Islam Falsified, abrasive theological debate Options

I'll cut to the chase here....

Firstly though, ....

Do you accept these propositions as being true:

• Surah Ikhlas is = to 1/3 of the Koran.
• There are no contradictions in the Koran.
• Wa lam yakun lahu kuffuan ahad / and there is nothing in existence like unto him.(last line of surah ikhlas).
• Allah is "the King" / "Al Malik".

....accept these as true??????????????????????????????

If so I can falsify the Islamic faith, and 1/3 of the Koran, but I'm ure muslims won't listen all the same.

You see the statement " there is nothing in existence like unto him" is inconsistent with Allah being called the King. FOR Either he is like a king or not. If he is, that falsifies Ikhlas and therefore 1/3 of the koran and therefore islam as a religion of perfect revelation...he is not like a king then why in the first place call him al Malik / the King?????


Luke.

Let me paste the last line of Al-Ikhlaas

YUSUFALI: And there is none like unto Him.
PICKTHAL: And there is none comparable unto Him.
SHAKIR: And none is like Him.


There is none comparable unto Him, meaning no king, no master, is equal to Him.

What you claim is very weak.

Let me post some examples

Some names of All-Might Allah(swt)

Al-Awwal
(The First) .... Prophet Adam(as) was the first Human. does it mean he shares the title with Allah(swt)? No! because He (swt) is the FIRST.

Al-Ghaffar
(The Forgiver)...If i forgive someone does it mean i share the title with Him(swt)? No!


Al-Hakam
(The Judge)....if commit a crime, and i judge you does it mean i share the title? No!

Al-Hayy
(The Alive)...I am Alive Alhamdillah! does it mean i share this title with Him(swt)? No!

Al-Quddus
(The Holy)...Prophet Jesus(as) is Holy, does it mean he shares the title with Allah(Swt)? No!

Allah(Swt) is above everything and anything that He(swt) created. He is the King of Kings, and there is no one equal to Him(swt).

Welcome to Mo luke & .

oh boy, this is gonna be interesting. I suppose this would be the equivalent of my suggested "question all the holy books" thread.

I'll cut to the chase here....

Firstly though, ....

Do you accept these propositions as being true:

• Surah Ikhlas is = to 1/3 of the Koran.
• There are no contradictions in the Koran.
• Wa lam yakun lahu kuffuan ahad / and there is nothing in existence like unto him.(last line of surah ikhlas).
• Allah is "the King" / "Al Malik".

....accept these as true??????????????????????????????

If so I can falsify the Islamic faith, and 1/3 of the Koran, but I'm ure muslims won't listen all the same.

You see the statement " there is nothing in existence like unto him" is inconsistent with Allah being called the King. FOR Either he is like a king or not. If he is, that falsifies Ikhlas and therefore 1/3 of the koran and therefore islam as a religion of perfect revelation...he is not like a king then why in the first place call him al Malik / the King?????


Luke.

1) Surat Al-Ikhlas is not 1/3 of the Qur'an. It is merely EQUIVALENT to 1/3 of it in spiritual reward.
2) There are no contradictions in the Qur'an. Give me some that nobody has been able to answer to and I'll believe u.
3) "Wa Lam Yakun Lahu Kufuwan Ahad" means "And there is none alike to Him(God)". it simply means that nothing else can be God except Him.
It says nothing about "Fi ad-Dunya", or " Fi Al-hAYYa", which means "In existence".

4) Of course God/Allah is the Malik. Because of this purpose, Islam is against monarchy. Saudi Arabia and Jordan are not examples of real Islamic states.

I guess this revolves around the translation of the word "kufuwan", doesn't it?


wa: and
lam yakun: it/he/there is not
lahu: for Him
kufuwan = equal, like, comparable, matching, corresponding, root k-f- ' meaning to be comparable, like, similar to
ahad: one (kufuwan ahad: anyone comparable to, like, similar to etc)

Why don't we go to the root of the word, as defined on Wahiduddin's Web? Kufuwan comes from the root k-f ' meaning "to be compparable to, like, similar to". Does anyone dispute this?

" Yusuf Ali: And there is none like unto Him.
Pickthal: And there is none comparable unto Him. "

Ali and Picthall seem not to....

Now there are things like Allah, aren't there? As pointed out above in a supposed rebuttal, Allah is said to be the first, the alive, the judge, the forgiver and the holy. It is not a matter of worldly things not "sharing the title" as the author of the counterargument suggests, as kufuwan does not mean "share a title with" does it? It means "like, similar, comparable to".

Again:
" Yusuf Ali: And there is none like unto Him.
Pickthal: And there is none comparable unto Him. "

NOT

"and there is none sharing a title with him". (or as we shall discuss later "nobody can be God except Him").


Listen, again, but in a more psycholinguistic way: if we could not compare things to Allah we could not comprehend His (supposed) attributes, for our learning of names is based on associations between sounds and WORLDLY PHENOMENA. To know what "rose" means we smell and look at roses, to know what "mercy" is we observe or learn of merciful people - we associate otherwise empty sounds with worldly phenomena, properties, relations etc. Thereofre if your god has a name we understand, or make sense of, He must be like something - a King, an action, a temporal relation etc etc. Do you see?

The very concept of Allah is a aglomeration of secular, material concepts. He cannot be other than like, similar to, comparable to the things outlined by his name.

The ayat 'There is none like/similar to/ comparable to him' indicates that Allah is BEYOND ASSOCIATION with worldly, or for that matter any phenomena. If that were the case His names would not make sense to us, they would be merely empty sounds. They are not, so he IS LIKE....

I will repeat, this is not a matter of "sharing a title" for that is not what the Koran says my friends.



And I will add that the translated verse does not state "nothing else can be God except Him" as anothe contortionist respondent suggests.

Again, I ask you to look at the proper translations provided above.


OR I am wrong about the work "kufuwan"?



...

Luke

ps. if you need, I am willing to help with exit counselling.

To all your answers.

SERMON 185

About the Oneness of Allah. This sermon contains principles of knowledge which no other sermon contains He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not believe in His oneness, nor does he who likens Him grasp His reality. He who illustrates Him does not signify Him. He who points at Him and imagines Him does not mean Him. Everything that is known through itself has been created, and everything that exists by virtue of other things is the effect (of a cause). He works but not with the help of instruments. He fixes measures but not with the activity of thinking. He is rich but not by acquisition.

Times do not keep company with Him, and implements do not help Him. His Being precedes times. His Existence precedes non-existence and His eternity precedes beginning. By His creating the senses it is known that He has no senses. By the contraries in various matters it is known that He has no contrary, and by the similarity between things it is known that there is nothing similar to Him. He has made light the contrary of darkness, brightness that of gloom, dryness that of moisture and heat that of cold. He produces affection among inimical things.

He fuses together diverse things, brings near remote things and separates things which are joined together. He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers. Material parts can surround things of their own kind, and organs can point out things similar to themselves. The word⁽¹⁾ "mundhu" (i.e. since) disproves their eternity, the word "qad" (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence), disproves their being from ever and the word "lawla" (if it were not) keep them remote from perfection.

Through them the Creator manifests Himself to the intelligence, and through them He is guarded from the sight of the eyes.

Stillness and motion do not occur in Him, and how can that thing occur in Him which He has Himself made to occur, and how can a thing revert to Him which He first created, and how can a thing appear in Him which He first brought to appearance. If it had not been so, His Self would have become subject to diversity, His Being would have become divisible (into parts), and His reality would have been prevented from being deemed Eternal. If there was a front to Him there would have been a rear also for Him . He would need completing only if shortage befell Him. In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of signs leading to Him. Through the might of His abstention (from affectedness) He is far above being affected by things which effect others.

He is that which does not change or vanish. The process of setting does not behove Him. He has not begotten any one lest He be regarded as having been born. He has not been begotten otherwise He would be contained within limits. He is too High to have sons. He is too purified to contact women. Imagination cannot reach Him so as to assign Him quantity. Understanding cannot think of Him so as to give him shape. Senses do not perceive Him so as to feel Him. Hands cannot touch Him so as to rub against Him. He does not change into any condition. He does not pass from one state to another. Nights and days do not turn Him old. Light and darkness do not alter Him.

It cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, or end or termination; nor do things control Him so as to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him so as to bend Him or keep Him erect. He is not inside things nor outside them. He conveys news, but not with the tongue or voice. He listens, but not with the holes of the ears or the organs of hearing. He says, but does not utter words. He remembers, but does not memorise. He determines, but not by exercising His mind. He loves and approves without any sentimentality (of heart). He hates and feels angry without any painstaking. When He intends to create someone He says "Be" and there he is, but not through a voice that strikes (the ears) is that call heard. His speech is an act of His creation. His like never existed before this. If had been eternal it would have been the second god.

It cannot be said that He came into being after He had not been in existence because in that case the attributes of the created things would be assigned to Him and there would remain no difference between them and Him, and He would have no distinction over them. Thus, the Creator and the created would become equal and the initiator and the initiated would be on the same level. He created (the whole of) creation without any example made by someone else, and He did not secure the assistance of any one out of His creation for creating it.

He created the earth and suspended it without being busy, retained it without support, made it stand without legs, raised it without pillars, protected it against bendings and curvings and defended it against crumbling and splitting (into parts). He fixed mountains on it like stumps, solidified its rocks, caused its streams to flow and opened wide its valleys. Whatever He made did not suffer from any flow, and whatever He strengthened did not show any weakness.

He manifests Himself over the earth with His authority and greatness. He is aware of its inside through his knowledge and understanding. He has power over every thing in the earth by virtue of His sublimity and dignity. Nothing from the earth that he may ask for defies Him, nor does it oppose Him so as to overpower Him. No swift-footed creature can run away from Him so as to surpass Him. He is not needy towards any possessing person so that he should feed Him. All things bow to Him and are humble before His greatness. They cannot flee away from His authority to someone else in order to escape His benefit or His harm. There is no parallel for Him who may match Him and no one like Him so as to equal Him.

He will destroy the earth after its existence, till all that exists on it will become non-existent. But the extinction of the world after its creation is no stranger than its first formation and invention. How could it be? Even if all the animals of the earth, whether birds or beasts, stabled cattle or pasturing ones, of different origins and species, dull people and sagacious men -- all jointly try to create (even) a mosquito they are not able to bring it into being and do not understand what is the way to its creation. Their wits are bewildered and wandering. Their powers fall short and fail, and return disappointed and tired, knowing that they are defeated and admitting their inability to produce it, also realising that they are too weak (even) to destroy it.

Surely, after the extinction of the world, Allah the Glorified will remain alone with nothing else beside Him. He will be, after its extinction, as He was before its production: without time or place or moment or period. At this moment, period and time will not exist, and years and hours will disappear. There will be nothing except Allah, the One, the All-powerful. To Him is the return of all matters. Its initial creation was not in its power; and the prevention of its extinction was (also) not in its power. If it had the power to prevent it, it would have existed for ever. When He made anything of the world, the making of it did not cause Him any difficulty, and the creation of anything which He created and formed did not fatigue Him. He did not create it to heighten His authority nor for fear of loss or harm, nor to seek its help against an overwhelming foe, nor to guard against any avenging opponent with its help, nor for the extension of His domain by its help, nor for boasting (over largeness of His possession) against a partner, nor because He felt lonely and desired to seek its company.

Then after its creation He will destroy it, but not because any worry has overcome Him in its upkeep and administration, nor for any pleasure that will accrue to Him, nor for the cumbrousness of anything over Him. The length of its life does not weary Him so as to induce Him to its quick destruction. But Allah, the Glorified, has maintained it with His kindness, kept it intact with His command and perfected it with His power. Then after its destruction, He will resuscitate it, but not for any need of His own towards it, nor to seek the assistance of any of its things against it, nor to change over from the condition of loneliness to that of company, nor from the condition of ignorance and blindness to that of knowledge and search, nor from paucity and need towards needlessness and plenty, nor from disgrace and lowliness towards honour and prestige.



⁽¹⁾. The meaning is that the sense for which the words "mundhu" , "qad" and "lawla" have been formed is opposed to the attributes of "Ever", "Eternal" and "Perfect". Therefore, their application to anything would prove that they have come into existence from non-existence and are imperfect. For example, "mundhu" is used to denote time as is "qad wujida mundu kadha" (this thing is found since so-and-so). Here a time limit has been stated, and anything for which a limit of time can be described cannot exist from ever or for ever. The word "qad" shows (indicating the present perfect tense) the immediate past. This sense also can apply to a thing which is limited in time. The word "lawla" is used to denote the negation of something in another thing, as "ma ahsanahu wa akmalahu lawla annahu kadha" (how handsome and perfect it would be if it were so-and-so). Therefore, the thing for which this word is used would be in need of others in handsomeness and perfection, and would remain deficient by itself.








Allah(swt) is the Most High. and Nothing is comparable to Him. Everything Bows for His Greatness. no King, no Holy, nothing is equal to Him.

Allahu akbar (Allah is the greatest)

Whats your point dude?

No one is equal to Him, no one is comparable to Him, what difference does it make?

So you are saying that no one can compare to God, and then God calls himself a King, therefore there is a contradiction? If that is what you are saying, then here is my answer:

<><><><><><><>
The word "kafirun" is not what should be debated.

Lets see your translation word for word:

wa: and
lam yakun: it/he/there is not
lahu: for Him
kufuwan = comparable
ahad: one

And there is not for Him comparable one.

This can be grammatically fixed to be:

And there is not for Him [a] comparable one.

God says he isn't comparable to ANYONE. Meaning a worldly thing like a worldly King.

God is not given the title of worldly king. it is ETERNAL KING. Thats a title, not a comparison. the ONLY eternal King/Lord is God, therefore it is not a comparison.

You cannot compare God's forgiveness to Mother Teresa. You cannot compare God's power to Alexander the Greats. But God can be given the title Eternal King because He is the ONLY eternal King. Hence this is not a comparison.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims agree on this. That no one can be compared to God, and that God is the Eternal Lord.

This post has been edited by Simba: May 29 2007, 02:28 PM

Christians, Jews, and Muslims agree on this. That no one can be compared to God, and that God is the Eternal Lord.

Agreed

Whats your point dude?

No one is equal to Him, no one is comparable to Him, what difference does it make?

So you are saying that no one can compare to God, and then God calls himself a King, therefore there is a contradiction? If that is what you are saying, then here is my answer:

<><><><><><><>
The word "kafirun" is not what should be debated.

Lets see your translation word for word:

wa: and
lam yakun: it/he/there is not
lahu: for Him
kufuwan = comparable
ahad: one

And there is not for Him comparable one.

This can be grammatically fixed to be:

And there is not for Him [a] comparable one.

God says he isn't comparable to ANYONE. Meaning a worldly thing like a worldly King.

God is not given the title of worldly king. it is ETERNAL KING. Thats a title, not a comparison. the ONLY eternal King/Lord is God, therefore it is not a comparison.

You cannot compare God's forgiveness to Mother Teresa. You cannot compare God's power to Alexander the Greats. But God can be given the title Eternal King because He is the ONLY eternal King. Hence this is not a comparison.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims agree on this. That no one can be compared to God, and that God is the Eternal Lord.

OK so if Allah cannot be compared to a earthly King, what sense are we to give to the word "King/Malik" then? How are we to understand or define it? What does it mean? Explain it to me.
Only through comparison, and the natural mode of concept formation I outlined in my second post, can we understand the word Malik. Only through association with temporal secular objects...like King Henry the 8th, or the present King of Morocco for example. If we don't associate "Malik" with such worldly things the meaning of the word melts away. Malik may as well become "hwuetsh" - an empty sound. Only through association does or can it have sense and meaning.
Or can you give me an alternative explanation of how we give a sense and meaning the the word "King", as used both in ordinary life, or even in the Koran to describe Allah, The so called ~" Subhanahu wa ta'ala (Allah is pure of having partners and he is exalted) " ~ the source of another internal contradiction of the very same nature I have outlined in my above posts!!!!) Please, how de we know what "Malik" means?

I'll add that I am an atheist and secular humanist and techno-utopian.



Luke.

your arguments are very weak,

If you are the King it means you are above other people, your rank is higher.
Allah(swt) is the Highest He is the King of Kings,

Mankind cannot think beyond his capicity, He is the All-Mercifull and we know what it means, if God uses another word wich He never taught us, how can we understand what Allah(swt) means?

your arguments are very weak,

If you are the King it means you are above other people, your rank is higher.
Allah(swt) is the Highest He is the King of Kings,

Mankind cannot think beyond his capicity, He is the All-Mercifull and we know what it means, if God uses another word wich He never taught us, how can we understand what Allah(swt) means?

Thats exactly my point, or one of them.You say he is beyond all association, but understanding "Malik" for instance depends upon association. The less you associate with 'Allah' the less meaningful the word becomes. We seem to agree there.
As the word is meaningful to you, you associate to that very degree. Agreed? Hence, when you say "swt - exalted beyond association" you contradict yourselves. Also therefore when you say "lam...kufuwan ahad" you contradict also, for your definition of him depends on comparison.

Basically you are worshiping a composite concept with no life of it's own. It is grounded in secular concepts and cannot go beyond them - as you admit, using non secular words leads to 'no understanding'. All you have is comparison & association.

Again, all that there is is a conception, and a fantasy, not a real being. For if it (your or any god) were real he would have independent properties and qualities we could fathom thrugh direct experience. Instead all we have mental puppetry and shadow play. That is the simplest explanation, and preferring the simple of two exlanations is a scientific principle (see occams razor).

At least you admit I have an argument. And a far more simple one that does not incorporate aeons worth of unproven and untestable myth.

BTW if you give up on Islam, don't turn to drugs. I am a Humanist, Scientist (like scientism) and techno utopian. I don't need drugs, but am not a believer.

Thankyou.

Luke.

Thats exactly my point, or one of them.You say he is beyond all association, but understanding "Malik" for instance depends upon association. The less you associate with 'Allah' the less meaningful the word becomes. We seem to agree there.
As the word is meaningful to you, you associate to that very degree. Agreed?

Allah(swt) is One. and beyond all things, because He created all things.
You look at the word Malik as if Allah(swt) shares the title with the king of England...
He is Malik, King, a King means a High Rank.

Malik for does not depend upon association, why would Allah(swt) use a word that no one can define it? Allah(Swt) use words that we can define, if i talk to you in Persian, you cant understand me, so i have no reason to talk to you in the language of Persian people, then why would Allah(swt) use word that we cannot define? we cannot think of things that we never saw or learned...Allah(Swt) is the King, if there was no king at all in the world and the human never saw a king, how can you know what a king is then? if you cannot define the word King, how do you know what Allah(swt) means with King? if a king never existed and 1 of the names of Allah(swt) is The King, how can we define it then? what you say is very unlogic, we need examples, the human mind cannot think of things that he never saw or never learned. Allah(Swt) is the King of Kings, He is the One, and there is none equal to Him.

Let me paste the last line of Al-Ikhlaas

YUSUFALI: And there is none like unto Him.
PICKTHAL: And there is none comparable unto Him.
SHAKIR: And none is like Him.


There is none comparable unto Him, meaning no king, no master, is equal to Him.

What you claim is very weak.

Let me post some examples

Some names of All-Might Allah(swt)

Al-Awwal
(The First) .... Prophet Adam(as) was the first Human. does it mean he shares the title with Allah(swt)? No! because He (swt) is the FIRST.

dude not the same you said the first human. They are the same that they both are first of something


Al-Ghaffar
(The Forgiver)...If i forgive someone does it mean i share the title with Him(swt)? No!

Yes you do. When a person forgives someone they are the forgiver.
Al-Hakam


(The Judge)....if commit a crime, and i judge you does it mean i share the title? No!

yes to judge another(which only god has the right to judge), then you are a judge. We have many judges in our judical system.


Al-Hayy
(The Alive)...I am Alive Alhamdillah! does it mean i share this title with Him(swt)? No!

Yes see where this is going. Many biengs share life and are alive. Until you die you will share this title.


Al-Quddus
(The Holy)...Prophet Jesus(as) is Holy, does it mean he shares the title with Allah(Swt)? No!

yes, unless there is more than one form of Holy. If a man is Holy then he is a Holy man. Same title.


Allah(Swt) is above everything and anything that He(swt) created. He is the King of Kings, and there is no one equal to Him(swt).

not this statement proves lukes point. He is the KING of kings. Means the same. Kings rule over people and God rules over people. Why do kings believe in thier divine right to the throne. Don't get me wrong the one true god is the "king" of all. Why couldn't god of just gave man the word to refer to his stature. We don't have to understand it to say and use it in reference to him.

Nicely said. ^^

Offtopic and not in the right forum.

Moved.
To here

This post has been edited by chailvr: Mar 11 2008, 10:07 PM

lukes-You see the statement " there is nothing in existence like unto him" is inconsistent with Allah being called the King. FOR Either he is like a king or not. If he is, that falsifies Ikhlas and therefore 1/3 of the koran and therefore islam as a religion of perfect revelation...he is not like a king then why in the first place call him al Malik / the King?????

A smart question!! if it is not "like" a king then why call it king!!!

The word which (i feel) needs to be understood is king or malik! the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs to god alone...and god alone is "the king"! let's not try likening god (the king) to temporal "kings"!!

This post has been edited by onlinetoenjoy: May 25 2008, 02:35 PM