Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Lobotomize94

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
General Discussions / Can you hate Allah yet still be a good Muslim?
« on: September 29, 2020, 05:51:02 AM »
This is a serious question. I believe Allah exists and I believe there is nothing more perfect or worthy of worship besides Allah.

But I don’t love Allah. I’ve never loved anyone whatsoever.

But it’s worse. I try to love Allah, but internally, if I were to be honest, I hate him. I’ve been struggling with this for a while—I can pretend I love Allah, but it’s not genuine.

I never asked to exist. All the benefits of life are worthless because death is better and it would’ve been nice not to have those benefits and not exist in the first place. Honestly, if I could choose between heaven/paradise and permanent death, I’d choose death. I want nothing to do with Allah and I don’t want to go to heaven (I certainly don’t want to go to hell either—but death is better than heaven for me).  You can offer me mountains of gold and all the pleasures of life and I still don’t want any of it.

I don’t want any of the rewards Allah offers, I just don’t want the punishment.

Internally, I hate Allah and I don’t want anything at all to do with him. I don’t want to meet him or speak to him—I don’t want his presence. I want nothing to do with him or anything else for that matter.

But I continue to do what is right, believe in Allah, do everything I’m supposed to.

Is it a commandment for us to love Allah? There’s nothing in the Quran that’s says you’re supposed to love him, right? Because if there is: then there simply is no hope for me. I don’t even love my parents. I’ve never loved anything or anyone.

Please if you are reading this, delay your judgment. I ask that you answer the question whether loving Allah is required to be a Muslim. It’s not like I can flip a switch and magically love Allah.

General Discussions / Re: Is Qur'an preserved ?
« on: August 06, 2020, 03:35:33 PM »
Regarding my last post: ^ and that's even assuming Allah did not (in the end) personally ensure the Quran's compilation, recitation and preservation...

Through human errors, Allah could've distinguished the correct Quran from the false Quran using the companions of the prophet and other scholars at the time and influenced them and ensured they'd pick the correct Quran to recite and compile it the right way--and the in the end, Allah's interventions could've ultimately led to the Quran we have today being the correct one as he promised.

What I'm saying is, suppose in the future, we find a terrible manuscript (one that is NOT like the ones we have today--the ones we have today testify to the Quran's authenticity), but let's say we find really bad manuscripts with many errors and variations. Even amongst a sea of human errors, in the end Allah is the one who was responsible for the Quran's compilation, recitation and preservation--and ultimately ensured the final copy of the Quran is the right one he wanted. Allah did it, in the end. He distinguished the correct Quran from the errors and then allowed the correct Quran to be propagated. So even if that is the case that there are problematic manuscripts (and it's not the case) but EVEN IF it were the case, Allah personally made the correct Quran come out of all of this in the end through his complex interventions. As I said in my first post: Done. End. Resolved.

One may argue "but this makes the Quran unfalsifiable through manuscripts". And I agree. So stop trying to falsify it--it cannot be done through manuscripts (as they even admit).

General Discussions / Re: Is Qur'an preserved ?
« on: August 06, 2020, 03:05:03 PM »
Now, let's ignore everything I have written above.

Muslims have responded (including Shabir Aly which this video cited)--and they do not reach those conclusions your video reached. I recommend you look at both sides of the argument--including articles on this website which addressed the very manuscripts your video was talking about. More importantly, those manuscript variations had to do with small spelling errors, nothing significant at all...

This is nothing new, and a deep level analysis of all this data will lead you to the conclusion the Quran is indeed preserved. You need to look at both sides of the argument and do your research. I do not have much time to go into this again, but I trust that after your humble research, you will find it like me and many others that even with the manuscripts we have today, that indeed the Quran has been preserved.

General Discussions / Re: Is Qur'an preserved ?
« on: August 06, 2020, 02:59:13 PM »
It is important to understand Allah's promise when it comes to the Quran:

[Quran 2:106] We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?

[Quran 15:9] Indeed, it is We who sent down "the Dhikr" and indeed, We will be its guardian.

The nonbeliever claims that this verse is referring to the bible. However, when looking at the context, there is no mention of the bible or the people of the book. The subject of these verses is the Quran (see 15:1 and 15:6 which uses "Dhikr" to refer to the message the prophet Muhammad received). And this is Allah's message that indeed he will personally guard this Dhikr the prophet Muhammad received.

[Quran 75:16] Do not hasten your tongue [O Muhammad], to hasten with recitation of the Qur'an.
[Quran 75:17] Indeed, upon Us is its collection and its recitation.

This verse is Allah telling the prophet Muhammad do not worry about the Qur'an, ALLAH HIMSELF will personally collect it and recite it. This is Allah's promise that he himself will personally collect the Quran and recite it. So Allah promised he would collect the Quran and ensure it is recited the way he wants it to be. Allah had an influence in the Quran after the prophet Muhammad just as he promised--and thus Allah is the one who will compile the Quran and put it together. Allah, as he promised, ultimately ensured the Quran we have today is the one he wanted us to have, just as he promised and just as he promised he would protect it (15:9). And in 2:106, Allah said he has the option to abrogate or cause a verse to be forgotten...

So no, the "history" doesn't matter. Most of this so called history is based on Hadith anyway, which as this website has shown time and time again are untrustworthy. It is also based on manuscripts which may have human errors, however, Allah said he himself would ensure the Quran, its compilation and its preservation. So in the end, ultimately, regardless of the history or instances of human error, Allah is the one who compiled the protected the Quran in the form we have today. Allah's intervention was in place to compile the Quran we have today and have it recited the way it is. Thus the Quran we have today is one that was compiled and recited by Allah as he promised it would be, regardless of the errors of humans, in the end, through his complex interventions, Allah ultimately made the Quran the way he wanted it to be (the way it should be) and he will be its guardian. Done. End. Resolved. 

General Discussions / Does "Khamar" mean you can't have Ice Cream?
« on: August 06, 2020, 02:48:40 PM »
A lot of ice cream uses a little bit of vanilla extract which has 35% alcohol in it.

Does "khamar" mean alcohol or does it mean a substance that intoxicates you? If you drink regular drinking water for example, there will be trace amounts of alcohol in the water (there may even be a molecule or two of Lead for example--not significant, but it's there)--so how are you supposed to avoid alcohol?

Maybe the issue isn't "alcohol" but substances that intoxicate? So drinking water, while it has alcohol is not significant enough to intoxicate and so is okay to eat. Likewise, Ice cream which uses vanilla extract is not enough to intoxicate and so is okay to eat?

The word فيها , which was used in Quran 13:3 means "in"

In other words, we see a "double marriage", "double mating", "double pairing"--double fertilization IN fruits!

Here is a good resource talking about how double fertilization evolved specifically in "FLOWERING PLANTS" (Angiosperms)--fruit IS an organ of flowering plants--fruit is produced by flowering plants.

Let's start with:

[Quran 36:36] Exalted is He who created (in) pairs all things.

This is an example of the inferiority of the English translation compared to the original Arabic. This verse does not say "in" pairs all things. Rather, if you look at a word for word translation, it says "the pairs", not "in pairs". That is, Allah created "all the pairs" of the Earth.

[Quran 51:49] And of all things We created two pairs...

In Arabic, (مِنْْ) “min“ could mean "some of"

Definitions:  from, some, some of .

Some of, of. Indicating a segment of; a portion of. In other words, "Some of all things we created pairs" in essence: "a part of all things are made into pairs".

[Quran 13:3] and from all of the fruits He made therein two mates

Same thing as above. A part of all the fruits have in them pairs. In other words: of all the fruits, there are pairs within them (fi-ha). This could be referring to some of the fruits with seeds which are diploid (have two sets/pairs of chromosomes, from the male and female components of the plant)

Believe it or not, this verse is a significant MIRACLE. It is something, the prophet Muhammad could not have known! Let me explain. This verse uses the terminology "zawjayni ith'nayni"--which is weird terminology. Zawjayni means "two"/"pair" and Ith'nayin also means "two". That means 4 in total! (2 pairs)! What???! That doesn't make any sense?!! Actually it does:

Double fertilization: "The launch of seed development in flowering plants (angiosperms) is initiated by the process of double fertilization: two male gametes (sperm cells) fuse with two female gametes (egg and central cell) to form the precursor cells of the two major seed components, the embryo and endosperm, respectively." From:  

This is a peer reviewed scientific article, so cut the BS from those atheist/anti-Muslim websites that claim this Quranic verse is a contradiction because plants only have 1 sperm and 1 egg and that no plants have 2 pairs of sperm and eggs. WRONG THEY ARE!! Double fertilization happens in some fruits (not single fertilization, DOUBLE fertilization). I cannot believe the stupidity and ignorance of anti-muslim apologists and the BS they spew on their websites and forums!

Now, did 7th century Arabs have a concept of double fertilization? How did Muhammad (pbuh) know??
It seems to be that Allah is appealing to 7th century Arabs' astonishment with duality/dualism of the world and is saying "you see that thing that you are astonished by?--Allah created it". Allah said this in such a way to appeal to 7th century Arabs' dispositions while not making it a contradiction for future generations. Allah may have wanted to make it sound like at first glance to the 7th century Arabs that he was talking about duality in the world (Quran must support 7th century belief and relate to their dispositions) AND the objective nature of reality that will be discovered through science). If Allah said "and everything that exists in the heaven and the Earth are made in pairs", that would be a clear scientific error, but notice how the Quran was careful to avoid this. It is only human interpretation that messes things up; It is only the English translators that mess things up.

I asked this question off a false premise. I realized I was making an erroneous assumption about the verse 3:7.

Quran 3:7 may be referring exclusively to miracles/signs or it may be referring to verses and parts of verses (communications/messages in the Quran). Or it could have just been only talking about whole verses which are unambiguous and ambiguous, but doesn't mention verses which have both ambiguous or unambiguous elements and thus does not exclude their existence nor does it exclude the fact those verses can also be used to test us and guide/misguide us--and we can reason this and we can use our intellect to arrive at this understanding. If I say "there are medical conditions which present with mild pain and others with severe pain", I am not excluding the fact there are medical conditions with moderate pain nor am I excluding medical conditions with alternating bouts of mild and severe pain. Such an exclusion is not stated in that statement--its only the presumption of the reader that leads them to that conclusion. Likewise, if I tell you there are sentences in this article with big words and others with small words--that doesn't exclude sentences with both big words and small words. Likewise, if a professor tells you that in your essay there are sentences that are well written and others, poorly written--it doesn't mean there aren't sentences with both well written and poorly written components. Again, such an exclusion is only perceived through the assumption of the reader. So again, this verse (3:7) does not exclude the existence of verses which have both ambiguous and unambiguous elements within it, and we observe verses which have both elements in it, therefore the Quran has verses with both ambiguous and unambiguous elements in it. Either way, we know the Quran has ambiguous and unambiguous descriptions within it.

Thank you very much, that is a very useful resource! I am massively grateful you have linked it for me.

It looks like Ayat can refer to a message or communication in the Quran. So it is not restricted only to a verse or proof!

Do you know why Quran corpus says the root word is "hamza, ya, ya"?

General Discussions / Re: How is the Quran "fully detailed"?
« on: July 19, 2020, 08:14:55 AM »
So I looked closely at verse 6:114, and it the word it used is: mufaṣṣalan. This verse is not saying the Quran has all the details or that it is "fully detailed"--it is just saying this book has explanations or detailed explanations not that it has all the details.

Quran 3:7 says that some 'verses' ('Ayats') are ambiguous. But we have verses that have both ambiguous and unambiguous elements, for example:

[Quran 56:75] I swear by the setting of the stars

The "I swear" is clear, decisive and unambiguous. But "setting of the stars" is ambiguous, and we are not sure what exactly it is referring to. So this verse has both ambiguous and unambiguous elements, and the full message of the verse is saying that Allah is swearing by something very significant.

But, since this verse has both ambiguous and unambiguous elements (and this is only one example, many verses have the same thing going on), then why does Quran 3:7 says only 'Ayats' can be ambiguous and not parts of 'Ayats'?

Maybe Ayats doesn't mean "verses", maybe it means "signs" or something. And even a part of an Ayat is a sign. Any part of the Quran is an Ayat. The Quran is a miracle/sign for 7th century Arabs and the Quran even challenges them to try to write any part of the Quran--so maybe any part of the Quran (even part of a verse) is an "ayat" or a sign?

Are we sure an "ayat' must be the whole verse and not just a part of a verse? Why must it mean the whole verse, why can't it be a part of it? If it was just a part of a verse, then 3:7 would make sense.

General Discussions / Re: How is the Quran "fully detailed"?
« on: July 14, 2020, 03:38:24 AM »
But if the IKEA explanation has parts that are ambiguous/vague and does not go into detail explaining it, is it fully detailed?

(Please don't mistaken me for a disbeliever, I'm just advocating for the skeptic position to better understand what the Quran is saying).

General Discussions / How is the Quran "fully detailed"?
« on: July 11, 2020, 11:22:29 AM »
[6:114] Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?*

The Quran says there are parts in the Quran that are not detailed, that only Allah knows what they mean (3:7, 2:26). So how is it fully detailed if there are ambiguous verses?

Additionally, the Quran does not speak about the Christian Paul? So how is it fully detailed with respect to religion?

What is meant by the term "fully detailed"? Does it mean "having all details"? If that's the case, then its a false statement, no?

General Discussions / Why is following your desires shirk?
« on: July 07, 2020, 03:43:15 AM »
According to the article,

JosephIslam writes:


"Have you seen him who takes his desires (passion, impulse, lust) (Arabic: Hawahu) for his God
(Arabic: Illahahu)? Will you then be a protector over him?"

But what exactly does it mean to take up your desire as your God?

Does that mean if you have two simultaneous interests (one to worship Allah and one to become a doctor) that you are putting up partners with God? Is this shirk?

How is having desires and following them considered shirk? Everything we do stems from our desires. Even the worship of Allah stems from our desire to do so!

How about wanting things in this world, like wealth, career, food etc--and doing what it takes to get them. Is that taking your desires for your God?

If that is the case, then having worldly desires and doing things to meet those desires is Shirk. And Shirk is unforgivable and it nullifies all your good deeds. So we are all destined for hell?

General Discussions / Re: Sons>Daughters (?)
« on: July 04, 2020, 04:42:35 AM »
but it would be cool if god said or stated that how wonderful females are as well as males and making it a wider point that he is not insulted by their saying that girls to god and explain the basic sin was their seeing females lower than males as he/she/It created them from the creator point. It would be great then and now =)

Actually, it may not have been great then (during the 7th century). We already knew that the Arabs valued their sons more and as such Allah wanted to avoid whatever mental noise it would've created to the Arabs had he said what you wanted him to say.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7