River

Everything you say is either pejorative or bigoted, and you can not deny the words that you spewed in the other threads.

The Backbone and Ribs is a very generalized area. The statement is still anatomically correct. If it said the "chest" or upper backbone or upper ribs the Qur'an would be wrong. But these are some of the things that you and other --------have overlooked. The Qur'an is a logical text. Your concept of logic is warped and therefore you will not see the Qur'an. The reason you might "think" i make an exception for....is because the Qur'an is an Exceptional Scripture by any Standards .

Biff the unclean

Everything you say is either pejorative or bigoted, and you can not deny the words that you spewed in the other threads.
Bigoted in favor of the truth. Pejorative towards superstition and ignorance.
Not only can I not deny what I have written I WILL NOT DENY what I have written. How dare you come to an Atheist site to spread your superstitions and then deride people for being Atheists.

The Backbone and Ribs is a very generalized area.
And only about a foot from the actual organs that are being misrepresented.
Or is this more of my anti-Moslem bigotry? Because we Irish don't have ribs in front of our balls and our backbones stop somewhat short of them. Now if the Prophet had mentioned knee caps...well then...

The Qur'an is a logical text.
Except it's logic is based on superstition and not observation. And where it's logic fails your verbal tap dancing fills in.

Your concept of logic is warped and therefore you will not see the Qur'an.
Really it's invisible now is it? Or is this another case of 'you have to believe it first?'
The reason you might "think" i make an exception for....is because the Qur'an is an Exceptional Scripture by any Standards .
It's right up there with Harry Potter and other fine works of fantasy. A work of fiction.

River

Autonemesis

Well, that's the 72-virgin question, isn't it?

River

You might want to ask Ipetrich on this one. He appears to have some insight here.

Biff the unclean

Atheist 2: Nope. Lets disprove God.
That's fine, let's disprove the existence of God. Just trot his divine ass out here and we will disprove he exists.
Oh what's that you say…you can't produce God…no one can produce God. That's because it's only a story that you tell that you can't verify.

The Qur'anic statement is correct.
Correct so long as you claim it means things that it doesn't actually say
The Qur'an is a logical text.
But only if you think magic is logical.

Superstition is below the level of science. i.e black cats...walking under ladders.
Obeying invisible supermen.
Supernatural is above the level of science...Can not be measured directly because science is behind and hasn't made the necessary Quantitative dimensional instruments to carry out the experiment.
Or … because science is right on the money and there is no supernatural.

If angels are one day proven to exist by highly Specialized dimensional instruments then they will not be Supernatural. And Thus they will be labelled Natural.
But until that time if you claim that such a creature exists as an Angel you are making a claim that you cannot support. Which is to say you are telling a lie.

For believers the Qur'an is INVINCIBLE.
Hasn't worked out that way lately

for nonbelievers it is invisible. Like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny

Harry Potter is a pretty large book , 1000+ pages. And yes (Harry Potter) is a work of Fiction.
Which makes Harry Allah's equal. They are both magical heroes of works of fantasy, neither of whom exist in the real world.

contracycle

It can certainly happen. I admit I cannot cite, but I covered it in biology class many moons ago. Hormones do not operate by strict clocks or fixed proposrtions, as incidence of transgenderism migh demonstrate.

Biff also wrote:
I yield to no-one in my criticisms of religion. It was not an excuse to avoid finding fault at all, more a criticism at the way the fault was being used.

Biff the unclean

It was not an excuse to avoid finding fault at all, more a criticism at the way the fault was being used.

It's being used to refute the basic claims, which are being made. The basic dangerous claims.

The Mohammed claim is exactly the same one made by Saint John the Divine. A guy walks into a cave with a stack of paper and a pen. He is alone in the cave. When he comes out he has a book which he claims an Angel dictated to him at God's behest. This claim establishes the authority that the book holds.

However, when you examine the contents you find things like a complete lack of knowledge of the human reproductive system and a total ignorance of what stars are. While you would expect such ignorance from; say; some nutty guy who leaves his family and hides out in a cave, you would not from a God. Even if the God had normal human intelligence he would remember how he made people and where he put the stars.

So these errors show that the basic contention of divine authorship is false. Obviously and ridiculously false.

Another basic contention being made is of authority over morals. Many times we hear how Atheists would not logically even have morals. That this God thing is the source of human morals. However this claim locks morals into an absolute. But, as you have pointed out, different morals are appropriate for different times in history and different places. Were Mohammed alive today, and behaved as he did, he would be imprisoned on morals charges by the very same people who believe him a great moral teacher.

Yet another basic contention that is being made is that those who are finding fault are doing so because of a bias. However those who are making these divine origin claims are suspending their moral values to support it. They are also suspending their normal logical thinking in attempts to portray false claims as true and the imaginary as the real. Yet on no other topic would they ever even dream of behaving in such a fashion. About any other topic they would consider such behavior to be insane. Which shows the contention that the unbelievers are biased to be false as they are the only ones who show consistent behavior.

hinduwoman

Nice conspiracy theory and the author is just a liar
He throws in the occasional truth and then admixtures a great deal of lies about Hindu deities that would cause revulsion among the uninitiated.
For example YamaYami story is true, but Krishna, Balarama & Subhadra's incest is not. I would like to hear about what old traditions he is speaking about. I would also advice you not to throw abuse at them during the chariot festival in the belief that the devotees are also doing so. (BTW, nothing wrong with incest as long as its issue is healthy and no abuse of authority is involved)
Similarly I would like to know what Buddhist scripture says Rama was 60 and Sita 6. What is its name and in what museum/monastery can it be found? And how did scholars determine that it is the oldest version and Valmiki's was just a forgery?


no incest, widow burning, caste system, dowry killing
Yes they exist as do female foeticide. And religious attitude has been largely responsible for this. But I am not defending them or saying that oh other religions also have those problems so critics belong to other communities should not be too critical. Throw out all such religious injunctions in EVERY religion and criticize EVERY prophet/sage who have spoken in their favour or by their behaviour have condoned it. If they had done some good we will say fine but they belonged to another age, let them be dead and buried and not be taken as a model for 21st century.
(noting again no problem with incest unless it is abuse).

I learn a lot about Islam from your posts in other threads like the one that you said in it that Muslims also have a caste system !!!! May be I am living in another planet or brainwashed but now we have consequent infidel who escaped the brainwashing and he can speak about the caste system we practice in Egypt.
You could not see the obvious caste system that Islam imposes because you were too close to the problem. Islam imposes sharp distinction between the believer and non-believer, and men and women.
Saudi Arabia has got a nice hierarchy going in bloodmoney:
100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
50,000 riyals if a Christian man
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman
That is a graded caste system based on religion and gender.
In India, Muslims are divided broadly into two categories, Ashrafs and non-Ashrafs. The Asrafs claim they are descended from foreign invaders. They are further divided into four castes, Sayyads, Shiekhs, Mughals and Pathans, in that order. Collectively the Ashrafs are known as 'oocha jat' or high caste. The non-Ashrafs are supposedly converts from Hinduism, and are therefore drawn from the indigenous population. They, in turn, are divided into a number of occupational castes. Collectively they are known as 'nicche jat' or low caste. The high and low caste Muslims are linked by patron client relationship. The non-Asrafs are ranked hierarchically among themselves but always inferior to Asrafs. If there are marriages then the Asrafs refuse to accept the Non-Asraf wife/husband. Their ranking is decided by the purity or impurity of their occupation (a barber is impure) and by the physical proximity of their job to the Asrafs (singers are higher in caste than washermen). People involved in carrying away nightsoil or dead animals are regarded as particularly polluted. If either an Asraf or non-Asraf touches such people then they have to purify themselves with a bath. There there are also restrictions on dining and intermarrying among the non-Asrafs.



RE Gandhi: was the criticism on Gandhi supposed to hurt me? When my parents brought me up to disbelieve any gods, they extended that to human gods as well. Gandhi was simply a human being who had a lot of complexes.
As I said before we junk all the tripe he had said which does not fit with modern morals. Why not do the same with Muhammad?

And here is Mohamed before him by about 1300 years
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/muhm-sermon.html
YOU ARE ALL EQUAL. NOBODY HAS SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD ACTION.
Except of course unless you happen to be a woman or a slave. And of course if you are Muhammad then you have absolute superiority over every other Muslim, with even Allah praying for you!. Muhammad made bloody sure that even after his death no one, no matter how pious and good he may be, can be considered his equal.


Hindouwoman wrote,
Islam is to be congratulated in its success at brainwashing.

This is true; Muslims prostrated in front of a monkey and let him starve to death while they were worshiping him last year! Muslims build temples for rats and genital organs and worship them, Muslims shower by using cow urine, Muslims eat cow shit, what a horrible and disgusting religion Islam is?
If these were the only horrible and disgusting things Muslims did in Islamic states then the problem would not be so serious. But they had to veil women who don't want to wear it under threat of punishment, they pass zinna and hudud laws, they think it is ok to make slaves of Christians and animists, they pass law to execute people who become apostates or criticize Muhammad, they think it a praiseworthy enterprise to turn the whole world into Dar-ul-islam by massacre.
Just by point out the evils in Hindu society would not make the evils in Islam disappear, nor does it make Muhammad's conduct more defensible in this age.

Muslims are not the only problem in India, your country is a mosaic of different religions, cultures, languages and you have troubles everywhere but you keep pointing your finger at Muslims as the only source of troubles in India .
Islam is certainly one source. Islamic terrorism is inflicting death of a thousand cuts. And for many within India it is their stupid clinging onto an Islamic identity that is responsible for their problems. Any attempt to make shariah modern is resisted with screams of Hinduanising Islam. Hell when their own members started a reform movement they were ostracized and hounded for being 'unIslamic'. For a more charitable view of how the Indian Muslims are harming themselves I would recommend this:
http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/india/tragedy.htm
http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/india/misfortune.htm
how the hell are they going to integrate if they want to live in a Shariah ruled Islamic community all their own ignoring outside society?
And when someone like Kalam is pronounced by 'moderate' muslims to be unfit to be model for Islamic youth, you know muslim society has serious problems.

hinduwoman

Excuse me contracycle, but is not Christianity bashing fashinable in the infidels board? All kinds of things are said like Mary was raped and it is childabuse without regard for the hurt sentiments for Christians. Why attack the Bible which is only a historical document?

If Muhammad was simply considered to be a medieval prophet who is safely buried in the past then it would not have mattered at all. The problem is that his Sunnah --- whether he existed or not --- is used as the basis of existing laws in Islamic country today. It is not a mere matter of history. To return to the topic at hand here is a fatwa:
http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/article...riage.html#age

Question: Is it allowed for a father to force his daughter to marry a specific man that she does not want to many?

Response: Neither the father nor anyone other than the father may force a woman who is under his guardianship to marry a man that she does not want to many. In fact, her permission must be sought. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said,

"The non-virgin [without a husband] must not be married until she is consulted. A virgin must not be married until her permission is sought." They said, "O Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) how is her permission given?" He said, "By her being silent." Another narration states, "Her silence is her permission." Yet a third narration states, "A virgin's father seeks her permission and her permission is her remaining silent."
The father must seek her permission if she is nine years of age or above. Similarly, her other guardians may not marry her off except by her permission. This is obligatory upon all of them. If one is married without permission, then the marriage is not valid. This is because one of the conditions of the marriage is that both partners accept the marriage. If she is married without her permission, by threat or coercion, then the marriage is not valid. [COLOR=dark red]The only exception is in the case of the father and his daughter who is less than nine years of age. There is no harm if he gets her married while she is less than nine years old, according to the correct opinion. This is based on the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) marrying Aisha without her consent when she was less than nine years old, as is stated in authentic Hadith. [/COLOR] However, if she is nine years old or more, she cannot be married, even by her father, except with her consent. The husband should not approach the woman if he knows that she does not want him, even if the father approves of it. He must fear Allah and not approach any wife that did not want him even if her father claims that he did not coerce her. He must avoid what Allah has forbidden for him. This is because the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) ordered that her permission must be sought. We also advise the woman to fear Allah and to accept the man if her father finds that he is suitable to marry her, as long as the prospective groom is good in his religion and character. This is true even if the one who is doing the marrying is not the girl's father [but her legal guardian]. We make this advice because there is lots of good and lot of benefits in marriage. Also, there are lots of hazards in living as a maiden. I advise all young ladies to accept those men who come to them if they are qualified. They should not use schooling, teaching or other causes as an excuse to avoid marriage.

Shaikh ibn Baz


from the same page:

Ruling Concerning a Christian Man Marrying a Muslim Woman


Question: What is the Islamic ruling concerning a Christian man marrying a Muslim woman? If they have children, what is the ruling concerning those children in Islamic law?

Response: The marriage of a Christian man to a Muslim woman is an invalid marriage. Allah says in the Quran,

"And give not [Muslim women] in marriage to idolaters until they believe"

(al-Baqara 221).


Therefore, it is not allowed for a disbeliever to marry a Muslim woman. Allah also says,


"They [Muslim women] are not lawful for them [the disbelievers] nor are they [the disbelievers] lawful for them" (al-Mumtahana 10).


If he does marry her, the marriage is invalid. The children are the children of fornication. They are to be given to their mother and ascribed to her alone -- unless that was done out of ignorance concerning such law. For ignorant people, the matter is different. In their case, the marriage is still invalid. However, the children will be ascribed to the father since the act was done out of ignorance. That is, if he was ignorant of the law and she was also, the marriage is still invalid but the children will be ascribed to their parents due to their ignorance and there was some doubtful aspect to their intercourse.1 But if he knew the Islamic ruling and she knew the Islamic ruling and they were being lax and disrespectful of the law of Allah, then the children are children of fornication. They will be ascribed to their mother and will not be ascribed to their father at all. The couple should be reprimanded and the penal punishment should be enforced upon him for having intercourse with a Muslim woman when he did not have the legal right to do so. This is what must be done if the Islamic state has the ability to do it. If he becomes Muslim after that and Allah guides him, then he can marry her with a new contract.

Shaikh ibn Baz



Question: What is the ruling concerning a woman looking at non-mahram men?

Response: We advise women not to look at non-mahram men. It is best for the woman if she is not seen by the men and she does not see them. There is no difference on this point between a battlefield or a sports field. A woman is weak and can easily be swayed. Many times, a woman looks at a movie or picture of a young man and her emotions and desires are excited. This expose her to temptation. Being away from the causes of temptation is always the safest approach.

Shaikh ibn Jibreen

Question: A common practice today is for a young lady or her father to refuse one who proposes in order for the woman to finish her high school, college or study of certain years. What is the ruling concerning that? What is your advice to those who do such, given that many times the woman reaches the age of thirty or more without getting married?

Response: This practice goes against what the Prophet (peace be upon him) commanded. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said,

"If one whose religion and character pleases you comes to you [for proposal], then marry him."1

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) also said,

"O youth, whoever of you has the means to get married should get married for it lowers the gaze and protects the chastity."2

By preventing marriage, one loses out on the benefits of marriage. I advise my brother Muslims who are the guardians of women and my sister Muslims not to keep from marriage due to finishing school or teaching. In fact, the woman may put a condition upon her husband that she may remain studying until she finishes her studies or she remain teaching for a year or two, given that she does not become busy with her children. There is no harm in such an act. However, a matter which needs further consideration is where the woman is continuing her studies in an area that is not truly needed. In my view, when a woman finishes the elementary stages and has the ability to read and write, thereby being able to benefit from her knowledge through reading the Book of Allah, its tafseer, the hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and their explanation, that is all she really needs. Unless, of course, she is continuing her studies in an area that the people need, such as medicine and similar fields. This is also conditional that the study not involve aspects which are forbidden, such as mixing with men and so forth.

Shaikh ibn Uthaimin


Question: What is the ruling concerning the family driver1 mixing with the women and young girls of the family and him taking them to the market or schools?

Response: It is confirmed in the Hadith that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said,

"A man is never alone with a woman except that Satan is the third."2
Privacy is a general concept that applies to the house, car, market and so forth. When the two are in private, they are not safe from talking about private matters or what stirs the desires. Even though many men and women have a fear of Allah and piety, and they hate sin and evil, Satan enters between them and makes sins look like light matters and opens the door to getting around the law. Therefore, remaining away from such deeds will be safer and more protecting.

Shaikh ibn Jibreen





Modern muslims ask these questions and this is the opinion they receives today! Based on what a 7th century person did! Not simply dead history.
And in case you have not noticed that is an US university website and not some thirdworld country!
Muslim students living in USA --- the land of freedom --- ask these questions. If this has been a Christian site hosted by a university ACLU would have been all over it considering the answers that are given.