truthseeker63's Corner [Clarification about Islam]

The Quran isnt a science book - what we can do is understand the signs of God through the language of modern science.

The bible may have some truth in it. However the bible isnt a book of science as well.

format_quote Originally Posted by truthseeker63

Did God send the Prophet Muhammad to correct the errors of Christianity was this one reason why he was sent ?

Remember that ALL the Messengers' of God were Muslims in Islam [those who listened and submitted to God].

Jesus was also a Muslim and a follower of Islam. He did not say he is a Christian.


So anyone who followed Jesus, or any Messenger was a Muslim.

People came after Jesus and changed his religion, from worshipping One God, to worshipping Jesus, the son of Mary - the slave and Messenger of God.


God made the nations before us responsible for looking after their Scripture/Holy Text. Yet they did not have to teach that Holy Text to mankind.

God made the followers of Prophet Muhammad spread the Scripture/Holy Text to the world, and He would preserve/save the Holy Text for us without alteration/human changes.

format_quote Originally Posted by truthseeker63

Did God send the Prophet Muhammad to correct the errors of Christianity was this one reason why he was sent ?

Here was sent as a mercy to mankind and guide all the people that had gone astray including the Jews and christains

format_quote Originally Posted by truthseeker63

Does Islam believe Jesus fulfilled Messianic Prophecy that is talked about in the Bible ?
What Islam's view on the Christian claim Jesus fulfilled Messianic Prophecy?

good question , the answer in brief is NO ..... if one studies the Jewish messianic prophecies,would find out that they have never been fulfilled by anyone ..


I have Just began investigating such tricky matter ,in my thread there ...

Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items


peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi

Surah 23:14 says (concerning a developing embryo) that (1) a drop of seed becomes (2) a clot of blood which then becomes (3) a lump (or like chewed up meat or morsel) which then becomes (4) bones. Then the bones are (5) clothed with flesh.

But there is no stage (4) in the development of the embryo when it is a bare skeleton. How can this then be scientifically accurate?

Peace Hiroshi,

Also even the early Arab Scientists and doctors knew enough about embryology to see that there was no stage in which a bare skeleton was visible. so now how can this not be a conflict? (quite simple) Although from the outside view one does not see that the skeletal system on the interior is being developed as a separate system with nothing attached to it. As are the other systems, vascular, muscular, endocrine,neurological etc, it is not until later that the muscular system becomes connected to the skeletal system and actually covering it.

Peace truthseeker,

Don't get brainwashed by these amatuer claims... No serious Critic ever uses these, because they are so easily refuted, it just makes them look stupid.

Easy greek plagurism refutation - http://www.quranicstudies.com/articl...mbryology.html

Bible plagurism refutation - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...s/BBbible.html (seriously, who would copy the bible with it's incest porn and violence?)

For some legit Quran science miracles, please read this - http://www.islam-guide.com/

What legit and TOP scientists say about Quran - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...cientists.html (and so many others off-record)

Read this by a Christian Mathemetician about The Quran - www.islambasics.com/index.php?act=download&BID=47

Read this by a established Non-Muslim Scientist who studied the Quranic language to make comparisons of the Quran/Bible/Torah Science - http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/BibleQuranScience.pdf

Linguistic miracles (what non-Muslims say) - http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/t...entalists-2774

^I've never heard any Scientist who is not a Christian ever talk about the bible in this way or anything close to it.

That's all.

ps. I agree with Woodrow, this isn't even suppose to be a Science book, just the fact remains that it does go in agreement with Science today with no contradictions.

"Do they not ponder over the Quran? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many contradictions!" (Surah an-Nisa 4:82)

No Jesus(as) did not fulfill the Messianic Prophecies.

Peace,

http://www.answering-christianity.co...bsurdities.htm

Let me copy and paste from another site where I talked about this recently, I'm too weary of the subject to write any more:

The actual condemnations in the Abrahamic rules spoken of here are not against homosexuality *itself* but against the *practice* of it. I don't know why so few people understand this. Any other genetic condition which is unhealthy to the progression of the species as a whole is seen as an evolutionary imperfection or genetic anomaly, but once make a cultural hot topic out of it and suddenly not only is every dissenting party to the majority seen as an automatic absolute monster by everyone, but also nobody even acknowledges what they really believe about it in the first place. Homosexuality isn't unique; there are all kinds of flaws or difficulties in mother nature which it is one's moral obligation to work around or against instead of simply embracing them. I, for instance, am not a sinner just for being born with a lack of empathy but that doesn't mean that I should say I'm proud of it either; it's just a problem I have to work with, and that requires accepting that *is* a problem. In the end it doesn't make any difference to me since even practicing gays are the same as everyone else; we all have our sinful tendencies. I'm probably worse than most of them. It's just a part of being human.

[Regarding the] cultural hot topic [thing:] People form the same views their peers do out of terror of being different and then keep reassuring them out of nowhere ("Not that there's anything wrong with that!") so as not to be thought different. And should anyone believe something that *is* different from the majority, they're a monster, no matter how tolerant about the subject they are (especially compared to the rest branding them a monster). It gets talked about a lot because the media exists to sell itself and they know that feeding on these awful tendencies will get them more money, and everybody defines everything by the media.

I never advocated that [homosexuals] should pretend to do anything. I think it probably better that they not have any sex at all. The concept may blow one's mind in the sex-obsessed zeitgeist of the modern western world but any number of people from history have been able to have extremely full and productive lives while dying virgins. I've never used my birth with a lack of empathy as an excuse for behaving uncompassionately. The whole thing is just—as it is called in the lingo of logic—"the fallacy of appeal to inherent nature". Nor would I *pretend* to feel pity for someone when I don't. What matters is how I conduct myself. So it is with gays. I reiterate: if this subject were not such a cultural hotbed then nobody would consider homosexuality to be anything other than what every other example of evolutionary flaws against the grain of the species' development is: a birth defect, a genetic anomaly. Fortunately, though, one that doesn't have to hinder one's abilities or make their body any harder to use. They should count their blessings.

Let me quote this definition of the Fallacy of Appeal to Inherent Nature from Wikipedia:

Appeal to nature is a fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial. In this type of fallacy, nature is often implied as an ideal or desired state of being, a state of how things were, should be, or are: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition. Several problems exist with this type of argument that makes it a fallacy. First, the word 'natural' is often a loaded term, usually unconsciously equated with normality, and its use in many cases is simply a form of bias. Second, 'nature' and 'natural' have vague definitions and thus the claim that something is natural may not be correct by every definition of the term natural; a good example would be the claim of all-natural foods, such as 'all-natural' wheat, the claimed wheat though is usually a hybridised plant that has been bred by artificial selection. Lastly, the argument can quickly be invalidated by a counter-argument that demonstrates something that is natural that has undesirable properties (for example aging, illness, and death are natural), or something that is unnatural that has desirable properties (for example, many modern medicines are not found in nature, yet have saved countless lives).

It's not about what's "natural". There is good natural and bad natural. You have to judge things by more than just what makes you feel good or gives you the chance to form an extra relationship. Experience teaches that when we're born with a condition that defies basic evolutionary logic and would doom the species if acted on much more frequently, that is IN ALL OTHER CASES an activity to be avoided. Why isn't it here? Because people don't think, they just absorb cultural biases automatically and unquestioningly. There's nothing wrong with *having* the condition; you can't help the way you're born. But see how telling it is about modern western culture that everyone so unthinkingly leaps the gap from having a tendency to acting on it! They don't even notice the gap is there, and if you point it out they just ignore you! If someone had murderous tendencies for psychological reasons that are not their own fault then nobody would be saying, "Oh well, it's in your own nature, just kill away." No, the only sin now is doing what doesn't feel good, so long as it doesn't inflict harm upon someone (many people would even go so far as to say "if it doesn't inflict harm upon someone other than yourself"). Nobody ever sees anything wrong with anything that "doesn't hurt anyone" anymore because nobody bothers to develop a moral philosophy more advanced than a kindergartner's--and of course, they let the zeitgeist form their opinions for them and never think for themselves, and brand anyone who disagrees with the majority as a bigoted demon—WOW is that ironic.

format_quote Originally Posted by truthseeker63

Sorry but I don't understand Jesus was not foretold in the Messianic Prophecy but the Prophet Muhammad was foretold in Bible Prophecy can anyone please explain this to me ?

Is it a must that Jesus be foretold in the old testament Messianic Prophecy? and why?

There are a few passages in the Bible that can be seen as scientifically impressive, or have been seen that way. For instance, Denis Giron once wrote a whole paper claiming that the description of fetal development in Job is more accurate than that of the Koran, but I believe his site is now defunct so I don't have a link. The biblical passages that are clearly scientifically inaccurate, though, far, far outweigh the passages even claimed to be notably otherwise. For example, Leviticus depicts insects as being four-legged, camels as not having split hoofs, etc. A good verse to demonstrate my point would be Isaiah 40:22, which like the Koran also speaks of the heavens being stretched out--right after describing the earth as a flat circle, whereas the Koran calls it dahaha (an egg or egg-shaped object).

It's not about science, though. What matters is whether you can believe the books on their own merits using reason or at least intuition, and not on the merits of the conclusions of an ever-changing tide of academia.