Why Christianity is False

[Talha777]

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficient, the Most Merciful

Allah Glorified and Exalted is He says in the Holy Quran:

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah
(Al Maidah 5:46)

Islam teaches about Jesus, the Promised Messiah (peace be upon him), that he was sent to confirm the Law which was revealed before him, and that the nature of his revelation, the Gospel, was only to confirm and strengthen that Law which before Allah had revealed to Moses (peace be upon him). The laws and regulations which Allah reveals is not a burden or something that should be resented, rather it is a real blessing as it gives mankind guidance to lead their lives in a good way and become righteous. Righteousness means to obey Allah, so how can one be righteous if there is nothing to obey? But with regard to Christianity, its true founder (Paul of Tarsus) taught the Law of God is a curse, and that Jesus abolished this Law because it was a curse:

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'" (Galatians 3:13)

Leaving aside Paul's absurdity that one curse can substitute or relieve another, the point here is that he considered the Law a curse. He considered heavenly guidance to be too great a burden for man to endure (especially his potential gentile converts). So he began to proclaim that Jesus had come to totally abolish the Law:

"by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace" (Ephesians 2:15)

Now the true colors and motivation of Paul's deviant theology is revealed. The reason he propogated that Jesus abolished the Law with its commandments and regulations was so the gentiles, who were adverse to the strict Mosaic law and were more inclined to paganistic idolatrous hedonism, could also join the church which Jesus established without having to make any significant sacrifice. Paul was no doubt a satanic agent sent by Hell to twist Jesus's teaching by adding pagan doctrines and concepts and thereby creating a new religion separate and cut off from its Israelite roots. Jesus in fact warned against such "wolves in sheep's clothing":

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." (Matthew 7:15)

From the words of Jesus himself, it is clear he never intended to do away with the Law of Moses, and I will quote to your several proofs for this:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

This saying of Jesus completely repudiates Paul's contention that Jesus came to abolish the law with its commandments and regulations. Jesus didn't come to abolish, but to fulfill, to uphold it, to fulfill the prophecies that point to him (which is why he mentioned the Prophets as well as the Law in this particular verse). Some Christian apologists will say that by fulfilling the Law, Jesus completed it or finished it. However, if we examine this verse in context we see that this was definitely not Jesus's intention:

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-20)

Jesus has so emphasized following the Law for his followers that he even warned them that in this regard they must even surpass the righteousness of the strict observant Pharisees and teachers of the Law otherwise they will be denied entrance into the kingdom of Heaven. This whole concept is the exact opposite of Paul's idea that works and deeds are not the standard of salvation. In fact, Jesus made clear that even believing in him is not enough to guarantee salvation:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)

So it is doing the Father's will, it is obeying His laws and commandments which will make one enter the kingdom of heaven, rather than simply believing in Jesus as mainstream Christians zealously believe.

Jesus even went further to state that although the Pharisees and teachers of the Law are hypocrites because they do not practice what they preach, nonetheless Jesus's followers must follow exactly what they teach. And what do the teachers of the Law teach if not the Law?

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you." (Matthew 23:2-3)

Part of the reason Allah revealed the Holy Quran and sent the Seal of Prophets, Muhammad (peace and blessings upon him) was to restore the original message of Jesus and to refute the Pauline and trinitarian deviations. The Holy Quran explains that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the Messiah, and the Messiah was meant to be sent for the Children of Israel only:

And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me
(As Saff 61:6)

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)

And when Jesus was sending out his twelve disciples to preach his Gospel, he gave them strict instructions not to venture into the towns of the gentiles and samaritans:

"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.'" (Matthew 10:5-6)

All this clearly shows Jesus (peace be upon him) was a Messenger of God but was sent only for the Israelites, and unlike what Paul taught, not for the gentiles or goyim as well...

[AntiKarateKid]

We as Muslim's acknowledge the errors in the Bible which the prophet (pbuh) corrected. I object to the title of the thread, not it's contents. If you with to get a point across, then please don't make such an inflammatory title which would undermine the lessons of the article and put on the defensive any people looking to find information about Islam. Just my 2 cents.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Talha777;

Whilst Christianity might be fake for you, I see the teachings of Jesus as a great inspiration. I did not read any of your post simply because of the title.

We are stuck with the same God, and the God who created you also created me. There is a great need in this world to look after God's creation, and that comes down to looking after each other despite all our differences.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

[truemuslim]

^^^ his post is too big isnt it? lol oh well i read it...thanks bro

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

[Pygoscelis]

While I actually agree that Christianity is false, I too find the title of the thread overly inflamatory. I'd rather put it "christianity is false" or "christians are mistaken". The word "Fake" makes it sound like they are being dishonest about their beliefs. I think they are sincere.

And that being said, I see no reason to see Islam as any more true than christianity. So be careful what you write as it may come back to haunt you.

[Keltoi]

Mosaic Law is divided into three parts. Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral.

The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel's worship. Since its primary purpose was to point to the coming Savior, Jesus made it unnecessary. He did not abolish it, in the sense of destroying it; He fulfilled it. Nowhere do we read that Jesus thought that the ceremonial law was wrong. The principles behind the ceremonial law are still applicable to us today, that is, the principles of worshipping and serving a holy God.

The civil law prescribed rules for the Israelites' daily living. These laws separated the Jews from the Gentiles, and gave the Gentiles the example of how a holy people should live. Since much was given to the Jews, much was expected. But God gave a new covenant in Christ, and there is now no distinction to be made between Jew and Gentile. We are still to follow the requirements of this law as God's people, but the punishments are not for any nation to impose on its people, because we are no longer separated by nations but by God's grace (Christians and non-Christians).

The moral law is basically the Ten Commandments. We are still bound by these laws, not for salvation, but to live a holy life. Jesus not only desired that His followers adhere to these commandments, He wished that they would go above and beyond them. He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." He desired not only an outward observance of these laws, but an inward observance as well.

Ritualistic law is another area where Christ's purpose saw fulfillment of these laws. Jesus, the Messiah, is the ultimate, perpetual, atonement for man's sin debt. There is nothing further that man can offer as atonement for sin; all such attempts belittle the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Further, it is God, who makes us acceptable, through faith in Jesus, something the Law of Purification could never do. Abstaining from certain foods, ablutions, etc. does not make one holy and/or acceptable before God, it never has.

[Pygoscelis]

The moral law is basically the Ten Commandments.

Why do I always hear Christians putting emphasis on the Ten Commandments while the sermon on the mount is hardly ever mentioned?

[Joe98]

Why Christianity is fake

Talha77 - Way of Life: Muslim


Muslims believe the bible is corrupted. Therefore quoting from the bible to prove you're point is a dumb idea.

If you want to prove your point, show is scientific evidence.

The reality is, no religion has any scientific evidence of it's truth. It is all faith based.

-

[truemuslim]

^^^ no not really... if u aint got proof its not a religion...btw proof aint the puzzle section ina newspaper

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

Why do I always hear Christians putting emphasis on the Ten Commandments while the sermon on the mount is hardly ever mentioned?

Or Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, and this has a profound meaning that can be experienced in many churches on the Thursday before Easter.

Jesus saying what you do to the least of these brothers of mine, so you do unto me.

James 1
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship

Eric

[caroline]

Why do I always hear Christians putting emphasis on the Ten Commandments while the sermon on the mount is hardly ever mentioned?

The Ten Commandments are the don'ts. The Sermon on the Mount is the do's and it requires action.

The do's are more demanding.

[caroline]

The moral law is basically the Ten Commandments. We are still bound by these laws, not for salvation, but to live a holy life. .

Jesus was very clear that one has to adhere to the law or they would not make it into heaven.

His words:

7 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[alcurad]

so the above post being correct means that 'paul' will not enter the kingdom of heaven?
that said, I believe paul changed so much of what the prophet jesus-peace be upon him- taught because he wasnt accepted by the jews. Did the other disciples do as he did and actively went to convert the gentiles?

[caroline]

so the above post being correct means that 'paul' will not enter the kingdom of heaven?
that said, I believe paul changed so much of what the prophet jesus-peace be upon him- taught because he wasnt accepted by the jews. Did the other disciples do as he did and actively went to convert the gentiles?

Well, it does seem that Paul contradicted Jesus in some ways. I am now studying the history of the Christian Church and am wondering if the religion might more aptly be called "Paulism."

[Pygoscelis]

The Ten Commandments are the don'ts. The Sermon on the Mount is the do's and it requires action.

The do's are more demanding.

Looking them up again, I see that the first 5 of the ten commandments are actually just God telling you to obey. Only half of the 10 commandments have anything to do with actual morality.

The sermon on the mount sounds far more useful. It is also far harder to follow (if not impossible) though.

[AntiKarateKid]

I see nothing wrong with God telling us to obey him. God is the reason why we live and continue living. Nothing can be gained by not following him. Life is a test and you follow him to pass it.

[Qingu]

Jesus was very clear that one has to adhere to the law or they would not make it into heaven.

His words:

7 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I agree with you, I think Jesus definitely makes it clear that the Old Testament laws should be followed in this verse.

So you think you should kill unbelievers and anyone who tries to convert you, as the laws in Deuteronomy 13 command?

Do you think slavery should be legal (Lev. 25:45) and that, in warfare, the opposing side should be enslaved if they surrender (Dt. 20:10)?

Do you believe someone who rapes an unbetrothed virgin should be forced to pay her father the brideprice and marry her? (Dt. 22:28)

Something tells me that you don't believe in the moral laws of your own scriptures. Most Christians don't. Most Christians are wholly ignorant of the moral content of the Bible. And if they aren't ignorant of it, they're so squeamish about it that they'll do whatever they can to ignore or "reinterpret" it to suit the modern enlightenment morality which they hold even higher.

[Umar001]

Interesting..

Jesus says follow the Law.
The Law says kill someone who tries to convert a jew to follow another God.
Law says Man is not God and thus people who believe so are converting Jews.
Kill such people who convert Jews aka kill Christians.

[Qingu]

Interesting..

Jesus says follow the Law.
The Law says kill someone who tries to convert a jew to follow another God.
Law says Man is not God and thus people who believe so are converting Jews.
Kill such people who convert Jews aka kill Christians.

Unfortunately, you're not in a position to take the high moral ground here. The punishment for apostasy in Islam is also death.

[chacha_jalebi]

Unfortunately, you're not in a position to take the high moral ground here. The punishment for apostasy in Islam is also death.

i think you made a spellin mistake in your name mate:D

dont you mean pingu :embarrass
....

[Umar001]

Unfortunately, you're not in a position to take the high moral ground here. The punishment for apostasy in Islam is also death.

Well I'll at least take it head on that I believe that.

Also have you read the conditions for the way the punishment is carried out? That's interesting too. Maybe on that note I do have a position to take the Moral High Ground. ;)

[Qingu]

i think you made a spellin mistake in your name mate:D

dont you mean pingu :embarrass
....

NOBODY calls me Pingu! NOBODY!

Take it back!

[Qingu]

Well I'll at least take it head on that I believe that.

Also have you read the conditions for the way the punishment is carried out? That's interesting too. Maybe on that note I do have a position to take the Moral High Ground. ;)

What are the conditions for killing unbelievers and apostates in Islam? Or are you referring to the way the unbeliever is killed? Beheading, as opposed to stoning?

I guess if I had to be killed for the crime of not believing in a 1,500 year old book written by desert nomads, I would prefer to be beheaded rather than stoned to death. That's quite a moral high ground Islam has!

[glo]

Jesus was very clear that one has to adhere to the law or they would not make it into heaven.

His words:

7 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I am by no means a Bible scholar, but I think to just look at this passage on its own is too simplistic ...

When I look at Jesus' own examples throughout his life I see that I have to look deeper.

On several occasions is Jesus himself reported to have broken the laws:
He broke the Sabbath laws by healing on the Sabbath and instructing a healed man to carry his own mat on the Sabbath.
He broke the cleanliness laws by allowing his disciples to eat without first washing their hands.
He intervened and prevented the stoning of an adulteress.
(These are just a few that spring to mind at 11.30 a night ...)

So how then can Jesus tell us to keep the law, if he didn't himself???!

Reading through the gospel, the entire message of Jesus' teaching seems to be that it is never good enough to 'just obey the law for the sake of obeying it' ...
Compassion for his fellow men seems to overrule the law alone:

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
(Matthew 12: 1-8)

He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." (Matthew 12: 11-12)

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27-28)

Jesus also said that all the laws could be compressed into these two:

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
(Mark 12: 29-31)

On the sermon of the Mount Jesus tells us how far we really have to go to obey the law. Just following the letter by far isn't enough:
He equates looking at a woman lustfully with committing adultery - punishable by death according to the Law.
He equates having angry thoughts about another person with committing murder - also punishable by death according to the Law.
He tells us to turn the other cheek, to walk the extra mile, to forgive, to love not just our friends but our enemies too, and to not judge others unless we are perfect ourselves ...

In short, he asks what is humanly impossible!
Who has not ever coveted something that wasn't his?
Who has not had judgmental thoughts about others?
Who has not had angry thoughts about others?

The bottom line of Christ's message is this:
We cannot do it. None of us can! If entering the kingdom of heaven is dependent on us adhering to all those laws, then we are all in trouble!
Without God's grace and mercy we cannot get there!

That's not to say that we shouldn't strive to keep the laws.
In fact I would say that following God fills you with the desire to do so.
But however hard we try, we will never be good enough in our own strength ...

Here endeth the sermon!
Gotta stop rambling now. :D

Peace :)

[Qingu]

Jesus justified his breaking the laws because he is God.

Also: do you think it is immoral to own slaves and kill unbelievers? I mean, I recognize that Christians are no longer obliged to follow the laws, because you don't have to follow laws to be saved anymore. But would it be wrong to follow them? Shouldn't we try to follow them the best we can?

[BlackMamba]

There is not ONE unequivocal statement in the entire Bible that has Jesus saying he is God and ordering people to worship him. Not ONE. can u believe this, and this is wat Christians base their entire religion on. LOL. And in fact, there are many verses in the bible that point towards Islamic monotheism. Quotes from Jesus saying that only God is all-powerful. In our Quran, it says time and time again that Allah is one and to worship only Allah.

[glo]

Jesus justified his breaking the laws because he is God.

Nice to see an atheist state that Jesus is God. Halleluja!! :D

Also: do you think it is immoral to own slaves and kill unbelievers?

Are you asking me personally?
Then the answer most certainly is, yes, I do think it is immoral ...

I mean, I recognize that Christians are no longer obliged to follow the laws, because you don't have to follow laws to be saved anymore. But would it be wrong to follow them? Shouldn't we try to follow them the best we can?

If you read my above post you will hopefully understand my own position on this. If not, then I am not sure what else to say. I don't think I can explain it any better ...

Perhaps these sentences from my previous post sum it up best;

Reading through the gospel, the entire message of Jesus' teaching seems to be that it is never good enough to 'just obey the law for the sake of obeying it' ...
Compassion for his fellow men seems to overrule the law alone

and

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
(Mark 12: 29-31)

Now, this is my personal understanding only. There may be Christians who would disagree with me - I cannot speak for those. I can only speak for myself.

I believe (according to what I wrote earlier) that we have the responsibility to seek God's will in every situation. That requires much more than just following a set of laws, and ticking them off as you go along ...

I am aware that if I felt so inclined I would not have to search long in scripture to find verses which seem to support hatred and threats against homosexuals, adulterers, non-believers, sinners in any way shape or form, etc, etc.
Some people do just that. Most don't. I certainly don't.

Through prayer and through the example of Jesus I just don't believe that is the right way.
That is my personal understanding and I take personal responsiblity for it.
I believe that one day I will have to justify myself before God for it.

And should he say "Why didn't you stone prostitutes and homosexuals like I instructed you?" or "Didn't I tell you clearly that Muhammed was my last Prophet?" - then all I can say is "Lord, I did the best I could to my best understanding ..."

I am not sure I have answered your question, but it has been very useful for me to ponder.
Thanks for bearing with me. I do have a habit of rambling ... :D

Peace

[glo]

There is not ONE unequivocal statement in the entire Bible that has Jesus saying he is God and ordering people to worship him. Not ONE. can u believe this, and this is wat Christians base their entire religion on. LOL. And in fact, there are many verses in the bible that point towards Islamic monotheism. Quotes from Jesus saying that only God is all-powerful. In our Quran, it says time and time again that Allah is one and to worship only Allah.

I do not usually resort to copying and pasting from internet sites - it is much more fun searching scripture for myself.
But today, on Christmas Eve, I am quite busy with other preparations, so I will make an exception.
Incidentally, it is something we have discussed in this section so many times, that I will just leave thos post standing as it is, rather than getting into lengthy debates about it ...

Question: "Is Jesus God? Did Jesus ever claim to be God?"

Answer: Jesus is never recorded in the Bible as saying the exact words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” At first glance, this might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement, “We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood Jesus’ statement to be a claim to be God. In the following verses, Jesus never corrects the Jews by saying, “I did not claim to be God.” That indicates Jesus was truly saying He was God by declaring, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" Again, in response, the Jews take up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus (John 8:59). Why would the Jews want to stone Jesus if He hadn’t said something they believed to be blasphemous, namely, a claim to be God?

John 1:1 says that “the Word was God.” John 1:14 says that “the Word became flesh.” This clearly indicates that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, "...Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood." Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. Acts 20:28 declares that God purchased the church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!

Thomas the disciple declared concerning Jesus, “Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him. Titus 2:13 encourages us to wait for the coming of our God and Savior - Jesus Christ (see also 2 Peter 1:1). In Hebrews 1:8, the Father declares of Jesus, "But about the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom."

In Revelation, an angel instructed the Apostle John to only worship God (Revelation 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9,17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. If Jesus were not God, He would have told people to not worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation had. There are many other verses and passages of Scripture that argue for Jesus’ deity.

You have to ask yourself, why would Jesus (if he was a prophet from God, rather than God himself) allow people to worship him or make references of deity about him??
That would have been an outrageous sin! In fact so much so that it did outrage the Jews of the time.
It would be shirk! It would be idolatry! As a faithful prophet of God, Jesus would never have allowed this to happen.

Peace

[Pygoscelis]

I see nothing wrong with God telling us to obey him. God is the reason why we live and continue living. Nothing can be gained by not following him. Life is a test and you follow him to pass it.

Depends on your viewpoint I suppose. I see things like this and come to the conclusion that obedience is far more important to the authors of these books and creators of these religions than morality is. It is always "Do as I say" and "Obey me" and never "Do what is right". THe only time it ever suggests to do what is right is to do so out of obedience, not out of any moral sense.

I see things like the first 5 of the 10 commandments and I come to the conclusion that religion burries morality beneath obedience. That I encounter religious people who actually seem to think that morality can not exist without a "law giver" shows that people are in fact confusing obedience and morality and seem to think that obedience IS morality.

Islam itself means "submitter" I am told. The Torah and Bible both contain plenty of stories about obedience, and few about morality.

Then you have stories like Abraham & Isaac pitting obedience directly against morality and the story doesn't end with Abraham saying "no i will not kill my son, it is wrong" and God saying "Very good Abraham you have passed the test, do what is right not what authority tells you", but instead it ends with "Ok God I'll kill for you" and God saying "oh good you'll do whatever I say no matter how immoral. Ok, I was just kidding. Just wanted to test your loyalty" as if God is some kind of mobster.

The Garden of Eden story also falls into this pattern, in that the "forbidden fruit" described in the Bible is labelled there as "the fruit of knowledge of good and evil", showing that God didn't WANT us to know right from wrong and instead just wanted us to obey him. THe funny bit about this is that somehow he expected Adam and Eve to know its "right" to obey him before they ate of the fruit to tell them right from wrong. They could not have known that God is good (if in fact he is) before eating the fruit yet he still expected their obedience.

I expect this obedience over all else theme has served the religions well (to keep the masses in line) and that is why they thrived and spread and survived to be with us today.

[al_islam]

Any one observe the 10 commandments in today's world?

[MustafaMc]

Well, it does seem that Paul contradicted Jesus in some ways. I am now studying the history of the Christian Church and am wondering if the religion might more aptly be called "Paulism."

If one reads the first two chapters of Galatians with a truly open mind, then one can gain an understanding for the origins of Christianity as tracing back to Paul - not to the teachings of Jesus (as), a Prophet sent to the "lost sheep of Israel".

[MustafaMc]

There is a great need in this world to look after God's creation, and that comes down to looking after each other despite all our differences.

See also the parable of the "Good Samaritan" who helped the injured traveler while the priest walked on by.

Or Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, and this has a profound meaning that can be experienced in many churches on the Thursday before Easter.

You rightly focus on the teachings and example of Jesus (as). Were Christians to truly follow, rather than worship, Jesus (as) how different would they be? I suspect that you, along with other Christians such as GraceSeeker, Keltoi, Glo and Caroline truly strive to follow the teachings of Jesus (as) and to live "Christ-like" lives.

[aminahjaan]

How many times was the bible re-written? And how many times was the Quran re-written. Exactly. The Quran was NEVER re-written. The true, book of God to guide us. It states scientific things that have not been discovered since a recent period of time. I can give so many examples. None the less, in Islam, we respect God, we beleive that God is SO great, SO powerful, that none can compare to his strength, so that he can have no child, no family, just ONE. JUST because they were about to stone Jesus, does NOT mean that he claimed to be God. I would prefer not to believe that a human is God. But he had many special miracles, like talking when he was an infant, he wasn't just a man, He was brought up to heaven by God But he doesn't compare to God. If you would like to believe a book that has been changed by many people go ahead. But I believe in a book that has only been from the words of God.

[al_islam]

The Bible was never claimed to be a book written by God and so it contains many erros.

Why would you choose to follow the word of man and not of God.

The Quran was Divine rRvelation and has stood the test of time.

[MustafaMc]

Why do I always hear Christians putting emphasis on the Ten Commandments while the sermon on the mount is hardly ever mentioned?

... and what is the first and most important commandment? Exodus 20:1-5 And God spake all these words, saying, I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (la ilaha Il'Allah) Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of what is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God... Did Moses, Noah, Abraham or David equate Jesus with God? Does God change? Aren't the images of Jesus and Mary in churches today in fact idols and objects of worship?

See also Mark 12:28-30 And one of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together, and knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, What commandment is the first of all? Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one (la ilaha Il'Allah) and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. Note that Jesus (as) did not follow this with, "Therefore worship me, the Father and the Holy Spirit as the three persons of the One God."

[BlackMamba]

Examine these quotes from bible and the tell me if Jesus was god or not.
Jesus saying- " for the Father is greater than I."(John 14:28_
Jesus saying- "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all" (John 10:29)
Jesus saying- "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30)--Now if someone says that, then they are a Muslim. Jesus Christ (PBUH) was a Muslim!:)
So what is the deal with these quotes from the bible, they really hint towards Islamic monotheism. What do u guys think.

[Pygoscelis]

... and what is the first and most important commandment? Exodus 20:1-5 And God spake all these words, saying, I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (la ilaha Il'Allah) Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of what is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God... Did Moses, Noah, Abraham or David equate Jesus with God? Does God change? Aren't the images of Jesus and Mary in churches today in fact idols and objects of worship?

You stress my point for me. These religions are more about obedience to authority than any kind of moral values.

[MustafaMc]

You stress my point for me. These religions are more about obedience to authority than any kind of moral values.

Yes, the purpose of our religion is first and foremeost to establish the proper beliefs and worship of Allah. However, we are also judged by how we treat our fellow creatures and Islam provides direction on that too.

Quran 107:1-7 Have you seen the one who denies the Day of Judgment? He it is who drives away the orphan with harshness and does not encourage the feeding of the poor. So woe to those who offer Salah (prayers), but are neglectful of their Salah (offer Prayers but disregard the very purpose of establishing Salah - to have the fear of Allah and be mindful to the needs of other people); those who make a show of piety and refuse to share the necessities of life.

Also Hadith Qudsi (Holy Hadith)
O son of Adam, I fell ill and you visited Me not. He will say: O Lord, and how should I visit You when You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: Did you not know that My servant So-and-so had fallen ill and you visited him not? Did you not know that had you visited him you would have found Me with him? O son of Adam, I asked you for food and you fed Me not. He will say: O Lord, and how should I feed You when You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: Did you not know that My servant So-and-so asked you for food and you fed him not? Did you not know that had you fed him you would surely have found that (the reward for doing so) with Me? O son of Adam, I asked you to give Me to drink and you gave Me not to drink. He will say: O Lord, how should I give You to drink whin You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: My servant So-and-so asked you to give him to drink and you gave him not to drink. Had you given him to drink you would have surely found that with Me.

Charity is much emphasized in Islam and we are command to forbid the evil and to enforce the good in our communities.

[Imam]

I do not usually resort to copying and pasting from internet sites - it is much more fun searching scripture for myself.
But today, on Christmas Eve, I am quite busy with other preparations, so I will make an exception.

Jesus is never recorded in the Bible as saying the exact words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” At first glance, this might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement, “We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood Jesus’ statement to be a claim to be God. In the following verses, Jesus never corrects the Jews by saying, “I did not claim to be God.”

Greetings

You need to read the text, not in a hurry.....

as a matter of fact such passage in not for the Trinity,it is against it...

such passage and others too,have been refuted several times ,

Question: " Did Jesus ever claim in John 10:34 to be God?"


what of the incident in John 10?

Jesus said 'I and the Father are one'. His opponents reply,

"We are stoning you... for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

He defused this charge of blasphemy, By showing that it is not NECESSARILY blasphemy to claim to be God.
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods'? If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?"

Surely the thrust of Jesus' reply is clear: if it's not blasphemy for part of their Law (Psalm 82) to call certain people 'gods', surely it is not blasphemy if applied to Jesus.

The meaning of this place may be thus expressed:
"You charge me with blasphemy. The foundation of that charge is the use of the name God, or the Son of God, applied to myself; yet that same term is applied in the Scriptures to magistrates. The use of it there shows that it is right to apply it to those who sustain important offices. And especially you, Jews, ought not to attempt to found a charge of blasphemy on the application of a word to the Messiah which in your own Scriptures is applied to all magistrates."

peace

[BlackMamba]

Christians and Muslims that want to learn more about this should watch this debate. It is Zakir Naik vs. an Arab Christian Pastor Rukni.
Zakir Naik destroys him lol. Heres the links to part 1 and part 2. But u gotta check this debate out, its real good.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

[Pygoscelis]

I'm going to view the vids you have posted. Immediately I see that it won't be surpising if the muslim fellow destroys the christian fellow in debate... as the chrisitain fellow is listed as a "faith healer". That right there is embarassing.

Listening to a bit more of his speech I'm finding it just sad. This guy faith healer guy explains orginal sin and Jesus' sacrifice in one of the weakest and most confounding ways I've ever heard.

[wilberhum]

Christians and Muslims that want to learn more about this should watch this debate. It is Zakir Naik vs. an Arab Christian Pastor Rukni.
Zakir Naik destroys him lol. Heres the links to part 1 and part 2. But u gotta check this debate out, its real good.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

How does a debate between two people prove anything other than who is the best debater. :-\

[Pygoscelis]

Ok I take back what i said, the muslim fellow was just as horrible a debater. My favourite argument of his is something like this: Jesus was burried in a large tomb, therefore he was alive. lol! There are more ridiculus non-arguments like this all through his speech.

Really though the muslim guy wins because the christian guy failed to make a single argument on topic. He didn't prove that Jesus died on the cross by referencing purported evidence for it (biblical or otherwise), he hardly even spoke about it.

Just plain sad really.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Ok I take back what i said, the muslim fellow was just as horrible a debater. My favourite argument of his is something like this: Jesus was burried in a large tomb, therefore he was alive. lol! There are more ridiculus non-arguments like this all through his speech.

Yet Zakir Naik seems to have a huge following in the Muslim community. I've never understood it at all. Fair enough, his memory for quoting the Qu'ran and the Bible chapter and verse is somewhat impressive, but that can't save his truly woeful arguments.

Peace

[al_islam]

Greetings,


Yet Zakir Naik seems to have a huge following in the Muslim community. I've never understood it at all. Fair enough, his memory for quoting the Qu'ran and the Bible chapter and verse is somewhat impressive, but that can't save his truly woeful arguments.

Peace

Please do offer proof of a 'woeful' argument of his.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Please do offer proof of a 'woeful' argument of his.

'Proof'? The arguments are there for all to hear - just listen to them, engage the brain, and there you go!

The 'scientific miracles in the Qu'ran' nonsense that gets routinely paraded around here seems to be a big one for him, as an example. It's been refuted so often that there hardly seems any point in going over it again.

Peace

[Pygoscelis]

Greetings,


'Proof'? The arguments are there for all to hear - just listen to them, engage the brain, and there you go!

The 'scientific miracles in the Qu'ran' nonsense that gets routinely paraded around here seems to be a big one for him, as an example. It's been refuted so often that there hardly seems any point in going over it again.

Peace

No need to even mention the "scientific quran" business.

This guy in this very link is claiming that Jesus did not die on the cross because he was buried in a large tomb and that would only happen if he was alive. He makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Pygoscelis]

Greetings,


'Proof'? The arguments are there for all to hear - just listen to them, engage the brain, and there you go!

The 'scientific miracles in the Qu'ran' nonsense that gets routinely paraded around here seems to be a big one for him, as an example. It's been refuted so often that there hardly seems any point in going over it again.

Peace

No need to even mention the "scientific quran" business.

This guy in this very link is claiming that Jesus did not die on the cross because he was buried in a large tomb and that would only happen if he was alive. He makes absolutely no sense at all. To the point that I would question is sobriety were he not a devout muslim (I understand they don't get drunk or high)

[Imam]

Greetings,


The 'scientific miracles in the Qu'ran' nonsense that gets routinely paraded around here seems to be a big one for him, as an example. It's been refuted so often .

Peace

The 'scientific miracles in the Qu'ran' may be nonsense for some poor atheists,non-muslims but it makes big sense to some great scholars

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...cientists.html

the so called refutations to Koranic scientific miracles ,have been dashed to pieces by Dr Zakir and others ,to the extent whenever I hear such absurd objections I can't help but to yawn ....

Take a look at this debate ,in which the obvious victory of Dr Zakir
closed the door for any attempts by non-Muslims in such specific topic..... due to the fact that such debate was embarrassing to the christian debater and makes any non-muslim to think thousand time before repeating the same topic....

no wonder you can't find it in any Christian sites..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckMwbVmMkIw

If you think you have a better thing to offer other than (scientific miracles in the Qu'ran' nonsense,It's been refuted so often)
then offer us,if not what you are doing in Islamic forum?!!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The 'scientific miracles in the Qu'ran' may be nonsense for some poor atheists,non-muslims but it makes big sense to some great scholars

And to no-one else.

Take a look at this debate ,in which the obvious victory of Dr Zakir
closed the door for any attempts by non-Muslims in such specific topic..... due to the fact that such debate was embarrassing to the christian debater and makes any non-muslim to think thousand time before repeating the same topic....

Seen it. Dr. William Campbell was very weak in this debate, so he couldn't point out the obvious flaws in Naik's arguments.

If you think you have a better thing to offer other than (scientific miracles in the Qu'ran' nonsense,It's been refuted so often)
then offer us,if not what you are doing in Islamic forum?!!

I've been on this forum for quite a while, and I've seen the scientific miracles argument come up again and again. I've refuted it again and again, as have many others. If it was actually convincing, then everyone would be a Muslim by now, which is obviously not the case. The point is that you have a very suggestive text, whose verses can be twisted and presented in all sorts of ways. You could make exactly the same argument from any rich text, and it wouldn't be any more convincing.

What am I doing in an Islamic forum? Trying to understand a religion that is currently having a major (and frequently deleterious) impact on world affairs. If people like me can begin to understand Islam, and if Muslims can begin to understand why non-believers think the way they do, I think the world might become a safer place. Don't you?

Peace

[guyabano]

What am I doing in an Islamic forum? Trying to understand a religion that is currently having a major (and frequently deleterious) impact on world affairs. If people like me can begin to understand Islam, and if Muslims can begin to understand why non-believers think the way they do, I think the world might become a safer place. Don't you?

I couldn't explain it better with my poor english !

[Imam]

Greetings,

Seen it. Dr. William Campbell was very weak in this debate, so he couldn't point out the obvious flaws in Naik's arguments.

Peace

Greetings

and I invite you to point out the obvious flaws in Naik's arguments,here

The point is that you have a very suggestive text, whose verses can be twisted and presented in all sorts of ways.

I will give you one example to show you it is not the way you think:


We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... 1 (Quran, 23:12-14)

sure you would suggest that as one of the meaning of the word alaqah is (a blood clot) then the Muslims attempts to focus on the other meanings as,leech, suspended thing, shows the text to be suggestive and can be twisted ....etc

as a matter of fact the use of the word alqah showed me beyond doubt,that the verse not only contains scientific miracle but a perfect linguistic use of the vocabulary....How?

actually the word (alaqah) is the unique word in Arabic to describe such Embryonic stage!!!!

what about its meanings in both Standard and non-standard Arabic?

1-the most common meaning for it in both Standard and non-standard Arabic is (suspended thing)

anyone familiar with the Arabic texts and the spoken Arabic with all its accents,knows such fact..... it is the first meaning that comes to the mind of the reader or the listener to Arabic in all its forms......

you know well the suspension of the embryo, during such stage, in the womb of the mother.

2-another meaning similar to (suspended thing) is a leech that stick to the body to suck its blood.......

the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others

3-another meaning is (a blood clot)

such meaning could be applied perfectly in such stage,as the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage,and
the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.

in sum and substance:

The word alqah is the unique word in Arabic to describe the appearance and the functionality of the embryo in that stage..

the embryo looks like a blood clot and a leech in appearance and function in suspended way and as a leech to get nourishment .....

Now ,which word those genius quran critics would suggest for us to describe such stage more accurate than (alqah)???????
we showed that the word (Alqah) is without any reasonable doubt to be the most accurate,perfect word one ever could find in Arabic to describe such stage,and till they provide us with a more accurate word,their argument is wholly without merit.....
again where is the Arabic word apart from (alqah) to describe (the appearance&function) of the embryo in that stage?

Linguistically, this is the end of the discussion!!!

peace

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Greetings

and I invite you to point out the obvious flaws in Naik's arguments,here

OK - as I said before, I've refuted this stuff again and again on the forum. Search the threads for 'scientific miracles' and you might find a few, if they haven't been deleted. However, just for you, let's have a look at this one.

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... 1 (Quran, 23:12-14)

The first thing to say is that this extract is so vague that it could refer to all sorts of things: there's nothing to suggest that it referes unambiguously to embryology.

Although you are very interested in the word 'alaqah', I'm more interested in the first sentence: "We created man from an extract of clay." In what sense are humans created from an extract of clay? Is water an extract of clay? Is flesh? Is bone? In any case, the phrase is again so vague as to be almost meaningless.

Plus, of course, the Qur'an gives several other alternatives for what humans were made out of (Yusuf-Ali translation unless otherwise stated):

Earth:

11:61 It is He Who hath produced you from the earth

Nothing:

19:67 We created him before out of nothing

Perhaps not nothing:

52:35 Were they created of nothing?

Mud:

23:12 We created man from a product of wet earth (loam) (Pickthall)
23:12 Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay)
38:71 I am about to create a mortal out of mire

Water

25:54 It is He Who has created man from water (see also 21:30, 24:45)

Dust

3:59 He created (Jesus) out of dust
30:20 He created you from dust
35:11 Allah did create you from dust ....

So it seems the writer of the Qur'an was hedging his bets, to put it mildly.

sure you would suggest that as one of the meaning of the word alaqah is (a blood clot) then the Muslims attempts to focus on the other meanings as,leech, suspended thing, shows the text to be suggestive and can be twisted ....etc

That's part of what I'm talking about, but I've no doubt that your linguistic explanation of the term is accurate. The main thing is this: when you have a word that can have different meanings, then the scope for interpretation is widened.

Imagine if the stages of embryology were actually different to how they are. Quite a lot would have to change before (certain) Muslims would drop this as an example of a scientific miracle.

The Irish writer James Joyce took seventeen years to write his last novel, Finnegans Wake. It is one of the most richly suggestive texts in existence, written in its own language, which incorporates puns, portmanteaus and other twisted examples of words from over sixty world languages. Now, it is perfectly possible to take this text and interpret it as having predicted future events or technological advances. Does this mean the interpretations would be correct? Who can say, as Joyce is no longer around to tell us. Does it mean that Joyce had divine assistance in writing it? Certainly not.

Here is a very detailed article that systematically takes apart the idea that the Qur'an contains embryological information that could not have been know to anyone in the 7th century. It is written by two academics, and is quite scholarly, but please do try to read all of it.

Peace

[Imam]

That's part of what I'm talking about, but I've no doubt that your linguistic explanation of the term is accurate. The main thing is this: when you have a word that can have different meanings, then the scope for interpretation is widened.

Imagine if the stages of embryology were actually different to how they are. Quite a lot would have to change before (certain) Muslims would drop this as an example of a scientific miracle.

Peace

There we go again,czgibson

You sure,that you have no doubt that my linguistic explanation of the term is accurate?!

I doubt that........

when you have a word that can have different meanings(alaqah) and all the meanings could be perfectly applicable to both the form and the function of the embryo in such stage,then no need to accuse the Muslims of selective interpretations .....

as I explained before ...Alaqah ,with ALL ITS MEANINGS ,is the right word in the right place ......
If you can't prove that I used a selective interpretation ,or to manufacture for us another more accurate Arabic word than Alaqah to describe such stage (appearance &function).....any reader would consider your objections to be without merit..........

Here is a very detailed article that systematically takes apart the idea that the Qur'an contains embryological information that could not have been know to anyone in the 7th century

I assure you that I almost read all what you can imagine of criticism to the Quran including such link you posted....

when the Bible critic fails to prove flaws in the Quranic scientific predictions,he would use another dodge....,
It is to claim though the description may be right,the data is a copy from a contemporary source ,those who claim that should:

1-prove that Mohamed (peace be upon him) had access in such nomadic area
to such information.?...

2-to explain why he didn't copy the errors of the Greek embryological information?

if they succeed to prove it,there will be another homework for them to refute the other scientific Quranic predictions...

peace

[BlackMamba]

Earth:
11:61 It is He Who hath produced you from the earth

Nothing:
19:67 We created him before out of nothing

Perhaps not nothing:
52:35 Were they created of nothing?

Mud:
23:12 We created man from a product of wet earth (loam) (Pickthall)
23:12 Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay)
38:71 I am about to create a mortal out of mire

Water
25:54 It is He Who has created man from water (see also 21:30, 24:45)

Dust
3:59 He created (Jesus) out of dust
30:20 He created you from dust
35:11 Allah did create you from dust ....

So it seems the writer of the Qur'an was hedging his bets, to put it mildly.

I wonder, if three bakers were to come visit the author of this list and one were to say: "Bread is made from flour," the next were to say "bread is made from dough" and the third were to say: "Bread is made from wheat," if he would consider this a "contradiction" too?

If two physicists now came along and one said "bread is made from atoms" and the other said "bread is made from molecules," would this be an even further "contradiction"?

Those statements, if interpreted correctly, should take care of the water and clay "contradiction".
You can draw these conclusions:

* Two major ingredients in man's creation are soil and water;
* The soil and water took the shape of sticky mud;
* The sticky mud was left to dry out till it became hard (sounding clay);
* The total process beginning from the mixing of soil and water till man's birth took place on this planet called "earth".

And if you look at the quote you gave of surah Maryam (19:67) it is translated wrong by Yusuf Ali. It should really be "Does not man call to mind that We created him [while] before that he was nothing?" Allah created man while he was nothing. This should clear up that so called "contradiction."

And you also have to pay attention to this when reading the Quran. The creation of the first human, Adam, is different to that of the creation of the children of Adam.
Now if you keep all these facts in mind while reading Al-Quran then you should find no contradictions. InshaAllah this should help you to understand the words of Allah better and then you can become a Muslim InshAllah.

[al_islam]

There are some proofs in the Qur'an, but the reason for it is to show us a way of Life.

Science being found in it just suports the claim that it is the word of Allah.

I often listen to Zaki Naik and he talks the most sense i've heard in a long time.

Forget science...give me something else.

[جوري]

It's been refuted so often that there hardly seems any point in going over it again.

Peace

You haven't refuted anything with any dexterity I fear...all one needs to do is rummage through your old posts with Br. Ansar Al 'Adl to see how well you did!

Yeah.. I guess you are right not worth another public humiliation to your person..


cheers!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It looks like you've misunderstood some of what I wrote. My fault for not being clear.

There we go again,czgibson

You sure,that you have no doubt that my linguistic explanation of the term is accurate?!

I doubt that........

Why do you doubt it? Your knowledge of Arabic is much better than mine.

when you have a word that can have different meanings(alaqah) and all the meanings could be perfectly applicable to both the form and the function of the embryo in such stage,then no need to accuse the Muslims of selective interpretations .....

I don't think I did that. Could you quote an example of where you think I have?

as I explained before ...Alaqah ,with ALL ITS MEANINGS ,is the right word in the right place ......

Maybe so, but what is there to suggest that the text you've quoted is unambiguously about embryology?

If you can't prove that I used a selective interpretation ,or to manufacture for us another more accurate Arabic word than Alaqah to describe such stage (appearance &function).....any reader would consider your objections to be without merit..........

Any reader except perhaps an objective one. You're producing a false dichotomy. What I'm suggesting is that the text is so suggestive it could refer to many things besides embryology.

Plus you haven't answered my question about how exactly it can be said that humans were created from clay. What part does clay have in our creation?

I assure you that I almost read all what you can imagine of criticism to the Quran including such link you posted....

Yes, I'm sure you've read loads.

2-to explain why he didn't copy the errors of the Greek embryological information?

Because the Qur'anic text never claims to be about embryology?

Even the worst mistakes of the Greeks are a more useful guide to embryology than that of the Qur'an, because the Greeks were actually trying to increase the sum of human knowledge - the Qur'an is just totally vague on the subject, and is of no use whatever to someone on an embryology course.

if they succeed to prove it,there will be another homework for them to refute the other scientific Quranic predictions...

Which would be laughably easy. Honestly, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I can accept that people believe that Islam is true, but there are much better reasons for believing it than this.

Peace

[Isambard]

I wonder why anyone listens to Zakir. Ive listened to a few of his "arguements" and they are incredibly weak.

Whats worse is that he's notorious for twisting the scriptures of other religions to make his points.

Its one thing to make stupid arguements, its another to intentionally lie to make your points.

[جوري]

Maybe you care to start your refutations on Zakir on another thread appropriately entitled for the task you are about to undertake bright spark!
I am sure we'll all look fwd. to your fecund little manifestos...

I think the rest have had enough of finding waldo on every thread ey?
cheers

[caroline]

I don't listen to Naik since I watched this video:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bxk5AAA5FbI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bxk5AAA5FbI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[caroline]

Hmmm... okay -- this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI

[caroline]

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but what he says in that video is just rediculous and wrong. And I wouldn't take advice from anyone who says that Osama Bin Laden is following Islam.

[جوري]

Hmmm... okay -- this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI

wow..scary...It was stuck on the title though, I am not sure if it is AOL.. what is the gist of it? does he actually make an appearence or is it just a wiki article as proposed by him?

cheers

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Maybe you care to start your refutations on Zakir on another thread appropriately entitled for the task you are about to undertake bright spark!
I am sure we'll all look fwd. to your fecund little manifestos...

I think the rest have had enough of finding waldo on every thread ey?
cheers

I love the fact that you feel confident to speak for lots of others on their behalf.

Thanks, PA, your support is always appreciated. :)

You're right, though, we're way off-topic here. That's what free discussion is though, so maybe it's valid. We'll let the mods decide.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,

:rolleyes:

I love the fact that you feel confident to speak for lots of others on their behalf.

What is your point? his post is not only off topic, but is a general statment meant to sound authoritative.. it is a sincere effort to get him to state his grievances in the appropriate sections with some beef for once and forgoing his usual levity !

Thanks, PA, your support is always appreciated. :)

My feeling is that you are due for some surgilube and a DRE ..

you are looking for support in all the wrong places

You're right, though, we're way off-topic here. That's what free discussion is though, so maybe it's valid. We'll let the mods decide.

Peace

The mods aren't ubiquitous!-- And I do notice that 'free discussions' with you usually denotes being unrestrained by convention or morality...


cheers

[czgibson]

Greetings,

What is your point? his post is not only off topic, but is a general statment meant to sound authoritative.. it is a sincere effort to get him to state his grievances in the appropriate sections with some beef for once and forgoing his usual levity !

I agree, it's off-topic, but that's what happens in a free discussion. Ever had one?

My feeling is that you are due for some surgilube and a DRE ..

I think that's actually pretty sick. Why exactly do you feel the need to bring up digital rectal examinations here?

you are looking for support in all the wrong places

I still love it when you give me attention, though. I value your opinion.

The mods aren't ubiquitous!--

Well, anyway, we'll let the mods decide. I think they should have more of a say of what goes on in this forum than you or me.

And I do notice that 'free discussions' with you usually denotes being unrestrained by convention or morality...

Unrestrained by convention? I take that as a compliment.

Morality? Could you give an example from this thread or any other where I've displayed loose morals?

Peace

[caroline]

wow..scary...It was stuck on the title though, I am not sure if it is AOL.. what is the gist of it? does he actually make an appearence or is it just a wiki article as proposed by him?

cheers

It's actually him and he actually says, "If he (bin laden) is terrorizing the biggest terrorist, the United States, then I am with him." Then he gives the thumbs up. Then he says, "All Muslims should be terrorists. If you are terrorizing the terrorists than you are practicing Islam..."

At least that's pretty close. Watch it and see.

When I watched that video I almost changed my mind about converting. Seriously.

[snakelegs]

It's actually him and he actually says, "If he (bin laden) is terrorizing the biggest terrorist, the United States, then I am with him." Then he gives the thumbs up. Then he says, "All Muslims should be terrorists. If you are terrorizing the terrorists than you are practicing Islam..."

At least that's pretty close. Watch it and see.

When I watched that video I almost changed my mind about converting. Seriously.

well, at least there was no applause. (tho it sounds like one person started to)

[جوري]

Greetings,

:rollseyes

I agree, it's off-topic, but that's what happens in a free discussion. Ever had one?

Sure.. I also have a photographic memory... I remember you chastising a member before for having just that-- a 'free discussion' unto what you deemed inappropriately bringing up ID on a thread about the universe.. so where does this leave us? hypocrisy on your part?!..

I think that's actually pretty sick. Why exactly do you feel the need to bring up digital rectal examinations here?

I think if we find out the cause of your constipation you wouldn't strain so hard on this forum? It is just genuine concern.. also averaging in your age and other risk factors :coolious:

I still love it when you give me attention, though. I value your opinion.

What is that? sarcasm?-- I am afraid your wit is lost here!

Well, anyway, we'll let the mods decide. I think they should have more of a say of what goes on in this forum than you or me.

its presence doesn't bother me that much to request that the powers that be decide convene on triviality, it was a mere forum rule reminder, I noticed he liked to bring them up on another thread, I thought I'd return the favor!

Unrestrained by convention? I take that as a compliment.

Yeah I can tell you would... thankfully the rest of us have outgrown our pubertal yrs.!

Morality? Could you give an example from this thread or any other where I've displayed loose morals?

Peace

You go by different definitions.. I am afraid defining a base line for you would be a moot point!

cheers

[czgibson]

Greetings,

well, at least there was no applause. (tho it sounds like one person started to)

And yet this guy apparently has a following, at least going by the number of chumps that parrot his lines here on a regular basis. Utterly baffling.

Peace

[snakelegs]

i'm not really familiar with his teachings and on the basis of this, i don't think i want to be.

[Malaikah]

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but what he says in that video is just rediculous and wrong. And I wouldn't take advice from anyone who says that Osama Bin Laden is following Islam.

I think you've got it wrong... it seems like a play on words, "terrorising a terrorist"- I don't think he is saying that he actually supports "terrorism". I'm assuming he meant terrorising as in horrifying, not bombing innocent people and stuff.

[syilla]

i think we should listen to the whole video first...before we make any assumptions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maY-k...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vecT...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utHBJ...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNG9S...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9RgY...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm-J0...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW_T5...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMG0S...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmdKV...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-fNo...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0-V2...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNYQk...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdteZ...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kV52...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdI-g...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKGHU...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jfhG...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blF9M...eature=related

[BlackMamba]

Its so funny how all these weird atheists on this forum just keep putting up these false claims that they can refute Dr. Naik easily and that hes a liar and that his arguments are not good. Okay if you think that then prove it straight up. Dont just say stuff and dont back it up. And I am pretty positive that Naik could win a debate against all you kuffar on this forum put together.

[Pygoscelis]

* Two major ingredients in man's creation are soil and water;
* The soil and water took the shape of sticky mud;
* The sticky mud was left to dry out till it became hard (sounding clay);
* The total process beginning from the mixing of soil and water till man's birth took place on this planet called "earth".

So we are mud people?

[Pygoscelis]

Its so funny how all these weird atheists on this forum just keep putting up these false claims that they can refute Dr. Naik easily and that hes a liar and that his arguments are not good. Okay if you think that then prove it straight up. Dont just say stuff and dont back it up. And I am pretty positive that Naik could win a debate against all you kuffar on this forum put together.

In the link posted above that started this whole discussion, the one with the christian debating him about if Jesus died on the cross, he gives a number of rather ridiculus claims and arguments, as I've already pointed out. And note that it is ATHEISTS and in my case probably the most anti-christian member of this board who is criticizing this man's arguments AGAINST chritian claims. I agree with this man's view on this matter. Jesus wasn't ressurected. But this mans arguments are just plain lame.

He also appears to be pulling definitions out of thin air and declaring them to bind us all.

Here are his arguments:

- Jesus claimed to be resurrected and a verse shows him trying to prove to his disciples that its him and not a spirit. This debater then quotes this and argues along with Jesus that jesus was not a spirit. So he's arguing that Jesus was indeed instead a resurected body? He's arguing against his own position here. The guy is defeating HIMSELF in the debate.

- He cites Mark 16:1 which depicts Mary Magdelane coming to Jesus' tomb with sweet spices to anoint his body. He argues "do jews massage dead bodies"? Apparently trying to argue that she went there to see him alive (apperently he was just camping out in the tomb as some sort of parlour trick - which totally makes Jesus out to look like a charltan, which I'm sure no muslim would say he is). He then completely ignores the verses IMMEDIATELY after this one which depict Mary magdelanes suprise at seeing him alvie (so apparently she thought he was dead after all and this argument is ruined to those who know how to read more than one verse).

- He then continues to argue against himself, as in the argument 2 paragraphs up. He argues about the linens being unbound etc and the tomb door being open and thus he wasn't a spirit but a physical body (well yes that is exactly what the Christians would want us to believe, that he was resurected).

- He then makes some strange reference to Jonah and the Whale. Apparently there is a verse saying that Jesus would be like Jonah, 3 days and 3 nights. He argues that Jonah didn't die so Jesus didn't either, because the prophecy says he'd be like Jonah. A coherent argument finally, but does it really carry any weight? Jesus wasn't swallowed by a whale like Johan, so apparently the prophecy isn't saying every detail must be the same. Also, if he doesn't meet this prophecy that doesn't mean he wasn't dead and resurected, it just means the prophecy was wrong. It wouldn't be the first.

The most peculiar thing about this debate is that the muslim fellow seems to be painting Jesus as orchastrating a giant hoax. I could see atheists or other non-abrahamics making such a case, but don't muslims consider Jesus a prophet and above such a thing? This is the most confusing point of all I think.

[Pygoscelis]

Also looking at the vid again, I have to comment that it appears about as fair a debate as one you'd see on the O'Rielly factor between O'Rielly and one of his token liberals. The christian fellow doesn't seem to even want to try to make a point on topic. Instead he trots through all sorts of ugly things about the Christian religion phrasing them as if they were good things (and being very transparent about it).

Also note the audiance and the channel this was broadcasted on. I suspect that this is a muslim propaganda piece.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Its so funny how all these weird atheists on this forum just keep putting up these false claims that they can refute Dr. Naik easily and that hes a liar and that his arguments are not good. Okay if you think that then prove it straight up. Dont just say stuff and dont back it up. And I am pretty positive that Naik could win a debate against all you kuffar on this forum put together.

You've probably never attended an academic debate, have you? Dr. Zakir Naik may a moderately impressive performer, but his arguments have no real substance. Any half-decent philosopher would wipe the floor with him.

Peace

[Pygoscelis]

Before I leave this thread, let me show you an example of an argument against "Jesus being resurected" that actually is coherent and makes some sense.

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2006/march/barker.php

[DAWUD_adnan]

Greetings and peace be with you Talha777;

Whilst Christianity might be fake for you, I see the teachings of Jesus as a great inspiration. I did not read any of your post simply because of the title.

We are stuck with the same God, and the God who created you also created me. There is a great need in this world to look after God's creation, and that comes down to looking after each other despite all our differences.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

Hi

I agree with you strongly that the title is not appropriate. I haven't even read his post yet.

Yes, the teachings of Jesus (Isa) are truly something worthy to be followed.
However, the teachings of Paul, which is the modern day Christianity, are false.

Isa said that he came to confirm The Law before him, letter by letter dot by dot.

But when Paul says something else, such as circumcision is not needed. He contradicts Isa, an open and clear reason why the teachings of Paul are false.

Again

Teachings of Isa(Jesus) are true, However Paul is an imposter and everything he brought was from himself, and he has nothing in the old scriptures to support his claims.

[MustafaMc]

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but what he says in that video is just rediculous and wrong. And I wouldn't take advice from anyone who says that Osama Bin Laden is following Islam.

Although this post is way off-topic, I must agree with Caroline. If Osama was indeed responsible for 9/11, then I too don't follow those who support him and what he has done as being representative of Islam.

The following is from a post that I made: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post885432

My opinion is that there are some people in positions of authority that are misguiding some Muslims to do things that are not consistent with Islam, as I understand it. Fighting is indeed prescribed in Islam for specific justifiable reasons, such as to repulse an attack or to oppose oppression. Giving one’s life during such a struggle is an honorable deed in Islam with the promise of Paradise for the martyr; however, even the merit of this deed before Allah (swt) depends upon one’s intention. Muslims live and strive for the Hereafter and nothing has more value than that – not even one’s life on Earth.

However, my opinion is that these suicide bombers have been sold a “bill of goods” with false hopes. I believe that they will be held accountable before Allah (swt) for their own life that they took as well as the lives of the women, children and other innocent people that died as a result of their deed. Even more accountable will be the leaders and instigators of these atrocious acts.

[MustafaMc]

i think we should listen to the whole video first...before we make any assumptions.

Yes, it is not fair to judge a lecture on a single quote, but the title of the lecture "Is Terrorism a Muslim Monoply?" is not a good title. I watched most of the segments and saw that he pointed out terroristic acts done by others to show that Muslims were not the only terrorists of history. He skirts the issue that Islam and Muslim leaders are portrayed and perceived as promoting these acts as jihad, an integral part of Islam.

A better title would be, "Does Islam Sanction Terrorism?" This is a question that Muslims in general and Muslim leaders in particular avoid like the plague. I contend that suicide bombing, killing innocent women and children, and mutilation of dead bodies are not sactioned or approved as being consistent with the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad (swt). In fact, I contend that the teachings of Islam CONDEMN these acts. As a respected authority among Muslims, Dr. Naik could have a major impact on how Muslims feel about terrorism and how the world perceives Islam - if only he would speak in light of the Qur'an and the Sunnah regarding this issue.

[Imam]

What I'm suggesting is that the text is so suggestive it could refer to many things besides embryology.

such as?!

Because the Qur'anic text never claims to be about embryology?

Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance), then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!


may be your suggestive interpretation ,claims that the previous verse not to be about embryology,but instead it describes the stages of the embryo inside the bird'eggs
:D

Peace[/QUOTE]

[czgibson]

Greetings,

such as?!

God creating humans in an abstract sense; god creating the first human; god's step by step instructions for making a human.

None of these necessarily has anything to do with embryology. If the word 'egg' appeared instead of the incredibly vague 'place of rest', that might be slightly impressive. In fact, if there were any indication of superhuman knowledge at all, that would be impressive. As it is, it's just a vague text containing nothing extraordinary whatsoever.

Peace

[Whatsthepoint]

Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance), then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!

There's no ovum!:ooh: You gotta have an egg as well to produce a human being.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

There's no ovum!:ooh: You gotta have an egg as well to produce a human being.

As an "embryology" text, it's certainly somewhat lacking, to put it mildly.

Peace

[Imam]

Greetings,



None of these necessarily has anything to do with embryology. If the word 'egg' appeared instead of the incredibly vague 'place of rest', that might be slightly impressive. In fact, if there were any indication of superhuman knowledge at all, that would be impressive. As it is, it's just a vague text containing nothing extraordinary whatsoever.

Peace

"...Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Qur'an and Sunnah. The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge.Professor Keith L. Moore

"The intensive studies of the Qur'an and Hadith in the last four years have revealed a system of classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D... the descriptions in the Qur'an cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century..."



"...in summary, the Qur'an describes not only the development of external form, but emphasises also the internal stages, the stages inside the embryo, of its creation and development, emphasising major events recognised by contemporary science."

"...In a relatively few ayahs (Qur'anic verses) is contained a rather comprehensive description of human development from the time of commingling of the gametes through organogenesis. No such distinct and complete record of human development such as classification, terminology, and description existed previously. In most, if not all instances, this description antedates by many centuries the recording of the various stages of human embryonic and fetal development recorded in the traditional scientific literature.E. Marshall Johnson Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology

[Whatsthepoint]

Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance), then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!

"Place of rest" can't be the egg.
1. A drop of sperm contains millions of sperm cells. Only one is "put" in the egg, not an entire drop, no matter how small (how small can it get to stop being a drop?)
2. How can a sperm cell be firmly fixed in the egg?
3. If "firmly fixed" refers to the zygote/embryo it is wrong as well, because it is not firmly fixed.

The rest is strange as well.

[جوري]

Greetings,


God creating humans in an abstract sense; god creating the first human; god's step by step instructions for making a human.

None of these necessarily has anything to do with embryology. If the word 'egg' appeared instead of the incredibly vague 'place of rest',
Peace

Place of rest denotes the uterus not egg.. It isn't extraordinary to you, because you are either ill read and have no concept of the age of the book compared to what people knew at the time or the progress of science to what it is now in the 21st century!
One is curious if you've ever read the Quran at all to have any sort of deep discussion about it!

it was sometime in 1848 not a couple of centuries ago and in the civilized west that a man made the connection between washing hands and mortality rate of pts delivered by midwifery or a doctor service. It also took the death of Semmelweis' friend the pathologist Jakob Kolletschka for him to draw that conclusion. Something seemingly instinctive to the rest of the world.. and you find nothing extraordinary in the Quran .
You must be the dullest company with no sliver of imagination or wonderment in you.

cheers!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

PA: Thanks for your interest. Your support is always etc.

Imam: It seems you haven't read the article I posted for you. Read it, and you'll learn about the strange saga of Prof. Keith Moore and his fellow investigators. You'll also learn he hasn't become a Muslim, which is surprising, since it would seem to confirm that he doesn't believe his own words. Neither should you.

Here is the link once again.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,

PA: Thanks for your interest. Your support is always etc.

I am not supporting you, I mock you!

Imam: It seems you haven't read the article I posted for you. Read it, and you'll learn about the strange saga of Prof. Keith Moore and his fellow investigators. You'll also learn he hasn't become a Muslim, which is surprising, since it would seem to confirm that he doesn't believe his own words. Neither should you.

Here is the link once again.

Peace

attacking Moore's character seems like an ailing attempt to deflect from the subject matter. I read many books that I find truths in, doesn't mean I'll become a groupie!

I know, you don't know Arabic, and I can easily bet you haven't the slightest clue of embryology. All that is being done here is a sham of an argument, of which your strongest claim to fame is to character assassinate!

The Quran isn't meant as an embryology book, a physiology book, a geology book, or a neuroanatomy book. Yesterday I posted the latest research on using honey as an antibiotic for superbugs. And can easily say the Quran several centuries ago

'And thy Lord taught the (female)bee to build its cells in hills, on trees and in (men's) habitations..... there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colours, wherein is healing for mankind. Verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought'.
(Translation of Quran 16:68-69)
it need not go into its antifungal, antihelminthic ,antiinflammatory antineoplastic properties for me to understand that that is what healing is for man kind. Is it vague? no I say it is very encompassing and very true!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22398921/

If you have something of substance to impart czgibson et al. then do so, if not then pls give it a rest, because I'll make it my busines to 'support you' whenever opportunity permits!

cheers!

[snakelegs]

Yes, it is not fair to judge a lecture on a single quote, but the title of the lecture "Is Terrorism a Muslim Monoply?" is not a good title. I watched most of the segments and saw that he pointed out terroristic acts done by others to show that Muslims were not the only terrorists of history. He skirts the issue that Islam and Muslim leaders are portrayed and perceived as promoting these acts as jihad, an integral part of Islam.

A better title would be, "Does Islam Sanction Terrorism?" This is a question that Muslims in general and Muslim leaders in particular avoid like the plague. I contend that suicide bombing, killing innocent women and children, and mutilation of dead bodies are not sactioned or approved as being consistent with the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad (swt). In fact, I contend that the teachings of Islam CONDEMN these acts. As a respected authority among Muslims, Dr. Naik could have a major impact on how Muslims feel about terrorism and how the world perceives Islam - if only he would speak in light of the Qur'an and the Sunnah regarding this issue.

i agree - from all i've learned islam does indeed condemn such acts, but listening to some muslims, you would never guess.

[Pygoscelis]

Yes, it is not fair to judge a lecture on a single quote, but the title of the lecture "Is Terrorism a Muslim Monoply?" is not a good title. I watched most of the segments and saw that he pointed out terroristic acts done by others to show that Muslims were not the only terrorists of history. He skirts the issue that Islam and Muslim leaders are portrayed and perceived as promoting these acts as jihad, an integral part of Islam.

A better title would be, "Does Islam Sanction Terrorism?" This is a question that Muslims in general and Muslim leaders in particular avoid like the plague. I contend that suicide bombing, killing innocent women and children, and mutilation of dead bodies are not sactioned or approved as being consistent with the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad (swt). In fact, I contend that the teachings of Islam CONDEMN these acts. As a respected authority among Muslims, Dr. Naik could have a major impact on how Muslims feel about terrorism and how the world perceives Islam - if only he would speak in light of the Qur'an and the Sunnah regarding this issue.

Quoted in full because I find this sentiment of MustafaMc to be so excellent. I honestly don't care what the books actually say etc, to me a religion is whatever its followers currently believe. And if they believe that terrorism is sanctioned by Islam then Islam is horrible and if they believe that terrorism is condemned by Islam then Islam is good.

[BlackMamba]

So we are mud people?

The blood of all living creatures is composed of 55 percent plasma, which in turn is composed of more than 90 percent water. As opposed to 1400 centuries ago when the Qur'an was first revealed by God, today it is a well known fact that the major "ingredient" in the human body is water (a matter emphasized ONLY in the Qur'an and not in the Bible). It is further very well known that mankind is made from "dust" (when you place his body in the grave and leave it for a number of years, and the water evaporates, what form does his body revert to? Further, what is "clay"? Is it not a special form of water and dust? It is equally obvious that if God created everything then there must have been a time when everything we see was "nothing," including humans.

[BlackMamba]

And you guys can hate on Zakir Naik all you want. But the fact is that he wins all his debates and he'd kill you in a debate also.

[MustafaMc]

Quoted in full because I find this sentiment of MustafaMc to be so excellent. I honestly don't care what the books actually say etc, to me a religion is whatever its followers currently believe. And if they believe that terrorism is sanctioned by Islam then Islam is horrible and if they believe that terrorism is condemned by Islam then Islam is good.

For those interested, I sarted a new thread "Does Islam Sanction Terrorism?" as this discussion is way off-topic. http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...tml#post888913

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I am not supporting you, I mock you!


attacking Moore's character seems like an ailing attempt to deflect from the subject matter. I read many books that I find truths in, doesn't mean I'll become a groupie!

I know, you don't know Arabic, and I can easily bet you haven't the slightest clue of embryology. All that is being done here is a sham of an argument, of which your strongest claim to fame is to character assassinate!

The Quran isn't meant as an embryology book, a physiology book, a geology book, or a neuroanatomy book. Yesterday I posted the latest research on using honey as an antibiotic for superbugs. And can easily say the Quran several centuries ago

'And thy Lord taught the (female)bee to build its cells in hills, on trees and in (men's) habitations..... there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colours, wherein is healing for mankind. Verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought'.
(Translation of Quran 16:68-69)
it need not go into its antifungal, antihelminthic ,antiinflammatory antineoplastic properties for me to understand that that is what healing is for man kind. Is it vague? no I say it is very encompassing and very true!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22398921/

If you have something of substance to impart czgibson et al. then do so, if not then pls give it a rest, because I'll make it my busines to 'support you' whenever opportunity permits!

cheers!

PA: Thanks for your interest. Your support is always etc.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


PA: Thanks for your interest. Your support is always etc.

Peace

Bah...

[Pygoscelis]

Bah...

lol!

It appears our troll is flustered with you not taking her bait.

[جوري]

lol!

It appears our troll is flustered with you not taking her bait.

Does this concern you? if you want to address cz don't do it by proxy.. maturate your techniques a bit...one might misunderstand who the 'troll' is when you quote me in the process...
Go take a hike or have a chuckle with the prince of Li on PM from what he has told me, he enjoys a cabal goss . I don't think anyone is interested in your mediocre public exhibition..

[Gator]

post deleted

[Qingu]

The blood of all living creatures is composed of 55 percent plasma, which in turn is composed of more than 90 percent water. As opposed to 1400 centuries ago when the Qur'an was first revealed by God, today it is a well known fact that the major "ingredient" in the human body is water (a matter emphasized ONLY in the Qur'an and not in the Bible).

Actually, the Greek philosopher Thalus declared that water was the basis of all things about a thousand years before the Quran was written. The Greeks were well aware that the human body is mostly composed of water.

It is further very well known that mankind is made from "dust" (when you place his body in the grave and leave it for a number of years, and the water evaporates, what form does his body revert to? Further, what is "clay"? Is it not a special form of water and dust?

Whatever you say.

Did you know that the ancient Babylonians also had myths where the gods created man out of clay? (This was before the Bible or the Quran) So according to you, these Babylonians must really have been in communication with gods, because how else would they know the human body is so similar to clay!

I guess we should all start worshipping Lord Marduk, since the Enuma Elish is scientifically accurate by your ridiculously low standards.

[Malaikah]

Did you know that the ancient Babylonians also had myths where the gods created man out of clay? (This was before the Bible or the Quran) So according to you, these Babylonians must really have been in communication with gods, because how else would they know the human body is so similar to clay!

Slow down there. The first human was Adam. He was created from clay. He probably knew he was created from clay, and probably told his off-spring too.

And there where thousands of Prophets who would have known that mankind was created from clay, and presumably the Babylonians might have learned that from them! (or not, but the point is that your assumption that the bible and Quran are the only places people could have learned this is wrong).

[جوري]

Actually, the Greek philosopher Thalus declared that water was the basis of all things about a thousand years before the Quran was written. The Greeks were well aware that the human body is mostly composed of water.
.

That is what the Arab of the desert did, incorporated thalus and poetically in Quranic text after translating it of course, a shame prophet Mohammed PBUH went hungry and slept on palm leaves for a man so talented in geology, embryology, physiology, taxonomy, economics, politics, govt, and poetry ..

Did you know that the ancient Babylonians also had myths where the gods created man out of clay? (This was before the Bible or the Quran) So according to you, these Babylonians must really have been in communication with gods, because how else would they know the human body is so similar to clay!

It is no secret that creation from clay is known concept that predates biblical texts...here is carving of Adam and eve at least 3000 year before judaism

only affirming and in concert with the Islamic concept that monotheism was always the one true religion from which people deviated, creating their own gods and idols in the process!

I guess we should all start worshipping Lord Marduk, since the Enuma Elish is scientifically accurate by your ridiculously low standards

I only find atheists of low standards and complete lack of sequential logic!


cheers!

[Isambard]

It is no secret that creation from clay is known concept that predates biblical texts...here is carving of Adam and eve at least 3000 year before judaism

only affirming and in concert with the Islamic concept that monotheism was always the one true religion from which people deviated, creating their own gods and idols in the process!I only find atheists of low standards and complete lack of sequential logic

Actually, it affirms that the Abrahamic tradition is taken from earlier mythology making it false.

Creation, the flood, Cain and Abel. You find this pre-dating the OT in ancient Sumerian texts.

PS. Just wanted to say anyone interesting in some real investigative biblical studies from real scholars (the ones who use logic). I recommend these books

http://www.amazon.com/Bandits-Prophe...8822804&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-...8822838&sr=1-6

And an excellent debate on the resserection of Jesus
http://www.holycross.edu/departments...transcript.pdf

[BlackMamba]

The Prophet Muhammad (S) was born in a Saudi Arabia that had no idea about science whatsoever. There were so many false ideas that these arabs believed in at that time. Now do you really think that the Prophet Muhammad S picked and chose which facts he thought were right and which he thought were wrong and put the right ones in the Quran. In 600 Ad in Saudi Arabia I bet there were so many different theories on what humans were made of. Do you really think that Muhammad (S) ascertained the right theory and had enough faith in that choice to put it in the Quran.

[جوري]

Actually, it affirms that the Abrahamic tradition is taken from earlier mythology making it false.

Creation, the flood, Cain and Abel. You find this pre-dating the OT in ancient Sumerian texts.

I don't follow?.. I believe that is what we call an a priori judgment?... That is the truth as you see it, but not as the rest see it.

'Making it false' is an assertion that is a non sequitur, and I don't see its relevance to what preceded it!

cheers

[*WhisSPeR...*]

I wonder why anyone listens to Zakir. Ive listened to a few of his "arguements" and they are incredibly weak.

Whats worse is that he's notorious for twisting the scriptures of other religions to make his points.

Its one thing to make stupid arguements, its another to intentionally lie to make your points.

we listen to his lectures because he speaks the truth. It's not an 'intentionall lie' or any of such you claim.

obviously, what you stated quite explained that you may be cynical. or, from an atheist point of view.:hmm:

[Isambard]

I don't follow?.. I believe that is what we call an a priori judgment?... That is the truth as you see it, but not as the rest see it.

'Making it false' is an assertion that is a non sequitur, and I don't see its relevance to what preceded it!

cheers

You made the assumption

"only affirming and in concert with the Islamic concept that monotheism was always the one true religion from which people deviated, creating their own gods and idols in the process! "

Its simply not true. The stories involved more than one deity. They were very different from the ones in the Qur'an.

Your only 'proof' that they deviated is what the Qur'an says.

So you are using the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an.

This is called circular reasoning and its a no-no

[جوري]

To the mods and pls delete this afterwards
I didn't go through bard's sites to check whether or not they are kosher, I know many think that just because Muslims believe christianity to be disjointed and wrong on many levels that they can go on berating the character of Jesus (p) or any other prophet for that matter (the term 'bandint' is already sounding questionable) I am on allergy pills and completely out of it, lost interest at this hour, thus hope by morning the devils will have gone back to their holes, or are ice skating and things back to normal..

:w:

[Isambard]

we listen to his lectures because he speaks the truth. It's not an 'intentionall lie' or any of such you claim.

obviously, what you stated quite explained that you may be cynical. or, from an atheist point of view.:hmm:

What does my aversion to twisting someone elses religious texts to construct an arguement have to do with cynicalism or atheism?

[جوري]

You made the assumption

I didn't assume, I replied to another fool and you decided to hijack it!

"only affirming and in concert with the Islamic concept that monotheism was always the one true religion from which people deviated, creating their own gods and idols in the process! "

true and proven, especially in Arabia, one of the other members here might find you the link as I am too tired to look, but someone can actually bring you the exact name of the individual of whom through his travels, the original Abrahamic observances at the Ka’ba were progressively diluted by the addition of various pagan elements arriving via the caravan routes that led to Mecca. And have no reason to believe it any different for other regions.

Its simply not true. The stories involved more than one deity. They were very different from the ones in the Qur'an.

This is supposed to be news to me? Go browse some history books!

Your only 'proof' that they deviated is what the Qur'an says.

So you are using the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an.

This is called circular reasoning and its a no-no

I don't think I have quoted the Quran once in my replies. Hallucinations again? missed your ziprasidone this evening?


cheers

[Isambard]

To the mods and pls delete this afterwards
I didn't go through bard's sites to check whether or not they are kosher, I know many think that just because Muslims believe christianity to be disjointed and wrong on many levels that they can go on berating the character of Jesus (p) or any other prophet for that matter (the term 'bandint' is already sounding questionable)

And from this I can tell you didnt even bother clicking the link. You get annoyed when ppl wont read your 50pg articles yet you cant be bothered to open a link and read the full title of a book. Nice

[جوري]

And from this I can tell you didnt even bother clicking the link. You get annoyed when ppl wont read your 50pg articles yet you cant be bothered to open a link and read the full title of a book. Nice

I believe I have already admitted that I am not in my full facultative intactness to judge correctly no?
At least I have enough decency to say so instead of arguing from ignorance?!.

cheers!

[Isambard]

I didn't assume, I replied to another fool and you decided to hijack it!

If you postulate something without evidence, its an assumption.

true and proven, especially in Arabic, one of the other members here might find you the link as I am too tired to look, but someone can actually bring you the exact name of the individual of whom through his travels, the original Abrahamic observances at the Ka’ba were progressively diluted by the addition of various pagan elements arriving via the caravan routes that led to Mecca. And have no reason to believe it any different for other regions.

That would be interesting. Then you can show me all the ancient religion scholars who might back you up. O, and by scholars, I mean folks who have written articles that have survived peer review


This is supposed to be news to me? Go browse some history books!

It should be as you are making bogus claims.

I don't think I have quoted the Quran once in my replies. Hallucinations again? missed your ziprasidone this evening?

You are right, how silly of me. Everyone knows every other religious text and history text talks about how everyone used to be a muslim.

[Isambard]

I believe I have already admitted that I am not in my full facultative intactness to judge correctly no?
At least I have enough decency to say so instead of arguing from ignorance?!.

cheers!

You seem to be coherent enough to respond. I didnt know clicking a direct link and reading a title was more demanding.

[جوري]

If you postulate something without evidence, its an assumption.

try applying that logic the next time your write out of your -

That would be interesting. Then you can show me all the ancient religion scholars who might back you up. O, and by scholars, I mean folks who have written articles that have survived peer review

peer reviewed is usually used to connote scientific research. You can't re-write history and have your peers look at it and certify it within standard deviation. Go read any regular history book on acient mesopotamia or sumeria..

It should be as you are making bogus claims.

An adequate assessment of yourself!

You are right, how silly of me. Everyone knows every other religious text and history text talks about how everyone used to be a muslim.

I am sorry what new psycho babble are you ranting about now?
What is upsetting you this evening?


cheers!

[جوري]

You seem to be coherent enough to respond. I didnt know clicking a direct link and reading a title was more demanding.

I am actually not, but I thank you, it is nice to know with 50MG of diohenhydramine in me, a corneal abraision and at 2am in the morning I am found coherent, a compliment even though I know you didn't intend it as one...:eek:


cheers and gnight, we'll carry this some other time!

[Isambard]

I am actually not, but I thank you, it is nice to know with 50MG of diohenhydramine in me, a corneal abraision and at 2am in the morning I am found coherent, a compliment even though I know you didn't intend it as one...:eek:


cheers and gnight, we'll carry this some other time!

Sweet dreams:)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The Prophet Muhammad (S) was born in a Saudi Arabia that had no idea about science whatsoever. There were so many false ideas that these arabs believed in at that time. Now do you really think that the Prophet Muhammad S picked and chose which facts he thought were right and which he thought were wrong and put the right ones in the Quran. In 600 Ad in Saudi Arabia I bet there were so many different theories on what humans were made of. Do you really think that Muhammad (S) ascertained the right theory and had enough faith in that choice to put it in the Quran.

As I've already shown, the Qur'an appears not to be able to make up its mind on this question. In different places it tells us that humans are made from dust, or water, or clay and so on. No-one has yet explained why, and this fact seems to be ignored by the people who believe the Qur'an to be some kind of amazingly prescient document.

Peace

[Malaikah]

As I've already shown, the Qur'an appears not to be able to make up its mind on this question. In different places it tells us that humans are made from dust, or water, or clay and so on. No-one has yet explained why, and this fact seems to be ignored by the people who believe the Qur'an to be some kind of amazingly prescient document.

No offence but it really doesn't take a genius to realise it is talking about different stages.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

No offence but it really doesn't take a genius to realise it is talking about different stages.

Forgive me: I am a stupid person and I find the Qur'an to be one of the most confusing books I've ever read.

Perhaps you could help me out: what is the order of the stages for using the substances I've mentioned to create humans? And how much of our bodies are made of clay, dust etc.?

Peace

[جوري]

No offence but it really doesn't take a genius to realise it is talking about different stages.

:sl:
you are talking to the master of abstraction and pioneering here, how dare you defend that or conceive that there is more than one ingredient that went into the creation of man? Budding from an aquatic eukaryotic organisms is more 'scientific' and easier to 'believe' than coming from the earth that we eventually decompose into.

:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

:sl:
you are talking to the master of abstraction and pioneering here, how dare you defend that or conceive that there is more than one ingredient that went into the creation of man? Budding from an aquatic eukaryotic organisms is more 'scientific' and easier to 'believe' than coming from the earth that we eventually decompose into.

:w:

Thanks for your contribution, PA. Your ideas are always so refreshing. Please do keep them coming. :)

Peace

[Woodrow]

It really is hard to comprehend the differences between the words dust and clay. we can be fairly certain as to what clay is. Powdered rock (dust) mixed with various amounts of water.

But, dust is another matter. Prior to the introduction of organic matter, it seems all dust would have been composed of clay.

so dust and clay can be the same thing.

[جوري]

Greetings,


Thanks for your contribution, PA. Your ideas are always so refreshing. Please do keep them coming. :)

Peace

your blasé indifference is really getting to me, there are however, forum rules against taking up webspace on nonsense and spreading muck!
Again until you have something of substance to impart I suggest you take a hike!

cheers


P.S as much as I enjoy your attention seeking replies (you have a fan in a pyg) pun intended--do try hard to ignore me when I am actually addressing you so that it is more effective!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It really is hard to comprehend the differences between the words dust and clay. we can be fairly certain as to what clay is. Powdered rock (dust) mixed with various amounts of water.

But, dust is another matter. Prior to the introduction of organic matter, it seems all dust would have been composed of clay.

so dust and clay can be the same thing.

Good point. Do clay or dust actually form any part of our anatomy, though?

Peace

[جوري]

It really is hard to comprehend the differences between the words dust and clay. we can be fairly certain as to what clay is. Powdered rock (dust) mixed with various amounts of water.

But, dust is another matter. Prior to the introduction of organic matter, it seems all dust would have been composed of clay.

so dust and clay can be the same thing.

Isn't it amazing how he interchanges dust and clay admixed with water to compose so many jejune responses and questions, yet couldn't tell you what the term is in Arabic, the original language of the Quran, perhaps therein lies the answer? the same way he affirmed 'it states no such thing' about the bee that makes honey being female, because he couldn't reconcile how the word 'take' could possibly be in the feminine?
This is coming from a language expert!
I am sure the other fellow can do a google search on this one and come up with an informative blog..

God, I have had it with the atheists on this forum
Astghfor Allah al3li il3atheem!

:w:

[Woodrow]

Greetings,


Good point. Do clay or dust actually form any part of our anatomy, though?

Peace

The mineral composition of it is. the most noticible being our bones and our blood system. Chemicaly our blood is identical with sea water. ie: clay/dust dissolved in water.

[Whatsthepoint]

'And thy Lord taught the (female)bee to build its cells in hills, on trees and in (men's) habitations..... there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colours, wherein is healing for mankind. Verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought'.
(Translation of Quran 16:68-69)

In some languages nouns have a grammatical gender - in some languages bees are females (by verbs, adjectives etc) eventhough there are male bees among them.
Is the arabic language different? Does the verse particulary state that the bees producing honey are female?
And anyway, when was the gender of the honey-bees discovered? Before or after Mohammad?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The mineral composition of it is. the most noticible being our bones and our blood system. Chemicaly our blood is identical with sea water. ie: clay/dust dissolved in water.

We also contain carbon, but that doesn't mean we're made from coal...

Peace

[جوري]

In some languages nouns have a grammatical gender - in some languages bees are females (by verbs, adjectives etc) eventhough there are male bees among them.
Is the arabic language different? Does the verse particulary state that the bees producing honey are female?
And anyway, when was the gender of the honey-bees discovered? Before or after Mohammad?

Hi.. I got to get back to my work so I can't have a detailed response and I apologize but I believe this will do a good job on my part. thanks for your interest

The Female Bee

In the 16th chapter (Surah an-Nahl 16:68-69) the Qur'an mentions that the female bee leaves its home to gather food. Now, a person might guess on that, saying, "The bee that you see flying around - it could be male, or it could be female. I think I will guess female." Certainly, he has a one in two chance of being right. So it happens that the Qur'an is right. But it also happens that that was not what most people believed at the time when the Qur'an was revealed. Can you tell the difference between a male and a female bee? Well, it takes a specialist to do that, but it has been discovered that the male bee never leaves his home to gather food. However, in Shakespeare's play, Henry the Fourth, some of the characters discuss bees and mention that the bees are soldiers and have a king. That is what people thought in Shakespeare's time - that the bees that one sees flying around are male bees and that they go home and answer to a king. However, that is not true at all. The fact is that they are females, and they answer to a queen. Yet it took modern scientific investigations in the last 300 years to discover that this is the case.

excerpt taken from 'the amazing Quran by Dr. Gary Miller'
former missionary

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

A lot of cultures knew clay to be the material humans are made of. Why? My guess is because clay can be modeled and this is how they imagined humans were creted - modeled by god/s.

[al_islam]

A lot of cultures knew clay to be the material humans are made of. Why? My guess is because clay can be modeled and this is how they imagined humans were creted - modeled by god/s.

Great Guess.

I dont think your onto anything there tho sherlock.....try again !

[جوري]

A lot of cultures knew clay to be the material humans are made of. Why? My guess is because clay can be modeled and this is how they imagined humans were creted - modeled by god/s.

we decompose into the earth from which we came, it makes sense that we were as well made of it, religious views aside..

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

we decompose into the earth from which we came, it makes sense that we were as well made of it, religious views aside..

cheers

Yeah, but why clay instead of soil, earth, dirt?

[Woodrow]

Greetings,


We also contain carbon, but that doesn't mean we're made from coal...

Peace

However, under the same conditions that produced coal from organic matter, we could be made into a poor grade of coal. Plants make better coal as they have a higher carbon content.

Coal, is fairly recent in terms of the age of the Earth.

[root]

we decompose into the earth from which we came, it makes sense that we were as well made of it, religious views aside..

cheers

Speak for yourself. The atoms that make up my body will not be destroyed. Billions of years from now those same atoms might be shining brightly as a star, if you really want to look where we came from look to space and not the narrow minded mere planet earth.

[Whatsthepoint]

Hi.. I got to get back to my work so I can't have a detailed response and I apologize but I believe this will do a good job on my part. thanks for your interest

excerpt taken from 'the amazing Quran by Dr. Gary Miller'
former missionary

cheers

That answers the second part of my question. I am more insterested in getting a reply to the first part:

In some languages nouns have a grammatical gender - in some languages bees are females (by verbs, adjectives etc) eventhough there are male bees among them.
Is the arabic language different? Does the verse particulary state that the bees producing honey are female?

If Europeans in the 16th century didn't know something, that doesn't mean that nobody else did. I am guessing that Egyptians had quite a knowledge of bees..

[جوري]

Yeah, but why clay instead of soil, earth, dirt?

There is a hadith here in the cyber counseling section I believe that I have seen it there, speaking of how exactly we were made of the earth.. any explanation beyond that is supererogatory and really by way of splitting hair..
you realize the Quran isn't meant to teach you geology or anatomy or any of the other sciences. It is meant as a guidance and a tool for mankind to reflect.. It need not go into any deep details of how as embryos we have two arotic arches , or the heart tube needs to twist upon itself 360 degrees so we don't end up with a transposition of the great vesseles.

As far as I am concerned it is positvely perfect on all grounds up to and including its poetic rhythm something extra that can be truly appreciated by those who speak or have learned Arabic. And even though most Muslims aren't native Arabic speakers, it is incumbent upon all to learn in the least what is needed to make prayers in original tongue!

cheers

[جوري]

If Europeans in the 16th century didn't know something, that doesn't mean that nobody else did. I am guessing that Egyptians had quite a knowledge of bees..

That is a finite detail. you'd need a mircoscope for that.. when was the microscope invented? I am quite familiar with ancient Egyptian and actually have extensive knowledge of hieroglyphics, much as I'd love to give them credit, given that Egypt is close to my heart, I haven't found any evidence of it...

Horrfying though to think the prophet spent his time between ancient grecian texts of galen and ancient hieroglyphics just to get people to worship God and get all that abuse for it.. seems nutty..


cheers!

[Whatsthepoint]

That is a finite detail. you'd need a mircoscope for that.. when was the microscope invented? I am quite familiar with ancient Egyptian and actually have extensive knowledge of hieroglyphics, much as I'd love to give them credit, given that Egypt is close to my heart, I haven't found any evidence of it...

I guess the gender can be detrmined in different ways...by seeing which bees inseminate the queen perhaps...
But it all seems that the gender of the honey making bees was not known before Muhammad. At this point I need an answer to the first part of my original question.

In some languages nouns have a grammatical gender - in some languages bees are females (by verbs, adjectives etc) eventhough there are male bees among them.
Is the arabic language different? Does the verse particulary state that the bees producing honey are female?

[جوري]

In some languages nouns have a grammatical gender - in some languages bees are females (by verbs, adjectives etc) eventhough there are male bees among them.
Is the arabic language different? Does the verse particulary state that the bees producing honey are female? .

The verb and the noun have a gender in Arabic. In the plural the masculine is often used to denote both genders males and females. thus using النَّحْلِ alone would encompass both male and female bees.

To mean a female bee we would use

نَحْلَة

and that engenders the bee as a female but only addresses one.
To use the plural which would be used in both but to specify the gender you'd have to use a feminine verb. I am not an Arabic teacher so I don't know if you are on the same line with me?

Anyhow, in two consecutive verses where God repeatedly addresses the population of worker bees in the feminine and can be noted in these words. first اتَّخِذِي which is to say 'take' addresses the bee as a female as opposed to اتَّخِذِ which would be the masculine of that--
the next verse he states كُلِي which is the feminine (to eat), the masculine of that would be كُلِ then again فَاسْلُكِي follow as opposed to فَاسْلُكِ clearely it is understood we are dealing with the feminine. I don't want to make it any more complicated than this but hope it suffices as a reply

وَأَوْحَى رَبُّكَ إِلَى النَّحْلِ أَنِ اتَّخِذِي مِنَ الْجِبَالِ بُيُوتًا وَمِنَ الشَّجَرِ وَمِمَّا يَعْرِشُونَ {68}

[Pickthal 16:68] And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying: Choose thou habitations in the hills and in the trees and in that which they thatch;

ثُمَّ كُلِي مِن كُلِّ الثَّمَرَاتِ فَاسْلُكِي سُبُلَ رَبِّكِ ذُلُلاً يَخْرُجُ مِن بُطُونِهَا شَرَابٌ مُّخْتَلِفٌ أَلْوَانُهُ فِيهِ شِفَاء لِلنَّاسِ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لآيَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ {69}

[Pickthal 16:69] Then eat of all fruits, and follow the ways of thy Lord, made smooth (for thee). There cometh forth from their bellies a drink divers of hues, wherein is healing for mankind. Lo! herein is indeed a portent for people who reflect.


hope that was of help

cheers

[Malaikah]

:sl:

Is it just me or has this discussion totally strayed from the original topic of Christianity?

[Pygoscelis]

You are right Malaikah, it has strayed. And the real kicker is that I think i saw another recent thread on exactly the islamic miracle/science topic.

[Woodrow]

I have to agree with the past several posters. this thread is no longer about the original topic, if anybody remembers what that was.

When a thread strays this far off, it is obvious nobody is interested in the original topic anymore, or it has been answered.

Time to move on, nothing further to be seen here.