], "There is not among us any except that he has a known position.

Dr. Munir Munshey (The angels say) "Every single one of us has been assigned a place,"

What do you see in common? They all added "angels" in parenthesis, how did they know that it should be that way? Because they've studied the exegesis of the Quran, which is what you lack, hence it proves the point i was trying to make in the other thread.

Obadiah77:

You are only helping Allah claim this. For example in the Bible, whenever Yahweh wants to swear, he would say, "i swear by myself' and not "I swear by the God of Israel". But in this scenario Allah was swearing by the lord of the east and west which makes it clear that he wasn't swearing by himself but rather by the lord of the east and west.

This is too clear for any discerning mind, but then Islamic apologists will try to rationalize it.

Firstly I'm not an apologist, cuz i don't give a damn of what you think of Islam, islam dont need us, but we need islam, so anyone who feels he doesn't want to believe in Allah is really on the loosing side, that being said,

Here is Quran73:9

the Lord of the East and the West; there is no deity except Him, so take Him as Disposer of [your]
affairs

Here Allah claims to be the lord of the east and the west, and if you are not convinced, you must have heard of "There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah" now compare this saying and that verse i just posted.

And dont bring the bible into this..... We arent talking about the Bible.

lexiconkabir:


Firstly I'm not an apologist, cuz i don't give a damn of what you think of Islam, islam dont need us, but we need islam, so anyone who feels he doesn't want to believe in Allah is really on the loosing side, that being said,

You are taking this thing personal.

Here is Quran73:9 the Lord of the East and the West; there is no deity except Him, so take Him as Disposer of [your]. affairs

Again you can see clearly there is a problem here but you are deliberately ignoring it. If for example buhari' is in another country where he is not know as the president of Nigeria, and started making statement like: the president (take note-not presidency) will provide you all with Cash. There is no other president of Nigeria except him" tell me kabir, would the listener ever assume that he is indeed the president or assume that the person is representing him?

The latter is just the case. It is clear here that Allah wasn't the one doing the talking here rather someone else,, because how could he swear by another lord and at the same time refer to himself as HIM. He could have simply said: there is no deity except me, so take me as Disposer of [your]. affairs. Very clear. But then because he wasn't the one doing the talking the whole is different.

Here Allah claims to be the lord of the east and the west, and if you are not convinced, you must have heard of "There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah" now compare this saying and that verse i just posted.

He didn't claim to be the lord of the east and west in that verse, he (or anyone doing the talking) only swear by the lord of the east and west.

And dont bring the bible into this..... We arent talking about the Bible.

I'm sorry, I was only trying to use it to clarify my point.

Obadiah77:

From this surah many problems arise:
1) The underlined statement was already indicated that Moses was called by someone.
Then if Moses was called, who called Moses?

His Lord! Allah.

2) We see the narrator trying to made us know that another person is now talking which suppose to be Allah inside the burning bush.

Do you realise Allah was qyoting an event in the past and so HE is using the exact words He used when he called MUSA.

3) The person who called Moses firstly praised him/herself with the statement "Blessed is he who is in the fire...."
NOTE: the HE in this phrase suppose to be referring to Allah BUT the question we must ask here is who is talking when the underlined statement "....who is in the fire" already made it clear that it's Allah that is actually in the fire?

4) The narrator still goes on to say "Glory be to GOD" remember after Moses was called by the one who is in the fire who supposedly to be Allah is when the conversation begins.

5) To tell you that this is purely wrong linguistic composition the narrator/writer finally identified Allah as the SPEAKER by this statement "Moses, behold it is I, God

Doesn't the same God first says "Blessed is he.......or....Glory be to God"? whose God Blessed or Glory be to?
Could it be Allah who later identified Itself as God again or angel Jibril who is narrating the story?

Definitely it could not be Jibril because MOSES was already called by the one in the fire.

So it is Allah who is praising Itself or another God.

Sample 2 is coming!

Lexicon.kabir, demm.zy15, Olad.im001, udatsi

Did you read this?

“Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Verily, We have given you a manifest victory” [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.” (Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

This short excerpts should do the job, except if you are an enemy of truth.

lexiconkabir:


Here are few translations

Wahiduddin Khan [The angels say], Every single one of us has his place assigned:

Abdel Haleem [The angels say], ‘Every single one of us has his appointed place:

Ahmed Ali "There is not one of us who does not have his appointed place," (declare the angels.)

Ali Ünal (The angels whom they assert to be God’s daughters say): "There is none among us but has his duty and position assigned,

Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali And in no way is there one of us, (i.e., the angels) except that he has a known station,

Muhammad Taqi Usmani And (the angels say,) .There is no one among us who does not have a known station,

Umm Muhammad (Sahih International) [The angels say], "There is not among us any except that he has a known position.
Dr. Munir Munshey (The angels say) "Every single one of us has been assigned a place,"

What do you see in common? They all added "angels" in parenthesis, how did they know that it should be that way? Because they've studied the exegesis of the Quran, which is what you lack, hence it proves the point i was trying to make in the other thread.

Saving you sorry ass again at last sentence.. What exegesis did they study that is not part of the Arabic word in that verse?

Do you mean anybody can just insert any word to the verse of the quran and claim he had studied the exegesis.

This your lie en

To the one that posted this sh*t

Obadiah77:


You are taking this thing personal.



Again you can see clearly there is a problem here but you are deliberately ignoring it. If for example buhari' is in another country where he is not know as the president of Nigeria, and started making statement like: the president (take note-not presidency) will provide you all with Cash. There is no other president of Nigeria except him" tell me kabir, would the listener ever assume that he is indeed the president or assume that the person is representing him?

The latter is just the case. It is clear here that Allah wasn't the one doing the talking here rather someone else,, because how could he swear by another lord and at the same time refer to himself as HIM. He could have simply said: there is no deity except me, so take me as Disposer of [your]. affairs. Very clear. But then because he wasn't the one doing the talking the whole is different.



He didn't claim to be the lord of the east and west in that verse, he (or anyone doing the talking) only swear by the lord of the east and west.



I'm sorry, I was only trying to use it to clarify my point.

Do you the cause of All these confusion you are getting? Its because you don't understand Arabic and you don't know how the language works, if you read the reply with an open mind that i gave in the page1 of this thread where i quoted a 13th century scholar, you shouldn't have any problems with how Allah used pronouns in the Quran, have you ever asked yourself why none of the enemies of islam in the time of Muhammad criticized what you are criticizing now? Its because they are familiar with the language and they know how it works, then why do we see people that dont understand Arabic criticize what they dont understand?

Obadiah77:

Saving you sorry ass again at last sentence.. What exegesis did they study that is not part of the Arabic word in that verse?

Do you mean anybody can just insert any word to the verse of the quran and claim he had studied the exegesis.

This your lie en

Its not about claiming,: its about, did they put the translations in their right context,we have people that translated the Quran and it was not accepted from them, ok tell me why they all had the same idea that it should be angels all at once, coincidence?

lexiconkabir:


His Lord! Allah.



Do you realise Allah was qyoting an event in the past and so HE is using the exact words He used when he called MUSA.



Did you read this?

“Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Verily, We have given you a manifest victory” [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.” (Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

This short excerpts should do the job, except if you are an enemy of truth.

Contrary to this nonsense you keep repeating, Muslim scholar M. A. S. Abdel Haleem admits,

It should be pointed out that in pre-Islamic literature, and during the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, pronouns do not appear to have been used as indicative of status; they did not change with social status, and the plural of majesty, in particular, does not appear to have been used by, or for addressing or referring to, kings or chiefs. The Prophet and his early successors did not use it for themselves nor in their letters to address kings or governors. It was clearly in the Qur'an that such usage was introduced, as has been shown, on the basis of a highly sophisticated application of the concept of plurality Grammatical Shift For Rhetorical Purposes: Iltifat and Related Features in the Qur’an”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 55, No. 3 (1992), p. 414. Haleem provides the following footnote in connection with this observation: M. Sa'rān, al-Lugha wa'l-mujtama' (Cairo, 1963), 139-58.

some justification must be given for the assertion that it really explains what is going on in the Qur'an. If such an idiom was introduced into Arabic by the Qur’an, why is this new idiom never explained? Why is there no record of Muhammad explaining it in the Hadith? And since it never is explained in either the Qur’an or the Hadith, what is the proof that the Qur’an introduces such an idiom in the first place?

lexiconkabir:


Its not about claiming,: its about, did they put the translations in their right context,we have people that translated the Quran and it was not accepted from them, ok tell me why they all had the same idea that it should be angels all at once, coincidence?

Thats what am saying. No matter how sensible what you say is. He won't believe it. Thats why am saying there is no essence cos he's not ready to change except if Allah helps him and softens his heart.

lexiconkabir:


Its not about claiming,: its about, did they put the translations in their right context,we have people that translated the Quran and it was not accepted from them, ok tell me why they all had the same idea that it should be angels all at once, coincidence?

They all had the same idea because they all believe Allah doesn't hymn praise at anyone. But forgetting that the Koran is the word of Allah himself thay alleged that the angels were the one hymming the praise.

I refuse to accept this lie.

Oladim001:
Thats what am saying. No matter how sensible what you say is. He won't believe it. Thats why am saying there is no essence cos he's not ready to change except if Allah helps him and softens his heart.

Calm down brother.

Whom did Allah pray to?

He it is who prays for you and His angels too, to bring you forth out of the darkness into the light, for He is merciful to the believers. S. 33:43

SAMPLE 2

“indeed, the Qur’an is a word a NOBLE messenger. possessed of power and with the Owner of the Throne, secure .Obeyed there and trustworthy. And your companion is not mad.And he has already seen Gabriel in the clear horizon.” [Surah At-Takweer: 81:19-23]

Now let's look at this surah and compare it with the translator's insertion.

If pay close attention to statement of this surah you've discovered that there's a grammatical conflict within the text.

1) The first sentence portray it as Quran is a messenger with the phrase "....is a word a NOBLE messenger" no clear distinction that's why the translator has to insert "[CONVEYED BY]" to bring out the meaning.

2) This phrase "possessed of power and with the owner of the throne" doesn't match each other and never compliment the previous statement that's why the translator has to inserted [Who is] which now placed Muhammad as the subject.
With the owner of the throne simply means it exist/stand along the whoever own the throne yet was Muhammad fits into that position?

3) The word 'secure' rendered the insertion word that made muhammad the subject useless because the translator gets confused so s/he inserted "[in position]"
Does Muhammad secure in position with Allah?

4) This next one is more perplexing, remember the translator has already placed Muhammad as the subject but see what this phrase says "Obeyed there [in the heavens]"

Can you see how insertion killed these verses.
Yet the original text doesn't favour either.

Who is being obeyed here in heaven Muhammad or Qur'an?

Lexicokabir' demmzy15, oladim001