Are you an atheist? (2 Viewers)

[aziz rasul]

And here is the one single fact to be found in all of Aziz's fanatical rantings to date.

I could say the same of you as a non believer. Interesting to note that I was accused of hiding from tackling any alleged contradictions and I asked you to start of with one, and where is it? I rest my case. You are not a serious debater and it seems to me that you are afraid of the TRUTH.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I gave you 153. Not my problem if you're not capable of selecting even a single one and responding.

And no one here is afraid of the truth. You merely have yet to provide anything other than opinions, misinformation, distortions of facts, and 'alternative facts'. In order to have a debate, you first have to accept the possibility that someone can see the world differently than you, and like virtually all fanatics, you cannot. Over the years, you have been provided case after case PROVING you wrong factually, based on observation and measurement, and your response is invariably 'No I'm not because the Qu'ran'. Until your mind is open to the possibility that a book written by a man who was, by any modern standard, a barbarian (and don't get me wrong, by today's standards, so were Alexander, the Caesars, and even, say, Aristotle) might just possibly be in error about scientific principles that weren't even known of in his day, you won't be debating.

What you're doing is proselytizing, not debating, and badly at that. I am simply less willing to pussyfoot around than Doc and Galaxiom, because I have given up any hope of you ever being rational. I have little patience left for fanatics incapable of even comprehending that different worldviews even exist, much less what the differences are.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

What is more to the point is what the text says, not the mode of how it was communicated.

aziz - by this standard you would have to accept the Book of Mormon and the writings of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. I don't think you can say this and actually mean it. Because by that standard, Hogwart's School of Magic exists!

Islam acknowledges Jesus as a prophet though not as the begotten Son of God. By your standard, since the story of the Egyptian god-hero Horus is a parallel to the story of Jesus, you would have to say that the message is more important than the method of imparting that message. Therefore, the stories about Horus must ALSO be true. After all this time, I would doubt that any witnesses to the events remain, and Horus predates Jesus by about 1200 years minimum.

Don't you SEE the slippery slope you just greased for yourself? You are in so MANY ways a very educated and skilled person. Don't you see what your blind spot just led you to say? If the message is more important than its origin, then we cannot downplay ANY religious books. Yet Islam does exactly that. Can you not see the inherent contradiction?

 

[aziz rasul]

I gave you 153. Not my problem if you're not capable of selecting even a single one and responding.

Of course I am capable of selecting a single one. I was simply giving you the opportunity to select so that you wouldn’t then come back and say ‘why didn’t you mention this particular alleged contradiction etc.

And no one here is afraid of the truth.

Neither am I.

You merely have yet to provide anything other than opinions, misinformation, distortions of facts, and 'alternative facts'. In order to have a debate, you first have to accept the possibility that someone can see the world differently than you, and like virtually all fanatics, you cannot.

You may regard provable scientific facts, which is the foundation of what I have been saying, as opinions, misinformation, etc. then that is your concern. There is no point in you debating anything if you don’t even acknowledge what truthfully has already been discussed and take an entirely parallel course.

Over the years, you have been provided case after case PROVING you wrong factually, based on observation and measurement, and your response is invariably 'No I'm not because the Qu'ran'. Until your mind is open to the possibility that a book written by a man who was, by any modern standard, a barbarian (and don't get me wrong, by today's standards, so were Alexander, the Caesars, and even, say, Aristotle) might just possibly be in error about scientific principles that weren't even known of in his day, you won't be debating.

What you're doing is proselytizing, not debating, and badly at that. I am simply less willing to pussyfoot around than Doc and Galaxiom, because I have given up any hope of you ever being rational. I have little patience left for fanatics incapable of even comprehending that different worldviews even exist, much less what the differences are.

This is simply a rant, I see no discussion or debate here. Hence a bit odd for you to make accusations of me not debating yet where have you discussed anything? Just because The_Doc_Man and Galaxiom don’t agree with my observations does not automatically mean that they are necessarily right and that I am wrong. After all I seem to be the only one on the side of a believer in God in this thread at the moment. If as a minority I must be wrong then why do you all keep coming back to me if I am so WRONG. If you are so fed up with my ‘fanatical’ views then why keep ranting on about it. Surely one rant in a thread is more than enough especially if you bring nothing else to the discussion.

Taking the first alleged contradiction, we have the Qur’anic verse in question

39:40 Say, "If I should err, I would only err against myself. But if I am guided, it is by what my Lord reveals to me. Indeed, He is Hearing and near."

According to the web site this is a contradiction because God says we have to obey God and His Messenger so if the Prophet (peace be upon him) errs how does it make sense that we should obey him. One thing you have to note is that whenever the Prophet (peace be upon him) or indeed the previous prophets as well, instruct the people, these instructions come by inspiration from God Himself to the prophets (peace be upon them). The verse simply shows that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself errs as a result of what he may do, it would only affect him and no one else. Hence anything that God guides the Prophet (peace be upon him) towards will always be right, so I fail to see where the contradiction is. I’ll bet that you probably didn’t even look at the alleged contradiction.

aziz - by this standard you would have to accept the Book of Mormon and the writings of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. I don't think you can say this and actually mean it. Because by that standard, Hogwart's School of Magic exists!

As the Qur’an is the last book that was to be revealed, then the above mentioned books would not apply anyway. However read below.

Islam acknowledges Jesus as a prophet though not as the begotten Son of God. By your standard, since the story of the Egyptian god-hero Horus is a parallel to the story of Jesus, you would have to say that the message is more important than the method of imparting that message. Therefore, the stories about Horus must ALSO be true. After all this time, I would doubt that any witnesses to the events remain, and Horus predates Jesus by about 1200 years minimum.

The message is indeed important if it comes from God via arch angel Gabriel. I do not see how the scripture was revealed as being more to concentrate on than the content of the Scripture itself. Also, God tells us about 4 books that were revealed in the Qur’an of which the Ten Commandments and the Qur’an have remained intact. However non-Muslims would not accept say the Qur’an, hence God challenges them.

4:82 Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allaah, they would have found within it much contradiction.

17:81 And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

So if there is a book that was written before the Qur’an was revealed and there are no contradictions and we can prove it does not come from man, then let’s see it. I have shown, using science that the Qur’an could not have been written by man. Also there are no contradictions in it. If there is, show me? If there is a man-made book that matches what is in the Qur’an then that’s OK. It doesn’t mean it comes from God, but it would make sense to accept it as it matches. For example, Jesus’s (peace be upon him) message:-

The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ Mark 12:29-30

If the author of the Scripture is God then of course the origin is important (I didn’t say otherwise) providing we can prove this. The fact that there was an intermediary, angel Gabriel, who transmitted it directly to the Messenger of God from God, so what. Sorry, I see no slippery slope of contradiction as you see it.

If God exists, He has to be the Creator of everything that is an attribute, among others, that a god needs to have. Hence God will talk about His creation, hence the science of creation that the Qur’an talks about. If you know of a book that you can prove could NOT have come from man, then let’s examine it. I have used creation or science. If you have some other way of doing this, I am happy to look at it, whenever it was revealed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

As the Qur’an is the last book that was to be revealed, then the above mentioned books would not apply anyway.

The books I mentioned POST-date the Qur'an and therefore, by your logic, supersede it. Aziz, you CANNOT have it both ways. You are still evading the real question and are too stubborn to realize it. If the message did not originate from your creator, then to say the message outweighs the mode of message revelation means that modern demagogues can have messages equally valid as the Qur'an even if contrary to it. Don't you SEE what you are proposing?

I called you a reasonably intelligent person and still believe that but - forgive me - you are exposing a MAJOR blind spot in that intelligence by your continued assertion.

The WHOLE POINT of a Divine Revelation in a holy book is that its origin must be ... well, ... DIVINE! So HELL YES the method of revelation is important. There is no reason to believe the message unless you have exceptional reasons to trust or believe in the messenger. Otherwise, the book of Mormon, originating in the 1800s, HAS to be considered as more recent - and therefore, an update - to the words that preceded it. Which includes the Qur'an, among other things.

When we refer to blind obedience, THIS is the kind of reaction to which we refer. It is the blind obedience to the leader that leads lemmings off a cliff to their doom.

What is more to the point is what the text says, not the mode of how it was communicated.

If the author of the Scripture is God then of course the origin is important (I didn’t say otherwise) providing we can prove this.

Seems to me you DID say otherwise. And there is a fatal flaw in the second statement. "Provided we can prove this." But you CAN NEVER prove that which is forever a matter of faith, not proof.

 

[aziz rasul]

The books I mentioned POST-date the Qur'an and therefore, by your logic, supersede it. Aziz, you CANNOT have it both ways. You are still evading the real question and are too stubborn to realize it. If the message did not originate from your creator, then to say the message outweighs the mode of message revelation means that modern demagogues can have messages equally valid as the Qur'an even if contrary to it. Don't you SEE what you are proposing?

As a Muslim I can say what I have said and as a non-Muslim you have a right not to agree, it’s not a case of stubbornness as you put it. As a Muslim, the Qur’an is the final revelation so therefore me saying that the book of Mormon’s cannot be considered is a valid comment and therefore Islamically cannot be a religious book divinely inspired or given. As a non-believer of course it doesn’t make sense. We are simply approaching the issue from different viewpoints. So what makes sense to you won’t necessarily make sense to me if the boundaries of my belief are comprised, which I know are correct. It makes no sense for me to accept the Qur’an as the final revelation as a boundary and then simply ignore it. What kind of a Muslim would that make me? By being consistent in my belief is what is important otherwise you would accuse me of being contradictory.

As a non-believer you think that anyone who thinks that there religious book is genuine and has been divinely given, then I have said prove it, which is what I have been trying to do using science. If I simply concentrate in the mode of communication of the Qur’an you would say prove it? However if I can prove to myself, through science, that the Qur’an could not be the work of man, then that is something you can ‘see’ and therefore the mode of communication is important but secondary to the message. Muslims don’t ponder on the manner in which the Qur’an was revealed once they accept that it was revealed divinely, they ponder over the Qur’anic verses as this more relevant on a day to day basis.

If you can prove that any religious book could not have been written by man by whatever means you think will prove this, then clearly it will be transmitted by a god, how the words were communicated is a secondary matter to me. The Ten Commandments were given on stone tablets. Is that more important or what the commandments say accepting that they were given to us by Allaah.

I called you a reasonably intelligent person and still believe that but - forgive me - you are exposing a MAJOR blind spot in that intelligence by your continued assertion.

From where you stand on the discussion I can understand that but from where I stand, I see no blind spot.

Chapter 109
In the name of Allaah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.

Seems to me you DID say otherwise. And there is a fatal flaw in the second statement. "Provided we can prove this." But you CAN NEVER prove that which is forever a matter of faith, not proof.

What I am saying is that the mode of communication, once accepted by a Muslim, is of secondary importance. The fact that the Scripture is the word of God, surely has to be more important. After all in this thread I haven’t harped on about how the Qur’an was revealed but rather what the Qur’an says. If I can prove to you that the verses regarding science and creation could not have been written by man, then are you going to jump up and down to that fact or that it was given by God through arch angel Gabriel piece meal? Many non-Muslims who eventually become Muslims, don’t do so through faith as they initially don’t have any faith to hang on to. They do and can compare and contrast the Qur’anic verses with science and come to the correct conclusion and then and only then faith begins to take over. Again it depends which point of the debate you stand.

If the Qur’anic verses regarding provable science agree with what the majority of scientists, irrespective of their beliefs, say, then that to me is not faith but PROOF.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If I can prove to you that the verses regarding science and creation could not have been written by man,

This is the crux of our disagreement. I have every reason to believe that writings you showed us are not definitively divinely inspired, and not specific enough to qualify as anything other than at best a close guess. For the parts about human reproduction, a lot of that information would be available for any scholar doing autopsies for the purpose of gaining knowledge. For the creation mythos, it is not that different from many others I have seen.

As to proof, perhaps this is only a leftover from my own former religion, but in the Bible, God has made it clear that we only come to Him in faith, for there WILL be no proof. We were taught that if we could prove something, then of necessity that thing we just proved could NOT have been divinely created because it would counter the "only through faith" doctrine. Therefore, by that doctrine, if you can prove the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an, by (at least some parts of) Protestant doctrine, it must not be of divine origin. More specifically, anything that is both provable and apparently divine must be an artifice of Satan, placed here to steer you away from God and towards a false god.

Perhaps with that explanation, you can see the impasse we have reached. If the Qur'an is actually provable, then it violates the "only through faith" doctrine and must be the work of Satan.

Of course, since I no longer have that faith, I won't actually make that claim, since a belief in Satan would necessitate a belief in God. And there, I do not go.

I must go back to the thing that a very painful time in my life brought me to believe. ALL of the holy books that involve a deity are holdovers from a time when people had no other explanation for the frightening phenomena around them, so they fabricated an anthropomorphic immortal spirit as the cause.

Arthur C Clarke's statement, which I will paraphrase here, applies: Any sufficiently advanced science will resemble magic to those who don't know the science.

As a scientist, finding coincidentally correct explanations in an old book do not constitute proof. The nature and origin of the book is subject to scrutiny, but as long as the book says that it is true, we have a circular reference - which resolves to the "It is because I say it is" class of argument, which is "argumentum ad authoritatem" (or something like that) and a known fallacy of formal logic.

 

[aziz rasul]

This is the crux of our disagreement. I have every reason to believe that writings you showed us are not definitively divinely inspired, and not specific enough to qualify as anything other than at best a close guess. For the parts about human reproduction, a lot of that information would be available for any scholar doing autopsies for the purpose of gaining knowledge. For the creation mythos, it is not that different from many others I have seen.

No autopsy can tell you that a drop of sperm is required for fertilisation and that the drop of sperm is firmly lodged.
No autopsy can tell you that it is the father that determines the gender of the child.

The fact that the Qur’an tells us about the bursting of a particle which began the creation of our universe.
The fact that the Qur’an tells us that the early universe was gaseous.
The fact that the Qur’an tells us that the universe is expanding.

Etc. etc.

As to proof, perhaps this is only a leftover from my own former religion, but in the Bible, God has made it clear that we only come to Him in faith, for there WILL be no proof. We were taught that if we could prove something, then of necessity that thing we just proved could NOT have been divinely created because it would counter the "only through faith" doctrine. Therefore, by that doctrine, if you can prove the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an, by (at least some parts of) Protestant doctrine, it must not be of divine origin. More specifically, anything that is both provable and apparently divine must be an artifice of Satan, placed here to steer you away from God and towards a false god.

Perhaps with that explanation, you can see the impasse we have reached. If the Qur'an is actually provable, then it violates the "only through faith" doctrine and must be the work of Satan.

You have created an issue based on the Bible (which is a corruption of the original and where the NT is written by man) and of having faith only to judge the Qur’an. The Qur’an, the only surviving book by God that has been maintained cannot be judged in this way. I’m sure Satan is not a happy bunny when he sees non-Muslims accepting Islam after they see the scientific evidence in the Qur’an.

I must go back to the thing that a very painful time in my life brought me to believe. ALL of the holy books that involve a deity are holdovers from a time when people had no other explanation for the frightening phenomena around them, so they fabricated an anthropomorphic immortal spirit as the cause.

No doubt true for many religions and religious books. Note that if you had the original pristine original of the Torah, it may have been a different outcome.

Arthur C Clarke's statement, which I will paraphrase here, applies: Any sufficiently advanced science will resemble magic to those who don't know the science.

I’m sure with your intellect this does not apply to you.

As a scientist, finding coincidentally correct explanations in an old book do not constitute proof.

Well I know of no other book written over even a few hundred years ago who can claim this other than the Qur’an. You will find ancient books that give you incorrect scientific facts like the book of Genesis. You may not be impressed by the Qur'an but many new reverts to Islam are.

The nature and origin of the book is subject to scrutiny, but as long as the book says that it is true, we have a circular reference - which resolves to the "It is because I say it is" class of argument, which is "argumentum ad authoritatem" (or something like that) and a known fallacy of formal logic.

But the Qur’an is also giving you facts to ponder over. You can’t accept a book simply on the basis that the book itself says it’s from God. That’s why I have been giving scientific Qur’anic verses to prove my case so where is the circular reference?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

No autopsy can tell you that a drop of sperm is required for fertilisation and that the drop of sperm is firmly lodged.

Firmly lodged? That's HALF a claim. Lodged in what? (Lodged is generally taken as a relational verb implying something in which to be lodged.) And a drop? Actually, not even a drop - but the implied claim is simply not that earth-shaking.

No autopsy can tell you that it is the father that determines the gender of the child.

And the quote you provided was ambiguous on that point, at least to my reading. I didn't see any clear statement to that effect.

The fact that the Qur’an tells us about the bursting of a particle which began the creation of our universe.

See previous comments. (A) not a unique claim so in that aspect, gets lost in the shuffle; and (B) merely consistent in a vague sense with at least a dozen other world-creation or universe-creation mythos.

The fact that the Qur’an tells us that the early universe was gaseous.

Hell, the CURRENT universe is gaseous. Other mythos (what would be the plural of mythos? Mythoses?) tell us the universe was without form - which is merely a physical-properties description of something gaseous. So different description, same general concept. Again, nothing unique there.

The fact that the Qur’an tells us that the universe is expanding.

Only had a few choices, but the truth is that it isn't a tough guess. If you have the concept of a "seed" or "egg" or "particle" exploding or expanding to create the universe, there is no big leap to assume that the expansion hasn't stopped. So this constitutes a "so what" type of comment.

Aziz, you absolutely are entitled (and, to be honest, expected) to place unusual credence to the words of your holy book if that is a tenet of your faith. I, however, who have discarded the teachings of any faith, place no UNUSUAL credence on the words of any holy book.

I'll agree with you on a very narrow point, not to be taken as a general concession. Sometimes the message in the holy book is worth adopting. My take-away from the Bible is the importance of forgiveness. The burdens released and the pain absolved by the simple act of forgiving are incredibly phenomenal. It's one reason why if we ever met, despite this sometimes spirited (you should pardon the pun) debate, it would be a pleasure to shake your hand and wish you peace.

 

[scott-atkinson]

It's one reason why if we ever met, despite this sometimes spirited (you should pardon the pun) debate, it would be a pleasure to shake your hand and wish you peace.

Not much chance on that unless President Trump lifts his ban on Muslims..

 

[Frothingslosh]

Depends on if Aziz's nationality is a nation that has spawned people who have launched terrorist attacks against the US or not.

If terrorists from his nation have attacked the US before, he's fine. Same if the Cheeto in Chief has business interests in his nation.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Guys, I believe in being chivalrous during an argument.

You DO know the definition of chivalry, don't you?

You sing the praises of your worthy opponent as you spill his guts all over the ground.

Of course, that's self-serving since if your opponent WASN'T worthy, why did you bother to fight?

 

[Frothingslosh]

My post is pretty clear who I was slamming, and it was no one who uses this forum.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Yeah, I know you were slamming a small mind in a big office. I've got to observe that he might be the Cheeto in Chief but I don't see that much orange on his fingertips. And he doesn't wear shades that often. On the other hand, there ARE times when he seems a bit ... "cartoonish" shall we say?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I like Trump. I think he'll do a lot of good as long as he keeps his finger off the big red button!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[aziz rasul]

Firmly lodged? That's HALF a claim. Lodged in what? (Lodged is generally taken as a relational verb implying something in which to be lodged.) And a drop? Actually, not even a drop - but the implied claim is simply not that earth-shaking.

In the 1990’s a medical doctor realised by her research that the female egg was not passive as it was previously thought but very much active to the extent that the egg not only guards the spermatozoon that enters but essentially ‘locks’ it in and at the same time prevents any other spermatozoon’s from entering. The word ‘drop’ signifies that only a small portion of the complete liquid is required which is in fact the case. In short I am impressed but accept that you are not. It is earth shaking considering these types of facts were not prevalent at the time and it is only in the last century we have learned these facts so we have become a bit blasé about it.

And the quote you provided was ambiguous on that point, at least to my reading. I didn't see any clear statement to that effect.

We know that the semen of the father will determine the eventual outcome of the unborn child. I don’t see what else you can add to this and why it is not clear especially at a time when the opposite view was prevalent and still is in some countries today!

"That He did create in pairs,-male and female, from a drop (of seed) when it is poured forth; 53:45-46

See previous comments. (A) not a unique claim so in that aspect, gets lost in the shuffle; and (B) merely consistent in a vague sense with at least a dozen other world-creation or universe-creation mythos.

Still to see proof that an ancient civilisations before the Qur’an was revealed where the two main points regarding the creation of the universe were given i.e. that there was a particle AND it was burst open. Most ancient civilisations got it wrong. Why did the people who wrote the Qur’an, if not from God, not choose one of those?

Hell, the CURRENT universe is gaseous. Other mythos (what would be the plural of mythos? Mythoses?) tell us the universe was without form - which is merely a physical-properties description of something gaseous. So different description, same general concept. Again, nothing unique there.

I thought you didn’t believe in HELL? But the universe at the beginning was ONLY gaseous before the Earth came into existence, that’s the point.

Then He turned to the heavens when it was smoke (dukhan) and said to it, and the earth; “Come into existence, willingly or unwillingly.” They said, “We come willingly.”
41:10-11

Only had a few choices, but the truth is that it isn't a tough guess. If you have the concept of a "seed" or "egg" or "particle" exploding or expanding to create the universe, there is no big leap to assume that the expansion hasn't stopped. So this constitutes a "so what" type of comment.

But to get the particle splitting, an early gaseous universe, that the universe is expanding, etc. etc. and getting them all right 14 centuries ago to me is worth more than a shout. I’m yelling at the top of my voice right now.

Aziz, you absolutely are entitled (and, to be honest, expected) to place unusual credence to the words of your holy book if that is a tenet of your faith. I, however, who have discarded the teachings of any faith, place no UNUSUAL credence on the words of any holy book.

It’s not a question of my holy book because that infers that that is the only holy book I have ever read or been introduced to and pondered over. It was only when I was in my early twenties that I began reading the Qur’an. I lay credence to the Qur’an because it comes from God and for no other reason. My faith, much as many may think, is not blind or fanatical but through a just reading of the Qur’an and coming to my own conclusions.

Even the OT and NT accept the obedience and acceptance to the Creator via Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) etc. The only reason why Christians accept the begotten ship of Jesus (peace be upon him) is due entirely to Paul and the Christian church, not through Jesus (peace be upon him) or any others sent by God.

I'll agree with you on a very narrow point, not to be taken as a general concession. Sometimes the message in the holy book is worth adopting. My take-away from the Bible is the importance of forgiveness. The burdens released and the pain absolved by the simple act of forgiving are incredibly phenomenal. It's one reason why if we ever met, despite this sometimes spirited (you should pardon the pun) debate, it would be a pleasure to shake your hand and wish you peace.

If you sit back and look at all of these and other facts, then you need to ponder as to how all these facts could have been known at the time when so many times the scientific knowledge was wrong. So even if you were to see a little resemblance, it is worth considering to the extent that at least give it the benefit of the doubt. If you begin to read the Qur’an as a whole, it may make you think twice about it. After all if you are not prepared to pursue the TRUTH and you are wrong, you will be among the losers as the Qur’an often says. Better to spend the life in the hereafter in a good place with our family members of faith for eternity than in a bad place for eternity.

39:53 Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allaah. Indeed, Allaah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful."

4:116 Indeed, Allaah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly gone far astray.

Allaah the Exalted said: O son of Adam, if you call upon me and place your hope in me, I will forgive you without any reservation. O son of Adam, if you have sins piling up to the clouds and then ask for my forgiveness, I will forgive you without any reservation. O son of Adam, if you come to me with enough sins to fill the earth and you meet me without associating a partner with me, I will come to you with enough forgiveness to fill the earth. Hadith Qudsi 34

Equally it would be a pleasure to shake your hand even if it’s done electronically.
Wasalaam

Frothingslosh, God makes it clear that whoever is responsible for the death of an innocent person will be held to account on the Day of Judgement, whether these be individuals, organisations or even so called democratic governments which are always happy to show their high moral stance throughout the world. In the context of Cain killing Abel, God says

5:32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors. Punishment is not reserved just for Muslims. Everyone will be included.

99:7 So whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it,
99:8 And whoever does an atom's weight of evil will see it.

 

[Frothingslosh]

What the bloody hell are you talking about? I was mocking the Puppet-in-Chief (I love last night's comments about how his aides forced him to issue the Muslim Ban earlier than he wanted to) for an idiotic rollout to an idiotic executive order, not calling for eternal punishment.

 

[aziz rasul]

… not calling for eternal punishment.

Touched a nerve have I? Here are some more Qur’anic verses for you.

4:168 Indeed, those who disbelieve and commit wrong [or injustice] - never will Allaah forgive them, nor will He guide them to a path.
4:169 Except the path of Hell; they will abide therein forever. And that, for Allaah, is [always] easy.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Okay, not only have you mistaken confusion for 'touching a nerve', you've gone completely irrational at this point.

I love pizza.

Cats are great pets, but why does peanut butter taste purple?

See? I can say completely random things too!

 

[Frothingslosh]

Hell, I'll even throw in my own arbitrary holy quotes!

1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like A Sanctimonious, Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really. I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject. OK?
2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Kill, Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water; not people.
3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, and get this in your thick heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey-Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion. Then, I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is, " Go f*** yourself good on you," Unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then, go after the B******
6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/ Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (take your pick)
   • Ending Poverty,
   • Curing Diseases,
   • Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable..
   • I might be a complex-carbohydrate, omniscient being, But I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the Creator.
7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And, I told you to love your fellow man. Can't you take a hint?
8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is into it, however (Pursuant To #4), then have at it. Take Pictures. But for the love of Mike, wear A CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it, I would have added spikes or something.

(From HERE)