The trouble with prophets

[Woodrow]

I suppose not, but by the same logic it doesn't rule out the leader of Aum Shinrikyo being the final prophet either.

It does rule out any claim that Islam is somehow unique in incorporating previous prophets. It's not unique, it's savvy religious marketing.


Well, that explains why your way of life is listed as "Muslim."

You get 10 points for observation skills.

I can understand this. I think it's easier to be a religious Muslim than a religious Christian. You don't have to rationalize away quite as much nonsense, like the Trinity or the Old Testament.

The need to accept full responsibility for all of my actions and thoughts and words, carries a bit of a burden. I can't get by with someday claiming "That is what the Imam told me." I have no choice, I am commanded and obligated to seek proof of all I believe and to question sufficiently to know that it is my own choice to believe as I do, and not the result of teaching by a man.

Though it sounds like you've always been religious. Ever thought of giving atheism a try? The benefits aren't as good, but you totally get to go around murdering people like in Grand Theft Auto.

When I left Christianity 30 or so years ago, I gave being an agnostic a serious shot, although I told everybody I was Buddhist, it seemed more politically correct. Never could make it to atheist. I guess I don't have sufficient faith to believe this universe was not designed by an intelligent being. Seem like it would take a tremendous amount of faith in science to be an athiest, I just can't follow blind faith I like solid evidence that I have investigated to my satisfaction.

But Mormons say the same exact thing about the Book of Mormon. Scientologists say the same thing about Dianetics, claiming it completes the spirituality first explored by religions of the past. The early Christian church claimed the same thing about the New Testament, saying it complemented and completed the Old Testament. And the early Hebrews probably said the same thing when they stole their creation and flood myths from the Babylonians and switched the names of the gods around.

I respect a Mormons right to believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet. But, I grew up in the New England area and still remember the stories about Young Joe smith and how his shenanigans got the family kicked out of Massachusets and they settled in Elmira NY. I personally can not believe Joseph Smith could have been a prophet and have led the life he lived. Also, since I am convinced Islam is the truth, I am solid in my knowing Muhammad(PBUH) was the last prophet, so any alleged prophet after Him is a moot point.

Every religion incorporates "old truths." It's how new religions get people from the old religions to join. You can basically understand syncretism as an early form of marketing.

True, but who gains in terms of Islam. We do not support any central church or clergy. We are very much on our own and owe no allegiance to any church or organization or religious authority. We owe allegiance to Allaah(swt) alone and have no middleman or corporate structure that dictates to us or who we support financially.

 

[جوري]

I suppose not, but by the same logic it doesn't rule out the leader of Aum Shinrikyo being the final prophet either.

Aum Shinrikyo is a terrorist organization whose goal is to take over Japan and then the world; based on a religion founded in 1987 that combines elements of Buddhism with Christianity-- perhaps you can set a criteria as to how one defines a prophet or a religion before undertaking the daunting task of choosing a correct one whether Dawkins or the Mennonites?

It does rule out any claim that Islam is somehow unique in incorporating previous prophets. It's not unique, it's savvy religious marketing.

What is there to gain by marketing something to folks who didn't want to accept.. and a man who never slept on a full stomach three days in a row, slept on palm leaves, and died with his Armour pawned to a Jew from poverty?

But Mormons say the same exact thing about the Book of Mormon. Scientologists say the same thing about Dianetics, claiming it completes the spirituality first explored by religions of the past. The early Christian church claimed the same thing about the New Testament, saying it complemented and completed the Old Testament. And the early Hebrews probably said the same thing when they stole their creation and flood myths from the Babylonians and switched the names of the gods around.

Book of the Mormon looks alot like the bible.. care to show us how the Quran is like the bible or any book that preceded or proceeded it in terms, of rhyme, reason transcendence laws governing politics, economics, social structure, inheritance etc coming years apart and still have it read entirely like a poem?


I'd like to see inheritance mathematics written poetically in some other book as such mentioned in chapter 4 and sparks 'inheritance mathematics' and as have come from an illiterate messenger--

One should work to falsify a religion through logic after all?

Islamic
Inheritance Mathematics
Description:
This lesson describes how a woman’s estate is divided among her beneficiaries according to Islamic inheritance law. The method involves adding and subtracting fractions which represent the parts of the woman’s estate, keeping in mind that sons receive twice as much as daughters, and a stranger’s share must be paid first.

Curriculum Objectives:
To reinforce the skills of fraction addition, subtraction and multiplication.

To introduce students to complex problem solving.

To expose students to a mathematical process from a non-European culture.

Key Words:
algebra

inheritance

fractions

problem solving

representations

Suggested Use:
Islamic Inheritance Mathematics could be used in a basic skills mathematics, prealgebra or algebra course to use complex problem solving to reinforce the concepts and skills of fraction addition, subtraction and multiplication.



ISLAMIC INHERITANCE
MATHEMATICS
A major Arab mathematician named Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi wrote an influential textbook in about 820 called Hisab al-jabr w’al-muqabala (Calculation by Restoration and Reduction) that is known today as the Algebra. This book was the starting point for Arab work in algebra, and it is credited for giving the subject its name. Al-Khwarizmi was probably born in Soviet Central Asia but he did most of his work in algebra in Baghdad, where he was an astronomer and head of the library at the House of Wisdom.

Al-Kwarizmi was a Muslim and the second half of his book Algebra contains problems about the Islamic law of inheritance. According to the law, when a woman dies her husband receives one-quarter of her estate, and the rest is divided among her children so that a son receives twice as much as a daughter. If the woman chooses to leave money to a stranger, the stranger cannot receive more than one-third of the estate without the approval of the heirs. If only some of the heirs approve, the approving heirs must pay the stranger out of their own shares the amount that exceeds one-third of the estate. Whether approved by all heirs or not, the stranger’s share must be paid before the rest is shared out among the heirs.

Here is an example problem from Al-Kwarizmi’s Algebra:

A woman dies leaving a husband, a son, and three daughters. She also leaves a bequest consisting of 1/8 + 1/7 of her estate to a stranger. She leaves $224,000. Calculate the shares of her estate that go to each of her beneficiaries.

Solution: The stranger receives 1/8 + 1/7 = 15/56 of the estate, leaving 41/56 to be shared out among the family.

The husband receives one-quarter of what remains, or 1/4 of 41/56 = 41/224.

The son and the three daughters receive their shares in the ratio 2:1:1:1 so the son’s share is two fifths of the estate after the stranger and husband have been given their bequests and each daughter’s share is one fifth. (2+1+1+1=5).

If the total estate is $224,000, the shares received by each beneficiary will be:

Stranger: 15/56 of $224,000 = $60,000.

Husband: 41/224 of $224,000 = $41,000.

Son: 2/5 of ($224,000 - 101,000) = $49,200.

Each daughter: 1/5 of ($224,000 - 101,000) = $24,600.

TOTAL = $224,000.



YOUR PROJECT:
1. Solve the following Islamic law inheritance problem.

A woman’s estate totals $72,000. She dies leaving a husband, two sons and two daughters. In her will, she leaves a bequest of 1/9 + 1/6 of her estate to a stranger. Calculate how much of her estate each of her beneficiaries will receive.

2. Write out all of your calculations.

3. Check to make sure your beneficiary sums equal the total estate.

References: Islamic Inheritance Mathematics
Gullberg, Jan. (1997). Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Joseph, George Gheverghese. (1991). The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics. London: Penguin Books.

Nelson, D., Joseph, G. and Williams, J. (1993). Multicultural Mathematics: Teaching Mathematics from a Global Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.



http://www.deltacollege.edu/dept/basicmath/Islamic.htm

 

[Qingu]

When I left Christianity 30 or so years ago, I gave being an agnostic a serious shot, although I told everybody I was Buddhist, it seemed more politically correct. Never could make it to atheist. I guess I don't have sufficient faith to believe this universe was not designed by an intelligent being. Seem like it would take a tremendous amount of faith in science to be an athiest, I just can't follow blind faith I like solid evidence that I have investigated to my satisfaction.

I hear this from a lot of religious people, and it always confuses me.

If you have difficulty believing the universe has always existed on its own, then how does asserting the existence of a God help? You've simply moved the goal-post—how could this God have always existed? If the universe must have been created, then who created God? And if your answer is "God needs no creator," then why can't I just as easily say the same thing about the universe itself?

But this is a moot point, because there's been a lot of research into the question of the origin of the universe—or non-origin. Stephen Hawking, in A Brief History of Time, argues that it doesn't even make sense to talk about the universe being "created," because—since the universe contains all of space and all of time, there never was a "before" the universe; there never was a time when the universe didn't exist. If something has always existed, why would it need a creator?

Science doesn't have all the answers about the origin of the universe; maybe it never will. But "God did it" is certainly not an answer; it explains nothing, it just moves the question back to "okay, but where did God come from?" Your answer to this question is the same as the atheist's answer to where the universe comes from—the difference is that (unlike any given deity) everyone agrees the universe exists.

I respect a Mormons right to believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet. But, I grew up in the New England area and still remember the stories about Young Joe smith and how his shenanigans got the family kicked out of Massachusets and they settled in Elmira NY. I personally can not believe Joseph Smith could have been a prophet and have led the life he lived. Also, since I am convinced Islam is the truth, I am solid in my knowing Muhammad(PBUH) was the last prophet, so any alleged prophet after Him is a moot point.

Mormons are likewise convinced that Joseph Smith was the last prophet, and they characterize his detractors and skeptics in the same way that Muslims characterize Muhammad's Jewish and Quraysh tribe detractors and skeptics. Muhammad, like Joseph Smith, got kicked out of his home town due to his "shenanigans."

In fact, now that I think about it, it seems like a lot of prophets and cult leaders get kicked out of their home towns and move somewhere else to start their followings. Sargon of Akkad, Moses, Siddharta Guatema, the heroes of the Indian epics. Alexander the Great (who was believed to be a demigod by some of his biographers) sort of fits the bill as well. Jesus of Nazareth did most of his preachin' in Jerusalem. Paul traveled pretty much nonstop.

This pattern certainly makes sense for fraudulent prophets. If you're claiming to be a prophet with magical powers, it doesn't do you much good to hang around your hometown where your childhood acquaintences might know better and spread the skeptical word. It's sort of like how con men try to avoid staying in the same area for too long.

True, but who gains in terms of Islam. We do not support any central church or clergy. We are very much on our own and owe no allegiance to any church or organization or religious authority. We owe allegiance to Allaah(swt) alone and have no middleman or corporate structure that dictates to us or who we support financially.

I didn't mean gain monetarily, I meant gain in terms of mindshare. Religions are brands, and their currency is followers' devotion and numbers (though monetary currency doesn't hurt!)

If you were planning to start a new cult, what would be the best strategy? You could try to say that all the old religions are nonsense—but that would just alienate their billions of followers. A much better strategy is to say that these older religions had the right idea—you guys are on the right track—but I have the latest update that fixes a few of the mistakes made along the way. (And you can ignore that part of your religion that claims to be the final revelation, like the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 4), New Testament (Revelation), and Quran (throughout the book) all do—those passages were the parts that happened to be corrupted!)

This is why you hardly never see a new religion that doesn't in some way incorporate elements of popular existing religions. The only one I can think of is Scientology, and even it tries to incorporate Abrahamic religions to some extent.

 

[aamirsaab]

...This is why you hardly never see a new religion that doesn't in some way incorporate elements of popular existing religions. The only one I can think of is Scientology, and even it tries to incorporate Abrahamic religions to some extent.

Ah this is why I and someone else said you have to look at the messengers' actions. The Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] was known for his honesty and truthfulness - even his enemies knew him for that. Also his mercy showed no bounds (he let the woman who poisoned him go scot-free...). It's these actions that help to convince us that these Prophets weren't wackos. They were good, honest and just people - they had no reason to lie and had they done, they sure as hell wouldn't have been living in those crappy conditions whilst all the other leaders of the world were living in palaces, bathing in gold.

Of course there are other reasons such as the practicalities of the rulings e.g :
1) honouring/protecting the female members thereby allowing the survival of the species
2) No interest on loans (you pay exactly what you owe - nothing more and nothing less. Very ethical if you think about it)
3) Respect (in all forms) for all God's creations (including plants!)

Even modern-secular ethics don't even come close. Which isn't even scratching the surface in terms of religious laws compared to modern laws in terms of effectiveness.

It's not simply a matter of: oh this dude got a revelation from God - I'm so joining his religion!
There are loads of reasons to follow Islam (or any religion for that matter) - far more IMO than to not follow it.

 

[Qingu]

Ah this is why I and someone else said you have to look at the messengers' actions. The Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] was known for his honesty and truthfulness - even his enemies knew him for that.

Huh? The Jewish tribes thought he was a fraud. The Quraysh kicked him out of their city.

And of course his followers thought he was honest and truthful. Every prophet's followers think their prophet is honest and truthful. Joseph Smith's followers say the same thing.

Also his mercy showed no bounds (he let the woman who poisoned him go scot-free...).

Joseph Smith likewise forgave William Phelps, who persecuted him.
http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsm...toid=2e4f6a55e0cf3010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

(Though, didn't Muhammad order the assassination of some rival poets who slandered him?)

It's these actions that help to convince us that these Prophets weren't wackos. They were good, honest and just people - they had no reason to lie and had they done, they sure as hell wouldn't have been living in those crappy conditions whilst all the other leaders of the world were living in palaces, bathing in gold.

Power is always a reason to lie.

And Joseph Smith didn't live in a golden palace either. However, he did have more wives than Muhammad. According to a google search, Smith had around 34 wives; Muhammad only had twelve.

Of course there are other reasons such as the practicalities of the rulings e.g :
1) honouring/protecting the female members thereby allowing the survival of the species

My girlfriend is particularly unimpressed with Muhammad's rulings on women. Among others. Though I can see how some of Muhammad's laws were an improvement over the contemporary Arabian society.

2) No interest on loans (you pay exactly what you owe - nothing more and nothing less. Very ethical if you think about it)

I don't see why usury is less ethical than no-interest loans. Maybe in a nomadic society, where money wasn't conceived of as capital, but we don't live that way anymore. (Today, merely having money has an intrinsic value above and beyond the value of the money itself, so it's not exactly fair to expect people to lend money without accounting for that extra value. Money's value depreciates over time. It's like lending someone a sandwich—even if you get it back in one piece, it's not going to be as tasty.)

3) Respect (in all forms) for all God's creations (including plants!)

I've never heard of this before. In any case, the Quran doesn't seem to be very respectful towards non-believers. If I open up my Quran to a random spread of pages, chances are that I'll find at least one insult and threat of hellfire and torture.

Even modern-secular ethics don't even come close. Which isn't even scratching the surface in terms of religious laws compared to modern laws in terms of effectiveness.

Modern Western societies seem to be a lot more effective and prosperous than Islamic societies, which would explain why so many Muslims emigrate to Western societies (although, you may not believe there currently are any Islamic societies ... which would also say something about the effectiveness and practicality of Islamic ethics, if they can't work in the real world).

It's not simply a matter of: oh this dude got a revelation from God - I'm so joining his religion!
There are loads of reasons to follow Islam (or any religion for that matter) - far more IMO than to not follow it.

I disagree. I don't think there's any good reason to follow any religion that I've studied. Except for that religion from The Legend of Zelda, with the three goddesses of the Triforce. I always thought that was pretty cool.

Aside from that, I prefer to take my ideologies with a grain of salt—not "follow" them.

 

[- Qatada -]

Science doesn't have all the answers about the origin of the universe; maybe it never will. But "God did it" is certainly not an answer; it explains nothing, it just moves the question back to "okay, but where did God come from?"

Theists say that God originated the universe. The big bang proves it had a starting point. We believe God did not have a beginning since that is an attribute of Perfection, and God is Perfect - hence self existing without a beginning.

Huh? The Jewish tribes thought he was a fraud.

When the Prophet migrated to Medinah, they came to see him and find out whether he was the true Messenger of Allah spoken of in the Scriptures. When they got back and talked together that night, Safiyah was in her bed listening to them. One of them [her jewish uncle] said, "What do you think about him?" He replied, "He is the same Prophet foretold by our Scriptures." Then the other said, "What is to be done?" The reply came that they must oppose him with all their might. So Safiyah was convinced of the truth of the Prophet. She spared no pain to look after him, care for him and provide every comfort that she could think of.


http://www.islamicboard.com/companions-prophet/1016-safiyya-bint-huyayy-radiallahu-anha.html

Simply because he wasn't Jewish, but Arab (cousins or 'brethren' of the jews.)

The Quraysh kicked him out of their city.

The Quraysh called him Al Ameen, the trustworthy before and even after Islam. They never rejected his truthfulness, but were in doubt as to whether God sends revelation to man. What was Muhammad (peace be upon him) wanting, if he was from the most noble of lineages, with wealth and status, and loved by all the people who knew him? All this was for God, and as is well known - God gave him victory over his own people, he was merciful to them - and for what purpose?

What was he really after?

 

[suffiyan007]

people dont believe in God prophets and how prophets bringing the teaching of Allah to the people...are really Rejecting faith...kafir...!we actually can feel God near with us...but no much people understand the tassawuf..! actually God near to us...we can't see him, but he can see us even inside our heart....there is no other God than Allah.:X

 

[aamirsaab]

Huh? The Jewish tribes thought he was a fraud. The Quraysh kicked him out of their city.

1) Jewish tribes thought everyone from Jesus onwards was a fraud.
2) Quraish kicked him out of their city because he was preaching the existence of one God - they accept Allah as a God but not The God. That;s why they kicked him out.

(Though, didn't Muhammad order the assassination of some rival poets who slandered him?)

The poet in question was slandering ALL muslims, calling them evil etc. He was also one of those jews who thought the Prophet was a fraud. His death prevented a war!

Power is always a reason to lie.

Not by itself. Besides, what power did the Prophet have exactly, if he got kicked out of mecca and had to fight his way back in (after 20 or so years of persecution from just about everyone in arabia!)

I've never heard of this before. In any case, the Quran doesn't seem to be very respectful towards non-believers. If I open up my Quran to a random spread of pages, chances are that I'll find at least one insult and threat of hellfire and torture.

So you believe in the words of the Quran? Yes or no. If you do, how can you be a disbeliever? If you don't why take offence? It's just the ramblings of some dude, right?

Modern Western societies seem to be a lot more effective and prosperous than Islamic societies, which would explain why so many Muslims emigrate to Western societies (although, you may not believe there currently are any Islamic societies ... which would also say something about the effectiveness and practicality of Islamic ethics, if they can't work in the real world).

Nothing to do with the teachings and everything to do with its followers.

I disagree. I don't think there's any good reason to follow any religion that I've studied...

Doesn't mean that others don't have good reason for it.

Aside from that, I prefer to take my ideologies with a grain of salt—not "follow" them.

Why are you equating religion with ideolody? They're two different things.

 

[Qingu]

The big bang proves it had a starting point.

Not really. It gets wonky when you consider the nature of spacetime.

If the universe contains all of timespace, then there is no point in time before the big bang. Theists often think of the big bang like this:

• 1:00 p.m. Nothing.
• 2:00 p.m. Nothing.
• 3:00 p.m. Still nothing.
• 3:42 p.m. KABOOM! Big Bang! Universe appears out of nowhere!

But this makes no sense. Since time is a part of the universe, it doesn't even make sense to talk about any time before the universe. In other words, the universe has always existed.

One way to think about the Big Bang (as Hawking explains in A Brief History of Time) is like the north pole of the earth. The north pole is the "northernmost" point of the earth, just like the Big Bang is the "earliest" point in spacetime. But you can't talk about being "north of the north pole"—that makes no sense. Similarly, you can't talk about something being "before the big bang."

Hawking characterizes spacetime, like the surface of the earth, as both finite and boundless. The earth's surface has a limited area, but it has no edges or boundaries—you don't fall off of it when you reach the north pole. Similarly, you can think of time itself this way. The universe is only so old—13 or so billion years—but the structure of the universe is such that there is no "edge" to time. There's no point in time when the universe was suddenly created from nothing. Instead, the universe just simply is.

We believe God did not have a beginning since that is an attribute of Perfection, and God is Perfect - hence self existing without a beginning.

Well, if your God doesn't need a beginning than I don't see why my universe needs a beginning. Especially considering the nature of spacetime.

When the Prophet migrated to Medinah, they came to see him and find out whether he was the true Messenger of Allah spoken of in the Scriptures. When they got back and talked together that night, Safiyah was in her bed listening to them. One of them [her jewish uncle] said, "What do you think about him?" He replied, "He is the same Prophet foretold by our Scriptures." Then the other said, "What is to be done?" The reply came that they must oppose him with all their might. So Safiyah was convinced of the truth of the Prophet. She spared no pain to look after him, care for him and provide every comfort that she could think of.

http://www.islamicboard.com/companions-prophet/1016-safiyya-bint-huyayy-radiallahu-anha.html

Simply because he wasn't Jewish, but Arab (cousins or 'brethren' of the jews.)

I didn't say no Jews believed him. Similarly, there were non-Mormons who became convinced of Joseph Smith's prophethood and joined him.

You make excuses for the skeptical Jews not believing Muhammad; Mormons make the same kind of excuses for skeptical Christians not believing Joseph Smith. My point here is to show that the same arguments you use to prop up Muhammad's prophethood can apply equally to Joseph Smith and other prophets you don't believe in.

The Quraysh called him Al Ameen, the trustworthy before and even after Islam. They never rejected his truthfulness, but were in doubt as to whether God sends revelation to man.

Didn't the Quraysh call Muhammad a madman, according to the Quran? (I do not have mine with me and I have trouble with the ones on the internet)

I just don't see how what you say isn't a contradiction. They thought he wasn't actually receiving divine revelation—which would make him either a liar or a madman—yet they thought he was trustworthy? That doesn't make sense.

What was Muhammad (peace be upon him) wanting, if he was from the most noble of lineages, with wealth and status, and loved by all the people who knew him? All this was for God, and as is well known - God gave him victory over his own people, he was merciful to them - and for what purpose?

What was he really after?

I imagine the same thing Joseph Smith was after. The same thing today's celebrities are after, for that matter.

Some people like to be followed. Some people like to have their every utterance chronicled and venerated by loyal fans who would die or even kill for them. It's power.

 

[Ali_Cena]

In other words, the universe has always existed.

The universe is only so old—13 or so billion years

What kind of contradiction is that?????? LOL the universe has always existed but was created 13 billion years ago.

Hey Qingu, are you a physician (physic's man) becuae the way you are talking is like you know a lot about physics.

Anyways, the theory you are talking about, might not even make sense, i mean thier are people talking about parralel universes and M-Theory:

Now none of this has actually solved the dilemma of existence. Has the universe always existed, or did it originate at some point. Soon after the Big bang theory came the Big crunch theory. If the expansion of the universe slows down in the future, and the universe has enough mass, it could implode back. It wasn't long until people then suggested an infinite series of explosions and implosions following up on each other. Then the standardized theory made us rethink what space-time as a materialistic construct. So what if time and space itself where originated from the big bang? Then Big bang would be the cause of the beginning of time, rather then occurring at the beginning of time. Or what about our banging membranes? Many scientists suggested they have existed forever to. But there's a lot of problems with all these suggestions. Big bang was such a devastating event that we can find little if any evidence of what went before it. It's all speculation if the universe existed eternally before it, or just two seconds, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Any guess is just as reliable as the next. Next to that, Big bang creating time itself brings a paradox. It suggest an initial movement and change which is independent of time and space. A type of movement which is thus very different of the movements in time and space we witness every day. And our membranes, didn't they contain space-time? So how can a membrane be "infinite over time" when a membrane doesn't even have time? Well it has time in the sense that it contains a temporal dimension within it. But it doesn't have time in the sense that it is not contained by our temporal dimension. A bit like the layers of time paradox I talked about on the four-dimensionalism page. So in conclusion I would say: The little we know does not in any way contradict or even compete with the idea of the universe being created.

Read the above please.

also, you can read the rest of it here(when i mean rest of it i mean the beggining of it): this website: http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/thebigbang.htm

if you have any inquries then talk to brother Abdul Fattah, as i think he is well known for his physics and biological work.

Peace.

 

[Qingu]

1) Jewish tribes thought everyone from Jesus onwards was a fraud.
2) Quraish kicked him out of their city because he was preaching the existence of one God - they accept Allah as a God but not The God. That;s why they kicked him out.

So you agree with me: some of Muhammad's contemporaries, like some of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, thought he was a fraud, or a crazy, or at least mistaken.

The poet in question was slandering ALL muslims, calling them evil etc. He was also one of those jews who thought the Prophet was a fraud. His death prevented a war!

Just sayin'. If it were me, you know—sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me. Doesn't seem very merciful to assassinate someone like that, but then I'm not a prophet.

Not by itself. Besides, what power did the Prophet have exactly, if he got kicked out of mecca and had to fight his way back in (after 20 or so years of persecution from just about everyone in arabia!)

He commanded an army and, later, a government.
He had masses of followers doting on his every word.
He had 12 wives (3 times as many as were allowed to his followers).

Underdogs still can have extreme power over people. I'm not saying Muhammad's life was cushy, or that he didn't put himself at risk, but he certainly had a lot of power.

So you believe in the words of the Quran? Yes or no. If you do, how can you be a disbeliever? If you don't why take offence? It's just the ramblings of some dude, right?

Oh, I didn't take offense. I don't think you could offend me if you tried. This was just a comment in response to the claim that Muhammad was supremely respectful. My Quran doesn't come across as very respectful of others' beliefs.

Nothing to do with the teachings and everything to do with its followers.

Communists have the same exact excuse for why their utopia society didn't/won't work out in the real world, even though it sounds so good on paper. Those pesky followers and their tendency towards corruption and hypocrisy!

Doesn't mean that others don't have good reason for it.

The way I see it, good reasons are usually good reasons no matter who has them.

Why are you equating religion with ideolody? They're two different things.

It's probably semantics. I see religion as a kind of ideology. I use the word "ideology" to include non-religious but otherwise comparable political, social, and metaphysical philosophies (like Communism).

 

[Qingu]

What kind of contradiction is that?????? LOL the universe has always existed but was created 13 billion years ago.

I thought I explained it. Time can be both finite and boundless.

Again, like the surface of the earth. The surface of the earth has a finite area (510,065,600 square km). But the surface doesn't have any edges. There's no "starting point" or "ending point" to the earth's surface, because of the way it's shaped.

We know, from Relativity, that time and space are part of the same fabric. We know that this spacetime is "curved." What Hawking suggests—and what I said in my post—is that spacetime is curved in such a way that it is both finite and boundless, like the earth's surface (but with 2 extra dimensions).

I realize this is probably very confusing. Here's another way to think about it. Take a globe, and put your finger at the North Pole. That's the Big Bang. Now imagine, as you move south on the globe, you're actually moving forward in time. If you move north, you're moving backwards. But notice that the north pole—or the Big Bang—isn't an edge. The surface of the globe keeps on going at the Big Bang. You can't go "before" the big bang, in the same way you can't go "north" of the north pole.

So if there is no "before" the Big Bang, then by definition, the universe has always existed. In order for something to be created, there needs to be a point in time in which it does not exist, followed by a point in time which it does. There is no point in time where the universe has not existed—time is part of the universe.

Hey Qingu, are you a physician (physic's man) becuae the way you are talking is like you know a lot about physics.

I would say I know a mediocre amount about physics.

Anyways, the theory you are talking about, might not even make sense, i mean thier are people talking about parralel universes and M-Theory:

As far as I know, the no-boundary universe proposed by Hawking does not necessarily contradict string theory (if string theory turns out to be true). String theory deals with dimensions other than space and time; we are just talking about space and time here.

Now none of this has actually solved the dilemma of existence. Has the universe always existed, or did it originate at some point. Soon after the Big bang theory came the Big crunch theory. If the expansion of the universe slows down in the future, and the universe has enough mass, it could implode back. It wasn't long until people then suggested an infinite series of explosions and implosions following up on each other. Then the standardized theory made us rethink what space-time as a materialistic construct. So what if time and space itself where originated from the big bang? Then Big bang would be the cause of the beginning of time, rather then occurring at the beginning of time. Or what about our banging membranes? Many scientists suggested they have existed forever to. But there's a lot of problems with all these suggestions. Big bang was such a devastating event that we can find little if any evidence of what went before it. It's all speculation if the universe existed eternally before it, or just two seconds, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Any guess is just as reliable as the next. Next to that, Big bang creating time itself brings a paradox. It suggest an initial movement and change which is independent of time and space. A type of movement which is thus very different of the movements in time and space we witness every day. And our membranes, didn't they contain space-time? So how can a membrane be "infinite over time" when a membrane doesn't even have time? Well it has time in the sense that it contains a temporal dimension within it. But it doesn't have time in the sense that it is not contained by our temporal dimension. A bit like the layers of time paradox I talked about on the four-dimensionalism page. So in conclusion I would say: The little we know does not in any way contradict or even compete with the idea of the universe being created.

This is just sloppy. I don't mean to be mean—it's difficult to talk about these concepts since so much of our vocabulary depends on a normal flow of time, and we're talking about time itself here.

But the author keeps on asserting that spacetime "originates" from the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang "created" time itself. These sentences make no sense, logically. Again, for something to be "created," there needs to be a point in time when it doesn't exist, followed by a point in time when it does. To suggest that time can be created is indeed a paradox—which might be the author's point, but I'm not sure.

Here is the bottom line: does the universe contain all of spacetime? If it does, then by definition, the universe could not have been "created," because the act of creation requires the existence of time outside of the created object.

If the universe does not contain all of spacetime, then we simply move the discussion to the "multiverse" or whatever broader structure you think does, and the same logic applies.

Furthermore, I don't see how the existence of a creator helps us to understand the origin of the universe at all. Where did the creator come from? How did he create it? It just strikes me as a very silly explanation, like how ancient people would explain unknown or confusing diseases by just declaring "it's demons!" Labeling a phenomenon with the words "God did it" is not really an explanation at all.

 

[- Qatada -]

Not really. It gets wonky when you consider the nature of spacetime.

If the universe contains all of timespace, then there is no point in time before the big bang. Theists often think of the big bang like this:

• 1:00 p.m. Nothing.
• 2:00 p.m. Nothing.
• 3:00 p.m. Still nothing.
• 3:42 p.m. KABOOM! Big Bang! Universe appears out of nowhere!

But this makes no sense. Since time is a part of the universe, it doesn't even make sense to talk about any time before the universe. In other words, the universe has always existed.

This is where your point is flawed, how can something have a beginning yet have no beginning? I don't want to go into the philosophy and jump straight to the point - you merely don't know how the universe originated.

Theists will say that God did it, and that is based on their own logical understanding and reasoning.

I didn't say no Jews believed him. Similarly, there were non-Mormons who became convinced of Joseph Smith's prophethood and joined him.

No, the point is that the Jews knew he was the Prophet, they rejected him out of arrogance because he wasn't Jewish.

Didn't the Quraysh call Muhammad a madman, according to the Quran? (I do not have mine with me and I have trouble with the ones on the internet)

I just don't see how what you say isn't a contradiction. They thought he wasn't actually receiving divine revelation—which would make him either a liar or a madman—yet they thought he was trustworthy? That doesn't make sense.

Exactly, and thats why the Qur'an reprimands them. They know he isn't a madman because he is coming with something that is more amazing than someone who is affected by magic - something purely logical and calling to good. Nor is he a magician - because they have heard the speech of soothsayers and the effects it causes, nor is he a poet - because he did not have any interest in it before or after Prophethood [the Qur'an is prose and rhetoric]. So what is he? This is what they were in doubt about. They merely called him a madman because they wanted to insult his claim for Prophethood so that the masses wouldn't follow him [with them fearing to lose their wealth and fame amongst the arabs if they accepted him].

I imagine the same thing Joseph Smith was after. The same thing today's celebrities are after, for that matter.

But why? If he already had fame? If he was from the most noble of lineages [the Banu Hashim from Quraysh], and by claiming Prophethood - he actually got insulted and tortured, so did his companions. Is that fame? When the arabs said we would make you the king of arabia, isn't that fame? Why didn't he accept that if he was after it? Instead of going through so much torture?

Some people like to be followed. Some people like to have their every utterance chronicled and venerated by loyal fans who would die or even kill for them. It's power.

He would be, the Quraysh who were the leaders of Arabia said they would - the people would follow, so long as he never dispraised their idols. So what was his purpose of claiming Prophethood?

 

[aamirsaab]

So you agree with me: some of Muhammad's contemporaries, like some of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, thought he was a fraud, or a crazy, or at least mistaken.

My initial point was even to his enemies he was known as honest and truthful. That jewish tribe thought everyone was a fraud from Jesus onwards. Anyone who said other than what they knew were frauds - not exactly a fair comparison. Quraish however who kicked him out of mecca - now, there's clearly something there doncha think?

Just sayin'. If it were me, you know—sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me. Doesn't seem very merciful to assassinate someone like that, but then I'm not a prophet.

That poet was trying to cause a war with his ''innocent poetry''. Plenty of people slandered and abused the Prophet but all the time he took it and did nothing back (he was stoned on a regular bases, one time by his own uncle! Heck, he was even poisoned AND let the woman who did it go away scot free!). The only time he took action was when people were trying to cause (or causing) a war. It had nothing to do with his ''feelings'' being hurt.

He commanded an army and, later, a government.

In either case he was protecting/leading his followers who were being persecuted for saying ''there is no God but god''

He had masses of followers doting on his every word.

This would have been a problem had he abused this power. But he never did. Hence the lack of a palace and surplus of ragged clothes.

He had 12 wives (3 times as many as were allowed to his followers).

1) To show who and who wasn't elligible for his followers to to marry (he was the last prophet sent by God, you know!)
2) bring waring tribes together/cohesion

Oh, I didn't take offense. I don't think you could offend me if you tried. This was just a comment in response to the claim that Muhammad was supremely respectful. My Quran doesn't come across as very respectful of others' beliefs.

That assumes the Quran was written by Muhammad, which he couldn't have due to him being illiterate. If you want to discuss this issue properly though, create a new thread and I'll tango.

Communists have the same exact excuse for why their utopia society didn't/won't work out in the real world, even though it sounds so good on paper. Those pesky followers and their tendency towards corruption and hypocrisy!

Which is why one of the requirements for islamic law is a caliphate. Sharia + Caliphate = awesome. Sharia law without caliphate = Saudi arabia. Communism doesn't have a safeguard like Islamic law does. In any case, Sharia law did actually work (for a time anyway) - I don't think you can say the same for any other law system.

 

[- Qatada -]

Just sayin'. If it were me, you know—sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me. Doesn't seem very merciful to assassinate someone like that, but then I'm not a prophet.

What's the point of a religion if its Prophet is insulted? Why is someone punishable in the US for simply burning a cloth of the american flag?

He commanded an army and, later, a government.
He had masses of followers doting on his every word.

He commanded an army because the Quraysh came to kill him and his followers. Self defense is any humans right.

He had 12 wives (3 times as many as were allowed to his followers).

Yeh, and that was for social and political reasons. Infact, this point actually supports our view of Islam more than the anti Islam view, because if he really wanted to - he never had to 'forbid' the muslims from 4 wives only, and he could allow them to have as many as they wanted. Islam restricted the 'unlimited wives' practise and set it to 4 for justice.

His marriages were for the benefit of mankind, and this is well known by reading the lives of his wives - who conveyed to us how his home life was.

Underdogs still can have extreme power over people. I'm not saying Muhammad's life was cushy, or that he didn't put himself at risk, but he certainly had a lot of power.

And he surely would do if he was king of arabia, something which the polytheists of Makkah gave him the chance to be. But why did he reject it if he was after this power?

Communists have the same exact excuse for why their utopia society didn't/won't work out in the real world, even though it sounds so good on paper. Those pesky followers and their tendency towards corruption and hypocrisy!

Read the life of Umar ibn Al Khattab, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, two examples who applied Islamic government law fully and in the correct way. Maybe you'll see how Islam really is, the total opposite to corruption and hypocrisy.

The king of 1/3 of the world living in a mud house, walking in the night to feed the widows and children isn't hypocrisy. It's to be a true leader of justice. Someone who would deal with justice and rights even if it was a non muslim, who had been wronged by a Muslim. That's the true Prophetic example that they followed.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Qingu,

I honestly think that atheists have more blind faith than theists.

THe universe has always existed? Are you serious man? Where has reality come from? Where did IT ALL start? What MADE it start? The answer is quite obviously God. The uncreated beginning.

I great trouble wrapping my head around this concept of yours trying to find physical explanations for physical phenomena, and then finding physical explanations for the previous explainations. Your infinitely regressing.

 

[- Qatada -]

Qingu,

I honestly think that atheists have more blind faith than theists.

THe universe has always existed? Are you serious man? Where has reality come from? Where did IT ALL start? What MADE it start? The answer is quite obviously God. The uncreated beginning.

I great trouble wrapping my head around this concept of yours trying to find physical explanations for physical phenomena, and then finding physical explanations for the previous explainations. Your infinitely regressing.

:salamext:

the weakness is further than that because out of all them 'previous' universes, its this universe which has control and harmony and allows life to survive within it, with continued provision for those within it etc. (some might claim the other ones did too - but without proof since they aren't even totally aware of whether Mars had life on, and thats the closest planet to us!)

Now all the pro atheist points which state that other universes may never have had life forms and by 'chance' this one did is going too far, and this is what is real blind faith. Because they have no proof for this claim of theirs.


So if they argue that all this occurred by chance, without control - then we are bless blameworthy to believe that someOne with knowledge and ability controlled all this and made these events occur for life to survive within, and then provided provisions so that these beings could continue to exist for such a long time period.

Whereas atheists just have to continue saying that 'because it happened, it happened'. Well that doesn't really explain unanswered questions which humans are really after, it just brings up more questions.


We've even explained in another thread how life can't come into existence from non life, and how that is impossible;
http://www.islamicboard.com/dawah/1...sts-our-foundations-debate-2.html#post1055034


Yet they will deny the knowledge and power of God, who else could it be except one with knowledge of what He did? Why is that so impossible? Yet forces which don't have an understanding of their own existence form amazing life forms and sustenance for these life forms is something accepted as more of a possibility. How strange.

 

[- Qatada -]

Which is why one of the requirements for islamic law is a caliphate. Sharia + Caliphate = awesome. Sharia law without caliphate = Saudi arabia. Communism doesn't have a safeguard like Islamic law does. In any case, Sharia law did actually work (for a time anyway) - I don't think you can say the same for any other law system.

:salamext:


It worked at its best during the time of the Messenger of Allah, the 4 Guided Caliphs, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, Uthman, Ali, and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz. These were when its at its best.

Afterwards people strayed from the pure implementation of Shar'iah, selecting some and not applying others. That's when the Muslims went at loss. So its not Shari'ah which works temporarily, it works for all times uptill the Day of Judgment. However, its due to human error and false desires that Muslims are in the state that we are today, with no true Islamic rule which applies Shari'ah 100%. If you read Islamic history, you'll figure out how and why these changes have occurred.

 

[Qingu]

This is where your point is flawed, how can something have a beginning yet have no beginning?

I don't believe I said the universe has a beginning.

Can you quote where I said that? I may have just been using sloppy language (which is hard to avoid when we're talking about time).

I don't want to go into the philosophy and jump straight to the point - you merely don't know how the universe originated.

Theists will say that God did it, and that is based on their own logical understanding and reasoning.

But their reasoning isn't logical. It's an old argument, it's been around since Aristotle, and it's been disproven since the Enlightenment.

You say that the universe needs a creator because nothing could possibly exist forever just on its own.

I ask, "well, who created the creator?"

You say, "Nobody! The creator has always existed on his own!"

That's a contradiction—the whole reason you think the universe needs a creator is because you don't think it could have always existed on its own! You're positing the existence of a creator to explain a problem, but the creator ends up having the same problem. So you either have to admit the creator needs a creator himself (causing an endless chain) or that the idea of something self-existent and eternal (like the atheist's universe) is not actually a problem in and of itself.

No, the point is that the Jews knew he was the Prophet, they rejected him out of arrogance because he wasn't Jewish.

Surely everyone knew Joseph Smith was a prophet as well. They rejected him out of arrogance because he wasn't Protestant or Catholic.

Exactly, and thats why the Qur'an reprimands them. They know he isn't a madman because he is coming with something that is more amazing than someone who is affected by magic - something purely logical and calling to good. Nor is he a magician - because they have heard the speech of soothsayers and the effects it causes, nor is he a poet - because he did not have any interest in it before or after Prophethood [the Qur'an is prose and rhetoric]. So what is he? This is what they were in doubt about. They merely called him a madman because they wanted to insult his claim for Prophethood so that the masses wouldn't follow him [with them fearing to lose their wealth and fame amongst the arabs if they accepted him].

Ditto Joseph Smith. Again, I think you're missing the point—all the defenses of Muhammad's prophethood can apply to Joseph Smith's prophethood.

But why? If he already had fame? If he was from the most noble of lineages [the Banu Hashim from Quraysh], and by claiming Prophethood - he actually got insulted and tortured, so did his companions. Is that fame? When the arabs said we would make you the king of arabia, isn't that fame? Why didn't he accept that if he was after it? Instead of going through so much torture?

He would be, the Quraysh who were the leaders of Arabia said they would - the people would follow, so long as he never dispraised their idols. So what was his purpose of claiming Prophethood?

I don't understand your reluctance to admit that Muhammad had a lot more power as a prophet/military leader than he would have had as a merchant.

I mean, I can see how the fiction that he had no power to gain from being a famous prophet would help shore up your belief that he wasn't faking it. Is your belief in need of shoring up, though?

 

[Qingu]

THe universe has always existed? Are you serious man? Where has reality come from? Where did IT ALL start? What MADE it start? The answer is quite obviously God. The uncreated beginning.

But where has God come from? Where did Got start? What MADE God start?

Your answer is no different than my answer to your question. I don't see how the addition of an unnecessary "God step" to the process illuminates anything.

Your infinitely regressing.

No. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

Really. Go back and read my posts again. It's not an infinite regression at all.