?????????????????????????:blind:
when harry potter was first written exactly?
How do we know that the Koran is true?
- Thread starter TorahTruth
- Start date
- Replies 246
- Views 37K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5
when harry potter was first written exactly?
I brought it up as a hypothetical. If the text of Harry Potter turns out to be well preserved thousands of years from now, would you think that was evidence that it's true?
Again, my point here is that something being well-preserved has nothing to do with whether or not is true.
Maybe a better example than Harry Potter are the Hindu Vedas. These scriptures are much older than the Quran, dating from 1,000 B.C. They were orally transmitted over centuries before being written down, but many Hindus swear that they have been perfectly preserved. My response to this is: so what if they are? Similarly, so what if the Quran is perfectly preserved? Myths and lies can be perfectly preserved just as easily as truth.
That would certainly be nice. And some people think it's possible during our lifetimes.
Not sure what your point is, though. (Edit: Also, I don't think the human mind is unlimited. It emerges from the brain, which is a limited amount of matter.)
well, so you agree with me that the Qur'an is well-preserved !!!
then we should make a comparison between all the relegious scriptures...including Torah, the Gospel...the Qur'an...then we make an examination on all of them...then we see which is more accurate, which is devoid from contradictions...which back up the scienctific discoveries...
since I'm a Muslim i should talk about the Qur'an:
1- for accuracy you should ask native Arabic speakers...and you should know that even the best speakers of Arabic, at that time was Quraysh tribe, stood astonished when the Qur'an was sent down to Muhammed(pbuh)...and many of them converted because the style of language and wisedom that Qur'an brought to them...and the moral codes....
2- for contradictions, as it is known the Qur'an was sent down as a challenge for humanity...so it's a challenge for you as well to find a contradcition in the Qur'an...
3- as for scientific discoveries let me give you two samples that show that the Qur'an is Allah's words; there are many but i'm including just these two examples:
a- the Qur'an describes the very stages through which the embroyo passes, Allah says:
"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-like substance)..." (Qur'an 23:12-14)
In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said; "It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'an about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been the messenger of God, or Allah"
here is the comment of professor Keith Moor in audio and video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWEMAseQz1A&feature=related
and here is the video where Dr Keith Moore Explaining about Embryo Stages Mentioned in the Quran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ocmAHiDSV0
and here is the biography of Dr. keith Moor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ocmAHiDSV0
b- the discovery of Pharoah's body preserved and not a mummy:
now let me show this scientific discovery about the well-known Pharaoh who was dead drowned. the bible says that he was drowned then he demolished. BUT Allah says that his body did not demolish and his corpse is still existing till these days to be an example for the unbelievers. this discovery is backed up by a French ex-non-muslim scientist, who converted to Islam later. this man is Maurice Bucaille. he is a French medical doctor, member of the French Society of Egyptology, and author. he has a well know book called "the Bible, the Qur'an and science" ...Allah says:
(Qur'an: 10:90): we took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god exept Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit(to Allah in Islam)"
(Qur'an: 10:91): "(it was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief( and violence)!"
(Qur'an: 10:92): " This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our signs!"
here is his lectures about this discovery in audio and video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaSfE1DW2-w
and here is the biography of the Maurice Bucaille
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille
I understand what point you're making but, in regards to the top of your post, don't forget that Islam is painted as this religion that "supports terrorism" yet, the % of people converting is still pretty high I would say. I wonder why.
Of course it is. I just don't see why on earth that means it's worth following.
well, so you agree with me that the Qur'an is well-preserved !!!
As I've said in this thread before, this is a silly argument, and it's not going to convince an atheist like me. Yes, Muslims think the Quran is very pretty; supposedly some people have even converted because it's so pretty. But I've read it, and I don't think it's pretty at all. I think it's repetitive and childish. Simply asserting that the Quran is beautiful is not going to convince me that it's beautiful, let alone that I should convert because it's beautiful.
On morals, the Quran made many advances over the dominant Arab culture of its time. But that doesn't mean it's relevant or moral for today's world. I think many of its laws are barbaric. Though I think that is a discussion for another thread.
For a religious text, the Quran is remarkably consistent. It's also quite short, and it should be consistent since it was written by one guy over a short period of time.
Just because something doesn't contradict itself doesn't mean it's true. The Enuma Elish—the Babylonian creation myth—also doesn't contradict itself. That doesn't mean that the god Marduk exists.
Embryology was well known to the ancient Greeks, hundreds of years before the Quran was written.
This would have been known to anyone who bothered to examine miscarriages.
Why on earth do you think this is evidence that the Quran is "special"?
Egyptian mummies and methods of preserving bodies were well-known to ancient cultures before the Muslims. Again, why on earth would this make the Quran special (even if the passage refers to what you say it refers to, which seems like quite a stretch from my reading)?
I think it's telling that the great "scientific" references of the Quran were well-known to people before the Quran was written. On the other hand, the Quran has plenty of passages containing mythological, unscientific nonsense, which I brought up earlier in the thread. It refers to the orbit of the sun, just like every other ancient culture who thought the sun revolved around the earth. It refers to a man bringing pairs of every animal onto an ark, which is physically impossible. It refers to semen being produced in the wrong place. It gives every indication of being written by a 7th-century Arab tribesman, not an all-knowing deity.
I'm sure you can Google all kinds of clever excuses for why the Quran says these apparently false things, complete with Muslim doctors and scientists on Youtube appealing to their own authority. But I hope you understand why such arguments are not convincing to someone like me.
Well-funded marketing. Those billionaire Saudis love to throw their money at putting up new madrassas in war-torn Africa.
Also, is the conversion rate high? Or is the total number of new Muslims high? Because if it's the latter, that is easily explained by the high Muslim birth rate.
But I will say that Islam has a very simple, direct appeal that is probably easy for people like me to underestimate. I can see how the "straight path" would be appealing for many people who feel lost or directionless in the modern world. The instant sense of community is also probably quite appealing. Of course, for the same reasons, lots of people join cults.
In any case, though, this just amounts to an appeal to popularity. "Everyone's doing it" won't convince me Islam is true anymore than it should convince you to get drunk with the "cool kids" under the bleachers.
aamirsaab
On vacation.
- Messages
- 4,459
- Reaction score
- 1,229
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
The irony is, Islam says no to alcohol....
In any case, though, this just amounts to an appeal to popularity. "Everyone's doing it" won't convince me Islam is true anymore than it should convince you to get drunk with the "cool kids" under the bleachers.
As for the topic:
Well, first of all the Qur'an acknowledges all the prophets that both the christians and the jews believe in (jews don't accept Jesus[pbuh] as a prophet and Christians don't accept Muhammad[pbuh] as a prophet).
Secondly, many of the great people who invented and furthered academic studies (such as medicine, biology, mathematics etc) were Muslims, following the Qur'an.
Thirdly, because of the teachings of the Qur'an, Europe got out of the dark ages. So for a religious book to take an entire continent OUT of such dark times, I'd say that had to be one great book!
Fourthly, look at the teachings of the Qur'an - it elovated women's status (before Islam, women were objects and NOTHING more!), it encouraged respect in all forms (business, marital and social), it created a freaking business model, encouraged ethics, encouraged charity, encouraged protection of animals and the environment etc.
I'd put more down except I'm in need of some doritos. But from what I have given, that should be enough to give you some idea of how truthful this book is.
Last edited:
That was supposed to be the funny part.The irony is, Islam says no to alcohol.
But it leaves out other prophets I don't believe in, including Zoroaster, Joseph Smith, and of course, the great and omnipotent Space Emperor Zargon.
The fact that the Quran is syncretistic with respect to other religions I don't believe in is not going to convince me that the Quran is true.
Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest scientist of all time, was a heretical Christian. Hindus have made amazing accomplishments in mathematics over history. Albert Einstein was a Jewish/secularist.
Unless you can show how these scientists' beliefs about religion actually interacted with their scientific accomplishments, this seems rather irrelevant. I mean, you certainly wouldn't argue that Monistic Christianity is true because Isaac Newton was such a great scientist, would you?
What on earth are you talking about? How did the Quran help Europeans get out of the Dark Ages?
Now, I'm certainly willing to concede that Muslim scientists and philosophers helped the Europeans get out of the Dark Ages—not least because Muslims preserved the writings of ancient Greek philosophers and spread them to the Europeans. But again, this isn't a reflection of Islam, it's a reflection on the usefulness and value of scientific thought. (Incidentally, you could argue that the reason Islamic culture has been in a slump for the past 500 years is related to the fact that it hasn't produced much scientific thought during that time—whereas "The West" has.)
As I said, all were good moral advances (it also was quite progressive in terms of slavery) ... for 7th century Arabia.
I happen to think morality has continued to progress since the time the Quran was written. (So does my girlfriend, especially with respect to women's status—she's not a fan of the passages that treat women as half-witnesses and half-inheritors, or the passage that compares women to fields that husbands can go into whenever they like.)
Muslims disagree. But then that's the whole point of religion, isn't it—to freeze moral norms to whatever time period your holy book was written. I prefer the morals of modern Western culture over the morals of the Quran. Though it's worth noting there is some overlap. Enjoy your doritos.
the Qur'an is not only beautiful in language or style. but the message that brought as well...I told you that the Qur'an language is unique...even Quraysh Tribe speakers stood astonished because they discerned that the Qur'an words can not be writen by a human being...especially that Muhammed(pbuh) was an illiterate man, he did not know how to write or read...this was known among his companions...even nowadays Arabic speaker do not understand it easily...no human being can write like those words...and in that style
who told you that it's laws are barbaric...do you think the laws of todays are modern?...if so they should at least have prevented this economic crisis to spread....so tell me the best law that you think is unbarbaric, is it marxism? is it darwinism? is it freudism? all these theories have been collapsed dude...and the majority of modern scientists todays are creativits...go and read the book The Hidden Face of God by Michael Card... I know that atheist want to make themselves special...but they are not in fact...Atheism is old-fashioned...
I think you have not seen the videos at all, because you are afraid from the truth.....
for the embroyoly, I challenge you to give a Greek text that describes the embroyo as much as the accuracy of the Qur'an description...I think you are not more clever than Mr. keith Moor. if there was such description in greek books, i think that Mr. Moor would be the first to know, since embroyology is his major field
for the Pharoah, i told you it's not a mummy. do you think you are clever than maurice bucaille?....the Pharoah is not cloaked like the other mummies and maurice Bucaille proved that the Pahroah was dead drwoned as the Qur'an describes...and his body is the only one that is not cloaked like other mummies....
last but not least, it's easy to doubt things....but to prove things it will cost you sacrifices; it's easy for you to be synical about everything...because Matirialism spoilt your brain...and you forgot about spirituality...it's easy for me to say that you are only a robot who is writing this comments, not a human being...
who told you that it's laws are barbaric...do you think the laws of todays are modern?...if so they should at least have prevented this economic crisis to spread....so tell me the best law that you think is unbarbaric, is it marxism? is it darwinism? is it freudism? all these theories have been collapsed dude...and the majority of modern scientists todays are creativits...go and read the book The Hidden Face of God by Michael Card... I know that atheist want to make themselves special...but they are not in fact...Atheism is old-fashioned...
I think you have not seen the videos at all, because you are afraid from the truth.....
for the embroyoly, I challenge you to give a Greek text that describes the embroyo as much as the accuracy of the Qur'an description...I think you are not more clever than Mr. keith Moor. if there was such description in greek books, i think that Mr. Moor would be the first to know, since embroyology is his major field
for the Pharoah, i told you it's not a mummy. do you think you are clever than maurice bucaille?....the Pharoah is not cloaked like the other mummies and maurice Bucaille proved that the Pahroah was dead drwoned as the Qur'an describes...and his body is the only one that is not cloaked like other mummies....
last but not least, it's easy to doubt things....but to prove things it will cost you sacrifices; it's easy for you to be synical about everything...because Matirialism spoilt your brain...and you forgot about spirituality...it's easy for me to say that you are only a robot who is writing this comments, not a human being...
you see that the greatest scientists are creativists not atheists? :bump1:
opcorn:Well-funded marketing. Those billionaire Saudis love to throw their money at putting up new madrassas in war-torn Africa.
Also, is the conversion rate high? Or is the total number of new Muslims high? Because if it's the latter, that is easily explained by the high Muslim birth rate.
But I will say that Islam has a very simple, direct appeal that is probably easy for people like me to underestimate. I can see how the "straight path" would be appealing for many people who feel lost or directionless in the modern world. The instant sense of community is also probably quite appealing. Of course, for the same reasons, lots of people join cults.
In any case, though, this just amounts to an appeal to popularity. "Everyone's doing it" won't convince me Islam is true anymore than it should convince you to get drunk with the "cool kids" under the bleachers.
Yes as I've said, convert %, and yea, I'm sure all of this is the result of marketing :rollseyes. My posts aren't aimed at trying to convince you to do anything.. I'm just stating facts. Look at all the things we must follow in Islam. There are so many guidlines (if you wanna call it that) that we must follow and lots of things that are not halaal yet, lots of people still accept this. This isn't like Scientology where one celebrity does it, and all of a sudden, 50 others follow or whatever.
So we don't get off topic anymore, I suggest you look at the convert threads and get a better picture of why people are doing it.
I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously the Quran's words can be written by a human being, or else nobody would be able to copy those words onto new Qurans or onto the internet.
Relevance? He could easily have dictated. Much of the Quran reads like spoken sermons.
I came to this conclusion after reading them myself.
Nice one.
This is a complete tangent, but one of the many reasons why I hate George Bush and the Republican party so much is because they had absolutely no respect for the law.
In any case, laws about economic regulation are not what I was referring to (incidentally, what does the Quran have to say about the regulatory structure of credit default swaps?).
I'm a big fan of Nonzero, by Robert Wright.
And Darwinism has not collapsed. It has nothing to do with human laws, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. But it hasn't collapsed. Freud hasn't really either, though a lot of his ideas were wrong. And Marx made plenty of excellent points about the problems with capitalist society.
What is a "creativit"?
I don't see any book by that author.
I do see a book by that name written by Gerald Schroeder, a Jew who does not believe in Allah, or a God even closely resembling the God of the Bible?
Why are you citing this man, exactly?
And judging from the Amazon summary this looks like another restatement of the argument from design. To which atheists have long answered: anthropic principle.
Feeling special? That's a new one. The way I usually hear it from religious people, the whole problem with atheism is that you don't feel special enough, because you're just a speck of dust in an uncaring universe. That's why you are supposed to want to believe in a loving, judging, personal God—to feel special.
In any case, any feelings of "specialness" I have do not come from my metaphysical views on the universe.
Actually it's because I am rarely on computers that can watch them.
Let's look at the Quran verse:
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-like substance)...
First of all, this verse has an error: Humans were not formed from clay—that is a common Mesopotamian myth that predates the Bible.
Second, this verse is not remotely specific. What stage of the embryo is the "blood clot," and what stage is the "chewed-like substance")? I have no idea what this would refer to except perhaps the general appearance of the embryo at various stages (which would, incidentally, be obvious to anyone who has looked at miscarriages of various pregnant women).
If God wanted to get into detail, he could have talked about how the human embryo first forms an opening that becomes the anus, and then forms an opening that becomes the mouth. These openings then connect to form the digestive tract. He could have even gone on to point out that human embryos, along with those of animals with backbones, are different from the embryos of insects and shellfish, which form the mouth first and anus second. (Modern scientists refer to these two groups as "deuterostomes and protostomes," but simpler language obviously existed at the time—the Arabs had words for "mouth," "anus" and "opening."
God could likewise have mentioned the fact that human embryos have three "layers" or "shells" at first. If he really wanted to show off he could have talked about how the human embryo takes on traits of such animals as fish.
In short, there is a wealth of detailed information that could have been included in the Quran verse, but there's nothing except general, vague descriptions of two states of embryological development that would have been apparent from miscarriages.
As for previous writers who went into more depth about embryology—as far as I can tell, the only remarkable thing about the Quranic text on embryology is that it rejects preformation—that is, the idea that the embryo is simply a miniature version of you that grows in size. But Aristotle knew that this was not true. He believed, rightly, that the embryo develops from a mass of material and only comes to resembles the human (or animal) over time.
http://www.greektexts.com/library/Aristotle/On_The_Generation_Of_Animals/eng/1022.html
Now, I see that there are a bunch of Islamic websites that "respond" to the claim (not made by me) that the Quran "plagiarized" these previous Greek thinkers. They spend a lot of time pointing to errors in Aristotle and Galen. This isn't the point, though. The point is that the true things the Quran says about embryology—that the embryo develops slowly over time, and apparently involves blood—were well known since at least the time of Aristotle. (And the Quran has errors as well—it claims that semen comes from the wrong place on a man's body). Nobody is saying the Quran plagiarized—I'm saying the idea in the Quran was not particularly remarkable and had already been proposed by previous people.
Okay, now I'm just confused. Which Pharaoh is this? I was under the impression that Ramses II was widely believed to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. He is currently a mummy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RAMmummy.jpg
but where did he brought those words if he were illiterate? and the Qur'an it's not read as a spoken cermons...it's a kind of worshiping...
most modern scientist refute darwinism.. take a look at this
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.php
I mean creativists= who believe that there is a Creater
and Newton is one of them....
so you should watsh them first...before misjudging those scientists
there is no erros unless you believe in the Darwinist theory of evolution...that is refuted by modern Noble prize winners...
if this verse is more specific...why do not God show Himsef to you? all what is essential is described in the verse and ask Mr. keith Moor about this...
you have stolen this lie from answering Islam website :bump1:
why do not you ask Mr. Maurice bucaille about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaSfE1DW2-w
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille
I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
I said that it doesn't matter if Muhammad was illiterate, because he could have easily just dictated the Quran to someone who could write.
Are you saying that, not only was he illiterate, he also didn't know how to speak? Or what?
Now you're bearing false witness. "Most" modern scientists do not refute darwinism at all. It is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community. I certainly don't see anything in your website that supports your claim.
Newton was also an insane alchemist who poked his eyeball to see how the light would refract, and likely had a homosexual fascination with a young Swiss physicist. What is your point?
If you are a fan of their arguments, why don't you restate them here?
Are you bearing false witness again? Which Nobel prize winner refuted Darwinism?
I would love to ask Keith Moor about this, and he is welcome to come on here and debate me. But I'm not talking to Keith Moor, I'm talking to you.
You made the claim that I should be impressed with this verse because it presented amazingly specific knowledge about embryology ahead of its time. It doesn't.
First of all, I actually make a point not to read answering-islam. I'm not a fan of Christian apologetics sites.
Secondly, what claim? The word "miscarriage"?
Are you denying that ancient people who looked at miscarriages would have had an idea about what the Quran seems to talk about?
Again, if Mr. Bucaille would like to come onto the Islamic forum and debate me, I would be delighted to oblige.
Until then, why don't you make your own arguments? Or at least restate others' arguments in a way that I can actually interact with?
Last edited:
Francis Collins, one of the two scientist who deviphered the DNA code, has announced that he had been an atheist until 30 years ago, but that he now believes in God.
The relevant report in the Turkish daily Vatan read:
"... Speaking to the Times about his book "The Language of God," 56-year-old Francis Collins said that he now believes in God and that ‘There is a rational basis for belief in God, and scientific advances draw man closer to God.’ The American scientist went on to state that he believes in miracles and angels; ‘I felt the presence of God while working in the laboratory. There is definitely a force greater than ourselves, and I believe in that. Deciphering DNA drew me a little clo0ser to God. I saw people wracked by disease. But I saw them miraculously restored to health. That is the work of God.’ Collins says that deciphering the human genome gave him the opportunity to see that it was the work of God. He went on to say: ‘When you make a major discovery you experience a moment of scientific rapture, because you have researched and discovered it. What I discovered was something that no human being had ever known before. But God has always known it….
DO YOU BELIVE THAT Francis Collins IS insane as well?
LINK:
http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/...W_BELIEVES_IN_GOD_/_DAILY_VATAN_/_08.04.2008_
The relevant report in the Turkish daily Vatan read:
"... Speaking to the Times about his book "The Language of God," 56-year-old Francis Collins said that he now believes in God and that ‘There is a rational basis for belief in God, and scientific advances draw man closer to God.’ The American scientist went on to state that he believes in miracles and angels; ‘I felt the presence of God while working in the laboratory. There is definitely a force greater than ourselves, and I believe in that. Deciphering DNA drew me a little clo0ser to God. I saw people wracked by disease. But I saw them miraculously restored to health. That is the work of God.’ Collins says that deciphering the human genome gave him the opportunity to see that it was the work of God. He went on to say: ‘When you make a major discovery you experience a moment of scientific rapture, because you have researched and discovered it. What I discovered was something that no human being had ever known before. But God has always known it….
DO YOU BELIVE THAT Francis Collins IS insane as well?
LINK:
http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/...W_BELIEVES_IN_GOD_/_DAILY_VATAN_/_08.04.2008_
try to digest his quote:
"There is a rational basis for belief in God, and scientific advances draw man closer to God."
so more science leads to relegion, and less science leads to atheism...
the best scientists are creativists who believe that there is a creator for this universe...but i respect you because Christians are Christians because their parents are so, Jewis are Jewish because their parents are so....BUT for you even if your parents were Christians, I think( for the majority of Atheists are Christians, because they were not satisfied with the hoax of trinity or something like this, that's why they forsoke Christianity). even so you did not CARE about your parents and you chosed a trend that seemed to you more fashionable...lol
"There is a rational basis for belief in God, and scientific advances draw man closer to God."
so more science leads to relegion, and less science leads to atheism...
the best scientists are creativists who believe that there is a creator for this universe...but i respect you because Christians are Christians because their parents are so, Jewis are Jewish because their parents are so....BUT for you even if your parents were Christians, I think( for the majority of Atheists are Christians, because they were not satisfied with the hoax of trinity or something like this, that's why they forsoke Christianity). even so you did not CARE about your parents and you chosed a trend that seemed to you more fashionable...lol
because I'm still a student, but i believe in creativity. there were many ideas that were mines...and one day i will be able to silence people like you...that's why I'm interested in this field...but it think by the time I will be ready to debate with you...you will be gone to meet your Creator :laugh:...i'm not sure if you will remain atheist or you will convert like many atheists who are converting everyday to islam... :BeRightBack:
yes lol exactly. it's just because sometimes when I'm writing fast, i can not concentrate on the word...given that I'm not an English native speaker...it was funny
Thank you