posted
The Bible shares many of the same vices as the Qur'an. As the Bible predates the Qur'an, the Bible may be seen as the model and inspiration for the violence and hatred in the Qur'an. The violence in the Bible, particularly the Hebrew Bible (or Christian Old Testament) is widely acknowledged, that to mention it scarcely raises an eyebrow. The concept of hellfire is something that the Qur'an borrowed from Christianity (there are only isolated references to "hell" or sheol in the Hebrew Bible), while the sensuous descriptions of Paradise seem to be borrowings from other traditions (Hindu texts describe a heaven populated by apsaras, or celestial courtesans, that may be likened to the houris of the Qur'an, but Hinduism conceives of heaven and hell as within time, space, and causality - in which case heaven and hell will dissolve with the rest of creation). However, Muslims anxious for influence in the West seek to mislead non-Muslims by citing apparently benign passages (notably that bon-bon, verse 2:256, on "no compulsion in religion") in the Qur'an divorced from context . When someone challenges Muslims on the violence and hatred contained in their scriptures (the Hadith as well as the Qur'an), their typical defenses are throwing the issue back at you to justify the Bible or religious texts and getting angry. What we need to decide is if these texts provide human, moral, and spiritual uplift.
Moreover, there is a difference of focus between the Bible and the Qur'an. The Bible presents warfare as history. In the Qur'an, the focus is different. Sincere Muslims believe that God is speaking directly to them through the Qur'an: the "Word inlibriate," to quote from Huston Smith's Religions of the World (formerly Religions of Man). Thus, Allah (God) is exhorting the faithful to commit violence against the non-believer.
Posts: 524 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between the historical aspect of the Bible and the historical aspect of the Koran. Christians today realize that the Old Testament is largely concerned with Mosaic laws and the History. The Christian religion today does not base its Faith on those ancient aspects of the religion.
On the other hand, the Koran is also religious history, but for some reason Muslims today often seem to want to "live" this history out as if it applies today. They often, therefore, read it as a literal book of rules without any interpretation, and we call this fundamentalism or extremism, or even Talibanisation.
Nobody seriously picks on either the Bible or the Koran for its historical content. What people dislike is fundamentalism of any kind whether it applies to the Bible or the Koran. What people tend to pick on, therefore, is Fundamentalism, not the Koran or the Bible. Fundamentalism is not considered Islamic by the majority of Muslims any more than Christian Fundamentalism is considered Christian by the majority of Christians.
So, "Fundamentalism" is what people pick on, of which there appear to be a number on this board. Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ohhh, yeahhhhhh! You are right ! Is then "Fundamentalism" something wrong if it is the wish of our god ? He is the one who tells us to do so, not the moslems self, and he is the one who will put all of us in hell or garden.
Posts: 909 | From: Germany/Egypt | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
GermanSara - who told you that it was the wish of your god?
Did your god tell you, and if so how? Or did some human tell you, based on his extremely limited knowledge of what he thinks is his religion?
Posts: 26 | From: Luxor | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs. Doubtfire: Nobody seriously picks on either the Bible or the Koran for its historical content. What people dislike is fundamentalism of any kind whether it applies to the Bible or the Koran. What people tend to pick on, therefore, is Fundamentalism, not the Koran or the Bible. Fundamentalism is not considered Islamic by the majority of Muslims any more than Christian Fundamentalism is considered Christian by the majority of Christians.
The Muslims do pick on the Koran for its historical context. Muhammad claimed the Koran is for 'all times'. If those injunctions for killings are not to be applied today, and are only for those people living during the 7th century, then Quran is out of date for our time by your own admission has no relevance.
'Fundamentalism is not considered Islamic by the majority of Muslims any more than Christian Fundamentalism is considered Christian by the majority of Christians. '
Then how come Islam breeds so many terrorists? This happens because Muhammad was a fundamentalist himself. Therefore fundamentalism is Islamic. The majority of Muslims do take the Koran literally. That is why people pick on the Koran. Because to fight terrorism without regard to Islam is like fighting Nazis while praising Hitler and revering his words. The New Testament might be full of errors, but there are no inhumane teachings therein. You cannot possibly follow the New Testament and commit murders and acts of terrorism. On the other hand if you do not commit murders and acts of terrorism you are just a lukewarm Muslim. Quran demands you to kill the unbelievers and promote Islam through Jihad. I rather have people follow a false doctrine that brings their goodness out than one that makes them terrorists.
Posts: 524 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
35:42] And they swore by God in their strongest oaths, that if a warner came to them, they would be the most guided of all nations, but when a warner came to them, it only increased their aversion!
[35:43] Arrogance on earth, and evil scheming. And the evil schemes only backfire on those who scheme them. Were they expecting anything different from the ways used on the people of the past? You will not find any change in God’s way, and you will not find any alteration to His way.
Posts: 817 | From: Egypt | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Islam does not breed terrorists. Terrorists breed themselves out of a lust for Power, Greed, Selfishness and Hatred. None of these things are meant to have any part of the soul. If people transmit these things to their soul, then they will indeed breed evil in themselves which they will pass on to others.
But it is not of God or Allah, it is of themselves.
Allah did say - did He not - "If any good comes your way it is from God, but if any evil comes your way, then it is from thyself" Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
German Sarah: God DOES NOT tell anyone to do Evil. Evil cannot come from God, it is impossible. Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course evil made from god , sent to earth to proof us. And evil promised that he will take us all with him to hell. And god promised, who folow god will enter garden.
We have to accept all prophets of god, all , moses, jesus, mohammed... But god told us to follow by doing the last prophet....mohammed. You can read this also in the bible. And you can read about this in the Koran. The the Koran, there are thausends of proofes, is real..real from our god.
Nevertheless, this is not the proof of the divine origin of Quran. Quran is full of logical, scientific, historic and grammatical errors. That is why I reject it as a divine book. The Republics of Plato predates Quran by 1100 years and the books of Confucius, Laoze, and Juangze are also as much old. They are also not changed. But no one claims that because of that they are divine books.
''DONT read the Koran alone, read also the hadith, to clear the pages which are strange for you. Maybe you could understand some things wrong.''
I read the Koran AND the hadiths, and not the Quran that exists only in the imagination of some. Who gives them the authority to pass rulings about Islam? The problem with Islam is that in the course of it 1400 years of history any idiot has tried to reinterpret the Sharia and propose ideas that are not found in Quran. That is why Muslims are divided in so many sects. Their opinion is worthless unless they can back it up by Quran, which they can’t.
There is evidence for the trueness of islam. Just read more about it.
You can fool yourself as much as you wish. I read Quran and found it tremendously poor and bereft of any beauty. It is an extremely disorganized book and has plenty of grammatical, historical, scientific and logical errors. The English translators have tried hard to hide the brutal and savage language of the Quran. For example when Muhammad says beat your wives if they are disobedient, some translators like Yusufali have added the adjective “lightly”. This lightly does not exist in the original Arabic. There are many cases like this. If you knew Arabic and could read that book in the original language you would not have defended it so blindly. Who said that piece of garage is “extra terrestrial?” This is the stupidest lie that Muslims keep telling themselves for over a thousand years. I checked it out for myself and found that it is a lie.
Posts: 524 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by germansara: We have to accept all prophets of god, all , moses, jesus, mohammed... But god told us to follow by doing the last prophet....mohammed. You can read this also in the bible.
Muslims use lots of words that confuse the listener, but they actually mean a different thing. For example Muslims insist that they believe in the same god of Christians, but if you pay close attention to how Jesus described his god and how Muhammad described his, you’ll see there is a world of difference. Muslims use a lot of terms that other use and yet they mean a different thing. Yes Muhammad mentions Jesus many times but his version of Jesus is not the same version as understood by the Christians. He had his own version and condemned those Christians who did not subscribe to his version. Muhammad did not accept the Christianity of the Christians and said “Allah's curse be on them, because they are deluded away from the Truth!” web page To not fall into the trap of Muslims you have to understand their tricks. They use the same words others use. This lulls people into believing Islam is not much different from what they already believe. However, once you convert, gradually they indoctrinate you and make you understand what they actually mean by those worlds is different. The point is that the Jesus Muhammad talked about is not the same Jesus that the Christians follow. You do not believe in their Book and you do not believe in their god. You have your own definition of all these and the fact that you use the same words is misleading. It is like you and I talk about chair. When I have an easy chair in mind and you have an electric chair in mind. We use the same word but there is a word of difference between what we mean.
Posts: 524 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Jesus that Muslims talk about is a figment of Muhammad’s imagination not the Jesus followed by the Christians. As for the Book, Muslims think the Bible is corrupted and therefore following it is the same as shirk or kufr (disbelief). In nowhere the Bible says Islam is truth, this is a total lie. Muhammad claimed that he is mentioned in the Bible and is referred to as Ahmad. This is untrue. But when he failed to show such thing in the Bible, he claimed that the Bible is corrupted and the reference to him has been blotted out. What can be more ridiculous than this? Suppose there is a reference in the Quran to their Mahdi, would Muslims blot that out? This makes no sense. Muhammad just said a lie because at the time his followers were a bunch of ignorant peasants turned marauders. His goal was much more immediate, he wanted to impress those foolhardy people. At the time he could not even think that this insanity that he had started would one day become such a world lunacy. So he lied freely. As his lies became exposed, his followers came up with more lies to cover the first lies.
Posts: 524 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When somebody 'interprets' the Koran - that is to say to take the Goodness of God to transpose it into an evil intent, then that is not of God but of the human mind. literalist extremism does just that. It uses the Koran so as to give apparent credance to a political or a private agenda. To use the Koran in this way is a misuse for no evil can come from God, only from Man because of the way he interprets the information he transmits to his own soul.
So, once we see that a "good" intent has turned to a "bad" one, we know it has been interfered with by man or misinterpreted insofar as it has been taken literally without due thought and care. Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Muhummed couldnt possibly have pointed out anything in the Bible which was written in either Greek or Latin, as he was entirely illiterate. He could neither read nor write, not even his own language.
Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
just a little ´copie and paste´from one of my old replies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE From an examination of creation as described in the Qur’an, an extremely important general concept emerges: The Qur’anic narration is quite different from the Biblical narration. This idea contradicts the parallels which are often wrongly drawn by Western authors to emphasize the resemblance between the two texts. To stress only the similarities, while silently ignoring the obvious dissimilarities, is to distort reality. There is, perhaps, a reason for this.
When talking about creation, there is a strong tendency in the West to claim that Muhammad copied the general outlines mentioned in the Qur’an from the Bible. Certainly it is possible to compare the six days of creation as described in the Bible, plus an extra day for rest on God’s Sabbath, with this verse from chapter al-A‘raaf.
“Your Lord is God who created the heavens and the earth in six days.” Qur’an, 7:54
However, it must be pointed out that modern commentators stress the interpretation of the Arabic word ayyaam, (one translation of which is ‘days’), as meaning ‘long periods’ or ‘ages’ rather than periods of twenty-four hours.
What appears to be of fundamental importance to me is that, in contrast to the narration contained in the Bible, the Qur’an does not lay down a sequence for creation of the earth and heavens. It refers both to the heavens before the earth and the earth before the heavens, when it talks of creation in general, as in this verse of chapter Taa Haa:
“(God) who created the earth and heavens above." Qur’an, 20:4
In fact, the notion derived from the Qur’an is one of a parallelism in the celestial and terrestrial evolutions. There are also basic pieces of information concerning the existence of an initial gaseous mass ( dukhaan ) which are unique to the Qur’an. As well as descriptions of the elements which, although at first were fused together ( ratq ), they subsequently became separated (fatq). These ideas are expressed in chapters Fussilat and al-Anbiyaa:
“God then rose turning towards the heaven when it was smoke” Qur’an, 41:11
“Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart?” Qur’an, 21:30
According to modern science, the separation process resulted in the formation of multiple worlds, a concept which appears dozens of times in the Qur’an. For example, look at the first chapter of the Qur’an, al-Faatihah “Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds.” Qur’an, 1:1 ). These Qur’anic references are a11 in perfect agreement with modern ideas on the existence of primary nebula (galactic dust), followed by the separation of the elements which resulted in the formation of galaxies and then stars from which the planets were born. Reference is also made in the Qur’an to an intermediary creation between the heavens and the earth, as seen in chapter al-Furqaan:
“God is the one who created the heavens, the earth and what is between them...” Qur’an, 25:59
It would seem that this intermediary creation corresponds to the modern discovery of bridges of matter which are present outside organized astronomical systems.
This brief survey of Qur’anic references to creation clearly shows us how modern scientific data and statements in the Qur’an consistently agree on a large number of points. In contrast, the successive phases of creation mentioned in the Biblical text are totally unacceptable. For example, in Genesis 1:9-19 the creation of the earth (on the 3rd day) is placed before that of the heavens (on the 4th day). It is a well known fact that our planet came from its own star, the sun. In such circumstances, how could anyone claim that Muhammad, the supposed author of the Qur’an, drew his inspiration from the Bible. Such a claim would mean that, of his own accord, he corrected the Biblical text to arrive at the correct concept concerning the formation of the Universe. Yet the correct concept was reached by scientists many centuries after his death.
ASTRONOMY
Whenever I describe to Westerners the details the Qur’an contains on certain points of astronomy, it is common for someone to reply that there is nothing unusual in this since the Arabs made important discoveries in the field of astronomy long before the Europeans. But, this is a mistaken idea resulting from an ignorance of history. In the first place, science developed in the Arab World at a considerable time after the Qur’anic revelation had occurred. Secondly, the scientific knowledge prevalent at the highpoint of Islamic civilization would have made it impossible for any human being to have written statements on the heavens comparable to those in the Qur’an. The material on this subject is so vast that I can only provide a brief outline of it here.
The Sun and Moon.
Whereas the Bible talks of the sun and the moon as two lights differing only in size, the Qur’an distinguishes between them by the use of different terms: light (noor) for the moon, and lamp (siraaj) for the sun.
"Did you see how Allah created seven heavens, one above the other, and made in them the moon a light and the sun a lamp?" Qur’an, 78:12-13
The moon is an inert body which reflects light, whereas the sun is a celestial body in a state of permanent combustion producing both light and heat.
Stars and Planets
The word ‘star’ (najm) in the Qur’an ( 86:3 ) is accompanied by the adjective thaaqib which indicates that it burns and consumes itself as it pierces through the shadows of the night. It was much later discovered that stars are heavenly bodies producing their own light like the sun.
In the Qur’an, a different word, kawkab, is used to refer to the planets which are celestial bodies that reflect light and do not produce their own light like the sun.
“We have adorned the lowest heaven with ornaments, the planets.” Qur’an, 37:6
Orbits
Today, the laws governing the celestial systems are well known. Galaxies are balanced by the position of stars and planets in well-defined orbits, as well as the interplay of gravitational forces produced by their masses and the speed of their movements. But is this not what the Qur’an describes in terms which have only become comprehensible in modern times. In chapter al-Ambiyaa we find:
“(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion.” Qur’an,21:33
The Arabic word which expresses this movement is the verb yasbahoon which implies the idea of motion produced by a moving body, whether it is the movement of one’s legs running on the ground, or the action of swimming in water. In the case of a celestial body, one is forced to translate it, according to its original meaning, as ‘to travel with its own motion.’
In my book, The Bible, The Qur'an and Science, I have given the precise scientific data corresponding to the motion of celestial bodies. They are well known for the moon, but less widely known for the sun.
The Day and Night
The Qur’anic description of the sequence of day and night would, in itself, be rather commonplace were it not for the fact that it is expressed in terms that are today highly appropriate. The Qur’an uses the verb kawwara in chapter az-Zumar to describe the way the night ‘winds’ or ‘coils’ itself around the day and the day around the night.
“He coils the night upon the day and the day upon the night.” Qur’an, 39:5
The original meaning of the verb kis to coil a turban around the head. This is a totally valid comparison; yet at the time the Qur’an was revealed, the astronomical data necessary to make this comparison were unknown. It is not until man landed on the moon and observed the earth spinning on its axis, that the dark half of the globe appeared to wind itself around the light and the light half appeared to wind itself around the dark.
The Solar Apex
The notion of a settled place for the sun is vividly described in chapter Yaa Seen of the Qur’an:
"The sun runs its coarse to a settled place That is the decree of the Almighty, the All Knowing.” Qur’an, 36:38
“Settled place” is the translation of the word mustaqarr which indicates an exact appointed place and time. Modern astronomy confirms that the solar system is indeed moving in space at a rate of 12 miles per second towards a point situated in the constellation of Hercules ( alpha lyrae ) whose exact location has been precisely calculated. Astronomers have even give it a name, the solar apex.
Expansion of the Universe
Chapter ath-Thaariyaat of the Qur’an also seems to allude to one of the most imposing discoveries of modern science, the expansion of the Universe.
“I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47
The expansion of the universe was first suggested by the general theory of relativity and is supported by the calculations of astrophysics. The regular movement of the galactic light towards the red section of the spectrum is explained by the distancing of one galaxy from another. Thus, the size of the universe appears to be progressively increasing.
Conquest of Space
Among the achievements of modern science is the “conquest” of space which has resulted in mans journey to the moon. The prediction of this event surely springs to mind when we read the chapter ar-Rahmaan in the Qur’an:
“O assembly of Jinns and men, if you can penetrate the regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them except with authority.”
Qur’an,55:33
Authority to travel in space can only come from the Creator of the laws which govern movement and space. The whole of this Qur’anic chapter invites humankind to recognize God’s beneficence.
GEOLOGY
Let us now return to earth to discover some of the many amazing statements contained in Qur’anic reflections about our own planet. They deal, not only with the physical phenomena observed here on earth, but also with details concerning the living organisms that inhabit it.
As in the case of everything we have discussed so far, we shall see that the Qur’an also expresses concepts in the field of geology that were way ahead of those current at the time of its revelation.
At this point, we must ask ourselves the following question: How could an uneducated man in the middle of the desert accurately tackle so many and such varied subjects at a time when mythology and superstition reigned supreme? How could he so skillfully avoid every belief that was proven to be totally inaccurate many centuries later?
Water Cycle
The verses dealing with the earthly systems are a case in point. I have quoted a large number of them in my book, The Bible, The Qur’an and Science, and have paid special attention to those that deal with the water cycle in nature. This is a topic which is well known today. Consequently, the verses in the Qur’an that refer to the water cycle seem to express ideas that are now totally self-evident. But if we consider the ideas prevalent at that time, they appear to be based more on myth and philosophical speculation than on observed fact, even though useful practical knowledge on soil irrigation was current at that period.
Let us examine, for example, the following verse in chapter az-Zumar:
“Have you not seen that Allah sent rain down from the sky and caused it to penetrate the ground and come forth as springs, then He caused crops of different colors to grow...” Qur’an,39:21
Such notions seem quite natural to us today, but we should not forget that, not so long ago, they were not prevalent. It was not until the sixteenth century, with Bernard Palissy, that we gained the first coherent description of the water cycle. Prior to this, people believed that the waters of the oceans, under the effect of winds, were thrust towards the interior of the continents. They then returned to the oceans via the great abyss, which, since Plato’s time was called the Tartarus .In the seventeenth century, great thinkers such as Descartes still believed in this myth. Even in the nineteenth century there were still those who believed in Aristotle’s theory that water was condensed in cool mountain caverns and formed underground lakes that fed springs. Today, we know that it is the infiltration of rain water into the ground that is responsible for this. If one compares the facts of modern hydrology with the data found in numerous verses of the Qur’an on this subject, one cannot fail to notice the remarkable degree of agreement between the two.
Mountains
In geology, modern science has recently discovered the phenomenon of folding which formed the mountain ranges. The earth’s crust is like a solid shell, while the deeper layers are hot and fluid, and thus inhospitable to any form of life. It has also been discovered that the stability of mountains is linked to the phenomenon of folding. The process of mountain formation by folding drove the earth’s crust down into the lower layers and provided foundations for the mountains.
Let us now compare modern ideas with one verse among many in the Qur’an that deals with this subject. It is taken from chapter an-Naba’:
“Have We not made the earth an expanse and the mountains stakes?”
Qur’an, 78:6-7
Stakes ( awtaad ), which are driven into the ground like those used to anchor a tent, are the deep foundations of geological folds.
Here, as in the case of all the other topics presented, the objective observer cannot fail to notice the absence of any contradiction to modern knowledge.
BIOLOGY
More than anything else, I was struck by statements in the Qur’an dealing with living things, both in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, especially with regard to reproduction. We should really devote much more time to this subject, but, due to the limited scope of this presentation, I can only give a few examples.
I must once again stress the fact that it is only in modern times that scientific progress has made the hidden meaning of some Qur’anic verses comprehensible to us. Numerous translations and commentaries on the Qur’an have been made by learned men who had no access to modern scientific knowledge. It is for this reason that scientists find some of their interpretations
unacceptable.
There are also other verses whose obvious meanings are easily understood, but which conceal
scientific meanings which are startling, to say the least. This is the case of a verse in chapter al-Ambiyaa, a part of which has already been quoted:
“Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were joined together,
then I clove them asunder and I made every living thing out of water. Will they still not believe?” Qur’an, 21:30
This is a dramatic affirmation of the modern idea that the origin of life is aquatic.
Botany
Progress in botany at the time of Muhammad (S) was not advanced enough in any country for scientists to know that plants have both male and female parts. Nevertheless, we may read the following in the chapter Taa Haa:
“(God is the One who) sent down rain from the sky and with it brought forth a variety of plants in pairs.” Qur’an, 20:53
Today we know that fruit comes from plants that have sexual characteristics even when they come from unfertilized flowers, like bananas. In the chapter ar-Ra‘d we read the following:
“... and of all fruits (God) placed (on the earth) two pairs.” Qur’an, 13:3
Physiology
In the field of physiology, there is one verse which appears extremely significant to me. One thousand years before the discovery of the blood circulatory system, and roughly thirteen centuries before it was determined that the internal organs were nourished by the process of digestive , a verse in the Qur’an described the source of the constituents of milk, in conformity with scientific facts.
To understand this verse, it must first be known that chemical reactions occur between food and enzymes in the mouth, the stomach and the intestines releasing nutrients in molecular form which are then absorbed into the circulatory system through countless microscopic projections of the intestinal wall called villi. Blood in the circulatory system then transports the nutrients to all the organs of the body, among which are the milk-producing mammary glands.
This biological process must be basically understood, if we are to understand a verse in the Qur’an which has for many centuries given rise to commentaries that were totally incomprehensible.
Today it is not difficult to see why! This verse is taken from the chapter an-Nahl:
“Verily, in cattle there is a lesson for yon. I give you drink from their insides, coming from a conjunction between the digested contents ( of the intestines ) and the blood, milk pure and pleasant for those who drink it.” Qur’an, 16:66
The constituents of milk are secreted by the mammary glands which are nourished by the product of food digestion brought to them by the bloodstream. The initial event which sets the whole process in motion is the conjunction of the contents of the intestine and blood at the level of the intestinal wall itself.
This very precise concept is the result of the discoveries made in the chemistry and physiology of the digestive system over one thousand years after the time of Prophet Muhammad (S).
EMBRYOLOGY
There are a multitude of statements in the Qur’an on the subject of human reproduction which constitute a challenge to the embryologist seeking a human explanation for them. It was only after the birth of the basic sciences which contributed to our knowledge of biology and the invention of the microscope, that humans were able to understand the depth of those Qur’anic statements. It was impossible for a human being living in the early seventh century to have accurately expressed such ideas. There is nothing to indicate that people in the Middle-East and Arabia knew anything more about this subject than people living in Europe or anywhere else. Today, there are many Muslims, possessing a thorough knowledge of the Qur’an and natural sciences, who have recognized the amazing similarity between the verses of the Qur’an dealing with reproduction and modern scientific knowledge.
I shall always remember the comment of an eighteen-year-old Muslim, brought up in Saudi Arabia, commenting on a reference to human reproduction as described in the Qur’an. He pointed to the Qur’an and said, “This book provides us with all the essential information on the subject. When I was at school, my teachers used the Qur’an to explain how children were born. Your books on sex-education are a bit late on the scene!”
If I were to spend as long on all the details of reproduction contained in the Qur’an, as the subject merits, this pamphlet would become a book. The detailed linguistic and scientific explanations I have given in The Bible, The Qur’an and Science are sufficient for the person who does not speak Arabic nor know much about embryology to be able to understand the meaning of such verses in the light of modern science in more depth.
It is especially in the field of embryology that a comparison between the beliefs present at the time of the Qur’an’s revelation and modern scientific data, leaves us amazed at the degree of agreement between the Qur’an’s statements and modern scientific knowledge. Not to mention the total absence of any reference in the Qur’an to the mistaken ideas that were prevalent around the world at the time.
Fertilization
Let us now isolate, from all these verses, precise ideas concerning the complexity of the semen and the fact that an infinitely small quantity is required to ensure fertilization. In chapter al-Insaan the Qur’an states:
“Verily, I created humankind from a small quantity of mingled fluids.” Qur’an, 76:2
The Arabic word nutfah has been translated as "small quantity”. It comes from the verb meaning ‘to dribble, to trickle’ and is used to describe what remains in the bottom of a bucket which has been emptied. The verse correctly implies that fertilization is performed by only a very small volume of liquid.
On the other hand, mingled fluids ( amshaaj ) has been understood by early commentators to refer to the mixture of male and female discharges. Modern authors have corrected this view and note that the sperm is made up of various components.
When the Qur’an talks of a fertilizing fluid composed of different components, it also informs us that human progeny will be formed from something extracted from this liquid. This is the meaning of the following verse in chapter as-Sajdah:
“Then He made [ man’s ] offspring from the essence of a despised fluid.” Qur’an, 32:8
The Arabic word translated by the term ‘essence’ is sulaalah which means ‘something extracted, the best part of a thing’. In whatever way it is translated, it refers to part of a whole. Under normal conditions, only one single cell, spermatozoon, out of over 50 million ejaculated by a man during sexual intercourse will actually penetrate the ovule.
Implantation
Once the egg has been fertilized in the fallopian tube, it descends to lodge itself inside the uterus. This process is called the ‘implantation of the egg’. Implantation is a result of the development of villosities, which, like roots in the soil, draw nourishment from the wall of the uterus and make the egg literally cling to the womb. The process of implantation is appropriately described in several verses by the word ‘alaq, which is also the title of the chapter in which one of the verses appears:
“God fashioned humans from a clinging entity.” Qur’an, 96:2
I do not think there is any reasonable translation of the word ‘alaq other than to use it in its original sense. It is a mistake to speak of a ‘blood clot’ here, which is the term Professor Hamidullah uses in his translation. It is a derivative meaning which is not as appropriate in this context.
Embryo
The evolution of the embryo inside the maternal uterus is only briefly described, but the description is accurate, because the simple words referring to it correspond exactly to fundamental stages in its growth. This is what we read in a verse from the chapter al-Mu’minoon:
“I fashioned the clinging entity into a chewed lump of flesh and I fashioned the chewed flesh into bones and I clothed the bones with intact flesh.” Qur’an, 23:14
The term ‘chewed flesh’ (mudghah) corresponds exactly to the appearance of the embryo at a certain stage in its development.
It is known that the bones develop inside this mass and that they are then covered with muscle. This is the meaning of the term ‘intact flesh’ (lahm).
The embryo passes through a stage where some parts are in proportion and others out of proportion with what is later to become the individual. This is the obvious meaning of a verse in the chapter al-Hajj, which reads as follows:
“I fashioned (humans) a clinging entity, then into a lump of flesh in proportion and out of proportion.” Qur’an, 22:5.
Next, we have a reference to the appearance of the senses and internal organs in the chapter as-Sajdah:
“... and (God) gave you ears, eyes and hearts.” Qur’an, 32:9
Nothing here contradicts today’s data and, furthermore, none of the mistaken ideas of the time have crept into the Qur’an. Throughout the Middle Ages there were a variety of beliefs about human development based on myths and speculations which continued for several centuries after the period. The most fundamental stage in the history of embryology came in 1651 with Harvey’s statement that “all life initially comes from an egg”. At that time, when science had benefited greatly from the invention of the microscope, people were still arguing about the respective roles of the egg and spermatozoon. Buffon, the great naturalist, was one of those in favor of the egg theory.Bonnet, on the other hand, supported the theory of ‘the ovaries of Eve’, which stated that Eve, the mother of the human race, was-supposed to have had inside her the seeds of all human beings packed together one inside the other.
BIBLE, QUR’AN AND SCIENCE
We have now come to the last subject I would like to present in this short pamphlet: it is the
comparison between modern knowledge and passages in the Qur’an that are also referred to in the Bible.
Creation
We have already come across some of the contradictions between scripture and science regarding the creation of the universe. When dealing with that topic, I stressed the perfect agreement between modern knowledge and verses in the Qur’an, and pointed out that the Biblical narration contained statements that were scientifically unacceptable. This is hardly surprising if we are aware that the narration of the creation contained in the Bible was the work of priests living in the sixth century BC, hence the term ‘sacerdotal’ ( priestly ) narration is officially used to refer to it. The narration seems to have been conceived as the theme of a sermon designed to exhort people to observe the Sabbath. The narration was constructed with a definite end in view, and as Father de Vaux (a former head of the Biblical School of Jerusalem) has noted, this end was essentially legalist in character.
The Bible also contains a much shorter and older narration of Creation, the so-called ‘Yahvist’ version, which approaches the subject from a completely different angle. They are both taken from Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch or Torah. Moses is supposed to have been its author, but the text we have today has undergone many changes.
The sacerdotal narration of Genesis is famous for its whimsical genealogies, that go back to Adam, and which nobody takes very seriously. Nevertheless, such Gospel authors as Matthew and Luke have reproduced them, more or less word-for-word, in their genealogies of Jesus. Matthew goes back as far as Abraham, and Luke to Adam. These writings are scientifically unacceptable, because they set a date for the age of the world and the time humans appeared on Earth, which most definitely contradicts what modern science has firmly established. The Qur’an, on the other hand, is completely free of dates of this kind.
Earlier on, we noted how perfectly the Qur’an agrees with modern ideas on the formation of the Universe. On the other hand, the Biblical narration of primordial waters is hardly, nor is the creation of light on the first day before the creation of the stars which produce this light; the existence of an evening and a morning before the creation of the earth; the creation of the earth on the third day before that of the sun on the fourth; the appearance of beasts of the earth on the sixth day after the appearance of the birds of the air on the fifth day, although the former came first. All these statements are the result of beliefs prevalent at the time this text was written and do not have any other meaning.
Age of the Earth
As for the Biblical genealogies which form the basis of the Jewish calendar and assert that today the world is 5738 years old, these are hardly admissible either. Our solar system may well be four and a quarter billion years old, and the appearance of human beings on earth, as we know him today, may be estimated in tens of thousands of years, if not more. It is absolutely essential, therefore, to note that the Qur’an does not contain any such indications as to the age of the world, and that these are specific to the Biblical text.
The Flood
There is a second highly significant subject of comparison between the Bible and the Qur’an; descriptions of the deluge. In actual fact, the Biblical narration is a fusion of two descriptions in which events are related differently. The Bible speaks of a universal flood and places it roughly 300 years before Abraham.
According to what we know of Abraham, this would imply a universal cataclysm around the twenty-first or twenty-second century BC This story would be untenable, in view of presently available historical data. How can we accept the idea that, in the twenty-first or twenty-second century BC, all civilization was wiped off the face of the earth by a universal cataclysm, when we know that this period corresponds, for example, to the one preceding the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, at roughly the date of the first Intermediary period before the eleventh dynasty? It is historically unacceptable to maintain that, at this time, humanity was totally wiped out. None of the preceding statements is acceptable according to modern knowledge. From this point of view, we can measure the enormous gap separating the Bible from the Qur’an.
In contrast to the Bible, the narration contained in the Qur’an deals with a cataclysm that is limited to Noah’s people. They were punished for their sins, as were other ungodly peoples. The Qur’an does not fix the cataclysm in time. There are absolutely no historical or archaeological objections to the narration in the Qur’an.
Islam is for thinking people, so, dears, open your heart and mind. Inschaallah
Sara
Posts: 909 | From: Germany/Egypt | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Our prophet mohammed couldnt read or write, he couldnt read or translate any bible, neither the real one nor the faked. God knows that. He let him memorize all the book.
The Koran doesn´t have grammatical errors. It is written by a godwilled way so noone can write a single similar vers like it.
Jesus sayed the same about god like mohammed. That hes mericyful, and and... But it was for both forbidden to think about a ´picture´of god´.
Why we find a lot of different groups of muslims ? ...because unbelieved people in there time changed gods given law for political reasons ....
Sara Posts: 909 | From: Germany/Egypt | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Politics and Religion = theocracy, and when we have a theocracy we have tyranny. The "religion" becomes the State and the state controls everything.
Religion then becomes nothing more than a slavish moral duty to the State and the Clergy, and ceases to be a way of spiritual enlightenment and the true path to salvation.
Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by germansara: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE .......
“(God) who created the earth and heavens above." Qur’an, 20:4 ......
“God then rose turning towards the heaven when it was smoke” Qur’an, 41:11 .....
All we need to establish that the Quran is not the word of God is ONE error. God should not make even one error. If there is one single error in the entire Quran, this is proof that that book is not from an infallible God. However we find hundreds of errors of all kinds. You are desperate to find miracles in the Quran and try to reinterpret things to confirm your belief. and deliberately overlook the humongous errors in that book.
The image that Muhammad had of the creation of the universe was the same that the ancient people had. Similar tales are repeated in the Bible and can also be found in the lore of the Sumerians, Babylonians and the Canaanites. They thought that the sky is made of seven layers and it is pitched like a dome. The word اسْتوَى ( erect, raise, stand, hoist, pitch) in this verse shows that Muhammad thought, the sky is a dome that is pitched over the Earth. In the verse 13.2 and 31.10 he even mentions that this sky is *raised* “without any pillars that ye can see”.
These are all scientific fallacies. They are based on the beliefs of primitive people about the Universe. Now Muslims want to take the word smoke and say here Muhammad is talking about the original state of the Universe? This is preposterous.
Muhammad is saying that before this dome of sky was raised, everything above the surface of the earth was like smoke. This is not scientific. The origin of this fable can be found in the myths of the Mesopotamians. These stories tell us that after the great god Marduk, slew the serpent of the seas, he cleaved her body and hoisted the upper half as sky. He then firmly fixed the stars, arranging the constellations of the zodiac, and created the moon- "sets him as a creature of night, to make known the days monthly without failing" (Note how Muhammad uses this same very concept to answer people who ask him about the moon: "They ask thee concerning the New Moons. Say: They are but signs to mark fixed periods of time in (the affairs of) men, and for Pilgrimage. 2:189) In this way Marduk brought order to the universe. Marduk created seven heavens, and stationed each god (planets revolving around the sun were believed to be gods) to his appropriate sphere. Before that everything was formless and in a state of chaos. The dragoness goddess Tiamat represents the state of untamed formless universe. She is surrounded by mist and clouds of smoke, principles of disorder. Then Marduk slew Kingu, the rebellious and incestuous son of Tiamat and with his blood he created the human race to serve as slaves to the gods. (This is the origin of humans as slave of God advocated in Islam. Virtually nothing in Islam is new. Everything is borrowed from previous faiths)
The depictions of Tiamat are often enshrouded in clouds. Clouds represent the state of disorder. This is the smoke Muhammad is talking about not the gaseous state in which the universe had been 13 billion years ago. Muhammad is rehashing the old fables of the pagans. There is nothing scientific in what this man said.
Muhammad was an unlettered and ignorant man. His knowledge was limited to the stories that he had heard that comprised the myths and legends of the Arabs and the anecdotes of the Bible. In composing his own book of fables, he liberally alluded to those stories and without being specific he mentioned them casually and in passing. The reason he does not go in to detail is because his knowledge of things is very superficial. I don't know much about nuclear physics but I can say, "can't you see how dangerous is the atomic bomb". This does not make me a nuclear scientist. It would be utterly stupid to try to find esoteric meanings in what this ignoramus man said.
Muhammad boastfully claimed that the Quran is a perspicuous book 5:15, explained in detail 6:114, conveyed clearly, 5:16, 10:15, easy to understand 44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40 in which there is no doubt 2:1
Can we say the verses 41:9-12 are clear? Unless one has smoked hashish, there is no way to say this smoke Muhammad is talking about is the same hot gasses that were the primordial plasma of the universe. The only thing clear about the Quran is that it is a stupid book.
Among all these “scientific miracles” that Muslims trumpet that they have found in the Quran, which one qualifies to be called clear and easily understandable? Why Allah, if he is really the maker of this universe and knows everything, never said anything clear, except when he ordered people to raid and loot? Why he did not say in clear language, for example: “The Earth is round and it revolves around the Sun”, “The Universe is 14 billion years old and it is born in a cosmic explosion”, “Humans and all the creatures are the product of evolution” or “Stars are suns, very much like your own sun but in far away places.” This is how clear statements should look, not the gobbledygook scribbled in the Quran. The Quran is full of stupidities: “Sky is a dome supported by invisible pillars", "stars are adornments hanging from the lower dome of the sky (as if they are Christmas lights) and the they are also used to shoot the jins who climb to heaven to listen to the conversation of the Exalted Assembly:, "The Moon is above the stars", "mountains are pegs to keep the earth from shaking", or other silly talks like these. These are not scientific.
There is a poem that says: “You are so much in my thoughts that anyone I see from afar, I think it’s you”. This is the problem with Muslims. They are so much obsessed with the Quran that they see miracles all over it. One example of that was the claim that the seven layers of atmosphere as determined by meteorologists was foretold in the Quran. This claim was originally made by Harun Yahya. Virtually all the so called “scientific miracles” of the Quran are bogus and have been refuted. There are no scientific miracles in that book of asininity. It’s the wishful thinking of Muslims that makes them see science and miracles in the most moronic verses of the Quran. All it takes to show that the Quran is not from God is to find one error in it. When hundreds of errors have been found in it, even if you find something “miraculous” (which you can't) it won’t prove that the Quran is from God. If it was from God, it would have been error free and it is not.
The answer to the question "how could Muhammad know" is: "he did not know". Your premise that he said something scientific is false. If I tell you I have magical powers otherwise how do you explain the fact that I can fly, I must first prove that I can fly. Until then my question is moot. No scientific miracles have been established in the Quran. All such claims are bogus and wishful thinking. Therefore this question is meaningless. Posts: 524 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you prefer me to show the fallacy of Islam, that is fine with me. Format is not important. There are many arguments that I could present. I will start with the embryology in the Quran and instead of refuting it myself. I will quote two medical doctors. http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/alaqa.html
There has been a lot of discussion on this and many Muslims have tried to explain the unexplainable but none of those arguments are convincing. The following is a bibliography of the discussion on embryology in the Quran. You don't have to read all of them but it is a good idea that you glance at them so w avoid repetitions. If you can add something that other Muslims apologists have not said yet, I would like to hear. But since you can't and everything is already said and refuted, this is another proof that the Quran is false and not from God. Embryology and the Quran Source Embryology in the Qur'an ( 1 ], (2) [The Muslim Argument]
quote:Originally posted by germansara: “Your Lord is God who created the heavens and the earth in six days.” Qur’an, 7:54
However, it must be pointed out that modern commentators stress the interpretation of the Arabic word ayyaam, (one translation of which is ‘days’), as meaning ‘long periods’ or ‘ages’ rather than periods of twenty-four hours.
The Quran contains many internal self-contradictions and logically problematic statements such as:
- The heavens and the earth were created by Allah in six days, according to Surat 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59; but it took eight days, according to Surah 41:9-12.
- In Surah 22:47, Allah's day equals 1000 human years, but in Surah 70:4, a day to Allah is reckoned as 50,000 human years.
- Satan is viewed as misleading and misguiding people in Surah 4:119-120, but Allah is said to perform this in Surah 16:93.
Posts: 524 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by germansara: Our prophet mohammed couldnt read or write, he couldnt read or translate any bible, neither the real one nor the faked. God knows that. He let him memorize all the book.
The Quran in several points makes mistakes regarding the beliefs of non-Muslims groups with whom Mohammed had contact. One example is the erroneous Quranic teaching on the Trinity, or more properly, what Christian beliefs about the Trinity supposedly are. The Quran says that Christians join two gods with Allah, and that the Trinity is composed of God, Jesus, and Mary. This composition is not the historic Trinity which was accepted by the vast bulk of Christendom. Instead, this "Trinity" which Mohammed railed against in the Qur'an was a heretical construction of the Collyridians, who were steeped in Mariolatry. The historical trinitarian understanding of the Trinity (as was later defined in the Athanasian Creed) was quite broadly established throughout Christendom at least two centuries before Mohammed, and evidence for the trinitarian belief exists from the very start of the churches. However, Allah somehow missed the teaching of the vast bulk of the early churches, which was that the Trinity is God being ONE in essence while THREE in persons, and instead revealed to Mohammed that Christians believed the Trinity to be God, Jesus, and Mary. In other words, Allah apparently made a mistake, and did not understand what was the true teaching of Christianity, and what was the false teaching of heretics.
Further, we note that in Surah 9:30, the Qur'an attributes to the Jews the belief that Ezra (Uzair) was the son of God. This is not a belief which has been expounded by Jewish theologians and teachers, however, and is thus another error which Allah purportedly makes concerning the beliefs of a non-Muslim group.
Also, we must note the Quranic fascination with referring to Jesus as "Isa". Muslims maintain, based upon the authority of the Qur'an, that Isa is the true name for Jesus in the Arabic language. However, this is not the case. Instead, "Yasu" is the Arabic form of Jesus, (itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew "Yeshua"). The Arabic form of Jesus is clearly shown to us to have been "Yasu" among Arabians who lived even before Mohammed's time.
Further, the form "Yasuc" represents "the ancient Arabic name of Jesus", and "Inscription Harding No. 476 is the oldest native document of Christianity of Northern Arabia known so far." What this means to us is that this form, "Yasuc", is the name by which Jesus was known in the most ancient inscriptions in the Arabic language, of which Thamudic is an archaic form. This construction appears amazingly similar to the Hebrew "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua", and the Aramiac "Yeshua" (seen in Ezra 5:1, a passage written in Aramaic, which appears in the English Bible as Jeshua, and is the same name with the same meaning "Jehovah saves"). Hence, initially, the Arabs appear to have referred to Jesus with the name Yasu, not Isa as Muslims and the Qur'an claim.
Where did the name "Isa" come from then? Isa is the Arabic form of the name "Esau". That this is true is even admitted by Muslim apologists:
"The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as "Eesa", and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his "Christian" name. Actually, his proper name was "Eesa" (Arabic), or "Esau". (Hebrew); classical "Yeheshua", which the Christian nations of the West Latinised as Jesus. Neither the "J" nor the second "s" in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic language....The word is very simply - "E S A U" - a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called "Genesis". There was at least one "Jesus" sitting on the "bench" at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Josephus the Jewish historian mentions some twenty five Jesus' in his "Book of Antiquities". The New Testament speaks of "Bar-Jesus"- a magician and a sorcerer, a false prophet (Act 13:6); and also "Jesus-Justus" - a Christian missionary, a contemporary of Paul (Colossians 4:11). These are distinct from Jesus the son of Mary. Transforming "Esau" to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it unique. This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ. Among the Jews, because it came to be the proper name of their God(?) - their God incarnate. The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son - "Eesa" - because it is an honoured name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord."
While Deedat makes some mistakes in his analysis above (such as claiming that Esau is a "common Jewish name", the sixty times which the name is used in the Old Testament all refer to one individual, the brother of Jacob), the essential point of his writing is evident -- Isa is the name for Esau. The rest of his analysis is inaccurate, as he is trying to show that the name "Esau" was the name which Jesus came from in the New Testament. Both the Greek "Jesus" and the Hebrew/Aramaic "Yeshua" mean "Jehovah saves", while Esau means "hairy". However, his admission to the truth of Isa equaling Esau speaks volumes.
What was the source of Isa being applied to Jesus in the Qur'an? Nobody knows for sure, though the most plausible explanation to date is that certain Jews with whom the Arabs had contact, in an effort to insult the Lord Jesus, told them that the Son of God worshipped by Christians was "Isa", thereby applying the name of Jacob's hated brother Esau to the hated Christian Saviour. This claim, however, rests on much hearsay, and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps the Arabs at the time of the infiltrations into Syro-Palestine simply misunderstood the hearing or reading of the name, and began to refer to Jesus as "Isa" out of simple mistaken understanding. What should be clear to us, though, is that the Quranic use of "Isa" rests upon a name for Christ which was NOT His name, even in the Arabic. Is it really likely that an omnipotent, omniscient deity such as Allah is claimed to be would make such a simple error as to misname one of his prophets?
Posts: 524 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dont let yourself get upset Germansara by my silly little statements about politics and religion. If you want to really cheer yourself up go and have a look at what the Koran says about sperm production in the female in Frans post. Then you need to look and find out where the male sperm comes from, in the back apparently, and for all these years you have been thinking it came out of your husbands testicles!!
Mrs. Doubtfire is so happy when she is able to see that the Koran can make such a difference to the personal sex lives of believers. Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...from where then the sperms coming...and from where then the men are coming...???
Posts: 909 | From: Germany/Egypt | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs. Doubtfire: Islam does not breed terrorists. Terrorists breed themselves out of a lust for Power, Greed, Selfishness and Hatred. None of these things are meant to have any part of the soul. If people transmit these things to their soul, then they will indeed breed evil in themselves which they will pass on to others.
But it is not of God or Allah, it is of themselves.
Allah did say - did He not - "If any good comes your way it is from God, but if any evil comes your way, then it is from thyself"
quote:Originally posted by Mrs. Doubtfire: Dont let yourself get upset Germansara by my silly little statements about politics and religion. If you want to really cheer yourself up go and have a look at what the Koran says about sperm production in the female in Frans post. Then you need to look and find out where the male sperm comes from, in the back apparently, and for all these years you have been thinking it came out of your husbands testicles!!
Mrs. Doubtfire is so happy when she is able to see that the Koran can make such a difference to the personal sex lives of believers.
Mrs Doubtfire, for you dear. There are many things in the Qu'ran that 300 years ago seemed silly and ridiclous but which now science and histoty explains as fact before anyone knew it (except Allah) to be true. You should be careful of what you say now, do not doubt that your creator knows more than your laboratory tech as we all rise in celebration of our scientific magnificience Posts: 1074 | From: Menufia, Egypt | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhhhhhhhhh, Noor,......finally . Always the lovely rescue When you are on board never feel alone.
Posts: 909 | From: Germany/Egypt | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
seems that mr fran is from a conservative church somewhere in alexandria . i just wonder if he is tryin to make moleems rethink about there faith ???? he will be so stupid if he think so . we could make alot of criticisim about his bible . actually i dounno which bible to criticize . those folks got alot of bibles . i used to responde to those idiots . but i gave up lately coz i realize we will go nowhere . i will suggest that sara and noor just doun pay attention to the BS he is promoting in here thanx
-------------------- bahlool Posts: 3 | From: usa | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am here to prove Islam is false. My belief is irrelevant to our discussion. What if I tell you I believe in Bugs Bunny and you find it ridiculous. Does this prove Muhammad was a messenger of God? The first thing Muslims always do is to engage in the tu quoque logical fallacy instead of proving Muhammad’s claim or refuting the charges against him they attack others' beliefs.
I worship Bugs Bunny. No kidding. I don’t watch TV except half an hour for the news and the Bugs Bunny. This is what I do in lieu of salat. Please spare us proving that Bugs Bunny does not exist. How can he not exist when you can see his holy picture with your own eyes? Furthermore, the biggest proof is his own word, Just as you think the biggest proof of Muhammad's claim is his own claim, I also believe because Bugs Bunny has made this claim to be the God, that claim is the biggest proof. I don't care if you believe or not. To you, your religion, to me mine. If you disbelieve, you will burn in hellfire and will be squeezed in your grave, until your bones crush. Now, let us get to the business and talk about Muhammad. My challenge is: either prove logically that Muhammad was a messenger of God, or disprove the charges against him.
The fact that a billion people of the population of the planet believe in Muhammad, is no proof to me. There was a time that 100% of the population of the world believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Despite this unanimous consensus their belief was false. This is another logical fallacy called argumentum and numerum. This fallacy says that something must be true because many people believe in it. I never believed in what others believe without proof. I have seen the miracles of Bugs Bunny and that is enough for me to become a believer. However since the faith in Bugs Bunny (pbuh) is not proselytizing, I don’t care to prove it to you. Only those who have pure hearts will believe in him. 100% of the children believe in him and children have pure hearts. This is even a bigger percentage. What more proof you need? Let us compare your proofs with mine.
Proofs for Allah vs Proofs for Bugs Bunny
- One billion people believe in Allah -All the children of the world believe in Bugs Bunny. They are more than one billion.
- The believers in Allah don't have pure hearts. Many of them are terrorists. -The believers in Bugs Bunny have pure hearts.
- The believers in Allah give more importance to faith than to reason. - ditto
-The religion of Allah makes people angry, terrorists, causes death and makes many mourn.. - The religion of Bugs Bunny makes people laugh and makes everyone happy.
- Allah testified to his own truth in his revealed book sent to his messenger. - I have received a book of revelation from Bugs Bunny who testified to his own truth also and he said there is no doubt in it.
- Nobody has seen Allah - Everybody has seen Bugs Bunny
- If you don't believe in Allah he will send you to his hell where you will be burned. Allah is very cruel. -If you don't believe in Bugs Bunny, he will also send you to his hell where you can't watch any of his shows, no ice-cream and no popcorns. Bugs Bunny is not as cruel as Allah. Just a little.
The above shows that there are more proofs for Bugs Bunny than for Allah.
Furthermore I KNOW Bugs Bunny exists and I pity all those who don't believe in him. Your hearts are sealed. This is one more proof. It makes no difference whether I tell you or not, you won't believe. Your faith is proselytizing. Not only that! It also wants to impose itself on others by force. Using force is called argumentum as baculum and that is another logical fallacy. You must come up with a logical proof -something I can't refute or use in favor of Bugs Bunny. Spare us also your proofs about the existence of God. Since 99% of the population already believe in him, just concentrate on Muhammad and prove that he was a messenger of that God. 80% of the world population don't believe in Muhammad.
It is okay if you don’t believe in Hadith or call the history of Muhammad's life stories. Show us that the Quran is the word of God. However you must also prove that Muhammad existed without relying on hadith or Sira. If you make any claim about Muhammad that is not in the Quran, I will object. If you reject the haidth and the Sira, you must tell us where did you learn about Muhammad and first prove that such person existed. You can't hold me to something that you yourself don't intend to be held to.
The reason I am against Islam is not because it is fairytale. The belief in Bugs Bunny does not hurt anyone, but the belief in Allah instills hate in the believers and kills humans in huge numbers.
Posts: 524 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paint Me As I Am: Allah did say - did He not - "If any good comes your way it is from God, but if any evil comes your way, then it is from thyself"
Muhammad committed all imaginable crimes and claimed to be the best example for all times and all mankind to follow, so he can't possibly be the messenger of God. Raiding innocent civilians, killing unarmed people taken by surprise, or massacring their entire male population and enslaving their women and children and even raping them are not godly acts. Islam has advanced by terror and not by kindness. The order to cast terror in the heart of the enemy is mandated in the Quran. These people did not have to be hostile to Muhammad or have done anything against him. He decided that those who do not submit to his cult are the enemy and must be subdued. Or those who are wealthy are the enemy. Muhammad boasted "I have been made victorious with terror". 4:52:220
Sometimes Muhammad’s words are good, but often his actions are not. Any criminal will tell you, doing evil is wrong. Such statement does not make him a good person. He is simply a man whose actions and words do not match.
Posts: 524 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Muhhamad was a man of his time. What people did in his day is viwed very differently today. Much of what early Muslims did (and indeed Christians also) are seen as evil actions today. Of course, in those times, then they were not seen as evil.
Today, Christianity, which is a 'living' religion has been able to move on and adapt to a more enlightened society. To a large extend Islam is constantly trying to do the same. Unfortunately, as in early Christianity, there are pockets of fundamentalists who want to hold things back and retain the worst aspects of the past in the modern world.
The Christians held science back for 4OO years, known as the dark ages, and to some extent the Muslims are only just now repeating the same mistakes the Christians made in history.
Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Jesus was to follow in his time until mohamed be the prophet. Moses was to follow untli the time, that jesus was the prophet.
And god tells us, that mohammed is and stay the last to follow prophet until the BIG DAY. He was a man of his time and is a man of our time and will be the man for our future. Unchangeable.
Just think. Posts: 909 | From: Germany/Egypt | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic