PDA

View Full Version : Open Challenge to Christians



mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 04:24 PM
Assalam Alaikam Rahmatullah Wabaraktu,

Peace and blessings upon those who are seeking to learn to learn the path of Islam, Peace and blessings upon those who are not on the path.

I give an open Challenge to any christian regarding the Bible and the Quran in the Light of modern science, Also regarding contradictions in either Holybook.

If any christian would like to accept we can head off the debate In the LI chat at a specific time. Therefore we dont go around looking in the internet for the answers that wont even work. This seems fair just have a few witnesses in the chat.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ansar Al-'Adl
02-11-2006, 04:43 PM
:sl: I think all debates should be done on the forum, not the chat.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 04:44 PM
Salam Alaikam

I think so 2, But i dont want to wait 1 week for a response when the person searches all over the net and comes back with a weak arguement that will just annoy everyone. But good Point Adl :)
Reply

Salaam
02-11-2006, 05:07 PM
Salaam,

I don’t think anyone is going to accept your challenge...
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Makky
02-11-2006, 05:13 PM
let them search anywhere !!


ask whoever ! search wherever ! reply whenever ! type whatever !

We are ready ! and why not! Our book is the quran! our religion is islam - the fastest growing religion in the universe!

Our only condition is just to be specific !

we grant a Friendly & a peacfully debate :)
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 05:15 PM
Salam Alaikam

I think your right? But why not accept Christian friends? You guys seem to be following your lord and savior Jesus Christ ( Pbuh). Im sure since 2 billion people follow christianity. Im sure they can attempt to debate. I mean after all Christianity is The Trinity.

And it seems that a few christians on this board seem to try bashing on Islam. So if those that think Islam is scientifically wrong, and if there are any contradictions in the Quran. I give an open challenge.

If the christians dont accept, and continue to bash on Islam on this board. Then i ask brothers and sisters on this board just ignore those who are bashing on Islam on this board. Because if they believe their religion to be so superior i challenge them.


Also i need a few people to be present in the chatroom. I just want this to be fair. We can do it on the board i dont mind, but i think the chatroom would be nice. Therefore, we dont have any excuses. Just straight forward answers.
Reply

Salaam
02-11-2006, 05:25 PM
Salaam,

There must be some one who will accept the challenge...
Reply

POBook
02-11-2006, 05:45 PM
Greetings to you mahdisoldier19,

First,
And it seems that a few christians on this board seem to try bashing on Islam. So if those that think Islam is scientifically wrong, and if there are any contradictions in the Quran. I give an open challenge.
Please allow me to apologize on behalf of those who may be bashing Islam. Yes, I am a devout follower of Jesus; yes, I want to be involved in dialogue and debate with Muslims; No, I do not want to be disrespectful or an Islam basher.

Second, I agree with Ansar Al-'Adl. However, I would love you to raise a topic and we can go to it:) ! I will also do the best I can to keep up with the dialogue. Sometimes there will be breaks in time of response. Think about this:

The race is not to the swift, but to those who keep on running!

Sincerely,
Reply

czgibson
02-11-2006, 05:49 PM
Greetings,

I'm not a Christian, but I'd like to accept the challenge on a small scale by making one point on the famous Qur'anic embryology. It's often touted as being a miraculous premonition of modern science, whereas there are in fact other such descriptions of the developing embryo in writings long before the Qur'an. Also, the Qur'anic description does not correspond to modern knowledge - there is at least one mistake.

Let's look at one of the verses from surah 23:

14:
And we created man from a portion of clay. Then we made him a drop in a firm place. Then we formed the drop into a clot, then we formed the clot into a morsel, then we formed the morsel into bones, then we clothed the bones with flesh. Then we brought it forth as another creation. Blessed is Allaah, the best of creators.

The highlighted section implies that the bones are formed before soft tissue, which is incorrect. In fact, cartilage in the form of a skeleton turns into bone while muscles are formed around it at the same time. The Qur'an makes no mention of this process.

If god wrote the Qur'an, and has perfect knowledge of all things, he surely wouldn't have made this mistake, would he?

Peace
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 06:09 PM
Assalam Alaikam

Reponse to Friend Gibson of his question he states

Here is A more Better translation of what the few surahs he forgot to have Mentioned Which ties all together:

And certainly We created man of an extract of clay, Then We made him a small seed in a firm resting-place, Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators. Then after that you will most surely die. Then surely on the day of resurrection you shall be raised. Holy Qur'an (23:12-16)

Even though this question shouldnt be addressed as this debate is between a christian and Muslim but nonetheless lets answer it

1) If you do not read the Glorious Quran properly in Arabic your translation will be off very off.

2) The highlighted section implies that the bones are formed before soft tissue, which is incorrect. In fact, cartilage in the form of a skeleton turns into bone while muscles are formed around it at the same time. The Qur'an makes no mention of this process.

If you read It properly you would see that First it was a Lump of flesh which then turned into Bone Which can be in reference to Cartilage. Then Allah swt says later that Allah swt clothed the bone with Flesh.

Dr. Keith Moore states "This verse from the Quran states that God made you from a drop and then changed the drop into a leech-like structure which soon changed into a chewed like substance that then took the shape of bone and was clothed with flesh."

So wheres the mistake?
Reply

waji
02-11-2006, 06:19 PM
The Wrapping of Muscles over the Bones

Another important item of information provided in the verses of the Qur'an is the developmental stages of a human being in the mother's womb. It is stated in these verses that in the mother's womb, the bones develop first, and then the muscles form which wrap around them.

[We] then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators! (Qur'an, 23:14)


The bones of the baby completing its development in the mother's womb are clothed with flesh during one particular stage exactly as stated in the Qur’an.

Embryology is the branch of science that studies the development of the embryo in the mother's womb. Until very recently, embryologists assumed that the bones and muscles in an embryo developed at the same time. Yet, advanced microscopic research conducted by virtue of new technological developments has revealed that the revelation of the Qur'an is word for word correct.
These observations at the microscopic level showed that the development inside the mother's womb takes place in just the way it is described in these verses. First, the cartilage tissue of the embryo ossifies. Then, muscular cells that are selected from amongst the tissue around the bones come together and wrap around the bones.

This event is described in a scientific publication titled Developing Human in the following words:

… [T]he shape of the skeleton determines the general appearance of the embryo in the bones stage during the 7th week; muscles do not develop at the same time but their development follows soon after. The muscles take their positions around the bones throughout the body and therefore clothe the bones. Thus, the muscles take their well known forms and structures… The stage of clothing with muscle occurs during the 8th week…86

In short, developmental stages of man, as described in the Qur'an, are in perfect harmony with the findings of modern embryology.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 06:22 PM
Salam Alaikam

My explanation to the above Post could have been better i think, but i will leave it at that.

Peace and blessings upon you POBOOK

Sure would you like to debate Quran and the bible in Modern science based on both Holy scriptures?

So you will accept the challenge?
Reply

waji
02-11-2006, 06:24 PM
Peace and Aslam u Alikum
to every body

here is the link u can see some pics and more information
http://www.-----------------------/scientific_57.html#85
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 06:25 PM
Salam Alaikam


Well backup is allways nice Wkas Lol Al hamdullah!
Reply

waji
02-11-2006, 06:28 PM
well czgibson im waiting for ur reply and anything else but czgibson don't arguee in hate accept the truth with open heart
Reply

POBook
02-11-2006, 06:37 PM
Anthing goes for me:):)
Reply

czgibson
02-11-2006, 06:39 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
Even though this question shouldnt be addressed as this debate is between a christian and Muslim but nonetheless lets answer it
Well, since no Christians seem to want to debate with you, I thought I would.

1) If you do not read the Glorious Quran properly in Arabic your translation will be off very off.
Well, what a good argument! If all the translations are wrong, then I just won't bother reading the Qur'an at all.

If you read It properly you would see that First it was a Lump of flesh which then turned into Bone Which can be in reference to Cartilage. Then Allah swt says later that Allah swt clothed the bone with Flesh.
Well, in the translation you've given that's what it says. What does it say in the original Arabic?

Dr. Keith Moore states "This verse from the Quran states that God made you from a drop and then changed the drop into a leech-like structure which soon changed into a chewed like substance that then took the shape of bone and was clothed with flesh."
Ah, Dr. Moore! He crops up again and again. I'm so glad he managed to get funding for his textbooks. If he was actually led to believe that the Qur'an was accurate, and therefore must be from god, don't you think he would have converted to Islam by now?

So wheres the mistake?
It appears to be in every translation I've seen except yours.

This event is described in a scientific publication titled Developing Human in the following words:

… [T]he shape of the skeleton determines the general appearance of the embryo in the bones stage during the 7th week; muscles do not develop at the same time but their development follows soon after. The muscles take their positions around the bones throughout the body and therefore clothe the bones. Thus, the muscles take their well known forms and structures… The stage of clothing with muscle occurs during the 8th week…86
"The Developing Human" is a medical textbook by, guess who, Dr. Keith Moore! Does he mention the Qur'an in that book?

By the way, when did the new discovery that you speak of take place? Can you provide a non-Keith Moore source for it?

Peace
Reply

Kittygyal
02-11-2006, 06:47 PM
ppl can u plz just fill me up ere cuz a aint seem to understand this thread...
n a really want to contribute plz ta
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 06:51 PM
Salam Alaikam

It seems everytime you give a reply to Gibson, he gives a weak statement back, I gave you the answer accept it do what you want with it. Even if i gave you the best answer, you would still ignore it and give another reply so in essence no point in debating with you.

As for POBOOK Is there a specific time where i can catch you in the chatroom, because i cant keep coming back in here allday
Reply

Kittygyal
02-11-2006, 06:57 PM
wot u onabout?
Reply

POBook
02-11-2006, 07:01 PM
We can try now if you like--still learning to use the chat room
Reply

waji
02-11-2006, 07:16 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

"The Developing Human" is a medical textbook by, guess who, Dr. Keith Moore! Does he mention the Qur'an in that book?

By the way, when did the new discovery that you speak of take place? Can you provide a non-Keith Moore source for it?

Peace
can u provide me the better source than Dr.Keith Moore Who is well known in the study of Embryology
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Well, since no Christians seem to want to debate with you, I thought I would.



Well, what a good argument! If all the translations are wrong, then I just won't bother reading the Qur'an at all.



Well, in the translation you've given that's what it says. What does it say in the original Arabic?



Ah, Dr. Moore! He crops up again and again. I'm so glad he managed to get funding for his textbooks. If he was actually led to believe that the Qur'an was accurate, and therefore must be from god, don't you think he would have converted to Islam by now?



It appears to be in every translation I've seen except yours.



"The Developing Human" is a medical textbook by, guess who, Dr. Keith Moore! Does he mention the Qur'an in that book?

By the way, when did the new discovery that you speak of take place? Can you provide a non-Keith Moore source for it?

Peace

You should know there is an Islamic edition to that book that Dr. Keith Moore has done, And iin that year He had recieved an award for The best book written by a single author on embrology in the islamic edition which gives citations of Quran and the human embryo in modern science.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 08:35 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

I'm not a Christian, but I'd like to accept the challenge on a small scale by making one point on the famous Qur'anic embryology. It's often touted as being a miraculous premonition of modern science, whereas there are in fact other such descriptions of the developing embryo in writings long before the Qur'an. Also, the Qur'anic description does not correspond to modern knowledge - there is at least one mistake.

Let's look at one of the verses from surah 23:

14:
And we created man from a portion of clay. Then we made him a drop in a firm place. Then we formed the drop into a clot, then we formed the clot into a morsel, then we formed the morsel into bones, then we clothed the bones with flesh. Then we brought it forth as another creation. Blessed is Allaah, the best of creators.

The highlighted section implies that the bones are formed before soft tissue, which is incorrect. In fact, cartilage in the form of a skeleton turns into bone while muscles are formed around it at the same time. The Qur'an makes no mention of this process.

If god wrote the Qur'an, and has perfect knowledge of all things, he surely wouldn't have made this mistake, would he?

Peace

Ill give you another response my friend,

A chewed like lump which turns into a bone.

023.014 Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create!

Foetus can also be known as a chewed like substance can be known as cartilage as well. Both are like a Foetus Lump. Then from that Allah swt says he made out of that LUMP BONES And clothed the bones with FLESH.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 08:40 PM
Salam Alaikam

POBook how do you want to do this because we can debate in a instant messanger chat, then post it on here. or chat? or board?
Reply

czgibson
02-11-2006, 08:41 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
It seems everytime you give a reply to Gibson, he gives a weak statement back, I gave you the answer accept it do what you want with it. Even if i gave you the best answer, you would still ignore it and give another reply so in essence no point in debating with you.
Do you know what the word debate means? It's not a case of giving an answer that you think is right and then assuming you've won the argument. That's not how it works - we have to question each other's assumptions and either persuade our opponent or reach a compromise.
Originally Posted by wkas
can u provide me the better source than Dr.Keith Moore Who is well known in the study of Embryology
Here's a source:

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~soul/pa...evelopment.htm

Note: Day 28 - Muscles are forming along the spine.
Day 42 - The skeleton has formed.

Here's another:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/pda/A1297974?s_id=3

You should know there is an Islamic edition to that book that Dr. Keith Moore has done, And iin that year He had recieved an award for The best book written by a single author on embrology in the islamic edition which gives citations of Quran and the human embryo in modern science.
I do know this. He wrote that book to obtain funding for his other work. Again, if he was so convinced that the Qur'an was accurate in its embryology, don't you think he would have become a Muslim by now?

Peace
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 08:45 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Do you know what the word debate means? It's not a case of giving an answer that you think is right and then assuming you've won the argument. That's not how it works - we have to question each other's assumptions and either persuade our opponent or reach a compromise.


Here's a source:

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~soul/pa...evelopment.htm

Note: Day 28 - Muscles are forming along the spine.
Day 42 - The skeleton has formed.



I do know this. He wrote that book to obtain funding for his other work. Again, if he was so convinced that the Qur'an was accurate in its embryology, don't you think he would have become a Muslim by now?

Peace

Salam Alaikam

Lol brothers and sisters everyone knows what hes basically trying to say Lol but let him its ok, INshallah he will see the true path of Islam and be set on it INshallah.

I think i do know the word debate, ive been debating for approximately 5 years now on many contexts in martial arts, philosophy and just recently religion. Im not assuming i won the arguement, I know i have because i provided the evidence to backup my claim but you still deny it. That is why i said do what you want i gave you the answers im done debating with you.

And if i still have not persuaded you for an answer, then i dont know what else you want. You didnt make any assumptions, you asked what that Ayat was talking about thinking it was a clear contradiction to modern science and i proved you wrong. And again your trying to deny it even though i backed it up with ESTABLISHED Scientific Evidence
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-11-2006, 09:06 PM
:sl:
(I felt this thread calling me :) )

The allegation concerning verse 23:14, is, like all other allegations against the Qur'an, one that has already been refuted by Muslims, both medical doctors and exegetes. I was pretty sure I answered this somewhere else on the forums and had some links to articles on this, but I until I find them, I'll just post this link:
http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_se...main_cat_id=31

As for the issue of why Dr. Moore didn't convert (which seems to be the only argument non-muslims bring in response to the positive comments Dr. Moore said about the Qur'an), the answer is that Muslims are already familiar with the fact that many people will recognize the truth in something yet may not necessarily embrace it for a number of reasons. We already have an example of this in the hadith about the Roman emperor who believed Muhammad pbuh was truly a Prophet but didn't convert out of political pressure. For others it is societal pressure or family pressure. And of course we can't exclude the fact that Dr. Moore may believe the Qur'an to be the word of God in his heart and may have faith in Islam, but for whatever reasons doesn't publically practice. The bottom line is that God is going to judge Dr. Moore, not me. The only thing relevant here is Dr. Moore's comments as an expert in embryology.

:w:
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 10:18 PM
Salam Alaikam

Ok i formulized the format

POBook You will go first with your statement On how the Bible Is Correct on Modern science and any other alleged contradictions And you will be allowed to Point any Supposad Contradiction From The Glorious Quran if you can come up with any.
Your Post must be on the topic of modern science and/or any contradictions.

You CANNOT Edit your Post, If Edited your post will not count so neither of US can edit the posts. Once you Post your Information. Its done

. Same Format and rules.

No Editing.

When Your done, Then i will Post mine

PLEASE NOBODY POST INBETWEEN POSTS, DO NOT INTERFERE THIS IS STRICTLY BETWEEN ME AND POBOOK UNTIL THE REBUTTALS ARE DONE.

PObook After i go,

You will Post your Rebuttals to my post.

Then i will post my rebuttals to your following.

NO EDITING

If anyone would like to Help POBOOK i advise them to PM HIM it is allowed,

If Anyone would like to PM Me about anything During this debate be and feel free 2.

After My rebuttal is Posted THEN! everyone can comment

agreed POBOOK?
Reply

Kittygyal
02-11-2006, 10:21 PM
so duz dat mean i can't cum in :( that is so not fair!
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 10:28 PM
Salam Alaikam

You can come in after the rebuttals, this way i dont want to hear from them ya know OH! That girl Just came in and PUT IT ALL OUT THERE and he got All that help and everyone was viewing the thread and everything and saw that. This way you know its clean and crisp. He post, i post, he gives rebuttal, i give rebuttal, Then Everyone comments! And INSHALLAH he will see the truth of Islam and follower of the righteous path.
Reply

Kittygyal
02-11-2006, 10:32 PM
k all be the body guard :) :)
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-11-2006, 10:35 PM
Salam Alaikam

Yeah just you know just watch on, PObook If you accept the challenge then i would expect your next post to be your presentation, You may take a day, week, month Whichever seems fit to you.

I only need 1 day and I Will give you everything , but i will be waiting for your First Presentation
Reply

czgibson
02-12-2006, 12:09 AM
Greetings,

I know you've 'formulized the format', but your last post directed at me deserves a response.

Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
I think i do know the word debate, ive been debating for approximately 5 years now on many contexts in martial arts, philosophy and just recently religion.
I'd love to see you debate on philosophy. What kind of philosophy are you familiar with?
Im not assuming i won the arguement, I know i have because i provided the evidence to backup my claim but you still deny it. That is why i said do what you want i gave you the answers im done debating with you.
If you can't see an assumption in that first sentence you're not much of a philosopher.

And if i still have not persuaded you for an answer, then i dont know what else you want.
You answer your own question. I'm not persuaded, and I want to be. That, as you know, is how debates work. If you just say, "right, that's it, I'm done debating with you" then you have lost the debate.

You didnt make any assumptions, you asked what that Ayat was talking about thinking it was a clear contradiction to modern science and i proved you wrong.
You did no such thing. You may think you've proved me wrong, but until I'm persuaded of that the debate isn't over.

And again your trying to deny it even though i backed it up with ESTABLISHED Scientific Evidence
The evidence you've reported is far from established.

So far you've quoted from Keith Moore, an embryologist of some repute who agreed to study the Qur'an and report on its accuracy. He was paid well for a textbook partly derived from his findings to be published in the Middle East (the Islamic edition you mentioned). He went along with the Qur'anic view, got his funding, and moved on. None of the books he's published since have endorsed the Qur'anic view.

In fact, can you find any other embryologists who support the Qur'anic view?

Peace
Reply

waji
02-12-2006, 03:07 AM
Peace to czgibson
Well go and search more for those kind of sites u will find more so as i if i would have been student of biology well now can u answer me a very simple question
when u start the construction of a building which thing make first the structure on which the building have to stand, or the walls ??
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-13-2006, 01:12 AM
Assalam Alaikam

Besides PObook is there Any christian that wants to prove their Christianity over Islam?

Ohhh very very crucial i forgot this Part,

Whoever wins the Debate The loser must convert to that Religion You still in PObook?

I need a third source Judge Neither a christian or Muslim to Judge this way it seems fair,

An athiest perhaps that favors neither sides so its fair.
Reply

Salaam
02-13-2006, 01:21 AM
Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
Whoever wins the Debate They must convert to that Religion You still in PObook?
Salaam,

what do you mean by this ^ "Whoever wins the Debate They must convert to that Religion"
Reply

shanu
02-13-2006, 07:08 AM
salam
wow! excellent respose mahdisoldier so well explained
im really very pleased and wkas bro's respose is equally good
Peace on POBook, im looking forward to more of ur posts :)
Reply

sumay28
02-13-2006, 11:21 AM
I can't wait
Reply

czgibson
02-13-2006, 12:56 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
I need a third source Judge Neither a christian or Muslim to Judge this way it seems fair,

An athiest perhaps that favors neither sides so its fair.
I don't think I'd make a very good judge, since I'd probably be unconvinced by either side!

Peace
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-13-2006, 02:15 PM
thats what makes you so special,
You will be judging by who has the most logic!

thats the benefits of an athiest heh
Reply

czgibson
02-13-2006, 03:10 PM
Greetings,

Go on then. Give me a shout when the debate gets underway and I'll judge it for you.

Peace
Reply

DaSangarTalib
02-13-2006, 03:13 PM
Originally Posted by Salaam
Salaam,

do you mean "Whoever loses the Debate They must convert to that Religion"
i agree..they gotta embrace the truth

excellent thread my brotha Madhisoldier
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-13-2006, 03:21 PM
Assalam Alaikam

Well i dont think anyone accepted the challenge,

The challenge is depending on who has the least contradicitions in their Religious holy book and who has the most logic on modern science and other issues wins.

So i think PObook accepted it but PObook if you lose you must become a Muslim and understand Islam? Would you like to still accept? Some say this is Compulsion, Its not If they agree to it.

And relating to the Embryology i answered that question on bone and flesh in the previous posts.
Reply

Umar001
02-14-2006, 03:25 PM
Originally Posted by Salaam
Salaam,

what do you mean by this ^ "Whoever wins the Debate They must convert to that Religion"

I do not see how that can be possible?

Now I was taught some 'conditions of shahada' aight which include:

Certainty - to have no doubt about anything confirmed in the Quran or Sunnah

Acceptance - by the tongue and the heart of whatever the Shahadah implies

Truthfulness - to say the Shahadah sincerely, with honesty, to actually mean it

now this is just some of something I been reading on, so you thinking winning or losing a debate will, INSTANTLY result in someone being Certain? or Accepting fully? Bro it took me 6 months of studyin and so forth to take my shahada. some people it takes a day some a week, but I fail to see how a christian who will debate will convert straight from taht, Allahu Alam it is possible, but I dont think it should be set as a condition or an article of loss.
Reply

Mohsin
02-14-2006, 06:00 PM
I would be impresssed if a christian could answer all these questions psoed By Yusuf Estes

THE QUESTIONS NOBODY WANTS TO ANSWER -
Chaplain Yusuf Estes
What about the Bible? Who actually wrote it?
What was the original language of the Bible? (Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek?)
NOTE: - The Bible was never in English during the time of any prophet (not even Muhammad) - because English did not exist until after 1066 AD!
Does the Bible exist in the original form anywhere on earth? (No)
Why does the Catholic Bible has seven (7) more books than the Protestant Bible?
Why do these two Bibles have different versions of the same books?
Why are there so many mistakes and errors are from the very first verse right up to the very last verse?
Why do 'Born Again Christians' teach concepts that are not from the Bible?
There is no word "Trinity" in the Bible in any version of any language
The oldest forms of Christianity do not support the 'born again' beliefs
Jesus of the English Bible complains about the 'crucifixion'
("Eli! Eli! Lama sabachthani? - My God! My God! Why have You forsaken me?") [Mk 15:34]
How can Jesus be the "Only Begotten Son" of John 3:16? When in Psalms 2:7 David is God's "Begotten Son?"
Would a 'Just' God, a 'Fair' God, a 'Loving' God -- punish Jesus for the sins of the people that he called to follow him?
What happens to people who died before Jesus came?
What happens to those who never hear this message?
What about innocent children who die although their parents are not Christian?
Didn't God create Adam from dirt? -- So, why does he need Mary to make Jesus?
And what about God?
How can God create Himself?
How can God be a man?
How can a man be a God?
How can God have a son?
The Bible says "Seth (is) the son of Adam" and that"Adam is the son of God." [Lk 3:36]
Can't God just forgive us and not have to kill Jesus?
And what about Jesus?
Jesus did not even carry the cross -- Simon Cyre'ne, a passerby did! [Mk 15:21]
Jesus of the Bible was NOT on the cross for longer than six (6) hours -- NOT three days -- (from the 3rd to the 9th hour) [Mk 15:25 & 15:33]
Jesus of the Bible did not spend three days and nights in the tomb -- Friday night - until Sunday before dawn -- is not 3 days and nights!
Jesus DID NOT claim to be God - or even equal to God!
Reply

ImaChristian
02-14-2006, 06:27 PM
What do you hope to prove with your silly challenge?
Reply

Umar001
02-14-2006, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by ImaChristian
What do you hope to prove with your silly challenge?

This is exactly what I was trying to say.

I am so happy a Christian has actually put life in the words I was thinking.
Reply

hamzaa
02-14-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by ImaChristian
What do you hope to prove with your silly challenge?
silly? perish the thought.
Reply

Umar001
02-14-2006, 06:52 PM
Originally Posted by hamzaa
silly? perish the thought.

It is a very silly chalange.
Reply

czgibson
02-15-2006, 12:35 AM
Greetings,

I'm not a Christian (far from it!), but I could have a go at answering a few of these questions:

Originally Posted by Moss
What about the Bible? Who actually wrote it?
The Bible was written by lots of different authors. Some of them are known, since their names are attached to their books (e.g. Mark), but many are not known. No-one knows who wrote Genesis, for example.

What was the original language of the Bible? (Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek?)
Hebrew for the Old Testament, Greek for the New Testament, as far as I know.

NOTE: - The Bible was never in English during the time of any prophet (not even Muhammad) - because English did not exist until after 1066 AD!
Old English existed from about the 5th century CE onwards.
Does the Bible exist in the original form anywhere on earth? (No)
Some parts of it do - I've certainly never seen a complete collection of the original 66 books, though.

Why does the Catholic Bible has seven (7) more books than the Protestant Bible?
I've never heard of this before. I know some Catholics include the Apocrypha in the Bible, but that's far more than seven books. Which seven books are you thinking of?

Why do these two Bibles have different versions of the same books?
Again, I didn't know this. Can you give any specifics?

Why are there so many mistakes and errors are from the very first verse right up to the very last verse?
Originally Posted by Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
What mistake appears here?

Originally Posted by Revelation 22:21
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen.
I know Muslims don't believe Jesus is "the Lord". Is that the mistake you're thinking of here?

Why do 'Born Again Christians' teach concepts that are not from the Bible?
A very good question. Christians in general, I would say!

There is no word "Trinity" in the Bible in any version of any language
True. I think the idea of "the father, the son and the holy spirit" is referred to, although I could be wrong about this.
The oldest forms of Christianity do not support the 'born again' beliefs
Quite so.

Jesus of the English Bible complains about the 'crucifixion'
("Eli! Eli! Lama sabachthani? - My God! My God! Why have You forsaken me?") [Mk 15:34]
True - although I have no reason to believe the crucifixion of Jesus didn't happen.

How can Jesus be the "Only Begotten Son" of John 3:16? When in Psalms 2:7 David is God's "Begotten Son?"
Would a 'Just' God, a 'Fair' God, a 'Loving' God -- punish Jesus for the sins of the people that he called to follow him?
Good questions.

What happens to people who died before Jesus came?
I think they go to Limbo - although this has recently been abolished by the Catholic church.

What happens to those who never hear this message?
What about innocent children who die although their parents are not Christian?
Didn't God create Adam from dirt? -- So, why does he need Mary to make Jesus?
And what about God?
How can God create Himself?
How can God be a man?
How can a man be a God?
How can God have a son?
The Bible says "Seth (is) the son of Adam" and that"Adam is the son of God." [Lk 3:36]
Can't God just forgive us and not have to kill Jesus?
And what about Jesus?
Jesus did not even carry the cross -- Simon Cyre'ne, a passerby did! [Mk 15:21]
Jesus of the Bible was NOT on the cross for longer than six (6) hours -- NOT three days -- (from the 3rd to the 9th hour) [Mk 15:25 & 15:33]
Jesus of the Bible did not spend three days and nights in the tomb -- Friday night - until Sunday before dawn -- is not 3 days and nights!
Jesus DID NOT claim to be God - or even equal to God!
All good questions - perhaps a Christian could answer these (and the rest ) better than I can.

Peace
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-15-2006, 03:31 AM
Assalam Alaikam LOL

These Questions Are going to be Just the beginning of My debate, If those christians think thats all in store? Blasphemy!

I will prove from every angle christianity is Falsehood and Islam is truth nevertheless this debate is made on friendship and the basis of truth and most logical foundation of science and less contradictory holybook.

Gibson you are the judge , Since christians think Christianity to be the truth then theyre is nothing to worry about Shall anyone debate with me on christianity and islam in the light of science and contradictions? any christian?
Reply

Chuck
02-15-2006, 04:45 AM
Christians and Muslims who are debating should check this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...60102175989548
Reply

Umar001
02-15-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally Posted by Chuck
Christians and Muslims who are debating should check this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...60102175989548


Peace be with you

I have watched this one before and another one in which bro Yusuf explains in a little more detail why he dont debate himself.

to me debates are good, but you have to do it from a point of humility at least.


Insh'allah this debate will prove sucessful.
Reply

Mohsin
02-17-2006, 10:06 AM
Originally Posted by izmi
Moss

Are you sure the silly questions are from Y. Estes? Isn't he a former christian?

Yes Yusuf estes is a former Christian and is now a muslim, so he has great knowledge of Christianity.

He can't say things like a muslim who has never studied christian theology or history
What do you mean by this, i don't undestand. Why can't he ask these questions?
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-18-2006, 05:02 AM
It is interesting for most of us Christians how focused Muslims are in finding "scientific truths" in the Quran. It is also kind of funny because all of those scientific truths have been discovered by non-Muslim western countries. If everything was so clearly stated in the Quran, why didn't the Muslims make all those discoveries? Why aren't Muslim countries the scientific leaders of the world?
Could it be perhaps that precisely because Christians never tried to "discover" scientific truths in the Bible their minds were free to look for real science in Nature? And perhaps that is the reason they actually made all the scientific discoveries?
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-18-2006, 06:42 AM
Salam Alaikam

Again the friend thinks that Muslims havent found much,
IN fact Arabs founded the Mathematic system of English.
The Muslims DID make all those discoveries but the discoveries were destroyed by the Ottoman empire, before the empire converted to Islam. The Muslims made the first water cleansing system. There is just so much out there that Muslims have done.

The reason why Muslims arent scientific leaders in the world is because the world fails to realize the advances some muslim countries make.

Yes, All those scientific proofs have been discovered by Non-muslim countries to THE PUBLIC NOW. Not like others.

And if the christians didnt bother looking in the bible that Alot of it has so MUCH CONTRADICTIONS Against science and this earth its unbelievable for 2 billion people to blindly follow a book with so many contradictions.
Your arguement as they say Holds no Water at all.
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-18-2006, 07:10 AM
Peace and thanks for your answer. We are all looking for the truth and if we talk to each other we will get closer to it.

I certainly know that the Muslims in the past made great advances. It is only that I believe it had nothing to do with Islam, or the "scientific truths" in the Quran, it is only that smart people everywhere will make discoveries. The Chinese were the most advanced civilisation on Earth for a while and they were not Christians or Muslims, so it doesn't depend on having a book that contains all those truths.

It depends on the right mental attitude, and for the last two hundred years the right mental attitude has been one of unlimited freedom. Only by asking probing questions about everything will the world advance. Trying to find scientific answers in a book (in any book) will not lead to any advance or discovery. Keeping the mind free and looking with open eyes at the world will. That is why in the last centuries Christians made all the advances. They left the Bible for spiritual matters and they looked for scientific truths in Nature. And it worked.
Reply

Muslim Knight
02-18-2006, 09:49 AM
:sl: to all my Muslim brothers and sisters,

I beg to differ to bro. Turin. When Muslims thinkers and scientists made those discoveries during those time (Avicenna, Averroes, and others) they were fiercely dedicated to the religion of Islam, which explains for rapid expansion of Islam during that time.

I believe right mental attitude can be derived from Islam, for many instances in the Quran, God constantly reproaches us for our heedlessness. Al-Quran ul-Karim uses terms like "afala ta'qilun" and "afala tata fakarun" reproaching Muslims for not using their 'aql (intelligence) and brains to think. Many of the Muslim scientists of the past were also fuqaha (Islamic jurists) and those knowledgeable in religious sciences and being such did not prevent them from venturing into scientific fields. I strongly believe that their strong belief in God and His religion of Islam has spurred these scientists into their chosen paths.

Western historians have acknowledged that at one point of time Islam did achieve the heights of civilization. This is a fact you cannot deny. During the Dark Ages of Europe during which time Christians were being persecuted for trying to discover the world, Baghdad was the center of civilization and it was under Islam that scientific thoughts flourished.

It was indeed sad to note that Muslims of today have yet to carry on the scientific tradition but things are changing. The world is changing. Islam is spreading everywhere and efforts to demonise it has failed to stem conversion to Islam. There are statistics that we can read about Islamic growth in places we could have never thought before. For instance, recently there was alarming trend of converting into Islam in places like Latin America, where it was thought to be strongly Catholic.

:w:
Reply

Muslim Knight
02-18-2006, 12:49 PM
Read for yourself. It's a phenomenon.

Some S. Florida Latinas converting to Islam for emphasis on family, women's roles
By Tal Abbady


Melissa Matos slips into an easy communion with her newest circle of friends.
At regular meetings, they invoke their families' native towns in Cuba or the Dominican Republic, or recipes for arroz con pollo. English is interspersed with Spanish. And, posing no incongruity to the women, hijabs, or Muslim head scarves, frame their faces.


New faith
Marie Hernandez, with 20-month-old daughter Fatimah, grew up Catholic and converted to Islam after reading the Koran's teachings. Some Latinas in South Florida are becoming Muslim because of the religion's emphasis on family and women's roles.
When she converted to Islam in May, Matos, a Dominican-American raised as a Seventh-day Adventist, expected the passage to be lonely.

"I said to myself, `Great, I'm going to be the only Muslim Latina in the whole world,'" said Matos, 20, a student at Florida International University who recently joined a group of Latina converts to Islam.

Scholars say Matos is part of a growing number of Latin women converting to Islam for its emphasis on family, piety and clearly defined women's roles, values converts say were once integral to Hispanic culture but have waned after years of assimilation.

The women are among 40,000 Hispanic converts to Islam in the United States, according to the Islamic Society of North America. About a decade ago, Latino converts began forming Internet groups such as the Latino American Dawah Organization and the women's group Piedad that trace Hispanics' ties to Islam back to the Spanish Moors.

Grass-roots leaders say the number of converts grew sharply after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, bucking a trend of thought among Americans that links Islam to terrorism.

Sofian Abelaziz, president of the Miami-based American Muslim Association of North America, said one indication of the conversions is the demand for Spanish-language copies of the Koran, which spiked after Sept. 11. In the past two years, the group has filled orders for 5,500 Spanish-language Korans for schools, cultural institutes and prisons around the country, out of 12,000 orders total.

Matos and other converts say the recent media spotlight on Islam was their first exposure to the faith and spurred further learning.

"[Before] I picked up the Koran, my attitude was, `There's something wrong with this religion,'" said Matos, 20, of Miramar. A friend gave her a copy of the Koran. "But then I saw it was filled discussions of grace from God, of the protection of things we talk about as human rights, of a universal brotherhood. ... This is a religion that encourages thinking and contemplation," she said. In May, Matos converted by reciting the shahada, a prayer in which converts attest to their belief in Allah and Mohammed in front of Muslim witnesses. Islam now circumscribes her life. She is studying Arabic, prays five times a day, wears a hijab and follows Islamic dietary laws.

"There is no conflict between my Dominican heritage and Islam. I grew up in a culture where you have a family you love and you take care of one another, and Islam complements those values," Matos said.

Matos' conversion rattled friends and family members who linked Islam with Taliban-style oppression, but scholars say Latina converts are practicing a confessional Islam that offers strong moral guidelines.

"People might ask, `Why would women convert to a religion that is so traditional in its gender roles?' But that's part of the appeal. There's a recovery of dignity," said Manuel Vasquez, religion professor at the University of Florida. "Second-generation Latinas are caught between the morality of their parents and the morality of the larger mainstream society. Islam offers a clear code. Women ... know they are respected, taken care and protected from the negative influences of secular society. It's a kind of empowerment they don't experience in a culture that is constantly sexualizing them, and Latinas are particularly sexualized."

The converts may be fashioning a form of Islam that meets their needs in a country that allows them to do so.

"It's a comment on our society, on the fragmentation of American family life," said Leila Ahmed, a Harvard University professor who has written extensively on gender in Islam. "We have to bear that this is happening in America, where there is freedom of choice. These women are not converting in order to go and live in Saudi Arabia. We also don't know how permanent these conversions are in a country where people convert two or three times in their lives."

Like many converts, Matos calls herself a "revert," a reference to the Muslim belief that everyone is born in a state of submission to Allah. Being Hispanic and following Islam now are inextricable.

"When I meet with [my group] we speak in Spanish," she said. "We'll talk about what it was like back in Cuba or the Dominican Republic. And yet we're all wearing hijabs. It reminds me of the universality of Islam."

Religious leaders say the Latina converts assimilate easily into Islam.

"What they see in Islam is what their parents used to practice: that respect for elders, the care and protection that husbands are obligated to give their wives," said Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, director of the Darul Uloom Islamic Institute in Pembroke Pines. "Many converts tell me, `This is how my parents grew up.'"

When a Hispanic Muslim friend slipped a copy of the Koran into her hands, Marie Hernandez found "a total way of life."

"I started reading about the life of the Prophet Mohammed, and I was convinced that this is the true prophet of God," said Hernandez, 22, of Boca Raton. "This is the message I have to follow."

Islam also was a powerful antidote to a troubled adolescence, during which Hernandez left home for two years.

Conversion meant the end of partying, very little television and waking up at 5 a.m. for her first prayers. It also meant reconciling with her Honduran-born Catholic parents and becoming a Muslim wife. She met her husband, an Egyptian, through a meeting arranged by her imam. They have a 20-month-old toddler, Fatimah, named for the Prophet Mohammed's iconic daughter.

"At first my parents thought it was weird, and they were scared," Hernandez said. "They thought I might get too extreme in my worship. But now we have a beautiful relationship. Part of being a Muslim is to honor your parents, and I started treating my dad the way I should have."

A strong draw for Hernandez was the idea that for Muslims, Islam is the culmination of all religions. In the Koran, Jesus is venerated as a prophet, and entire passages are devoted to the Virgin Mary -- a ubiquitous figure in Latin American culture.

"It's important to know that Jesus and Mary play a role in Islam. Most Latin Americans are Catholic because that's all they know, that's what their predecessors were," said Hernandez, who cooks tamales to celebrate the end of Ramadan.

Converts say they are evidence that Latino identity is in flux.

"One reaction Latinos have with regard to Latinos who come to Islam is, `You're leaving your religion! You're leaving your culture!' But Latino culture is evolving," said Juan Galvan, president of the Texas chapter of the Latino American Dawah Organization.

"It's quite possible that Islam will one day be inseparable from Latino culture just as Christianity is."

Roraima Aisha Kanar, 52, is from a family of Cuban exiles who fled Cuba in 1959 and settled in Miami. Dissatisfied with Catholicism, she converted to Islam 30 years ago.

"My mother was devastated. I couldn't go to the beach and wear a bathing suit. I had to be covered and not wear makeup. I couldn't wear low-cut dresses. I felt like telling her, `Do you mean to tell me that's what's important in life?'" she said. "I think Latinas who convert are looking for a culture that we'd always had and then lost: strictness in the family, respect towards the elderly, moral and spiritual ties and the importance of having God in your life. Our grandparents had values similar to that. As converts we're just coming back to our roots."

After her conversion, she grew apart from her nightclub-hopping friends. She married a Turkish man with whom she has three children.

For Kanar, wearing the hijab, which some see as a sign of subjugation, is liberating.

"I lived through the '70s women's-lib movement," said Kanar, who works in accounting and owns a real estate business. "As a woman you wanted to be accepted as a person with a brain and not just a sexual object that had to be looking pretty to men all the time. I saw covering as something that would give me a lot of self-esteem. It did."

Kanar says she has straddled her Latino heritage and Islam comfortably.

"As soon as you speak to me you forget I'm wearing a hijab. I'm Cuban, and I speak with my hands. I love Celia Cruz. We don't go to Calle Ocho and we don't celebrate Christmas. We eat Spanish food, and though we won't have pork, we can do a nice lamb. What does it mean to be a Cuban, really? I feel Cuban, but I'm a Muslim Cuban."

Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Reply

Mohsin
02-18-2006, 03:53 PM
Originally Posted by izmi
Moss

I think the following questions are too silly to be from Y.Estes. They are more likely attributed to him. An ordinary Muslim can ask these questions but not Estes who knows Christianity.

--"Who actually wrote it?"

Just click on any Bible site

--"What was the original language of the Bible? (Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek?)"

The answer is in brackets.

--"The Bible was never in English during the time of any prophet (not even Muhammad) - because English did not exist until after 1066 AD!"

What is the point?

--"Does the Bible exist in the original form anywhere on earth?"

Yes, in a bookstore or a library or in people's homes.

--"Why does the Catholic Bible has seven (7) more books than the Protestant Bible?"

Click on any Bible site for the answer.

--"Why do these two Bibles have different versions of the same books?"

They do not have different versions.

--"Why are there so many mistakes and errors from the very first verse right up to the very last verse?"

Delirious!

-- "There is no word "Trinity" in the Bible in any version of any language"

Everybody knows that.

--"Jesus of the English Bible complains about the 'crucifixion'
("Eli! Eli! Lama sabachthani? - My God! My God! Why have You forsaken me?") [Mk 15:34]"

How about Jesus from the Greek Bible?

--"Didn't God create Adam from dirt? -- So, why does he need Mary to make Jesus?
How can God create Himself?
How can God be a man?
How can a man be a God?
How can God have a son?
Can't God just forgive us and not have to kill Jesus?"

Click on any Trinity site for the answers.
What???!!!

Yusuf Estes himself knows the answers, he's just truying to make people think aout christianity and why there are all these errors in it and stuff. Of course he knows the answers, they didn't satisfy him, and so he left christianity, and so he asking other christians the same questions so they may also think aout these unanswered questions about christianity
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-18-2006, 06:22 PM
Dear muslim knight,

Thanks for your answer. However, I don't think those are good arguments. You say that those discoverers of the past such as Avicenna were fiercely Muslim. But those around them who stiffled those avenues of growth were also Muslims! We are still left with the question of why Muslim thinkers failed completely to develop those sparks of genius into long-lasting advances. Christian countries had more or less at the same time their own geniuses and they received enough encouragement to continue with their advances and create the society of which you and I are benefitting today. There is something in Islam that makes it very difficult to develop real science. And I think that part of it is that childish obsession with the discovery of "scientific truths" in a book that was written centuries ago by means of twisting and tweaking obscure verses. If you want real science, do experiments, look around in the Nature that surrounds you, and forget your book.

Because of that I think that you should be more worried than happy about the possibility that Islam might become more prevalent in the future. If we judge according to what we see, Muslims are simply unable to advance technically or scientifically today, no matter what their ancestors did in the time of Avicenna. If Islam gets too powerful, it might be the end of scientific development. Can you imagine that? Perhaps wonderful drugs will not be developed, incredible advances in technology will not be there for us to enjoy.

You should be careful what you wish for.
Reply

shorouk
02-18-2006, 06:29 PM
www.harunyihia.com
Reply

shorouk
02-18-2006, 06:38 PM
Just see below miracle in the Quran.


Word--------------- Meaning---------------
Mentioned in the Quran

Al-Dunya This World 115(times)
Al-Akhira The Here After 115

Al-Mala'ikah Angles 88
Al-Shayateen Satan 88

Al-Hayat Life 145
Al-Maout Death 145

Al-Rajul Man 24
Al-Mar'ha Women 24
Al-Shahr Month 12

Al-Yahom Day 365

Al-bahar Sea 32
Al-bar Land 13

If we add up the total words of both "sea" and "land" we get 45. Now if we do a simple calculation:
32/45 X 100% = 71.11111111%
13/45 X 100% = 28.88888888%

Above is what we know today, the percentages of Water (Sea) and Land in the world. Yet another miracle in the Quran.

The Miracles of the Quran will never end. There will never be a time where mankind can fully take in the knowledge that is in this Holy book. It is a miracle to all mankind, the word of God. There is no value that one can set to the words of the Creator. It is a treasure of which guides those that want to succeed in this life and the hereafter.

See, if we see in detail, than we should have a large number of Miracle narrated in Quran. Quran is the only source whcih will Update peoples every time
Reply

Duhaa
02-18-2006, 06:52 PM
Originally Posted by shorouk

I suppose you mean Harun Yahya. :rollseyes :?
Yeah his books are good in explaining the existence of God and refuting evolution but personally I think he goes a lot in depth.
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-18-2006, 07:15 PM
Dear shorouk,

I say this respectfully. You have to realize that those little tricks like counting how many times does the word "land" and the word "sea" appear in your book and trying to get from there a "proof" of the truth of the book cannot be really convincing to a non-Muslim. It is obvious that if you had found any other relation between the two words you simply wouldn't be mentioning it.

If there is a rule according to which everything in your book is mentioned in the proportion in which it exists in nature, why don't you give another example? When your book uses the words "sand" and "water" is it also in the proportion in which they exist in the world? What about dogs, pigs and monkeys, are they also mentioned in the proportion in which we find them in the world?

Once again, that is a trick that will only work with people who are already convinced. The rules are the following: "I will learn about everything that has been discovered by real science in the western (Christian) countries in the last two hundred years. Then I will see if I can find a way to "discover" it in my book. If I find it I will post it everywhere. If I don't find it, I will keep silent"

If your book really contains all science, what don't you tell us something we don't already know? Perhaps you have there the cure for cancer or AIDS? Or the way to travel to other planets? if you give me a scientific answer for something that we DON'T already know and later it is proven to be true, then I will believe that you book is the source of all scientific truth.
Reply

Snowflake
02-18-2006, 07:31 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,
If god wrote the Qur'an, and has perfect knowledge of all things, he surely wouldn't have made this mistake, would he?
Peace
Greetings,

Please see the correct translation of the verse you mentioned below.

And certainly We created man of an extract of clay, Then We made him a small seed in a firm resting-place, Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators. Then after that you will most surely die. Then surely on the day of resurrection you shall be raised. Holy Qur'an (23:12-16)

Referring to the above verses in the Qur'an, Dr. Keith Moore says:
"This verse from the Koran states that God made you from a drop and then changed the drop into a leech-like structure which soon changed into a chewed like substance that then took the shape of bone and was clothed with flesh."

To illustrate his point about the accuracy of the Qur'an, Dr. Moore lined up a picture of a leech and a picture of a human embryo at 24 days old to show the striking similarity between the two. Similarly, he compared the human embryo at 28 days with a plasticine model of the embryo with teeth marks deliberately impressed on it and found the two to be quite Similar.

See also the related scientific accuracy in the Quran:
He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. Holy Qur'an (39:6)

It is reasonable to interpret the three veils of darkness mentioned in the Koran as:

the mother's abdominal wall;
the wall of the uterus; and
the amniochorionic membrane composed of the fused amnion and chorion.
These three anatomical layers protect the embryo from external injury."

If you wish to read more about this topic along with references from scientists, then please see link below.
http://www.ezsoftech.com/akram/accuracyofquran.asp
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-20-2006, 04:59 PM
To muslim knight,

I had forgotten to comment on your piece about Hispanics converting to your religion. It touches me very personally because I was born in Latin America myself!

There are probably some people converting to Islam in Latin America as there are people converting to any religion in any part of the world. But I can tell you that it is not a trend or anything of the sort. Until 9/11 most Latin Americans were completely ignorant about your religion (including myself). Since then we have been learning but what we have learnt is not the stuff that would make you convert. After 9/11, when we were beginning to take perhaps a more positive view of Islam, we had the Madrid bombings, then the London bombings, now 30 or 40 people have died around the world because of some cartoons!

No, muslim knight, as a group we in Latin America are not getting nearer to conversion. On the contrary, you Muslims are probably reawakening our traditional Christianity. When 30 or 40 muslims are killed (by other muslims!) because of some obscure cartons that they haven't even seen, we know that there is something deeply wrong in that religion.
Reply

davejames2027
02-20-2006, 07:15 PM
How many resurrections do muslims beleive in (1,2,3??) ?

and please refer to the surah. Thank you.
Reply

Cheb
02-20-2006, 07:22 PM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
To muslim knight,

I had forgotten to comment on your piece about Hispanics converting to your religion. It touches me very personally because I was born in Latin America myself!

There are probably some people converting to Islam in Latin America as there are people converting to any religion in any part of the world. But I can tell you that it is not a trend or anything of the sort. Until 9/11 most Latin Americans were completely ignorant about your religion (including myself). Since then we have been learning but what we have learnt is not the stuff that would make you convert. After 9/11, when we were beginning to take perhaps a more positive view of Islam, we had the Madrid bombings, then the London bombings, now 30 or 40 people have died around the world because of some cartoons!

No, muslim knight, as a group we in Latin America are not getting nearer to conversion. On the contrary, you Muslims are probably reawakening our traditional Christianity. When 30 or 40 muslims are killed (by other muslims!) because of some obscure cartons that they haven't even seen, we know that there is something deeply wrong in that religion.
I know im jumping in here but the fact that you are not differentiating Muslims from Islam says that you are attacking something you do not know about. Understand Islam and the Quran and the message our prophet (pbuh) is conveying and then argue against it. Otherwise you are being as ignorant as the Muslims that are causing these violent riots and what have you.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-23-2006, 04:56 AM
You Should look at where it says in Christianity to Turn the other cheek, i dont see that principal applied in Egypt about the Protest?
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-23-2006, 05:49 AM
To mahdisoldier19,

Would you please inform me about that protest in Egypt you are talking about? I was referring to the bombing in Iraq.
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-24-2006, 03:30 PM
To izmi:

You are right! The same thing happened in Europe centuries ago. Exactly as today Sunnis and Shias are killing each other, Catholics and Protestants used to kill each other 400 years ago.

But we evolved! That is the effect of Christianity on the human mind! That is the effect of Christianity on any society! We are getting better. Our societies are on the whole getting better. We didn’t treat properly our women and now we do. We gave all the power to despotic kings and now we choose our rulers democratically. We were ignorant and superstitious and looked for all the answers between the covers of a book. Now we use science and technology.

And that is the problem with Islam. Do you get it?
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-24-2006, 05:20 PM
Uh, do you understand what you just said?
Reply

czgibson
02-24-2006, 05:27 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
You are right! The same thing happened in Europe centuries ago. Exactly as today Sunnis and Shias are killing each other, Catholics and Protestants used to kill each other 400 years ago.
Er, have you ever heard of Northern Ireland? Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other a lot more recently than 400 years ago...

But we evolved! That is the effect of Christianity on the human mind!
Try telling that to a born-again who believes in Creationism. :D

Turin, congratulations on perhaps the most patronising post I've ever seen on this forum.

Peace
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-24-2006, 07:59 PM
To Cheb,

You are very close to what I mean!

You say that there is no true Islamic society today and I understand what you mean. Muslims say that there is no true Islamic society because according to Islam everybody should be kind and gentle, the rich should share their wealth, etc. and we certainly don’t see any society like that where Muslims predominate. On the contrary, those societies tend to be particularly violent, there is oppression of women, etc.

The solution you suggest is that they should redouble their efforts to apply real Islam. What I say is that they are applying real Islam. They have already redoubled their efforts long ago. When a society like Saudi Arabia says “the Quran is our constitution” and solves everything according to Sharia, it is completely Islamic, there is simply no more Islam left to apply! That is everything Islam has in it! And the society Islam has created there is in many respects a good society. There is very little crime, family life is stable, generosity with the poor is encouraged, etc. I will never deny the achievements of Islam, specially if we contrast them with the pagan past of Arabia.

But that is all Islam has to offer. In Saudi Arabia you are seeing the best ideal Islamic state you will ever see. There is no more.

The problem with Muslims asking for “more Islam” in those societies is very similar to the problem with communists during the 20th century. Whenever the evident failings of the Soviet Union were pointed, they would say “this is not real communism yet, we are only building communism” and use that to excuse the errors of their doctrine. But it was wrong. If after 70 years of building communism they couldn’t offer anything better than the Soviet Union then the problem was with the original idea, not with how it was applied.

The same goes for Islam. It has had twenty times more time that communism ever had to show everything it can do. During 1,400 years it has ruled the Arabian peninsula as the only and sole doctrine applied by all the successive rulers.

And Saudi Arabia is what Islam has given us after all this time. That is the best Islam can do. It is good perhaps, but it is also the best Islam can do.

That is the problem.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-25-2006, 04:07 AM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
To Cheb,

You are very close to what I mean!

You say that there is no true Islamic society today and I understand what you mean. Muslims say that there is no true Islamic society because according to Islam everybody should be kind and gentle, the rich should share their wealth, etc. and we certainly don’t see any society like that where Muslims predominate. On the contrary, those societies tend to be particularly violent, there is oppression of women, etc.

The solution you suggest is that they should redouble their efforts to apply real Islam. What I say is that they are applying real Islam. They have already redoubled their efforts long ago. When a society like Saudi Arabia says “the Quran is our constitution” and solves everything according to Sharia, it is completely Islamic, there is simply no more Islam left to apply! That is everything Islam has in it! And the society Islam has created there is in many respects a good society. There is very little crime, family life is stable, generosity with the poor is encouraged, etc. I will never deny the achievements of Islam, specially if we contrast them with the pagan past of Arabia.

But that is all Islam has to offer. In Saudi Arabia you are seeing the best ideal Islamic state you will ever see. There is no more.

The problem with Muslims asking for “more Islam” in those societies is very similar to the problem with communists during the 20th century. Whenever the evident failings of the Soviet Union were pointed, they would say “this is not real communism yet, we are only building communism” and use that to excuse the errors of their doctrine. But it was wrong. If after 70 years of building communism they couldn’t offer anything better than the Soviet Union then the problem was with the original idea, not with how it was applied.

The same goes for Islam. It has had twenty times more time that communism ever had to show everything it can do. During 1,400 years it has ruled the Arabian peninsula as the only and sole doctrine applied by all the successive rulers.

And Saudi Arabia is what Islam has given us after all this time. That is the best Islam can do. It is good perhaps, but it is also the best Islam can do.

That is the problem.

What do you mean Saudi Arabia is the best islam can do? Dont put Limits on Islam. You never seen real Islam, Not yet.
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-25-2006, 04:36 AM
But how can you say that? After 1,400 years in which Muslims have ruled the peninsula they still haven't been able to apply "real Islam"? What are they waiting for? And how is it possible that they base everything they do on the Quran and Sharia and that still doesn't qualify as "real Islam"? What other sources of Islam are there that they haven't discovered?

I am sorry. It is not me who is putting limits on Islam. Islam has made clear its own limits.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-25-2006, 04:45 AM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
But how can you say that? After 1,400 years in which Muslims have ruled the peninsula they still haven't been able to apply "real Islam"? What are they waiting for?
Islam was applied there for centuries! Read about the time of the Khilafah (Islamic caliphate). Why do you continue to assume that the present condition of the Muslim Ummah is reflective of how it has always been?

btw. please read the follwoing thread where I cleared up these misconceptions on Muslim countries and Islamic law:
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...ariah-law.html

Peace.
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-25-2006, 05:10 AM
I know Islam has been applied there for centuries! That is precisely my point. After all this centuries in Saudi Arabia we are contemplating the final product of Islam. There is nothing else. I am not saying that it is so bad, especially compared to the pagan history of Arabia, but we should stop waiting for it to develop into anything better. That is Islam.

If you like Saudi Arabia, follow Islam and sooner or later you will be living in a country just like that.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-25-2006, 05:13 AM
Turin, Do you realize your making no point and simply contradicting your statements as you post more and more?
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-25-2006, 05:29 AM
Why am I contradicting myself? I am just saying that after all this time we have seen everything Islam has to offer to mankind. There is no contradiction in that statement.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-25-2006, 04:23 PM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
I know Islam has been applied there for centuries! That is precisely my point. After all this centuries in Saudi Arabia we are contemplating the final product of Islam.
No, you are looking at Saudi Arabia, after the fall of the Islamic empire, and the degeneration of the country into a third-world country. Any student of hsitory would know that it wasn't always like that. The fallacy you contnue to make is that you assume that the present condition of the Muslim Ummah is how it has always been, and I asked you to look over the thread linked in my previous post.
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-25-2006, 07:03 PM
Ansar Al-'Adl,

We are getting so close! This is closely related to what we are debating in another thread. Surely the rulers of Arabia were in a different position back then when they ruled an Empire and not a relatively small country as they do today. The political weight of the Islamic entity has changed a lot, that is for sure.

But what about the subjects? What about the peasants or the millions who perform menial tasks in the peninsula? Don't you think that for them Islam has been more or less the same in the last 1,400 years? They are entitled to say that they have seen everything that Islam has to offer.

I identify with them, not with the rulers.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-25-2006, 08:43 PM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
But what about the subjects? What about the peasants or the millions who perform menial tasks in the peninsula?
The citizens of Muslim countries want a return to an Islamic state, for they know that it is only under an Islamic state that they can flourish and prosper.
I identify with them, not with the rulers.
Do you even know any of them? We are the Muslims, and we have already said that we want a return to Islam.
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-26-2006, 04:37 PM
Ansar Al-'Adl,

You say: "The citizens of Muslim countries want a return to an Islamic state, for they know that it is only under an Islamic state that they can flourish and prosper."

My original point is that the citizens of a place like Saudi Arabia ARE living in an Islamic state. It will never become more Islamic than that. If living under Islam is a wonderful thing, they are already enjoying it.

Lets make a thought experiment. The prince who is currently ruling Saudi Arabia declares himself Khalifa tomorrow and all the Muslims in the world recognize him as such. Now suddenly you have a large political entity ruled by a Khalifa and under Sharia. You have the old Islamic state back again! Wonderful! Your wishes have come true!

But wait a minute. How exactly did the life of the peasants and workers in Saudi Arabia change? They were ruled in a totally undemocratic way before....and they are still ruled in a totally undemocratic way. They were subject to Sharia before..and they are still subject to Sharia. What changed for them?

See my point? It is the subjects of Saudi Arabia who can say that they have seen everything that Islam has to offer. For them your Islamic state has nothing to offer. They already live in one.
Reply

*Hana*
02-26-2006, 05:25 PM
Turin:

My original point is that the citizens of a place like Saudi Arabia ARE living in an Islamic state. It will never become more Islamic than that. If living under Islam is a wonderful thing, they are already enjoying it.

Lets make a thought experiment. The prince who is currently ruling Saudi Arabia declares himself Khalifa tomorrow and all the Muslims in the world recognize him as such. Now suddenly you have a large political entity ruled by a Khalifa and under Sharia. You have the old Islamic state back again! Wonderful! Your wishes have come true!
What part of "Saudi is not a truly Islamic state" do you not understand? There is not ONE country in the world living in a 100%, totally Islamic lifestyle. First, they incorporated some man-made laws....this is not Islamic. Second, it is totally against Islamic teachings to have Muslims ruled by someone because they have royal lineage. Third, if you understood Islam at all, you would know that NO ONE appoints themselves as the Caliph. You do not become the Caliph because you are from a "royal" family, have a blood line connecting you to the Prophet Muhammed, pbuh, or any previous Caliphs or because you ask for it.

When they force people to do what Allah, swt, has commanded, this goes against Islam as there is "no compulsion in religion". Forcing women to cover or be punished, is nowhere to be found in the teachings of Islam, not permitting women to drive, (although this is changing), is not from Islam. All you have to do is think....women are permitted to enter battle, but not permitted to drive?? It's not rocket science here, these are man made laws.

The reason there is no compulsion is because you cannot force someone to be righteous or pious or modest or whatever. Allah, swt, tells us how to worship, tells us what to do that is the best for us. Should we opt to not follow what is ordained, it is between us and Allah, swt. For example, I could kidnap you, beat you and torture you, threaten your children, Astagfurillah, until you relented and said the Shahadah. Does it make you a Muslim? Absolutely not. You can do the same to me until I cover, does it make me pious or modest? Nope! (Before anyone jumps on me....I'm not suggesting Saudi resorts to this).

You need to seperate the true teachings if Islam from what has been incorporated by political leaders of today. You don't look at a country and say "This is Islam", you look at the teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith and say, "THIS is Islam".

We can see a lot of good in a country like Saudi that comes closest to an Islamic state, but we can also see where it fails as an Islamic state as well. And why? Because it introduced laws not taught in Islam. It's like comparing apples and oranges. It has some similar charactoristics, (ie: both are fruit, both come from a tree, etc.), but they are not the same thing.

So, before you try to compare a governing body to Islam first look to see if they are following what Islam teaches. Or at the very least, provide verses or authentic hadith that you feel supports your claim and then it can be discussed with more logic and understanding.

Peace,
Hana
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-26-2006, 05:33 PM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
My original point is that the citizens of a place like Saudi Arabia ARE living in an Islamic state.
No they are not. There is not a single Islamic state in the world today. Saudi Arabia is not an islamic state, it is a Muslim-majority country. How many times do I have to repeat myself?!
It will never become more Islamic than that.
It has and it will.

Lets make a thought experiment. The prince who is currently ruling Saudi Arabia declares himself Khalifa tomorrow
Someone cannot declare themselves a Khalifa! Please educate yourself on the Khilafa system before making such comments. You can't just convert a Monarchy into a new government.

They were ruled in a totally undemocratic way before....and they are still ruled in a totally undemocratic way.
FALSE! The Islamic state is not undemocratic, please educate yourself:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-analysis.html

What changed for them?
The reason why your argument is ludicrous is because you conveniently ignore the other non-religious problems that plague third-world countries, such as lack of education, poverty etc. These problems are not specific to Muslim countries.

To illustrate the fallacy of your argument, suppose an opponent of democracy or Christianity (just as you are an opponent of Shari'ah) tries to point out the flaw in these systems by stating: Look at Ecuador, a democratic country that is almost entirely Christian. Look at the poverty, the lack of education, and according to the UN, Ecuador is one of the most corrupt countries in the world (#18 on the list). Don't the people of Ecuador have the right to say that democracy and christianity have brought them nothing? For them a democratic state and the religion of christianity has nothing to offer. They already live in one.

So if you want to continue using Saudi Arabia as an example to judge Islam and Shari'ah, I will continue to use Ecuador as an example to judge Christianity and Democracy!!
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-26-2006, 05:49 PM
Hana_Aku,

This post was actually for Ansar Al-'Adl! I wasn't expecting an answer from you. But I see that you are also getting to like me as I am getting to like you...;)

My answer to you is the following. Whatever happens in Saudi Arabia happens because hundreds of ulama in the country have decided that it is according to Islamic law. Since the country declares explicitly that it is ruled by the Quran and the Sharia there is no other way for anything to happen there unless it is considered Islamic.

And now you come and you tell all those ulama that they are WRONG! We know that they force women to cover (using very harsh measures) and they have declared it perfectly Islamic. But Hana_Aku says that they are WRONG. That is not real Islam! Hana_Aku says so! She knows more Islam than the ulama of Saudi Arabia, who are heir to centuries of Muslim tradition, speak perfect Arabic and are probably linear descendants of Muhammad.

Would you please go to Saudi Arabia and tell them that they are wrong in their interpretation of Islam and that you can teach then a thing or two?

I would love to see their Islamic reaction to your teachings.
Reply

HeiGou
02-26-2006, 05:56 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
There is not ONE country in the world living in a 100%, totally Islamic lifestyle.
Really? Has there ever been since, say, Muawiya? Have people tried and if so why in your opinion have they failed?

First, they incorporated some man-made laws....this is not Islamic.
Really? Maududi did not think so. He thought that Islam was adaptable to circumstances, and that an Islamic government could "legislate" in a legitimate manner. Why do you think he was wrong?

Second, it is totally against Islamic teachings to have Muslims ruled by someone because they have royal lineage. Third, if you understood Islam at all, you would know that NO ONE appoints themselves as the Caliph. You do not become the Caliph because you are from a "royal" family, have a blood line connecting you to the Prophet Muhammed, pbuh, or any previous Caliphs or because you ask for it.
Even I know that traditionally people have asserted the Caliph must come from the Quraysh and have cited hadith to that effect. If it is true (and I think it is) that it is against Islamic teachings to have someone in power just because they are Royal, is it forbidden to have someone in power even if they are Royal? No one appoints themselves Caliph, but they can get a committee of a few of their friends and supporters to nominate them can't they?

When they force people to do what Allah, swt, has commanded, this goes against Islam as there is "no compulsion in religion". Forcing women to cover or be punished, is nowhere to be found in the teachings of Islam, not permitting women to drive, (although this is changing), is not from Islam. All you have to do is think....women are permitted to enter battle, but not permitted to drive?? It's not rocket science here, these are man made laws.
Wow. You think you cannot enforce Islamic law at all? It is all complusion? Even for theft? Rape? Murder?

Were women permitted to enter battle? They were on the battle field but may I ask what the evidence is that they fought?

The reason there is no compulsion is because you cannot force someone to be righteous or pious or modest or whatever.
I don't know. I expect that flogging the immodestly dressed does make people more modest. Are your opinions on this subject widely shared by other Muslims?

You need to seperate the true teachings if Islam from what has been incorporated by political leaders of today. You don't look at a country and say "This is Islam", you look at the teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith and say, "THIS is Islam".
Except my opinion of what is in the Quran counts for nothing as I am not a Muslim. If I became a Muslim my opinion of what is in the Quran would count for little because I was only one Muslim. Muhammed said his community would never agree on error - so the collective opoinion of the Muslims is infalible isn't it? At least if that hadith is true. Obviously governments tend to reflect the community more than most individuals do.

My question would be - if Islam is so hard no one has ever got it right since the Rashidun, do you think you can see why a non-Muslim might conclude it is not practical?
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-26-2006, 06:03 PM
Ansar Al-'Adl,

Good post! I will focus on the last part. You say that I am being unfair because I want to use Saudi Arabia as an example of Islam and Sharia and that would be equivalent of using Ecuador as an example of Christianity and democracy.

But there is a problem. You are taking one of the WORST examples of my side and comparing it to the BEST you can offer.

Ecuador is not my example. The United States is my example. This is the product of Christianity and democracy that I want to sell as a model, so to speak. I would like the whole world to look one day like the USA: peaceful, prosperous, happy and Christian.

So, if Saudi Arabia is not your model, what is your model? But one caveat. It has to be a country that EXISTS TODAY. It is not valid to say "my model is the wonderful Islamic state that existed 1,000 years ago" because how life really was there is impossible to verify and your account of it will be biased.

Give me an example I can see in my TV. I am a modern kind of guy.
Reply

waji
02-26-2006, 06:39 PM
Asalam u Alikum
well turin first of all some of the questions comes in my mind
From where r u ???
Have u been to Saudi Arabia and America (or just ur assumtions)
u said America is peaceful, prosprous, happy and Christian
there u said Christian it means it is not for muslims fine
i say for other Muslim Countries and Saudi Arabia that There people are much peacefull, prosperous, happy and Following there relegion in best manner
but u can only see that if u have been to any Muslim Countries

well i don't know what kind of Things ur TV shows
Walikum as Salam and Peace
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-26-2006, 07:19 PM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
But there is a problem. You are taking one of the WORST examples of my side and comparing it to the BEST you can offer.
Saudi Arabia is not my best example. The Islamic State under the rule of Umar ibn Al-Khattab is.

The United States is my example. This is the product of Christianity
The United States cannot be considered a product of Christianity, at any rate, since they have already gone through their seperation of Church and State. It is a secular country.

It has to be a country that EXISTS TODAY.
Why?? I am forced to choose an example after your colonial powers have finished their rampage and left the Muslim countries destroyed, poor, down-trodden and oppressed?!

It is not valid to say "my model is the wonderful Islamic state that existed 1,000 years ago" because how life really was there is impossible to verify and your account of it will be biased.
No it is not impossible to verify for educated historians, both Muslim and Non-Muslim.

Give me an example I can see in my TV.
LOL! You just admitted that your source of information is the TV! I strongly suggest that you conduct proper research beyond the stereotypes and biases conveyed through the TV.

EDIT: My comments on some of your post to Hanu_Aku:
And now you come and you tell all those ulama that they are WRONG!
I don't think the Saudi scholars are wrong, and in fact, the website I quote from the most, http://www.IslamToday.com , is run by prominent scholars in Saudi. The problems in Saudi Arabia have little to do with their religious interpretations, but with the social and political problems that one naturally finds in thirld-world countries. From your discussion with Hanu-Aku it seems like the only points of criticism being raised against Saudi scholars, is women driving and covering themselves. With regards to the former, the Saudi scholars NEVER said it was haraam (forbidden) for women to drive, please read this revealing article:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost...7&postcount=10
From this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/general-...countries.html

Concerning the latter, you write:
We know that they force women to cover (using very harsh measures)
Yet you conveniently neglect to mention what these "very harsh measures" are! Every civilized nation in the world, including western democratic countries, force their citizens to adhere to a certain dress code in public. If you appear imporperly dressed, in most countries it is a criminal offence. Every society has defined limits as to what constitutes modest dress. The problem with western nations is that this limit is based on the subjective views of the public, which has lead to the degeneration of moral values in society. Islam, on the other hand, has defined very clearly the limits that both men and women must adhere to in public.

Peace
Reply

*Hana*
02-26-2006, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
Hana_Aku,

This post was actually for Ansar Al-'Adl! I wasn't expecting an answer from you. But I see that you are also getting to like me as I am getting to like you...;)

My answer to you is the following. Whatever happens in Saudi Arabia happens because hundreds of ulama in the country have decided that it is according to Islamic law. Since the country declares explicitly that it is ruled by the Quran and the Sharia there is no other way for anything to happen there unless it is considered Islamic.

And now you come and you tell all those ulama that they are WRONG! We know that they force women to cover (using very harsh measures) and they have declared it perfectly Islamic. But Hana_Aku says that they are WRONG. That is not real Islam! Hana_Aku says so! She knows more Islam than the ulama of Saudi Arabia, who are heir to centuries of Muslim tradition, speak perfect Arabic and are probably linear descendants of Muhammad.

Would you please go to Saudi Arabia and tell them that they are wrong in their interpretation of Islam and that you can teach then a thing or two?

I would love to see their Islamic reaction to your teachings.
It is not Hana_Aku that says so, it's Allah, swt, that says so. Post anything you want to prove your claims. I don't particularly care what man says, I care about what Allah, swt, has said. And, as a matter of fact, I would have no problem telling them what they are doing is non-islamic, as many do today. There are many, many women in Saudi that love to wear the Burka, the problem is that being FORCED is wrong and that is exactly what protesters argue. Many men living in Saudi will tell you the same thing. The law of women not being permitted to drive is now changing in Saudi....why? Because they know the law is not fair and unislamic. They may have the best intentions when implementing man-made laws, but that doesn't change the fact it is not based on Islamic teachings.

So, you are misinformed, there are many, many, many that will tell you the exact same thing I have told you. Look for yourself and bring proof that these laws are based on the teachings of Islam. I can certainly show you exactly where it is not, but I'm not making the claims...you are....so it's a simple solution and your responsibility....bring your proof.

And, yes, you're right I jumped in to your conversation with brother Ansar who is far more knowledgeable than myself, Mashallah, so I will apologize for that, but I tend to get a little verbal when people constantly try to say everything Saudi does represents the true teachings of Islam even when it is clearly explained it is not, over and over again.

So, yeah, if you think they are going to listen to some white, Canadian, revert when they don't listen to thousands of others who have tried to correct this problem, and you buy my ticket :giggling: , I have absolutely NO problem confronting anyone to tell them they are wrong.

Do you agree with everything your government does and is it operating based on the laws of Christianity? If so, based on your logic women should still not have the right to vote, should still be considered as not having a soul, should not be permitted to own property, should have to marry their rapist, should be covered in church or have their head shaved, should not speak in church and only learn from their husbands (hopefully he's not a drunkard), etc. These things are all in your bible and therefore, justified. The difference is, the things you claim to be taught in Islam, you won't find in the Qur'an....why? because it is NOT taught. So, tell me, why does your Christian country, (as you say it is), not follow the teachings of your bible? You are quick to critisize what man incorporated in Islam while dismissing what is truly taught, yet you don't follow what was taught in your Bible and incorporate and accept man-made laws. Are you just as willing and confident to go to your President and tell him he is wrong? You can provide the proof to your Christian president to tell him he is not running the country based on Christian teachings, just as I can provide the proof from the Qur'an to the Saudi government that these man-made laws are unislamic.

Peace,
Hana
Reply

*Hana*
02-26-2006, 08:38 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Really? Has there ever been since, say, Muawiya? Have people tried and if so why in your opinion have they failed?
Ali ibn Abi Talib: the fourth and last of the Khulafā' ar-Rāshidūn (rightly guided caliphs). This is when the truly Islamic state began it's decline...after Talib. My opinion as to why it declined is that man became more interested in power, money, etc., than following the teachings of Islam.

Really? Maududi did not think so. He thought that Islam was adaptable to circumstances, and that an Islamic government could "legislate" in a legitimate manner. Why do you think he was wrong?
My understanding of Maududi is that he wanted to return to the totally Islamic way of life based on the true teachings of Islam and tried desperately to do that in Pakistan. "...Consistent with this objective, he wrote profusely to explain the different aspects of the Islamic way of life, especially the socio-political aspects. This concern for the implementation of the Islamic way of life led Maududi to criticise and oppose the policies pursued by the successive governments of Pakistan and to blame those in power for failing to transform Pakistan into a truly Islamic state."

That being said, my knowledge of him is very limited and I will have to research more to be able to answer appropriately. However, Islam is adaptable in that, it was given to all man kind. I can adapt an Islamic way of life here in the west as they do in the east. If he said incorporating or changing the laws of Shariah was ok, then I would absolutely disagree. Islam is all encompassing there is no need to change anything. However, we have many respectable scholars, (not all claiming to be scholars are respected), that must interpret the law for obvious reasons. ie: There was no internet then so what is the ruling of free mixing? Those types of things. (I realize this is a very simplistic example, but it's only for understanding). So, to just change the law to where it only benefits man...no, it's not acceptable.

Even I know that traditionally people have asserted the Caliph must come from the Quraysh and have cited hadith to that effect. If it is true (and I think it is) that it is against Islamic teachings to have someone in power just because they are Royal, is it forbidden to have someone in power even if they are Royal? No one appoints themselves Caliph, but they can get a committee of a few of their friends and supporters to nominate them can't they?
The Caliph does not have to come from any particular area or lineage, etc., etc. Someone that is elected as Caliph that HAPPENS to be royal would be permitted....why not? He is not being elected BECAUSE he is of royalty. If someone is asking to be the Caliph, through campaigning or asking friends, etc., no, this is not permitted and someone requesting it should not be elected. The chosen Caliph should not be someone craving power...that is the reasoning.

Wow. You think you cannot enforce Islamic law at all? It is all complusion? Even for theft? Rape? Murder?
I am not talking about the laws already established with clear punishments. Those are the laws, period. There is no law saying a woman must cover or be beaten, no law saying you must pray or you will be beaten, etc. Those laws are between the Muslim and Allah, swt, and any punishment or reward that comes from them will come from Allah, swt, on the day of judgement. You cannot force someone to be pious or embrace Islam. These things come from the heart....not the mouth. I can say whatever I want to make you happy, but unless I believe it in my heart it means nothing. Saying the Shahadah for example, must be felt in the heart and said with the lips.

Were women permitted to enter battle? They were on the battle field but may I ask what the evidence is that they fought?
Yes, they were and you can read one example here: Umm 'Umara: The Prophet's Shield at Uhud

I expect that flogging the immodestly dressed does make people more modest. Are your opinions on this subject widely shared by other Muslims?
As I said, you can force someone to do almost anything....they doesn't mean they believe it. That is the difference with compulsion. Just because you force someone to do something doesn't mean they believe it. Those that choose to dress modestly do so because they feel they are following what is ordained by Allah, swt, and do it as a form of worship. You can't force someone to feel that way. So making someone dress modestly doesn't change what they feel inside. You can't make someone modest, you can only force them to LOOK modest.

If I became a Muslim my opinion of what is in the Quran would count for little because I was only one Muslim. Muhammed said his community would never agree on error - so the collective opoinion of the Muslims is infalible isn't it?
As a Muslim, you can't just take the words and make them mean whatever you want, that's true. And, you're right in that there are differing opinions by scholars in some areas, however, these areas are not with regards to major issues. Where there are differences in opinion, as a Muslim, we decide for ourselves which scholar we feel is correct. Intention counts for much in Islam. If our intent was to do the best to please Allah, swt, there is no fault. As just humans, we are not perfect so we can make errors, Allah, swt, is not unaware of this.

My question would be - if Islam is so hard no one has ever got it right since the Rashidun, do you think you can see why a non-Muslim might conclude it is not practical?
Islam is not at all hard. What is difficult and unpractical about it?

Hana
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-27-2006, 02:11 AM
Ansar Al-'Adl

In Saudi Arabia there are only Islamic courts that work according to the rulings of Islamic scholars. If you want to see exactly what that means you can check

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/report.html

"Donato Lama, a Filipino employee of an airline company in Riyadh, told Amnesty International that he was arrested for preaching Christianity because a photograph showed him participating in a secret Roman Catholic service in Riyadh. He was tortured into signing a confession and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and 70 lashes. The lashes were administered in a single session a month before his release in May 1997. In 1999 he described the flogging to Amnesty International representatives. He was clearly still distressed by the experience.

"I was brought to the whipping area. They tied me to a post. My hands were handcuffed and they also shackled my legs. I was wearing a T-shirt and jogging pants... The whip was one and a half metres long... with a heavy lead piece attached to the tip. It was terrible. Some fell on my thighs and my back. I would fall when the whip reached my feet but the prison guard would raise me up to continue the whipping. It was terrible. I was amazed to find myself still alive after the 70th lash was given. It lasted about 15 minutes... my back was bleeding. I cried."


This is certified by Amnesty International, the same people who have condemned Guantanamo, something that surely you agreed with.

As you can see my problems with Islamic law go much further than worrying about the freedom of women to dress as they like.

And in case Hana_Aku checks this message, are you sure you still want to go to Saudi Arabia and tell the ulama that they are wrong in their interpretation of Islam?
Reply

*Hana*
02-27-2006, 02:53 AM
And in case Hana_Aku checks this message, are you sure you still want to go to Saudi Arabia and tell the ulama that they are wrong in their interpretation of Islam?
I just happened to be walking by when I read your message. :rollseyes Of course I would. It's not like I would be the first to tell them that.

Hana
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-27-2006, 03:18 AM
Again, what turin seems to be confusing is the religion with peoples actions. Tell me where it says those who are preaching christianity in an Islamic state should suffer tell me where point me some place hadith, Quran anywhere! You seem to love giving approaches that OH! look these people are doing this and they belong to an Islamic State. First of all why do you confuse the people with Islam. Second, currently i have found no TRUE islamic state.
Reply

i_m_tipu
02-27-2006, 04:40 AM
i wonder how the kings(LION) looks like without Beard
Reply

HeiGou
02-27-2006, 11:47 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Ali ibn Abi Talib: the fourth and last of the Khulafā' ar-Rāshidūn (rightly guided caliphs). This is when the truly Islamic state began it's decline...after Talib. My opinion as to why it declined is that man became more interested in power, money, etc., than following the teachings of Islam.
So since Muawiya there has not been a proper Islamic state anywhere in the world? That is a long time ago. Do you accept that people have tried to re-create an Islamic state in that time?

My understanding of Maududi is that he wanted to return to the totally Islamic way of life based on the true teachings of Islam and tried desperately to do that in Pakistan. "...Consistent with this objective, he wrote profusely to explain the different aspects of the Islamic way of life, especially the socio-political aspects. This concern for the implementation of the Islamic way of life led Maududi to criticise and oppose the policies pursued by the successive governments of Pakistan and to blame those in power for failing to transform Pakistan into a truly Islamic state."

That being said, my knowledge of him is very limited and I will have to research more to be able to answer appropriately. However, Islam is adaptable in that, it was given to all man kind. I can adapt an Islamic way of life here in the west as they do in the east. If he said incorporating or changing the laws of Shariah was ok, then I would absolutely disagree. Islam is all encompassing there is no need to change anything. However, we have many respectable scholars, (not all claiming to be scholars are respected), that must interpret the law for obvious reasons. ie: There was no internet then so what is the ruling of free mixing? Those types of things. (I realize this is a very simplistic example, but it's only for understanding). So, to just change the law to where it only benefits man...no, it's not acceptable.
Maududi devoted his life to trying to create a proper Islamic state in the whole world, not just Pakistan. And he opposed those in power in Pakistan a lot of the time (but not always). He did not say that legislation can over rule the Quran, but that there are changing circumstances and evolving needs which have to be met in a proper Islamic manner - so that legislation can be used to supplement, but not replace, Islamic law.

The Caliph does not have to come from any particular area or lineage, etc., etc.
Well traditionally there has been this argument over the Quraysh, but I agree modern Muslims tend to reject that.

Someone that is elected as Caliph that HAPPENS to be royal would be permitted....why not? He is not being elected BECAUSE he is of royalty.
Well surely you can see where this is going. If he can be elected, and it happens that his father is in power at the time, he may well be elected. Certainly his chances are better than most!

If someone is asking to be the Caliph, through campaigning or asking friends, etc., no, this is not permitted and someone requesting it should not be elected. The chosen Caliph should not be someone craving power...that is the reasoning.
I did not say campaigning. But someone can ask his family and friends to form a committee and that committee can then elect him can't it? The people of Medina were going to split the community and elect their own leader. But Abu Bakr and Umar persuaded them not to and they formed a committee to elect a leader for all Muslims, didn't they?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 19:

Narrated 'Aisha:

(the wife of the Prophet) Allah's Apostle died while Abu Bakr was at a place called As-Sunah (Al-'Aliya) 'Umar stood up and said, "By Allah! Allah's Apostle is not dead!" 'Umar (later on) said, "By Allah! Nothing occurred to my mind except that." He said, "Verily! Allah will resurrect him and he will cut the hands and legs of some men." Then Abu Bakr came and uncovered the face of Allah's Apostle, kissed him and said, "Let my mother and father be sacrificed for you, (O Allah's Apostle), you are good in life and in death. By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, Allah will never make you taste death twice." Then he went out and said, "O oath-taker! Don't be hasty." When Abu Bakr spoke, 'Umar sat down. Abu Bakr praised and glorified Allah and said, No doubt! Whoever worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die." Then he recited Allah's Statement.:-- "(O Muhammad) Verily you will die, and they also will die." (39.30) He also recited:--

"Muhammad is no more than an Apostle; and indeed many Apostles have passed away, before him, If he dies Or is killed, will you then Turn back on your heels? And he who turns back On his heels, not the least Harm will he do to Allah And Allah will give reward to those Who are grateful." (3.144)

The people wept loudly, and the Ansar were assembled with Sad bin 'Ubada in the shed of Bani Saida. They said (to the emigrants). "There should be one 'Amir from us and one from you." Then Abu Bakr, Umar bin Al-Khattab and Abu 'baida bin Al-Jarrah went to them. 'Umar wanted to speak but Abu Bakr stopped him. 'Umar later on used to say, "By Allah, I intended only to say something that appealed to me and I was afraid that Abu Bakr would not speak so well. Then Abu Bakr spoke and his speech was very eloquent. He said in his statement, "We are the rulers and you (Ansars) are the ministers (i.e. advisers)," Hubab bin Al-Mundhir said, "No, by Allah we won't accept this. But there must be a ruler from us and a ruler from you." Abu Bakr said, "No, we will be the rulers and you will be the ministers, for they (i.e. Quarish) are the best family amongst the 'Arabs and of best origin. So you should elect either 'Umar or Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah as your ruler." 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No but we elect you, for you are our chief and the best amongst us and the most beloved of all of us to Allah's Apostle." So 'Umar took Abu Bakr's hand and gave the pledge of allegiance and the people too gave the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. Someone said, "You have killed Sad bin Ubada." 'Umar said, "Allah has killed him." 'Aisha said (in another narration), ("When the Prophet was on his death-bed) he looked up and said thrice, (Amongst) the Highest Companion (See Qur'an 4.69)' Aisha said, Allah benefited the people by their two speeches. 'Umar frightened the people some of whom were hypocrites whom Allah caused to abandon Islam because of 'Umar's speech. Then Abu Bakr led the people to True Guidance and acquainted them with the right path they were to follow so that they went out reciting:-- "Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed many Apostles have passed away before him.." (3.144)

Now that all worked out at the time, but there has been a decline in the standard of leadership ever since. So if this procedure was applied in the modern period it would be a bit much to expect people to behave in the same dignified way that they did back then - and even then Ali and the Shia disputed the Caliphate.

As I said, you can force someone to do almost anything....they doesn't mean they believe it. That is the difference with compulsion. Just because you force someone to do something doesn't mean they believe it.
Although traditionally Muslims have said their children will believe.

As a Muslim, you can't just take the words and make them mean whatever you want, that's true. And, you're right in that there are differing opinions by scholars in some areas, however, these areas are not with regards to major issues. Where there are differences in opinion, as a Muslim, we decide for ourselves which scholar we feel is correct.
It is not the differences between scholars that matter. It is the areas where they agree. If the scholars are agreed on an issue, is it then closed to any other opinion?

[quote] Islam is not at all hard. What is difficult and unpractical about it? [QUOTE]

Not Islam per se, but Islamic government. In 1400 years, despite all the trying, no one has managed, not even once, to create an Islamic society? It is obviously very hard to do. And maybe not very practical.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-27-2006, 05:36 PM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
In Saudi Arabia there are only Islamic courts that work according to the rulings of Islamic scholars.
Islam is not based upon what people say; it is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. I pointed this out to justahumane in the following thread on Shari'ah law:
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...ariah-law.html

Just because something is done in Saudi does not mean that it is automatically the Islamic ruling, and this is very easily illustrated in the example you gave,

The case you cited is a null example because there is no hudood (prescribed) punishment in Islam for participating in a secret Roman Catholic service. The punishment referred to is Ta'zir, meaning discretionary - based on the views of the judges and the local law. There is not a single ayah in the Qur'an or a single hadith which prescribes such a punishment. So this is Saudi law, not Islamic law. There is no way possible that anyone can attribute this law to Islam, even Saudi scholars wouldn't call it an Islamic law.

So I'm interested in discussing Islamic laws, not Saudi laws. The problem here is that you are ignorant as to how Shari'ah law works. You don't know the distinction between hudood and ta'zir. That is why you bring examples from Saudi and keep thinking it has something to do with Islam, when it doesn't. Islamic law has prescribed a few fixed punishments (hudood), and has allowed the remaining penal system to be constructed upon what is deemed suitable and appropriate in the society that it is being applied in.

Aside from that, it seems you also fail to distinguish between the Saudi scholars of Islam, and the Saudi regime. If the regime arrests its own scholars, how can you attribute these rulings to the Saudi Islamic scholars?! The Saudi gov't has arrested Shaykh Hudhaify, Shaykh Muhaisany, Shaykh Salman Al-Awdah, just to mention a few famous names. So if the gov't arrests their Islamic scholars and abuses them, how can you attribute their rulings to the same scholars they abuse?!

And in case Hana_Aku checks this message, are you sure you still want to go to Saudi Arabia and tell the ulama that they are wrong in their interpretation of Islam?
It is not the Ulama that are the issue here. The issue here is the Saudi regime which arrests and detains its Ulama when they speak out against the government.
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-27-2006, 07:36 PM
I will quote for you what the Saudi government says about itself on the following official link

http://www.saudinf.com/main/c2.htm

“The Courts/Judiciary in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia now issues its rulings/judgments/decisions on the basis of what is stated in the Holy Qur’an and on the Sunna (practices/mode of life) of the Prophet”

So we see that EVERY judicial punishment applied in the country is a reflection of Islamic teaching. I don’t say so. The Saudi government says so.

But perhaps you belong to the “Hana_Aku school of Islamic Thought” and you will tell me that what we see in Saudi Arabia “is not real Islam”.

Why should I believe you? Are you really a better and more respected Quranic scholar than the hundreds of Saudi Ulama who spend their entire lives interpreting your sacred book? They all speak the classical Arabic in which the Quran was written and you don’t. They are the sons and grandsons of Ulama who had the exact same views, going back in an unbroken chain to the days of Muhammad himself. Why should I think that your Islamic interpretation is right and theirs is wrong? If Islam gets to rule the country in which I live, how do I know that your interpretation will prevail and not theirs?

And we know what is their knowledgeable interpretation of Islam. A whip, with a heavy lead piece attached to the tip, destroying the back of an innocent and poor Filipino worker.
Reply

sevenxtrust
02-27-2006, 07:54 PM
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and gladly accept the challenge, with all the power that God has freely given to me!!
Reply

sevenxtrust
02-27-2006, 08:12 PM
Originally Posted by Moss
I would be impresssed if a christian could answer all these questions psoed By Yusuf Estes

THE QUESTIONS NOBODY WANTS TO ANSWER -
Chaplain Yusuf Estes
What about the Bible? Who actually wrote it?
What was the original language of the Bible? (Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek?)
NOTE: - The Bible was never in English during the time of any prophet (not even Muhammad) - because English did not exist until after 1066 AD!
Does the Bible exist in the original form anywhere on earth? (No)
Why does the Catholic Bible has seven (7) more books than the Protestant Bible?
Why do these two Bibles have different versions of the same books?
Why are there so many mistakes and errors are from the very first verse right up to the very last verse?
Why do 'Born Again Christians' teach concepts that are not from the Bible?
There is no word "Trinity" in the Bible in any version of any language
The oldest forms of Christianity do not support the 'born again' beliefs
Jesus of the English Bible complains about the 'crucifixion'
("Eli! Eli! Lama sabachthani? - My God! My God! Why have You forsaken me?") [Mk 15:34]
How can Jesus be the "Only Begotten Son" of John 3:16? When in Psalms 2:7 David is God's "Begotten Son?"
Would a 'Just' God, a 'Fair' God, a 'Loving' God -- punish Jesus for the sins of the people that he called to follow him?
What happens to people who died before Jesus came?
What happens to those who never hear this message?
What about innocent children who die although their parents are not Christian?
Didn't God create Adam from dirt? -- So, why does he need Mary to make Jesus?
And what about God?
How can God create Himself?
How can God be a man?
How can a man be a God?
How can God have a son?
The Bible says "Seth (is) the son of Adam" and that"Adam is the son of God." [Lk 3:36]
Can't God just forgive us and not have to kill Jesus?
And what about Jesus?
Jesus did not even carry the cross -- Simon Cyre'ne, a passerby did! [Mk 15:21]
Jesus of the Bible was NOT on the cross for longer than six (6) hours -- NOT three days -- (from the 3rd to the 9th hour) [Mk 15:25 & 15:33]
Jesus of the Bible did not spend three days and nights in the tomb -- Friday night - until Sunday before dawn -- is not 3 days and nights!
Jesus DID NOT claim to be God - or even equal to God!
I can answer everyone of these questions, without study. You need the spirit of THE TRUE GOD to know.
Reply

Nawal89
02-27-2006, 08:17 PM
^then why dont you go ahead?
Reply

sevenxtrust
02-27-2006, 08:23 PM
Originally Posted by Nawal89
^then why dont you go ahead?
I will, but I also ask your patience as I write these out first, than transfer them to this forum.

Thank You for this privilege, and thanks be to My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and my God through him.
Reply

*Hana*
02-27-2006, 09:01 PM
Turin:

But perhaps you belong to the “Hana_Aku school of Islamic Thought” and you will tell me that what we see in Saudi Arabia “is not real Islam”.
Don't be slashin' Hana_Aku :mmokay: This is not MY school of thought. Every Muslim knows there is no compulsion in Islam and when someone, regardless of their rank or Power, forces others to do something and inflict punishment not established in the Qur'an or Sunnah....it is man-made. As I said before, there is no earthly punishment on me for not wearing hijab, paying zakat, praying, etc., but on the day of judgement....be sure I will answer for that! Committing murder, rape, theft, etc., that's different...we are given boundries and stepping outside of those boundries warrants punishment. These crimes and just punishments are well known in Islam, and they apply to all, not just a select a few.

So, it's not complicated...if it's not taught in Islam, it's man-made. If you really want to prove these things are 100% Islamic...bring the verses and authentic Hadith.

And no more slashin' Hana. :X

Hana
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-27-2006, 09:24 PM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
I will quote for you what the Saudi government says about itself on the following official link

http://www.saudinf.com/main/c2.htm

“The Courts/Judiciary in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia now issues its rulings/judgments/decisions on the basis of what is stated in the Holy Qur’an and on the Sunna (practices/mode of life) of the Prophet”
1. This doesn't help you if you don't understand Shari'ah law. There is nothing in the Qur'an and Sunnah which prescribes the punishment you quoted and there is not a single muslim scholar - including Saudis - on the face of this planet who would dispute this claim with me. The punishment referred to was Ta'zir, meaning discretionary. The same is true for other punishments, such as traffic violations, drug trafficking, and all the other offences for which Islam has not prescribed a punishment. For these, Ta'zir punishments are given.

The Saudi government says so
There is a difference between the Saudi government and the Saudi scholars. You neglected to respond to my point that the SAUDI GOVERNMENT ARRESTS SAUDI SCHOLARS.

2. The second point is related to what you have said:
But perhaps you belong to the “Hana_Aku school of Islamic Thought” and you will tell me that what we see in Saudi Arabia “is not real Islam”.
Well the fact is that Saudi is arresting their own Muslim scholars, so it is not an issue of schools of thought!

Why should I believe you? Are you really a better and more respected Quranic scholar than the hundreds of Saudi Ulama who spend their entire lives interpreting your sacred book?
The Saudi Ulama who I told you were arrested??

If the Saudi Ulama get arrested by the Saudi government then how cna you attribut the governments actions to the Saudi Ulama?!
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-27-2006, 09:57 PM
And now going back to your other post. How is it possible that when I present to you the living, existing, real example that I want for the world you say:

“Saudi Arabia is not my best example. The Islamic State under the rule of Umar ibn Al-Khattab is.”

Why don’t you give me an example from Fairyland? Why should I believe the Islamic legends about those days any more than in believe in what the Brothers Grimm wrote? What would you think of me if I say that my ideal society is that of King Arthur and the Round Table? Do you realize that anything from those days is impossible to verify? All we have are legends written by Muslims for Muslims, saying things like “back then there was peace in the world, all men were kind and truthful and all women were beautiful as gazelles” Why on Earth would I believe on anything that cannot be proven by an impartial observer?

But even more. How is it possible that you are preaching as ideal for today a system that only worked TWELVE HUNDRED years ago? How is it possible that it never worked again? At least two hundred years ago, so that some independent historian might furnish us with unbiased information? Perhaps three hundred years ago?

There ARE a few countries that call themselves Islamic today: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan. The Taliban, when they ruled, also called themselves Islamic. Why don’t you choose one of those examples to present as your ideal society?

Perhaps you see my problem: if that is the best we can get from a system that calls itself Islamic, how do we know that it will be different when you are in charge of deciding what is Islamic and what is not? How do we know that we are going to get the wonderful days of Umar ibn Al-Khattab instead of the not-so-wonderful of the Saudi Princes?

By the way, I just read in the news a moment ago that there was a bombing of a Sunni mosque this time in Baghdad. The Shias did it. But according to you all Muslims agree on the content of the Quran , because there is absolutely no ambiguity in it, so it has to be a mistake made by the news agency. Sunnis and Shias, devout Muslims, are not killing each other as I read. Probably I just thought I had read something like that.
Reply

*Hana*
02-27-2006, 10:03 PM
By the way, I just read a moment ago that there was a bombing of a Sunni mosque this time in Baghdad. The Shias did it. But all Muslims agree on the content of the Quran according to you, because there is absolutely no ambiguity in it, so it has to be a mistake. Probably I just thought I read it.
What exactly do you mean by that?? It doesn't make any sense. :?
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-27-2006, 11:27 PM
Ansar Al-‘Adl,

I forgot one thing in my previous post! You say that what the Saudi regime does is not based on Islam because they arrest and persecute the ulama. Your words were:

“If the Saudi Ulama get arrested by the Saudi government then how cna you attribut the governments actions to the Saudi Ulama?!”

That is obviously nonsense but today it is easy to prove as nonsense. I will quote again from Amnesty International:

“Vaguely worded laws facilitate the arbitrary administration of justice, and the imprisonment of individuals on political or religious grounds. Fatwa (edict) No. 148, issued by the Council of Senior 'Ulama (religious scholars) in August 1988, prescribes a mandatory death penalty for the loosely defined crimes of "sabotage" and "corruption on earth". Such laws invite arbitrary arrests, which are often carried out with unnecessary use of violence.”

So you see, there is a Council of Senior Ulama that decides who is to live and who is to die in that country.

Why is it then that some Ulama are arrested and persecuted? Easy. It is called infighting and backstabbing. Some Ulama are persecuting other Ulama, no doubt based on perfectly Islamic principles. After all, there has to be one “uber-Ulama” who will Rule Them All.

What is so strange after all about Muslims persecuting and killing other Muslims? I see that every day. As I told you, I have a TV.
Reply

Sister Khadija
02-28-2006, 12:23 AM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
What is so strange after all about Muslims persecuting and killing other Muslims? I see that every day. As I told you, I have a TV.
Peace be with you,

If you know the story as to why there is a division betoween Shiites and Sunnis then you would know the answer to this.

There is to be no division and a section broke off after Muhammed passed away.

Just because you see it on TV does not mean you have the brain of those individuals to know what they are doing and why and it doesnt mean thay are being truly Islamic.

Salaam,
sister Khadija
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-28-2006, 01:26 AM
To Hana_Aku,

I just corrected my previous post to make it easier for you to understand. So now you are helping me make my point clear? I told you, if we keep arguing on this forum, we might even fall in love...;)
Reply

*Hana*
02-28-2006, 01:48 AM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
To Hana_Aku,

I just corrected my previous post to make it easier for you to understand. So now you are helping me make my point clear? I told you, if we keep arguing on this forum, we might even fall in love...;)
:muddlehea no fear of that I can assure you.

Well, as you've been told many times...these are humans, they are far from perfect. Muslims killing Muslims (unless as punishment under the Shariah Law), is not permitted, we were told not to break into sects, but it happens. Still, I will reiterate what we keep telling you....The religion is perfect, it's followers are not.

Peace,
Hana
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-28-2006, 02:36 AM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
Do you realize that anything from those days is impossible to verify?
Sheer nonsense. There is no historian who disputes the concrete historical evidence conerning that time, and YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS LINK I KEEP GIVING YOU:

MUSLIM HERITAGE

Are the above 'fairly tales'?! No! It is indisputed historical evidence.

But even more. How is it possible that you are preaching as ideal for today a system that only worked TWELVE HUNDRED years ago?
Not 12 hundred years ago, it worked for 12 hundred years!!

It worked until the collapse of the Islamic empire.

Why don’t you choose one of those examples to present as your ideal society?
So I can only talk about Islamic civilization after the ten centuries when the Islamic empire was the most advanced civilization in the world; I can only talk about Islamic civilization after the western colonial powers invaded and ravaged the Muslim countries? Very intelligent, Turin. That's like saying I can only talk about how good my house is after you destroy it!!

Let's play fair - if you want Muslims to bring an example from their worst time, then that means Christians must bring an example from the middle ages and Jews must bring an example from the time of the holocaust.

Even today, there is also no ideal Christian nation in the world either. The western countries whom you would point to as 'christian nations' already went through the seperation of Church and state. They are secular now.

Sunnis and Shias, devout Muslims, are not killing each other as I read. Probably I just thought I had read something like that.
Another instance of absorbign material from the TV without critical analysis. Did the Shias say, "The only reason we are going to blow up this Sunni Mosque is because we have been commanded to in Islam. That is the only reason." No, of course not. Muslims are not robots, they have emotions too. Anger, fear, revenge, sorrow. These incidents have absolutely nothing to do with Islamic teachings, but the political situation in the Middle East.

That is obviously nonsense but today it is easy to prove as nonsense.
It is not nonsense, I gave you three names confirmed by Amnesty International themselves. You think the scholars I mentioned were nobodys? Shaykh Muhaisany and Shaykh Hudhaify were the Imaams at the Holy Ka'ba!

“Vaguely worded laws facilitate the arbitrary administration of justice, and the imprisonment of individuals on political or religious grounds. Fatwa (edict) No. 148, issued by the Council of Senior 'Ulama (religious scholars) in August 1988, prescribes a mandatory death penalty for the loosely defined crimes of "sabotage" and "corruption on earth". Such laws invite arbitrary arrests, which are often carried out with unnecessary use of violence.”
This means that the scholars say that criminals who bring about bloodshed and corruption should be punished. Anything wrong with that? No. Then the Saudi Government takes this and under the pretence of justice and fighting corruption, they commit human rights abuses. Anything wrong with that? Definitely. So who does the blame go on - Saudi Government or Saudi Scholars? The Saudi government, obviously.

So you see, there is a Council of Senior Ulama that decides who is to live and who is to die in that country.
No there isn't. I am amazed at your inability to understand plain english. The scholars simply stated that blooshed and corruption should be punished. It is the Saudi government which decideds how to interpret and implement their statements.

Some Ulama are persecuting other Ulama, no doubt based on perfectly Islamic principles.
Examples? Any? Even one?
After all, there has to be one “uber-Ulama” who will Rule Them All.
Please tell me who this "uber-Alim" is. (sing. Alim, pl. Ulama).

As I told you, I have a TV.
Having a TV is one thing, using it as a substitute for your cerebral cortex is another.
Reply

muslimahh
02-28-2006, 02:55 AM
What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Islam and Christianity..... the thread started with an open challenge to Christians, what a diversion.

Here are some questions I would like answered from my Chrisitians friends here on the forum.

If Jesus was divine or even the 'son of God' why did his companions not bow down to him and worship him in their time? especially since technically, you should be emulating them best you can.

If Jesus was divine or the 'Son of God' why then did he eat, drink, sleep and have bodily processes identical to those as humans?

If Jesus died for a few days and was resurrected, are you saying that he, as a 'divine being' was dead? The man you claim was God resurrected himself then?

Which is more difficult, being created without a father as Jesus was, or both Adam and Eve being created with no mother and father?

Do you not believe in Abraham? What did Abraham do? He broke the idols...why then do you use these same idols to pray?

Why do you ask your priests for forgiveness and speak to them for confession? Do you not think that God can hear you wherever He is? Why not then pray directly to Him and ask for His forgiveness?

If you are worshipping God in church, why then do the church singers face the crowd? Are you praying to God or entertaining yourselves?

I have a bunch more but I will leave it at that.

Islam answers each of these questions....Jesus (peace be upon him) is a prophet of God, he was not killed but was raised alive by God. Idols are not needed to pray to the ONE God, nor are intercessors, we do not ask priests to forgive us, rather we ask God directly. We pray to God directly, no middle men or women. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a man and a prophet, nothing more. God cannot die, nor does He have any sons or daughters. He is free of all needs.
Reply

Turin Turambar
02-28-2006, 05:57 AM
Ansar Al-'Adl,

Remember that it is YOU who said that “Saudi Arabia is not my best example. The Islamic State under the rule of Umar ibn Al-Khattab is.” YOU were referring to an example of 1,200 years ago. You didn’t say “The Islamic Empire that collapsed in 1922 is my best example”

Nobody can pretend than the Ottoman Empire of 1922 was an “ideal Islamic Empire”. If you have any doubt, ask any Armenian whose relatives were killed in the Genocide perpetrated by Muslims troops. Your “ideal Islamic Empire” perhaps existed in the 7th century, although I certainly don’t believe it, but it didn’t exist in 1922 because that is a matter of history. And it certainly doesn’t exist TODAY, and that is what matters for me because I am alive TODAY and I want to live under a good decent regime TODAY.

And why are you doubting that some Ulama are persecuting other Ulama? The Council of Senior Ulama is still there, isn’t it? Or was it replaced by a representative democratic Congress? If it wasn’t, it means that your beloved Shaykh Muhaisany and Shaykh Hudhaify were arrested under laws approved by the Council of Senior Ulama. Laws like that one denounced by Amnesty International. My point stands. Some Ulama are persecuting other Ulama and somehow I am not surprised.

And please don’t mention again that “Muslim heritage” link. I already went there, believe me. According to that website the last Muslim who was able to discover anything died approximately in the year 1,300. Why should we care now? When are you going to begin living in the reality of today and not in your dreams of centuries ago? Perhaps you should stop counting words in your book and buy a TV after all.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-28-2006, 01:46 PM
Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
Remember that it is YOU who said that “Saudi Arabia is not my best example. The Islamic State under the rule of Umar ibn Al-Khattab is.” YOU were referring to an example of 1,200 years ago.
Your fallacy was that you misinterpreted the fact that my best example was 1,200 years ago, to mean that I had no example for the remaining 1,200 years!

If you have any doubt, ask any Armenian whose relatives were killed in the Genocide perpetrated by Muslims troops.
MYTH!
Was The Ottomon Caliphate Responsible for the “Armenian Genocide”?

This is too easy. :D Everyone of your allegations has already been refuted.

And why are you doubting that some Ulama are persecuting other Ulama?
U...because you haven't brought any evidence!

The Council of Senior Ulama is still there, isn’t it?
Yes, and members of the council such as Shaykh Ibn Jibreen have also been arrested!!

If it wasn’t, it means that your beloved Shaykh Muhaisany and Shaykh Hudhaify were arrested under laws approved by the Council of Senior Ulama.
These two scholars ARE senior scholars in Saudi! They lead the prayers and deliver the sermons at the two holy mosques.

You say that "[they] were arrested under laws approved by the Council of Senior Ulama". Maybe you could provide evidence? A fatwa? Any? Not even one?

Oh yes, I forgot you don't have evidence. You just have a TV.

Laws like that one denounced by Amnesty International.
Which laws? Did you even read what I wrote about your quote?

Some Ulama are persecuting other Ulama and somehow I am not surprised.
]Can you provide an example of even ONE SAUDI SCHOLAR who was involved in 'persecuting' another? No? Not even one?

According to that website the last Muslim who was able to discover anything died approximately in the year 1,300.
Which happens to be right after the Mongol invasion, the barbaric crusades, and the fall of granada and the burning of all the Muslim books. And anyway, that is not true, take a look at this list taken from Wikipedia:
XVth century
1400s - 1500s - [related] Third wave of devastation of Muslim resources, lives, properties, institutions, and infrastructure. End of Muslim rule in Spain (1492). More than one million volumes of Muslim works on science, arts, philosophy and culture was burnt in the public square of Vivarrambla in Granada. Colonization began in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Refer to "A Chronology of Muslim History Parts IV, V (e.g., 1455, 1494, 1500, 1510, 1524, and 1538)" (src: http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/ .)
1400s [mathematics] Ibn al-Banna and al-Qalasadi used symbols for mathematics in the 15th century "and, although we do not know exactly when their use began, we know that symbols were used at least a century before this." [1]
1400s - [astronomy and mathematics] Ibn Masoud (Ghayyathuddin Jamshid ibn mohamed ibn mas`oud, d. 1424 or 1436.) First to use the decimal point in arithmetic. Wrote on the decimal system. First to introduce the zero (indian mathematicians had used only nine glyphs for numerals). Computed and observed the solar eclipses of 809AH, 810AH and 811AH, after being invited by Ulugh Bek, based in Samarqand to pursue his study of mathematics, astronomy and physics. His works include "The Key of arithmetics"; "Discoveries in mathematics"; "The Decimal point"; "the benefits of the zero". The contents of the Benefits of the Zero are an introduction followed by five essays: On whole number arithmetic; On fractional arithmetic; on astrology; on areas; on finding the unknowns [unknown variables]. He also wrote a "Thesis on the sine and the chord"; "thesis on the circumference" in which he found the ratio of the circumference to the [[[radius]] of a circle to the 16th decimal; "The garden of gardens" or "promenade of the gardens" describing an instrument he devised and used at the Samarqand observatory to compile an ephemeris, and for computing solar and lunar eclipses; The ephemeresis "Zayj Al-Khaqani" which also includes mathematical tables and corrections of the ephemeresis by Al-Tusi; "Thesis on finding the first degree sine"; and more.
1411 [mathematics] Al-Kashi writes Compendium of the Science of Astronomy [5].
1424 [mathematics] Al-Kashi writes Treatise on the Circumference giving a remarkably good approximation to pi in both sexagesimal and decimal forms [5].
1427 [mathematics] Al-Kashi completes The Key to Arithmetic containing work of great depth on decimal fractions. It applies arithmetical and algebraic methods to the solution of various problems, including several geometric ones and is one of the best textbooks in the whole of medieval literature [5].
1437 [mathematics] Ulugh Beg publishes his star catalogue Zij-i Sultani. It contains trigonometric tables correct to eight decimal places based on Ulugh Beg's calculation of the sine of one degree which he calculated correctly to 16 decimal places [5].
[edit]
XVIth century
[edit]
XVIIth century
1600s [flight; rocketry] Turkish scientist Hezarfen Ahmet Celebi took off from Galata tower and flew over the Bosphorus. Lagari Hasan Çelebi, another member of the Celebi family, sent the first manned rocket, using 150 okka (about 300 pounds) of gunpowder as the firing fuel. This is more than two hundred years before similar attempts in Modern Europe and the United States.
1600s [mathematics] The Arabic mathematician Mohammed Baqir Yazdi gave the pair of amicable numbers 9,363,584 and 9,437,056 still many years before Euler's contribution [1].
[edit]
XVIIIth century
1783 - 1799 - [rocketry] Tipu, Sultan of Mysore [1783-1799] in the south of India, was the innovator of the world's first war rocket. Two of his rockets, captured by the British at Srirangapatana, are displayed in the Woolwich Royal Artillery Museum in London. The rocket motor casing was made of steel with multiple nozzles. The rocket, 50mm in diameter and 250mm long, had a range performance of 900 meters to 1.5 km. (src: http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/).
So it seems you were wrong...again. Despite the burning of our books, the massacres of our people, Muslim scientists have continued to contribute to science and technology, even in the modern age.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-14-2011, 02:06 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 06:05 AM
  3. Replies: 75
    Last Post: 01-07-2007, 06:36 PM
  4. Replies: 168
    Last Post: 03-07-2006, 01:32 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!