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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
'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)
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
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..
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?!!
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?
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 !
Im Always Right,Its Like,When Im Right,Im Right,And When Im Wrong,I Could've Been Right,So Im Still Right,'Cause I Could've Been Wrong!
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
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
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!!!
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.
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..........
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
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...
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.
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!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
It looks like you've misunderstood some of what I wrote. My fault for not being clear.
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
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.
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks