are ALL non-muslims abided in HELL...(completely explained here)

[Ghira]

verse 6 sister

Thank you for the correction..I am a brother in Islam

 

[- Qatada -]

Just because what you say about creation doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't mean I don't believe in God.

If I were capable of reading and understanding Guru Granth Sahib entirely, I would tell you for sure what Guru Granth Sahib says about creation of the universe.

If you don't have a logical answer, then don't bother attacking the logical answer which i gave you - God created everything from nothing. It's easy for Him to do that since He is God, and He is the Originater.

But theory of evolution (please do check it) does logically make better sense than creating Adam and Eve out of mud. Does it really sense that God created Adam and Eve out of dirt and yet created animals out of meat, when there human and animals share so many biological similarities? Do you ever wonder how soul was created?

No the evolution theory doesn't make more sense, since the evolutionists don't know where the first 'living' cell came from.


Anyway, to answer your second question - theres a good explanation here:

What was Man created from?​

The allegation is as follows:

What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]

The obvious explanation to this question is that these references describe different aspects or stages in man's creation. This has always been the understanding of such verses.

We will give a brief explanation of each verse, while presenting them in chronological order.

Most of the references refer to two different aspects of creation: Original creation and Embryological development.
Original creation

19:67 Does not man remember that We created him before, and he was nothing?

The phrase and he was nothing is the translation of the arabic wa lam yaku shay. Some confusion may have resulted because Yusuf Ali's translation renders it as out of nothing, which is not very accurate at all. The phrase literally means, and he was nothing.

Hence, this verse states that human beings were nothing, and Allah brought us into existence. This is a tremendous favour bestowed upon us, that we may be thankful to Allah swt.

This is allegedly in contradiction to the following verse:

52:35 Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d.1372CE) has explained this verse as follows in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim:

Allah asks them, were they created without a maker or did they create themselves Neither is true. Allah is the One Who created them and brought them into existence after they were nothing.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 9, p. 297)

​

Hence, this verse is not in contradiction to the previous verse at all, after closer examination. Even if we choose to translate verse 52:35 as "Were they created from nothing..." it would also be correct as Allah swt developed the human being from previously created substances.

20:55 Thereof (the earth) We created you, and into it We shall return you, and from it We shall bring you out once again

The original creation of Adam pbuh was from the dust of the earth.

30:20 Among His Signs is this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide)!

This dust was then mixed with water to produce what is mentioned in the following verse:
15:26 And indeed, We created man from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud [min hama’in masnoon]

An interesting commentary on these verses has been provided here:
http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_08.php#1


Sheikh Muhammad Mutwalli Ash-Sha`rawi also comments:

If we take dust and add water to it, it will be mud. If it is left for some time, it will turn into clay. These are simply the stages of the creation of man. Man thus comes from dust, turned into clay after the addition of water. If we scrutinize this issue, we will find out that man, in his daily life, needs earth and depends on it in so many aspects. It is this earthy soil where we grow the plants upon which we live. Thus, preserving the materials of man depends on the source from which these materials are created.


Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.


In addition, death itself serves as a proof of creation. When we try to demolish a building, we follow the reverse order of building it; we start with the last floor. By the same token, since we have not eye-witnessed the creation of man, then we shall see how death occurs. Actually, we witness several deaths everyday. When man dies, his soul leaves his body, then the decline starts; his body becomes dry (which is similar to the stage of clay) and then decays and turns finally into dust which was his original substance. Life is given to man through the soul that is blown into his body. When the soul departs, man dies and starts his way back to his original form going through the stages of his first creation. Thus, death stands as a living proof for creation (SOURCE)

​

21:30...We made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
This verse explains that all living things are composed of water.

Dr. Zakir Naik has commented on the above verse by saying:

Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence. Was it possible 14 centuries ago for any human-being to guess that every living being was made of water? Moreover would such a guess be conceivable by a human being in the deserts of Arabia where there has always been scarcity of water? (SOURCE)​

The following link also comments on this:
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_58.html


Embryological development

16:4 He has created man from a nutfah; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman has explained this as follow:

Nutfah (The drop)

Al-Nutfah in Arabic means a drop or a small part of fluid and Nutfah in general describes a stage where the beginnings of a human being are found in this fluid (Ref: 6A, 12/6; 17/118; 19/120: 13A, 3/436: 15A, 17/116: 1C, 2/121: 7B, 3/116: 4D, 9/235-6: 5D, 6/258: 4A, 30/234: 7A, 4/336: 10A, 13/9: 12A, 4/288). Its real meaning can only be deduced from the text of Qur'an; evidently it is a comprehensive term and includes male and female gametes and part of their natural environments of fluid. It also includes zygote, morula and blastocyst till implantation in the uterus. This is illustrated by the following citation:​

"was he not a drop or part of germinal fluid (Mani) emitted or programmed" (Surah Al- Qiyama, Ayah 37)

Here "Mani" means male or female germinal fluid (Ref: 1D, 5/276: 5D, 10/348:2D, 6/2497).

The Prophet's Hadith confirms the fact that the offspring is created from part of the germinal fluids.

"Not from all the fluid is the offspring created"

(Sahih. Muslim: Kitab Al-Nekah, Bab Al-Azl)

It is also known that not all parts of the ejaculate are equally potent in the fertilisation process. "In the first portion of the ejaculate are the spermatozoa, epididymal fluids, and the secretions from the Cowper and prostate gland fluids. In the last portions of the ejaculate are the secretions of the seminal vesicles. Most spermatozoa appear in the first part of the ejaculate, which is made primarily of prostatic secretions. Thus spermatozoa in the initial portion of the ejaculate have better motility and survival than those in the later portions, which are chiefly vesicular in origin". (SOURCE)​

And concerning the verse:
96:2 Created man, out of a (mere) clot of an Alaqah
Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman states:

The 'Alaqah stage

"Then (thumm) We made the drop into an 'Alaqah". (Surah Al-Mu 'minun, Ayah 14)

In Arabic the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings;

• 
  [*]
  
  something which clings or a suspended thing (Ref: 7B, 5/440: 1D, 4/125: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267: 5D, 7/20)
  [*]a leech-like structure (Ref: 9A, 3/242: 20A, 2/281: 7B, 5/139: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267)

Amazingly each of these terms can be applied to the developing embryo with stunning precision. All of these terms encompassed by the word ‘Alaqah describe the appearance of the embryo as well as its relationship with the womb. From the discussion below it becomes clear that the embryo resembles a primitive multicellular organism which is attached to a host and feeding on its blood.

a) something which clings

Modern science informs us that once the egg has been fertilised in the Fallopian tube it undergoes successive divisions to form a ball like structure of 12-16 cells by the third day. This structure is called a blastocyst and it reaches the uterus in 4 to 5 days. The blastocyst then lies free in the uterine secretions for a further 2 days. About a week after fertilisation the blastocyst begins to attach and implant into the uterine wall. By the 11th to 12th day it is completely embedded in the uterine wall. At this stage chorionic villosities begin to develop like roots in the soil, these draw nourishment from the uterus necessary for the blastocyst's growth. These formations cover the whole blastocyst and make it literally cling to the uterus. By the end of the second week implantation is complete. Inside the blastocyst the embryo is anchored to the wall of the chorionic cavity by a connecting stalk. Hence, these different ways of clinging and attachment seem to represent the most dominant features from day 7 to 21, and are perfectly described in the Qur'anic description by the word ‘Alaqah. For greater detail see S. Hussain (1986) ‘Al-‘Alaq:the mystery explored, Ark Journal, London, pp. 31-36.

b) a suspended thing

The 3 week old embryo inside the blastocyst which is embedded in the uterine wall is seen to be suspended in the chorionic cavity by means of the connecting stalk and is surrounded by the amniotic cavity and the yolk sac. Therefore, the term ‘Alaqah accurately describes the suspended embryo after it has been implanted.

c) a leech-like structure

The word ‘Alaqah can also be translated as ‘leech like structure'. The leech is a elongated pear shaped creature which thrives on blood sucking. At this stage of development the embryo from top view does bear a resemblance to a leech. This resemblance is even more marked if the 24 day old embryo is seen from the side. It is also interesting to note that the embryo is now dependent on the maternal blood for its nutrition and behaves very much like a leech!. (For greater detail see Moore, KL. ‘A scientists interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an.' Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of US and Canada, 1986, 18:15, and Moore, KL. and Azzindani, AMA.: "The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions". 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah and WB Saunders).

In conclusion, whichever of the above terms are used to translate the word ‘Alaqah they are all stunningly accurate descriptions of the embryo at this stage in it's development as confirmed by modern science.

There is a gap of a few days between the stages of implantation (Nutfah) and 'Alaqah and this period is clearly explained by the above Ayah:

The word "Thumm" in Arabic is a conjunction indicating a time lag and the Ayah will, therefore, mean that after some time we created the "Nutfah" into 'Alaqah. (SOURCE)

​

These explanations make it evident that each verse is describing different stages in the creation of man.​

Avar gave you many quotes, which I usually don't like to do...

Well its hard to believe anything you say then since we've had previous discussions which Avar himself disagreed with in what you said. So please bring proof for what you say, otherwise i think it's better that i ignore it.

Horses and donkeys are capable of easily carrying certain weight. But yes, it would be wrong to load them up with so much weight that causes them pain.

Is that mentioned in your scripture also? Or is that your personal opinion?

Still minimum is more than none. But I don't think it happens this way though. How do you find the nerve without cutting the skin?

It's quite well known that its in the neck area. I think everyone knows that.

That's because you have been brainwashed in certain way.

Please keep your insults to yourself. Thanks.

 

[cali dude]

If you don't have a logical answer, then don't bother attacking the logical answer which i gave you - God created everything from nothing. It's easy for Him to do that since He is God, and He is the Originater.

That's because your logic is not really logical. It isn't logical to say God must have created human from dirt because when humans are buried, they become dirt and yet animals must have been created from meat even though the same happens to them, i.e. they also become dirt. Plus how about the bones? Bones don't become dirt as fast as rest of the human body. Dinosaur's bones were found millions of years. This is another issue. Nobody know when Adam and Eve were supposedly created. Were they created before dinosaurs?

No the evolution theory doesn't make more sense, since the evolutionists don't know where the first 'living' cell came from.

So whatever power, whether it's God or not, is behind the creation created the first cell.

Anyway, to answer your second question - theres a good explanation here:

It was pretty much repetition what you have already summed up.

Well its hard to believe anything you say then since we've had previous discussions which Avar himself disagreed with in what you said. So please bring proof for what you say, otherwise i think it's better that i ignore it.

Just because he disagrees with certain interpretation of Gurbani, it doesn't mean my interpretation is wrong. One usually needs to read entire shabad in order to properly grasp Gurbani properly. You can't conclude a shabad from just one line.

Is that mentioned in your scripture also? Or is that your personal opinion?

I have not written a scripture. So, there is no such thing as my scripture. But if you so much believe in not causing pain to the animals, doesn't it make sense not to put more weight than they can easily handle?

It's quite well known that its in the neck area. I think everyone knows that.

Can you cut the neck area without causing any pain at all? Do they never cause pain? I had heard they slaughter the animal slowly while reading some religious stuff.

Please keep your insults to yourself. Thanks.

This is nothing compared to you telling non-Muslims that they are going to hell

 

[- Qatada -]

That's because your logic is not really logical. It isn't logical to say God must have created human from dirt because when humans are buried, they become dirt and yet animals must have been created from meat even though the same happens to them, i.e. they also become dirt. Plus how about the bones? Bones don't become dirt as fast as rest of the human body.

You really think so? Maybe you could bring scientific proof otherwise? I don't see you bring none of that forward, atleast science proves Islaam. And that's proof that Islaam is correct since things which dont seem 'logical' to you have been proven.

So if you're truthful, bring your proof. I've brought mine forward.

Dinosaur's bones were found millions of years. This is another issue. Nobody know when Adam and Eve were supposedly created. Were they created before dinosaurs?

Allaah knows best, like i've said before - it wouldn't really matter to us whether they were or not. Since that wouldn't increase us or weaken us in our faith regarding Allaah, the Creator of all things.

So whatever power, whether it's God or not, is behind the creation created the first cell.

It was God, that's what i've stated. You're the one saying otherwise.

It was pretty much repetition what you have already summed up.

No, it was scientific proof.

Just because he disagrees with certain interpretation of Gurbani, it doesn't mean my interpretation is wrong. One usually needs to read entire shabad in order to properly grasp Gurbani properly. You can't conclude a shabad from just one line.

Then i dont need to accept anything you've said right? Since your book can be interpreted anyway one desires.

I have not written a scripture. So, there is no such thing as my scripture. But if you so much believe in not causing pain to the animals, doesn't it make sense not to put more weight than they can easily handle?

Well this goes back to you again, since you believe that animals shouldn't be hurt in any minor way, then no-one should sit on them either right? And if you agree with that, then i can bring you a whole list of famous sikhi figures who actually rode animals. Therefore your contradicting yourself.

Can you cut the neck area without causing any pain at all? Do they never cause pain? I had heard they slaughter the animal slowly while reading some religious stuff.

You've heard wrong, again. Do you know how long it takes to say the word 'bismillah' (in the name of Allah) ? That isn't a long time now is it?

This is nothing compared to you telling non-Muslims that they are going to hell

Well why should someone be rewarded for taking God's message in mockery? They should be punished since the clear signs came to them - but they felt too arrogant to submit. They rejected Allaah and said wrong things about Him of which they had no knowledge, so what other reward should there be for the wrongdoers?

 

[cali dude]

You really think so? Maybe you could bring scientific proof otherwise? I don't see you bring none of that forward, atleast science proves Islaam. And that's proof that Islaam is correct since things which dont seem 'logical' to you have been proven.

So if you're truthful, bring your proof. I've brought mine forward.

Theory of evolution is scientific theory. So I do believe the theory of evolution is more logical than yours, i.e. instead of God creating man and woman, the cell the was created first and then everything else followed as per theory of evolution.

There have been other incidents when science has proven religion wrong, e.g. Galileo was thrown into prison when he said that earth was not flat?

Allaah knows best, like i've said before - it wouldn't really matter to us whether they were or not. Since that wouldn't increase us or weaken us in our faith regarding Allaah, the Creator of all things.

But it would confirm or deny your theory.

It was God, that's what i've stated. You're the one saying otherwise.

The only difference is that you think God created man and woman in form of body and I am saying that God probably created the cell and then everything else followed...

No, it was scientific proof.

It would be scientific proof if science proved that God created man/woman from dust. It was more of a religious people's attempt to prove their theory scientifically.

Then i dont need to accept anything you've said right? Since your book can be interpreted anyway one desires.

It can be misinterpreted by those who don't read the entirely shabad or by those who entirely understand it. But there are quite a few stuff that are very clear.

Well this goes back to you again, since you believe that animals shouldn't be hurt in any minor way, then no-one should sit on them either right? And if you agree with that, then i can bring you a whole list of famous sikhi figures who actually rode animals. Therefore your contradicting yourself.

Like I said, it would be wrong to overload them. I don't see why it would be so wrong to let a horse carry weight not too heavy.

You've heard wrong, again. Do you know how long it takes to say the word 'bismillah' (in the name of Allah) ? That isn't a long time now is it?

But it still doesn't answer the other question. Can you actually cut the nerve without cutting the skin and causing no pain at all? Even minor pain is more than no pain.

Well why should someone be rewarded for taking God's message in mockery? They should be punished since the clear signs came to them - but they felt too arrogant to submit. They rejected Allaah and said wrong things about Him of which they had no knowledge, so what other reward should there be for the wrongdoers?

That's simply Muslims' opinion. There is no proof that those who reject Islam (Mohammad's preaching) will go or went to hell.

 

[- Qatada -]

Theory of evolution is scientific theory. So I do believe the theory of evolution is more logical than yours, i.e. instead of God creating man and woman, the cell the was created first and then everything else followed as per theory of evolution.

Okay, your opinion V billions of others. Safe

There have been other incidents when science has proven religion wrong, e.g. Galileo was thrown into prison when he said that earth was not flat?

Yes, maybe other false religions - not Islaam.

But it would confirm or deny your theory.

The only difference is that you think God created man and woman in form of body and I am saying that God probably created the cell and then everything else followed...

I know that's not sikhi beliefs, but if its your beliefs - then you have the right to believe so. But in the end - the disbelievers will be the losers, and they will have no helper.

It would be scientific proof if science proved that God created man/woman from dust. It was more of a religious people's attempt to prove their theory scientifically.

No, every point made was explained using logic and science.

Science itself depends on reverse methods also. They might not have seen dinosaurs, but they saw the fossils, and from that they thought that they were existing once upon a time.

Same way we use a similar method by seeing how man dies, and gradually turns into dust. Which proves that man originated from dust. As explained in the article:

Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.
​

It can be misinterpreted by those who don't read the entirely shabad or by those who entirely understand it. But there are quite a few stuff that are very clear.

Which one do you belong to? How do i know who has the correct understanding, you or Avar?

Like I said, it would be wrong to overload them. I don't see why it would be so wrong to let a horse carry weight not too heavy.

Maybe because it causes the animal pain? I.e. if a heavy man sits on it for example?

But it still doesn't answer the other question. Can you actually cut the nerve without cutting the skin and causing no pain at all? Even minor pain is more than no pain.

Yes, it may cause a minute amount of pain. However it lasts for a minimal amount of time only. And again, if this is so bad - how come riding an animal isn't as bad which is more longer lasting?

That's simply Muslims' opinion. There is no proof that those who reject Islam (Mohammad's preaching) will go or went to hell.

Yes there is, everything has been made clear to you. You can't argue otherwise. Bear witness that we are muslims, and you can wait - we too are waiting for that day to come. Then Allaah will judge us on what we differ. And in the end - it is only the believers who are successful.

 

[cali dude]

Yes, maybe other false religions - not Islaam.

But you believe in other theories of that religion, don't you?

I know that's not sikhi beliefs, but if its your beliefs - then you have the right to believe so. But in the end - the disbelievers will be the losers, and they will have no helper.

Losers might be those who don't believe in the truth. Those who never try to find out the truth can never believe in truth, thus may turn out to be losers. Just because some religious theory doesn't make sense to someone, it doesn't mean s/he is a loser.

No, every point made was explained using logic and science.

Science itself depends on reverse methods also. They might not have seen dinosaurs, but they saw the fossils, and from that they thought that they were existing once upon a time.

Same way we use a similar method by seeing how man dies, and gradually turns into dust. Which proves that man originated from dust. As explained in the article:

Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.
​

Then why would say that human body and animal body were created from different materials when they both end up the same way and are biologically similar to each other?

Which one do you belong to? How do i know who has the correct understanding, you or Avar?

There is no Sikh who can claim to know what exactly Guru Granth Sahib means and there were someone who did, they would have realized God by now. Therefore, we can simply discuss differences in interpretation and try finding a common one by looking at the whole picture rather than one of two lines.

Maybe because it causes the animal pain? I.e. if a heavy man sits on it for example?

Of course, it would inappropriate for a man ride a goat for example. But a horse can easily carry a man. So, it would be OK for a horse to carry a man. However, having a horse pull an overloaded buggy, as they usually do in India and probably in Pakistan as well, would be wrong.

Yes, it may cause a minute amount of pain. However it lasts for a minimal amount of time only. And again, if this is so bad - how come riding an animal isn't as bad which is more longer lasting?

Riding an animal would cause only if overloaded.

Yes there is, everything has been made clear to you. You can't argue otherwise. Bear witness that we are muslims, and you can wait - we too are waiting for that day to come. Then Allaah will judge us on what we differ. And in the end - it is only the believers who are successful.

True believer is the one who finds out the absolute truth and believes in it, not just about anything a religion says and The Truth is not confined to any religion.

 

[- Qatada -]

But you believe in other theories of that religion, don't you?

What theories do you mean?

Losers might be those who don't believe in the truth. Those who never try to find out the truth can never believe in truth, thus may turn out to be losers. Just because some religious theory doesn't make sense to someone, it doesn't mean s/he is a loser.

The One who rejects the clear truth when it comes to them is the loser, in this world and the next.

Then why would say that human body and animal body were created from different materials when they both end up the same way and are biologically similar to each other?

I never said humans weren't made out of meat, but we do know that they were created from dust at the beginning.

There is no Sikh who can claim to know what exactly Guru Granth Sahib means and there were someone who did, they would have realized God by now. Therefore, we can simply discuss differences in interpretation and try finding a common one by looking at the whole picture rather than one of two lines.

Okay, so no-one really knows what the scripture means now?

Of course, it would inappropriate for a man ride a goat for example. But a horse can easily carry a man. So, it would be OK for a horse to carry a man. However, having a horse pull an overloaded buggy, as they usually do in India and probably in Pakistan as well, would be wrong.

But what if the horse feels pain?

Riding an animal would cause only if overloaded.

How do you know that? What if it feels the pain but it doesn't say "I'm in pain!" ?

True believer is the one who finds out the absolute truth and believes in it, not just about anything a religion says and The Truth is not confined to any religion.

It is actually, since God wouldn't create us for no purpose and leave us to wander in the darkness.



This is getting quite boring seriosly. And i'm sure many others agree.

 

[cali dude]

What theories do you mean?

Like theory of Adam and Eve?

The One who rejects the clear truth when it comes to them is the loser, in this world and the next.

If it were clear, it couldn't be rejected, could it?

I never said humans weren't made out of meat, but we do know that they were created from dust at the beginning.

OK, so since when the humans started to be made out of meat?

Okay, so no-one really knows what the scripture means now?

Guru Granth Sahib is spiritual wisdom. It's very difficult to find someone who is spiritually wise enough to grasp Guru Granth Sahib.

But what if the horse feels pain?

Then it would be wrong to ride it...

How do you know that? What if it feels the pain but it doesn't say "I'm in pain!" ?

Apparently, animals try to run away when they know that they are about to be slaughtered. That's their way to communicating that they don't like being slaughtered.

It is actually, since God wouldn't create us for no purpose and leave us to wander in the darkness.

No, God did create us for a wonderful purpose and that purpose is to find the absolute truth and meditate on His name. Human life is the only life where it's much easier to do and this is a wonderful opportunity.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

You two at it again.....

 

[- Qatada -]

Like theory of Adam and Eve?

We know its a fact. Do you continously just want to go in circles over and over again?

Prove to me that mankind was not start from a man and a woman?

If it were clear, it couldn't be rejected, could it?

The truth can be rejected actually, yet people still turn away from it even when it becomes apparent.

OK, so since when the humans started to be made out of meat?

Adam when alive was meat, we as humans are also meat. And a foetus within a woman's womb is also meat. As explained in the earlier explanation.

Guru Granth Sahib is spiritual wisdom. It's very difficult to find someone who is spiritually wise enough to grasp Guru Granth Sahib.

So no-one can truely understand it? So what's the point of it?

Then it would be wrong to ride it...

Is that mentioned in your scripture?

Apparently, animals try to run away when they know that they are about to be slaughtered. That's their way to communicating that they don't like being slaughtered.

Animals also run away if they don't want to be ridden on.

No, God did create us for a wonderful purpose and that purpose is to find the absolute truth and meditate on His name. Human life is the only life where it's much easier to do and this is a wonderful opportunity.

Okay, so you found the absolute truth yet? Are you the only one in the world right now who's upon that truth?

 

[- Qatada -]

You two at it again.....

Don't blame me man, i agree that it's tiring.

 

[cali dude]

We know its a fact. Do you continously just want to go in circles over and over again?

Prove to me that mankind was not start from a man and a woman?

If you tell us how long ago Adam and Eve were created, then it would be very clear whether or not they were created before dinosaurs.

The truth can be rejected actually, yet people still turn away from it even when it becomes apparent.

Not to the honest ones...

Adam when alive was meat, we as humans are also meat. And a foetus within a woman's womb is also meat. As explained in the earlier explanation.

So what you are saying is that originally they were created from clay, now they are meat? Does it really make sense?

So no-one can truely understand it? So what's the point of it?

Only people with spiritual wisdom can understand Guru Granth Sahib. So someone will need to develop spiritual wisdom in order to understand properly.

Is that mentioned in your scripture?

I haven't written any scriptures. If I had, it would say so...

Animals also run away if they don't want to be ridden on.

That's usually not true unless they are hurting or something...

Okay, so you found the absolute truth yet? Are you the only one in the world right now who's upon that truth?

I believe Sikhi is absolute truth as there is nothing in Sikhi that can be counter-argued using a valid argument.

 

[- Qatada -]

If you tell us how long ago Adam and Eve were created, then it would be very clear whether or not they were created before dinosaurs.

It won't really effect us on our faith whether they were created before or after.

Not to the honest ones...

Totally true.

So what you are saying is that originally they were created from clay, now they are meat? Does it really make sense?

Lets use the forward button - when man dies, he is meat. But when he is buried, he gradually turns into dust.

Only people with spiritual wisdom can understand Guru Granth Sahib. So someone will need to develop spiritual wisdom in order to understand properly.

Okay.

I haven't written any scriptures. If I had, it would say so...

I understand.

That's usually not true unless they are hurting or something...

It happens.

I believe Sikhi is absolute truth as there is nothing in Sikhi that can be counter-argued using a valid argument.

Maybe we could discuss this in depth if we truelly knew what Sikhi beliefs are. However, it's hard to believe anything you say about Sikhi beliefs, since other Sikhi's on the forum disagree with you. And therefore i can't counter something which doesn't have a basis.



I think the discussions over now, and therefore we can close the thread. If bro al-fateh wants to open it again, he can PM a mod inshaa Allaah.


Thread Closed.