PDA

View Full Version : Won't you write this idiot at NASA?



جوري
12-27-2007, 06:10 AM
campbell@backserv.gsfc.nasa.gov

In the far courtyard one sees the Ka'ba, a large marble structure containing the Black Stone, worshiped by Mohammed's followers as having fallen from Heaven (it is actually a dark meteorite). This IKONOS image shows the Mosque and the rectangular structure, around which the people circulate.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect6/Sect6_13a.html

I hope a large number of you will become vocal and write the a$$h**es at Nasa.gov, if this is actually their site and not some hijacked address.
That Muslims don't worship a blackstone, follow Mohammed nor can they prove that the black stone is a metorite, I am not aware that Saudi Arabia has let kuffar desecrate al masjid al haram to run their tests on the stone's composition.
tell them to stop propogating the bull on the net, it is enough they have fox news.

thank you and jazakoum Allah khyran
I hope a few of you will write so it isn't just me..

:w:

I got a failed delivery just now for the email I wrote
The following message to <wcampbel@pop700.gsfc.nasa.gov> was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'5.1.1 <wcampbel@pop700.gsfc.nasa.gov>... User unknown'


Received: from backserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ([128.183.8.69])
by monitor1.gsfc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; 27 Dec 2007 01:34:31 -0500
Received: from backserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ([128.183.8.69])
by monitor1.gsfc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; 27 Dec 2007 01:34:31 -0500
Received: from imo-m26.mx.aol.com (imo-m26.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.7])
by backserv.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lBR6YUAn021734
for <campbell@backserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:34:30 -0500
Received: from
by imo-m26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id 3.cbe.1c5adf6d (41809)
for <campbell@backserv.gsfc.nasa.gov>; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:34:25 -0500 (EST)
From:
Message-ID: <cbe.1c5adf6d.34a4a171@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:34:25 EST
Subject: where do you get your info from?
To: campbell@backserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1198737265"
X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.4, clamav-milter version 0.88.4 on localhost
X-Virus-Status: Clean

I am so angry you guys, after the huge email I composed, a supposed Govt. website has this sort of bull **** presented as facts.
Astghfor Allah al3li il3atheem
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
shible
12-27-2007, 07:06 AM
May be we need to find some pro hackers who would help us in sending the mail

i think they planned it in such a way that we first need to become a member to drop even a mail

it is all written by some nowise guy. who knew nothing abt ISLAM. and this is just a publication which can be editted only by the owners and for any suggestion we need to be either a direct or indirect member of this site

maybe u should try to mail to this address

john.bolton@gsfc.nasa.gov <john.bolton@gsfc.nasa.gov> for the website management

or

Direct any questions concerning Tutorial Content to the Primary Author: Nicholas M. Short, Sr. email: nmshort@TowerMicro.net
Reply

Muezzin
12-27-2007, 07:48 PM
By all means, write in, but do be polite please. Otherwise yet another stereotype will be reinforced and... it would just be plain rude. :)
Reply

MartyrX
12-27-2007, 07:58 PM
When I get home I'll do some investigation on the site and email address. I don't want to do any of that from work.
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Trumble
12-27-2007, 08:53 PM
Before anyone gets too worked up about "the a$$h**es at Nasa" I've seen plenty of comments presented as fact on these boards regarding religions other than Islam (and indeed astronomy!) that are just as ignorant.

A polite e-mail should do the trick, and I'm sure they will correct it. :sunny:
Reply

جوري
12-27-2007, 09:12 PM
which boards his or LI? I have written him a very polite email yesterday with this in it

The material of the Black Stone has not been precisely determined. It is sometimes classified as lava and sometimes as basalt. The reason for this difficulty is that its visible surface is worn smooth by hand-touching, etc.1 Its estimated diameter is approximately 12″2. Its colour is reddish black with red and yellow particles.

It is reported that when the Prophet Muhammad (P) entered Mecca as a victorious leader, there were 360 idols around the Ka`abah3. The Prophet(P) then had the Forbidden Sanctuary (the precinct around the Ka`abah proper) cleansed of all these idols and proclaimed Monotheism in its true, most elevated and pristine form. Thus saying that “Muslims worship the Black Stone as an idol” is clearly the most absurd thing ever pronounced in the history of mankind.

From a physical perspective, therefore, the Black Stone does not have any special significance or importance. Umar(R), later to become the second Caliph of Islam, is reported to have said that he fully realized that the Black Stone was merely a stone and thus had no power of its own to harm or benefit anyone4.

As for the reasons as to why we have the Black Stone in the wall of the Ka`abah, we read about the following reasons, that

(a) it symbolizes the starting-point during the circumambulation of the Ka`abah, thus facilitating the remembrance of the number of circumambulations.
(b) at this point, the Muslims, who are close to the Ka`abah (during their circumambulation) touch the stone, while those who are away from it, raise their hands towards it, symbolizing the renewal of their pledge of allegiance with the Lord of the Ka`abah. In this symbolic expression, the Black Stone is taken as a symbol of an oath on the hand of God.5

Refer, for example, to the profile sketch of the Black Stone given by Ali Bey: Travels, Vol. ii (London 1816), p. 76, to note its surface hollowed out in undulations. [back]
See al-Batanuni, al-Rihla al-Haziah, Cairo (1329 AH), p. 105 [back]
See Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 583 (Muhsin Khan’s tr.) [back]
See this statement in various narratives, such as: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Numbers 667, 675 (Muhsin Khan’s tr.); Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 2914 (Abdul Hamid Siddiqui’s tr.); Sunan an-Nasa’i (Arabic version), Vol. ii, p. 38, etc. [back]
See the details of this point in M. Hamidullah, Introduction to Islam, paragraph 181/a, Karachi 1969 [back
which I had gotten from the web, asking him to correct the misinformation, but the email was returned undelivered.
I wonder if his is a legtimate govt. website? since handing out misinformation would carry a huge liability. This isn't a blog, or some random hate mongor website I'd have ignored it!

cheers
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-27-2007, 09:15 PM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I hope a large number of you will become vocal and write the a$$h**es at Nasa.gov, if this is actually their site and not some hijacked address. That Muslims don't worship a blackstone, follow Mohammed nor can they prove that the black stone is a metorite, I am not aware that Saudi Arabia has let kuffar desecrate al masjid al haram to run their tests on the stone's composition. tell them to stop propogating the bull on the net, it is enough they have fox news.
You Go Girl - I love it when you get fired up!!! I get like that myself :Evil:

It seems silly to have to remind cientists of the rule: to ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME (ASS-U-ME). Besides (correct me if I'm wrong), but wasn't it Muhammed who said it was just a rock? Will try to access email accounts, but they're probably just old addies that have been closed. I have the same problem when I try to respond to university publications. The email accounts that are on the publications are almost always obsolete.

Great to see you back on the forum :)

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

جوري
12-27-2007, 09:18 PM
scriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiibe so good to see YOU. I feel insta happiness, how have you been? was just thinking of you..

I am really glad to see you back..


peace!
Reply

H@fiz Aziz
12-28-2007, 04:58 AM
calm down?
Reply

*WhisSPeR...*
12-28-2007, 06:36 AM
LOL..

subhanallah..we worship only one god, and believe Muhammed was his messenger.

where do these people get their knowledge from?
Reply

MuslimWays
12-28-2007, 11:35 AM
Originally Posted by *WhisSPeR...*
LOL..

subhanallah..we worship only one god, and believe Muhammed was his messenger.

where do these people get their knowledge from?
probably from the most knowledgeable person they know... George W. Bush.
Reply

MartyrX
12-28-2007, 06:39 PM
Originally Posted by *WhisSPeR...*
LOL..

subhanallah..we worship only one god, and believe Muhammed was his messenger.

where do these people get their knowledge from?
Fox news probably.
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2007, 06:52 PM
Whoever wrote this was probably mixing the pre-Islamic history of the Ka'ba with its present Islamic function.
Reply

Woodrow
12-28-2007, 07:10 PM
their home page is a bit odd. It does not look like anything "Officially" NASA

NOTICE 1:

BECAUSE OF A MIX-UP IN RECORD KEEPING, MANY OF THE IMAGES, PHOTOS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TUTORIAL THAT ARE NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN MAY NOT BE CREDITED, OR IF SO, ARE NOT PROPERLY CREDITED. IF YOU ARE THE SOURCE OF ANY SUCH ILLUSTRATIONS AND YOU WISH TO HAVE YOUR DESIRED CREDIT (NAME, ORGANIZATION, ETC.) APPLIED TO THE IMAGE(S), OR YOU CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE THE ILLUSTRATION(S) USED IN THIS TUTORIAL, PLEASE NOTIFY THE WRITER, NICHOLAS M. SHORT, AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS GIVEN NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. SEE ALSO THE WHAT'S NEW PAGE IN THE 'FRONT' FOLDER.

NOTICE 2:
OWING TO LACK OF FUNDING AND MANPOWER, THE INTERNET VERSION OF THIS TUTORIAL WILL ONLY OCCASIONALLY (ABOUT FOUR TIMES A MONTH) BE UPDATED, UPGRADED, AND ENRICHED WITH NEW ILLUSTRATIONS. HOWEVER, THE CD-ROM VERSION (see below) WILL CONTINUE TO BE EXPANDED IN MISSION COVERAGE AND UPDATED WITH ADDITIONAL VISUAL MATERIALS ALOST DAILY SO THAT PURCHASERS WILL ALWAYS GET THE "LATEST" EDITION.

NOTICE 3:
Since its inception, the tutorial has been constructed for screen display at 800 x 600 pixels. In recent years, an increasing fraction of those who access it have set their screen display at a higher resolution. The result is that the illustrations, which are properly sized at the lower resolution, become notably smaller (often making wording unreadable). If you have a higher resolution display and the size decrease is a hindrance, we suggest that you reset resolution to the 800 x 600 pixel level.

THE PIT IMAGE PROCESSING PROGRAM IS NOW AVAILABLE ON THE CD-ROM VERSION.

The latest images from the Mars Exploration Rovers and the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft around Saturn are kept as current as possible.

CAVEAT EMPTOR: A Company called World Spaceflight News is now marketing a version of this Tutorial through both their Web Site and Amazon.com, based on the freedom of usage provision of the Public Domain Law. While this is acceptable to the developers of this present Web Site and of the CD-ROM we make available, please be advised that the WSN version will likely not be as up-to-date as the CD-ROM offered from this site. You can recognize thIS other version by their Cover Page:
Source:http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Homepage/Homepage.html
Reply

islamic
12-28-2007, 08:10 PM
It's not really NASA, it's only anti-Islamic site to make people think it's from NASA and to not see the truth, or . . to not see the lie written by them.
Reply

truemuslim
12-28-2007, 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by JeffX
Fox news probably.
werent u non-muslim?
Reply

MartyrX
12-28-2007, 09:26 PM
Originally Posted by truemuslim
werent u non-muslim?
I was undisclosed for awhile.
Reply

snakelegs
12-28-2007, 09:36 PM
are you allowed to use ___.gov in you're url if you're not a gov't agency?
it does look pretty strange.
Reply

MartyrX
12-28-2007, 09:48 PM
I would think not, but it's always possible theres some sort of work around to everything. I'll keep doing checks on the site, but haven't really found anything useful yet.
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2007, 09:52 PM
Well, I would say it seems fairly clear that this site isn't "officially" NASA.
Reply

MartyrX
12-28-2007, 09:59 PM
I found this and thats about it.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html
Reply

Woodrow
12-28-2007, 11:51 PM
A little more about the site:

Primary sponsorship of the Remote Sensing Tutorial underwent a change on February 1, 2002. Up to January 2006, the server was operated by the RSEOL, Remote Sensing Education and Outreach Laboratory, which is part of CARSTAD, the Center for Airborne Remote Sensing and Technology and Applications Development at Goddard Space Flight Center, Mr. John Bolton, Director. This is part of the EOS (Earth Observations System) program at Goddard. However, all formal funding for the RST has ceased by January 2002. Continued work on the Tutorial is being down in "bootleg" fashion, by voluntary efforts from Nicholas M. Short and John Bolton. However, in December 2005 EOS sponsorship ceased and the Tutorial was removed because it failed to meet current NASA website standards.
Source: http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Front/whatsnew.html

It looks like Mr. Short is doing the site on his own. I am not certain how he manages to keep the .gov URL

He does post his email link on the bottom of his RST home page. It seems he is the one to contact about his errors.
Reply

جوري
12-29-2007, 01:18 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
A little more about the site:



Source: http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Front/whatsnew.html

It looks like Mr. Short is doing the site on his own. I am not certain how he manages to keep the .gov URL

He does post his email link on the bottom of his RST home page. It seems he is the one to contact about his errors.
hmmmmmmn that is both comforting and disturbing. Normally, I'd not have bothered if he were an everyday creep with an agenda, just going through the streets of NY, I see many people who have missed their dose of anti-psychotics, need to be strapped down and sedated, but given that he has the NASA and the .gov would give people the impression that it is legit.

It is natural to think a .edu, a .gov or a .org is legit. especially the first two :-\

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
12-29-2007, 04:43 AM
Sadly domain registration is fairly easy. Plus if you can't get the exact name you want you can use some of the non-USA sites and the name you want may be available from them with a slight twist on the last url. Typically on most domains you can get the Index page by adding /INDEX or /HTML at the end. On registries you can specify what you want .org, .edu. .com .net etc. for .gov there is an additional $125 per year charge and a list of criteria and you have to sign a statement saying you meet them. Once met the domain name is yours and I can not find anything that removes it if you cease to meet the original qualifying criteria. It is like once you buy the name it is yours for life.

some typical domain registries.

http://www.networksolutions.com/home...ayoutIdIndex=1

http://www.dotgov.gov/



http://www.register.com/product/doma...=searchresults
Reply

جوري
12-29-2007, 05:07 AM
Sob7an Allah.. I have always thought there was some sort of inspection of content.
I mean certainly an authoratitive educational body has to come inspect your facilities if you are to grant diplomas and enable you to have a .edu, I am not sure how it works with Gov. but this is remarkably strange and unacceptable!

I honestly wouldnt mind if it were another buffoon starting a hate blog, practically every other joe out there has an opinion and a keyboard, I was struck when I found this on a supposed govt. website.. you can't be safe anywhere..

Anyhow I don't feel as angry now as I did the first day.... guess you get used to it after a while?

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
12-29-2007, 05:30 AM
:sl:

You did bring up some very important thoughts.

1. Do not trust a web site on the basis of it's name.

2. there needs to be better control over who can use domains like edu. and gov. and ways to remove them if they no longer meet the criteria to be called such.
Reply

جوري
12-29-2007, 05:32 AM
they are paying uncle sam.. that is all that matters, I just read the govt's criteria :lol:
got $125? here is a domain to do as you pls..

:w:
Reply

Trumble
12-29-2007, 10:03 AM
It's neither a 'hate blog' nor an 'anti-Islamic' site. I very much doubt Dr Short paid the $125 - you will see that the website is hosted by the Goddard space laboratory if you take the trouble to look. A cursory search reveals Dr Short to be a NASA employee, and hence perfectly entitled to the .gov address. He is a specialist in 'remote sensing' - which according to him is "THE BACKBONE OF THE SPACE PROGRAM", a tutorial on which is the purpose of the website. I'm guessing the 'standards' it fails to meet to get on the NASA site proper have far more to do with a lack of snazzy multi-media flashiness than any factual errors about Islam (*).

However, it is clear Dr Short knows far less about Islam than remote sensing! It is equally clear he is not an 'idiot' - unless, of course, you are all 'idiots' for knowing more about Islam than remote sensing. Amazingly enough, a lot of non-muslims are ignorant regarding some aspects of Islam. In other words Dr Short is an enthusiast about his own field and knows little about a totally unrelated one. Put the paranoia aside and give him a break, at least until evil intent can be proven. If you are happy to see a legion of bureaucrats employed to do nothing read every page of every website even with a 'legitimate' .gov (.gov.uk in my case) address to vet them for Islamic (and Christian, and Jewish, and Hindu, and..... ) correctness, rather your taxes than mine.


(*) Actually, it's almost certainly because it's been around a while and hasn't been changed from 800 x 600, which is what Dr Short suggests it is viewed at. See HERE
Reply

Cognescenti
12-30-2007, 10:09 PM
Originally Posted by islamic
It's not really NASA, it's only anti-Islamic site to make people think it's from NASA and to not see the truth, or . . to not see the lie written by them.
Oh come on. Don't be absurd. It is clearly meant to be a teaching tool. At the worst, the author (one employee of NASA, not NASA, not the US Government, not George Bush and not Fox News) is guilty of a lack of cultural/religious understanding. Does anyone really believe this is part of some plot? This thread probably tripled the hits on this site. :D

You guys are wound WAAAAY too tight.
Reply

Cognescenti
12-30-2007, 10:16 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
It's neither a 'hate blog' nor an 'anti-Islamic' site. I very much doubt Dr Short paid the $125 - you will see that the website is hosted by the Goddard space laboratory if you take the trouble to look. A cursory search reveals Dr Short to be a NASA employee, and hence perfectly entitled to the .gov address. He is a specialist in 'remote sensing' - which according to him is "THE BACKBONE OF THE SPACE PROGRAM", a tutorial on which is the purpose of the website. I'm guessing the 'standards' it fails to meet to get on the NASA site proper have far more to do with a lack of snazzy multi-media flashiness than any factual errors about Islam (*).

However, it is clear Dr Short knows far less about Islam than remote sensing! It is equally clear he is not an 'idiot' - unless, of course, you are all 'idiots' for knowing more about Islam than remote sensing. Amazingly enough, a lot of non-muslims are ignorant regarding some aspects of Islam. In other words Dr Short is an enthusiast about his own field and knows little about a totally unrelated one. Put the paranoia aside and give him a break, at least until evil intent can be proven. If you are happy to see a legion of bureaucrats employed to do nothing read every page of every website even with a 'legitimate' .gov (.gov.uk in my case) address to vet them for Islamic (and Christian, and Jewish, and Hindu, and..... ) correctness, rather your taxes than mine.


(*) Actually, it's almost certainly because it's been around a while and hasn't been changed from 800 x 600, which is what Dr Short suggests it is viewed at. See HERE

Well said! He is probably a geek engineer with a pocket protector and borderline Asperger's syndrome. If you meet this guy at a party he will corner you and talk about remote sensing digital compression protocols until your eyes bleed.

I dare say he knows as much about Islam as that retarded cleric in Sudan who wanted to impose a harsh punishment on the British teacher with the Teddy bear.
Reply

truemuslim
12-31-2007, 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by JeffX
I was undisclosed for awhile.
o ok...

(phew) :phew
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-02-2008, 05:02 PM
One way of ending the "confusion", would be muslins scientists do some analysis on the "black stone" and see where it came from. Is anywhere written that this is forbidden?
Reply

chacha_jalebi
01-02-2008, 05:06 PM
whatever it just shows how stupid nasa is! they should continue being sad and flyin to the moon and come back and spend like a year away from the world, what a life:p

and we know for a fact that the black stone has come from heaven, and also the scientists have not examined so to arrive at this conclusion just shows there lies

another cheap attack, which has been refuted . . . NEXT :D
Reply

Whatsthepoint
01-02-2008, 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by chacha_jalebi
whatever it just shows how stupid nasa is! they should continue being sad and flyin to the moon and come back and spend like a year away from the world, what a life:p

and we know for a fact that the black stone has come from heaven, and also the scientists have not examined so to arrive at this conclusion just shows there lies

another cheap attack, which has been refuted . . . NEXT :D
It's not been chemically examined, but there is evidence of the rock being a meteorite:

The physical properties of the Black Stone were first described in the 19th and early 20th centuries by European travellers in Arabia who visited the Kaaba in the guise of pilgrims. The Swiss traveler Johann Ludwig Burckhardt, who visited Mecca around 1815 in the guise of a pilgrim, provided a detailed description in his 1829 book Travels in Arabia:

It is an irregular oval, about seven inches in diameter, with an undulating surface, composed of about a dozen smaller stones of different sizes and shapes, well joined together with a small quantity of cement, and perfectly well smoothed; it looks as if the whole had been broken into as many pieces by a violent blow, and then united again. It is very difficult to determine accurately the quality of this stone, which has been worn to its present surface by the millions of touches and kisses it has received. It appeared to me like a lava, containing several small extraneous particles of a whitish and of a yellow substance. Its colour is now a deep reddish brown approaching to black. It is surrounded on all sides by a border composed of a substance which I took to be a close cement of pitch and gravel of a similar, but not quite the same, brownish colour. This border serves to support its detached pieces; it is two or three inches in breadth, and rises a little above the surface of the stone. Both the border and the stone itself are encircled by a silver band, broader below than above, and on the two sides, with a considerable swelling below, as if a part of the stone were hidden under it. The lower part of the border is studded with silver nails.

Visiting the Kaaba in 1853, Sir Richard Francis Burton noted that
The colour appeared to me black and metallic, and the centre of the stone was sunk about two inches below the metallic circle. Round the sides was a reddish brown cement, almost level with the metal, and sloping down to the middle of the stone. The band is now a massive arch of gold or silver gilt. I found the aperture in which the stone is, one span and three fingers broad. [11]

The Black Stone has been described variously as basalt lava, an agate, a piece of natural glass or — most popularly — a stony meteorite. It is evidently a hard rock, having survived so much handling. A significant clue to its nature is provided by an account of the stone's recovery in 951 AD after it had been stolen 21 years earlier; according to a chronicler, the stone was identified by its ability to float in water. If this account is accurate, it would rule out the stone being an agate, basalt lava or stony meteorite, though it would be compatible with it being glass or pumice.[12]

It has been suggested that the Black Stone may be a glass fragment from the impact of a fragmented meteorite some 6,000 years ago at Wabar, a site in the Rub' al Khali desert some 1,100 km east of Mecca. The craters at Wabar are notable for the presence of blocks of silica glass, fused by the heat of the impact and impregnated by beads of nickel-iron alloy from the meteorite (most of which was destroyed in the impact). Some of the glass blocks are made of shiny black glass with a white or yellow interior and gas-filled hollows, which allow them to float on water. Although scientists did not become aware of the Wabar craters until 1932, they were located near a caravan route from Oman and were very likely known to the inhabitants of the desert. The wider area was certainly well-known; in ancient Arabic poetry, Wabar or Ubar (also known as "Iram of the Pillars") was the site of a fabulous city that was destroyed by fire from the heavens because of the wickedness of its king. If the estimated age of the crater is accurate, it would have been well within the period of human habitation in Arabia and the impact itself may have been witnessed.
Nothing conclusive, of course.
Reply

جوري
01-02-2008, 08:01 PM
Originally Posted by ricardo_sousa
One way of ending the "confusion", would be muslins scientists do some analysis on the "black stone" and see where it came from. Is anywhere written that this is forbidden?
What is the point of finding out what it is made of? It isn't an object of worship it was a gift to Abraham (p) for setting up and restoring the first house of worship, what it is made out of is completely irrelevant..

the crux of this, is that the idiot made allegations that Muslims worship a meteorite. Which any fifth grader can contend is false, and calling the 'black stone' it a meteorite, which he can't prove... then putting a .gov at the end to loan it all credence!

if we call it a 'stone' hajar aswad, I don't see how that exalts it to an object of worship? or makes it more 'heavenly' than what it actually is..
peace!
Reply

truemuslim
01-02-2008, 11:07 PM
its a meteorite from heavan...
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-03-2008, 10:42 AM
Originally Posted by truemuslim
its a meteorite from heavan...
Honestly, the more intelligent statement in this thread, of the Muslin faith perspective of course.
Reply

truemuslim
01-04-2008, 02:17 AM
^^^ sorry i have no idea what u juss said...sorry i dont have a vocab for huuuuuuuge boring words....
Reply

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

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-05-2007, 04:19 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 10:56 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-07-2007, 12:08 AM
  4. Replies: 49
    Last Post: 02-16-2007, 08:32 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!