<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> The BrainDead Atheist proved himself to be beyond reason. He's a troll, and there comes a time when you really don't want to waste your time talking to him. How many times exactly did you say you're leaving this discussion? Just disappear sxb, you're spent. This discussion proved once and for all your measure when it comes to Islamic knowledge and Quran. What is worse is that you still cling on the to the drivel you've been spewing in this thread even after being proven embarrassingly wrong on countless points. You continue to speak about an 'understanding' and some 'hidden meaning' that may be lost in translation, justifying why the verse is so vague and trying to come up with obscure turds for excuses, ignoring in the process the clear verse and the correlation with other text and even basics of Arabic language. I mean, look at the next best excuse your Wahabi camp came up with: oh, he is the father of all the women of Sodom so he actually meant them Shidh fooqal shidh. Get lost. (or just post again saying how you will never post anything else on this )

The religious troll has successfully been exterminated

Beyond the semantics, the prophet Lut was offering his daughters as proven above, this is beyond a shadow of a doubt in lawyer terms, lets see what bullshit the good doctor is going to bring next.

<cite> @Allyourbase said:</cite> Okay, one more example from the Quran to deliver the final blow to these Wahabi circus performers. There is a very similar case in the Quran where a man is offering one of his daughters to another man in marriage this time . This happens in the story of Moses fleeing the wrath of Egypt's Pharaoh. Now the dear G.O.D is very clear as to what is on offer here: He said, "Indeed, I wish to wed you one of these , my two daughters, on that you serve me for eight years; but if you complete ten, it will be from you. And I do not wish to put you in difficulty. You will find me, if Allah wills, from among the righteous." There is no need to insert words in brackets, or make shit up to get the meaning across here because it is explicitly mentioned in the Arabic text. There is no care taken to adhere to the 'nuances of the Arabic language' or to make up some 'universal understanding' of the text because, again like the previous verses on Lut, its very clear. Your time is up sxb. He is avoiding my post above with a similar example from the Quran. He is dismissing identical verses from the Bible. He is speaking as an authority in Arabic when he is being schooled in front of everyone right here. What a loser! Khayr, why dont you help our brother DoctorKenny? Why are you leaving him to the wolves?

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> That was the worst display of arrogance and know-nothing bravado I have ever seen on this website. Wallahi I came out the shower and I'm still in shock. The term " Ina Rabbaku yaclamu an naka taquumu " literally means "Surely your Lord knows that you stand" Stand for what? What is he standing for? Anyone with even a tiny amount of knowledge and common sense could infer that it means he's standing for prayer. Even though word "prayer" was never mentioned. The meaning gets lost in translation but that's what it means. The same way how Qiyaamul Layl literally means "Standing at Night". And obviously Qiyaamul Layl is referring to the night-prayer, where we Muslims pray for the whole night, or a portion of the night. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. The same way how it doesn't take a genius to know that Prophet Lot was offering marriage and not fornication, as anyone with even 2 brain-cells could know what this verse is inferring. Dear brother, there is no coming back from that post dont even try You embarrassed even your own cheerleader Khayra by that clear ignorance of basic Arabic and Quran (Actually even I am a little embarrassed for you, me the 'Kaafir' schooling you on your Quran!) :D Why exactly are you saying: Ina Rabbaku yaclamu annaka taquumu? That is not a complete sentence. Taquumo alone means standing, but when you say: Ina Rabbaku yaclamu an naka taquumu al layla, would translate absolutely perfectly to night prayer, just as it did in the original verse. " Inna rabbaka yaclamu annaka taquumo adna min thuluth allayl. So the English translation is the one trying to catch up to the Arabic verse, the verse in its original Arabic is clear to any Arabic speaker.

This is so funny, the man who took up the Wahabi cause is this ignorant on Islamic ABCs! And he thought he had a really good point as well haha :D

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> Let me make this clear, that I'm only making this point, to finally make an address to this brain-dead character AllYourBase who insists that things have to be stated explicitly or else. Literally every language on the face of this Earth has words which carry implicit meanings based on their context, but this clown refuses to see that for himself. He's either being dishonest, or he's not very bright. Let me give you an example: Quran Chapter 73:20 Indeed, your Lord knows, [O Muhammad], that you stand [in prayer] almost two thirds of the night or half of it or a third of it, and [so do] a group of those with you. And Allah determines [the extent of] the night and the day. He has known that you [Muslims] will not be able to do it and has turned to you in forgiveness, so recite what is easy [for you] of the Qur’an. He has known that there will be among you those who are ill and others traveling throughout the land seeking [something] of the bounty of Allah and others fighting for the cause of Allah . So recite what is easy from it and establish prayer and give zakah and loan Allah a goodly loan. And whatever good you put forward for yourselves – you will find it with Allah . It is better and greater in reward. And seek forgiveness of Allah . Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Notice what I bolded. The word "prayer" wasn't mentioned anywhere here. It just said "standing". But what was the implied meaning here? What was the understanding of the verse from everyone, from the Prophet Muhammad himself to all of his companions to all of the generations of Muslims after? We're gonna play the same stubid little game with AllYourBase and say "Since this Ayah doesn't say anything regarding prayer, we can just assume that Allah was telling people to stand around" But anyone who's not brain-dead can conclude that Allah was obviously talking about prayer, when He mentioned "standing". The same way how Prophet Lot was obviously mentioning marriage, as no Prophet of God would ever sanction anything except marriage. Now this is just one small example. The Quran has literally hundreds of verses where brackets need to be inserted in the English translation, to convey the real meaning and connotations. This clown doesn't understand what "Lost in Translation" even means. Do you see how idiotic his train of thought is? Why are we allowing such imbeciles to post such things in this forum, and then claim that what they're doing is rational? Where's the rationality here? Dude, your lack of knowledge of the Quran is quite shocking! I actually can not believe how ignorant of your own religion you actually are. Your inability to read the original Arabic verse is what makes you utter such diabolical argument. Let me teach you a little. You actually argued that the word prayer is not mentioned in the verse above because you only ever read the English translation. In the original Arabic the meaning is very clear in the verse itself, with no need of any clarification whatsoever: Indeed, your Lord knows, [O Muhammad], that you stand [in prayer] almost two thirds of the night or half of it or a third of it, and [so do] a group of those with you. And Allah determines [the extent of] the night and the day. He has known that you [Muslims] will not be able to do it and has turned to you in forgiveness, so recite what is easy [for you] of the Qur'an. He has known that there will be among you those who are ill and others traveling throughout the land seeking [something] of the bounty of Allah and others fighting for the cause of Allah . So recite what is easy from it and establish prayer and give zakah and loan Allah a goodly loan. And whatever good you put forward for yourselves - you will find it with Allah . It is better and greater in reward. And seek forgiveness of Allah . Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. === Notice what I bolded. The word “prayer” wasn’t mentioned anywhere here. It just said “standing”. You are wrong. The Arabic verse is very clear in its use of the phrase "taquum al Layl": meaning to pray the night prayers. Have you never heard of Qiyaamal Laayl? http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84 This is elementary Islam we are talking about, the phrase Qiyaam Al Layl describes a widely practiced prayer at night time. If you have read the chapter of the Quran that you have quoted me from the beginning, you would have seen the same phrase in verse no.2: Arise [to pray] the night, except for a little - == The only reason the clarification in brackets is inserted in the English translation is because of the lack of clear meaning of Qiyaamal Layl in English, and not because in Arabic it means just "standing" I am actually shocked , this shows where you stand in Islamic tradition and knowledge, and I am not impressed to say the least. :o

Okay, one more example from the Quran to deliver the final blow to these Wahabi circus performers. There is a very similar case in the Quran where a man is offering one of his daughters to another man in marriage this time. This happens in the story of Moses fleeing the wrath of Egypt's Pharaoh. Now the dear G.O.D is very clear as to what is on offer here: He said, "Indeed, I wish to wed you one of these, my two daughters, on that you serve me for eight years; but if you complete ten, it will be from you. And I do not wish to put you in difficulty. You will find me, if Allah wills, from among the righteous." There is no need to insert words in brackets, or make shit up to get the meaning across here because it is explicitly mentioned in the Arabic text. There is no care taken to adhere to the 'nuances of the Arabic language' or to make up some 'universal understanding' of the text because, again like the previous verses on Lut, its very clear. Your time is up sxb.

Ah, the good Doctor is back! I was worried there for a second, glad you resurfaced. I was hoping the checkmate earlier would bring a changed man. I thought you would declare your agreement with the facts, that you would swear allegiance to the truth but you're back with just the same tired Wahabi verbal kung-fu YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! (waa kow!) You keep talking about 'universal understanding' and 'agreement of scholars' and some nonsense about 'islamic guidelines' and you keep ignoring the glaring clarity of the MULTIPLE Arabic verses, supported by the biblical reference (thanks for bringing that up xabad!) in which the dear prophet offers his daughters for the 'doing', not marriage but in sacrifice, in the place of his divine guests. You keep talking about what is not there, whilst I am pointing you the Quranic verse in question, with no 'scholar opinions' or 'universal understanding' but the bare verse alone. You are accusing the dear G.O.D of being vague, or perhaps omitting important pieces of information on multiple counts here. And please dont bring up nuances of Arabic that you clearly can not read (lol!), Mohamed took that story from the bible and you can see, verse for verse, how the two stories are identical, this is no coincidence sxb. Just like all the other stories that the Quran had 'borrowed' from the bible. You have no place to run, you are alone here sxb (I am not counting your braindead cheerleader Khayra). Duces!

BTW what happened to our dearest brother DoctorKenny? He conveniently vacated the discussion when the screws were tightened on this case Hope everything is alright ya akhi!

<cite> @Tallaabo said:</cite> I tend to agree with Allyourbase regarding this story about prophet Lut's daughters. Indeed the prophet was so desperate to protect his guests from an imminent molestation and humiliation in the hands of his extremely evil people that he was ready to offer his own daughters instead as a sacrifice. The "daughters" mentioned in this story cannot be the women of Lut's society because the evil men were not interested in them as the Quran says. So Lut was prepared to offer his own daughters in order to save his guests. Also, no marriage is mentioned in these verses so the prophet was probably not offering his daughters for marriage. The verses say that " the people of the city "- which means a lot of men. Logic dictates that the prophet had fewer daughters than could be married to a whole town. So from this we can get an deduce that prophet Lut did not have marriage in his mind when offering his daughters. The Bible also has the same story and there is no mention of marriage or town girls in it. Although both the old testament and the new testament have a great number of errors in them, they are nevertheless invaluable historical documents and are frequently used by the Quran commentators to give a more comprehensive view of the many stories that Quran and the Bible share. This sad scenario of the prophet of Allah being in such a great distress with no options but to sacrifice his daughters strengths the view that Lut's story is not about homosexual sex between two consenting males but rather is about the molestation of innocent people, gay sex between straight men, and a host of other crimes. What the Quranic verses were stating is very clear actually, but the deceitful intentions of those apologist Wahabis come to light when you compare the original Arabic verse to its English translation where they inserted the phrase 'lawful marriage' to completely and utterly change the meaning of that particular verse. This is one of many and that is why I always encourage those interested to read the Quran to try and read the original source, with no middlemen as such, when you do that you can clearly see the human origins of the text. And I know this may be something you do not completely agree with Tallaabo, but hey, at least we can agree on the case of prophet Lot

<cite> @Hasina said:</cite> When Prophet Lut (AS) offered his daughters, he wasn't referring to his biological daughters as stated by the scholars. He was referring to the women of Sodom, because he was their father too, symbolically . Similar to how, the Prophet Muhammad's wives' (SAW) are the Mothers of the Believers. Why would he say they are purer for you if he was offering them for fornication? He directed the men to what was purer for them and for the society as whole and what is purer than marriage between a man and a woman? However these men were intoxicated by their lust - and it's clear that they weren't interested in purity because they only sought to fulfill their perverted sexual desires. The Bible's account of Lot's story is disgusting and incorrect. It's in the Bible they say Lot offered his two daughters to the men and said they can do anything to them as long as they leave his guests alone. The Bible also includes other sordid details of Lot's daughters sleeping with their own father. Nauudibillah. Oh, you guys have gone full on zombie mode here. This is such a bizarre attempt at normalising those (very clear) verses from the Quran. How can you argue that he was their father symbolically WHEN THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIM TO BEGIN WITH? :D Its actually funny how one of you would go on to claim that the dear prophet somehow meant to marry his daughters to these homosexuals/rapists whilst the other would come out of the blue to claim this 'symbolic' fatherly connection. I actually looked up the Biblical reference and it is shocking in its similarity to the Quranic verse: Genesis 19:4-9 King James Version (KJV) 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. ==== Now compare this to the Quranic verses: And the people of the city came rejoicing. [Lot] said, "Indeed, these are my guests, so do not shame me. And fear Allah and do not disgrace me." They said, "Have we not forbidden you from people?" [Lot] said, "These are my daughters - if you would be doers." :o I hope this clarifies the dear prophet's proposal, I mean its identical even in the use of the 'doing' plea!! I rest my case

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> The Judeo-Christian Tradition is corrupt, has nothing to do with this topic, and I don't care to discuss it. We're talking about Islam here. Ah, look at the poor Dr panic So basically we have supporting material from the source of the story itself? (We know Mohamed 'borrowed' much of the stories in the Quran from tales in the Torah and Bible) PLUS, the Quran itself being very clear with what was on offer here. Dearest Xabad, could you provide some references to these Jewish/Christian sources? That would be a trifecta of original source evidence to the dear prophet's 'offer'

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> BTW AllYourBase don't expect us to forget a couple of months ago when you were asked to elaborate on your world-view, which could then be analysed on whether it's credible or not, and whether it can be used as a benchmark to judge past and present societies. And whether this world-view is philosophically consistent, and can provide objective (and universal) moral values. You couldn't answer it. You disappeared from the Forum. Because you don't know what you're doing You're an Amateur. And until you're able to fulfil that task than I'm not obligated to answer anything you ask me. You're like a man who wears a mask and then calls others ugly You are just plain trolling now.

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> People, look at the level of depravity this thread has sunk to. And look at the complete lack of common sense exhibited by this member AllYourBase He would really have us believe that the Prophet Lot, offered his daughters to be made as prostitutes, simply because the word "marriage" wasn't explicitly stated in the Quranic Verse. Even though fornication is a serious sin in Islam, carrying a stiff punishment. Even though Prophet Lot was a righteous person who wouldn't engage in such despicable behavior. Even though anyone with a working brain can obviously infer what Prophet Lot intended when he offered his daughters in marriage to these men, and he explicitly stated "They are purer for you" and he stated "So guard against the punishment of Allah" and obviously you can't do that if you're warding off one sin by committing another sin. You can't ward off homosexuality by encouraging fornication. It's extremely amateur to even make that point and not a single person with even a modicum of self-respect would make such an argument. Anyone with a working brain and a tiny bit of sincerity and common sense would know what the Prophet Lot was offering (marriage). That Prophet Lot, by his actions and by his statements, would never offer his daughters for prostitution or anything of the sort. But AllYourBase already knows this. And he's looking for any excuse to drag on this discussion. Read here: He's an amateur with amateur arguments, no coherent thought-processes, and a strong copy/paste button on his laptop where he literally copies arguments from others and then passes them off as his own Dude, stop with the acrobatics When I made my point you've insinuated that I was making shit up about your Quran, to which I have provided you with the source material. When you are arguing the righteousness of Lot, and the incoherence of the claims (made by God in the Quran, mind you) you are essentially arguing with the Quran and not me It is the Quran that says “These are my daughters – if you would be doers.” Your God could have simply said "“These are my daughters – for you in lawful marriage.” Would you not agree that this would make for a more clearer verse? You do not need to tell me how much of a good boy the dear prophet was, you need to raise this up with the G.O.D himself for not mentioning it in either verses sxb. You're busted If you are going to be looking into the moral motives of Lot, you will begin to question the logic of this whole story. I mean, you have a group of men barging into your house and wanting to fornicate with your male guest, so you offer them your daughters? In which world does this make sense? I mean, if we are to take the Quranic story at face value these are immoral criminals who are lusting after men, and this guy wants them to be (even in your unbelievable scenario) his in laws? Very funny walahi No logic at all. Come on son:

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> I won't wiggle out of it, because you want to dismiss the universal and unanimous understanding of this verse from Arabic Scholars, Medieval scholars, Modern scholars and even Orientalists just so you can say "Oh the word marriage wasn't said explicitly so therefore he's offering his daughters for prostitution". In the Arabic language, inferences are made in verses even when the word isn't said explicitly. It's used in almost every single Quranic chapter. This is why brackets have to be added in English translations so the meaning doesn't get lost when translating. End it, you're an amateur. I don't wish to continue Ah, you gave up too quickly I am glad you agree that no mention of the word or idea of marriage is in the verse. Why should I concern myself with the understanding of other men when I have the divine words of the creator clear for me to read? I thought the Quran is the 'final book' of revelation, and the Almighty Allah sent it down in perfect clarity for all humanity to read. You clearly can not read the Arabic or you would not be in this hole right now.

Here is the same story in a different verse: And his people came hastening to him, and before [this] they had been doing evil deeds. He said, "O my people, these are my daughters; they are purer for you. So fear Allah and do not disgrace me concerning my guests. Is there not among you a man of reason?" They said, "You have already known that we have not concerning your daughters any claim, and indeed, you know what we want." ==== Again, absolutely no mention of marriage in the Arabic verse. It can not get any clearer

as Lot offering his daughters in lawful marriage Show me where in the original Arabic Quran you see this talk of 'lawful marriage'. You are lying and blatantly inserting your own interpretations to the Quranic verse, exactly what you accused me of doing, the irony There is absolutely no mention of the work marriage in the Quranic verse. I have proven my point very clearly I think. If there is no mention of marriage in the Arabic verse then: 1. Why is it added in the English translation and 2. if the dear prophet was not offering marriage, there is only one other alternative, one which the Quranic verse spill explicitly: “These are my daughters – if you would be doers.” Now watch the good Doctor try to wiggle out of this one

I can do that <cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> AllYourBase, that was absolutely disgusting. You just inserted your own interpretations into a Quranic verse and implied that the Prophet Lot offered his own daughters for prostitution to deter them from homosexual acts! You are despicable If that is what you want I am happy to reexamine the Quranic verse with you here. I see that you are troubled by the use of interpretations here, so I will stick to the the verses' verbatim in original Arabic and you draw the conclusion, I think that is fair. You blatantly lied here, inserted your own theories, and then slyly attempt to place the burden of proof on Tallaabo. If there's a deceptive character on this forum, it's you. I did not lie, lets look at the Quran for a second: And the people of the city came rejoicing. [Lot] said, "Indeed, these are my guests, so do not shame me. And fear Allah and do not disgrace me." They said, "Have we not forbidden you from people?" [Lot] said, "These are my daughters - if you would be doers." ===== These are the Quranic verses, please explain how I lied, or if the translation provided missed anything from the original Arabic, I would love to know There you go, zero interpretation/understanding, 100% Quran, no room for maneuver Im afraid.

"These are my daughters - if you would be doers" Its okay that you were not aware of the original Arabic verse. But dont you come now raving on about this 'modern understanding' when merely a minute ago you were flaming me for 'inserting my understanding' to the verse. The Quranic verse is clear enough here for us to understand what the dear prophet was offering.

DoctorKenny, I thought you were against interpretations? What happened? Let me repeat, this is what the Quran says, with absolutely zero interpretation on my part. The apologist English translation added interpretation to the verse. Are you going to reject the holy verse? Now that you saw I did not insert my interpretations into the Quran, should you not apologise about your initial outburst here? The verse is clear: “These are my daughters – if you would be doers” I wonder what the dear prophet was offering those men

<cite> @DoctorKenney said:</cite> AllYourBase, that was absolutely disgusting. You just inserted your own interpretations into a Quranic verse and implied that the Prophet Lot offered his own daughters for prostitution to deter them from homosexual acts! You are despicable You blatantly lied here, inserted your own theories, and then slyly attempt to place the burden of proof on Tallaabo. If there's a deceptive character on this forum, it's you. P.S. AllYourBase, due to your previous earlier inability to articulate a coherent worldview in which you can judge Islamic Doctrine, then all of your assertions and allegations against Islam automatically become invalid. Your copying/pasting material (which has been previously refuted) from anti-Islamic websites with no input of your own amounts to nothing but laziness and lack of thinking on your part. The good Doctor is here How are you buddy? Hope all is well. I am sorry to see that you are disgusted by that statement but sadly it is from the holy Quran, I actually offered very little in terms of interpretation. If you read the original Arabic, this is exactly what you will find Lets have a looksie: Which translates to: "These are my daughters - if you would be doers" Now the English translation adds an interpretive sentence that is not in the original Arabic: "These are my daughters - if you would be doers [of lawful marriage]." Which is clearly the work of apologists trying to insert their own interpretations to the Quranic verse. So, please, lets just read the Quranic verse as it is if that is indeed what you want

I am sorry but this is far fetched. What the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for was not the rape as such but their choice of samesex intercourse: “And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). He even went to the troubles of offering the mob his own daughters (for intercourse) instead of his male guests (angels): And his people came hastening to him, and before [this] they had been doing evil deeds. He said, "O my people, these are my daughters; they are purer for you. So fear Allah and do not disgrace me concerning my guests. Is there not among you a man of reason?" It is thus clear that Islam's problem is not with the rape itself but with their choice of who to rape

How so? Have you not read the Quran chapters depicting the story of prophet L.O.T in his home city of Sodom? A city that received divine judgment from the almighty G.O.D. Allyourbase

Its weird how homosexuality is absolutely forbidden in Islam yet it is in the most Islamic countries that you see it most practiced in the ME