Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 5 Votes - 4.2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2012, 10:53 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(25-05-2012 07:01 AM)Polakmaly Wrote:  How old are the holy religions for example? Islam about 1433 years i think, christianity 2012, judaism 4000-6000 Years.

Christianity started around 2,000 years ago, and Judaism began earlier, although I'm not sure how long ago (maybe your estimate is correct). Islam, however, began with the beginning of the Prophet Muhammad's mission when the angel Jibraa'eel (or Gabriel) brought down the revelation from Allah in Mecca while Muhammad was meditating in a cave. This occurred on the month of Ramadan, in the fortieth year of the Prophet Muhammad's life (pbuh), thirteen years before his migration to Medina (which marks the beginning of the Islamic or the Hijri calendar). Even though that is when Islam 'officially' began, we believe that Islam was the first and last religion because Islam was the religion that was sent to the first Prophet, Adam, to the last Prophet, Muhammad, and all the other Prophets in between.

So, in that sense, we believe that the original teachings of Christianity and Judaism were also "Islam," because "Islam" simply means submission to the will of God. His religion has always been Islam since the beginning of mankind. The only difference is that God updated or changed some of the rules and revelations from one period of revelation to another. However, the central message of all the Abrahamic religions were always one and the same - submission to the one true God - which itself is the meaning of the word "Islam."

Muslims consider Jews and Christians to be their spiritual siblings. They are among the ahl al-kitab, the “People of the Book” or “People of Scripture.” This is the family of monotheists, those who believe in one supreme God, the creator, the sustainer, the benevolent and merciful judge of all humanity. The "Book” refers to the revelations contained in scripture. Muslims believe that all revelations came from the same God who revealed His will to humanity repeatedly, in various times and places to different groups.

(25-05-2012 07:01 AM)Polakmaly Wrote:  We all believe in science right? I mean science does not disprove god. It doesn't prove gods exististance either, but most importantly it does not disprove him.

Yes, science doesn't prove nor disprove God. Science only works at the level of our empirical understanding of the universe (and through our senses), but it neglects the subjective aspects towards knowing reality, and it can never touch on the realm of morality and purpose and the ultimate truth. I do believe that science does a much better job at explaining the universe than religion, but at the same time, religion cannot be totally ignored because it deals with many of the metaphysical questions of life that we are not able to perceive through scientific investigation alone.

(25-05-2012 07:01 AM)Polakmaly Wrote:  But now looking the these numbers... 1433, 2012, 6000...
How old is the world again? 4,5 billions of years?
The eldest fossils of human kind as we know them today are 160000 years old.
Are you really trying to tell me that god waited with his only true religion for 154000 years and let so many other religions, cults, and sects rise and fall till he finally came to give us true true one religion?

The true religion, Islam (in my view), is not a religion that began from the time of Muhammad's prophethhood only. Islam is a religion that was given to the first man and the first prophet of God, Adam, and it was the religion of all the other prophets sent by God to mankind.

The first thing that you should know and clearly understand about Islam is what the word "Islam" itself means. The religion of Islam is not named after a person as in the case of Christianity which was named after Jesus Christ, Buddhism after Gotama Buddha, Confucianism after Confucius, and Marxism after Karl Marx, nor was it named after a tribe like Judaism after the tribe of Judah and Hinduism after the Hindus. As I explained earlier, the Arabic word "Islam" means the submission or surrender of one's will to the only true god worthy of worship and therefore anyone who does so is automatically a "Muslim."

We believe that Islam is the true religion of God and as such, its name represents the central principle of God's religion - the total submission to the will of God (Allah). Therefore, it was not a new religion brought by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Arabia in the seventh century, but only the true religion of God re-expressed in its final form. Islam is very similar to Christianity and Judaism and is actually an Abrahamic religion, meaning that we believe in the same God as the Jews and the Christians except that we have a different way of worshipping Him and that we have a different set of revelations. "Islam" means "submission to God" and we believe that all the prophets of the past were given the same message (i.e. to submit to God's will) but only in different ways and in different time periods. As the Quran puts it in a verse delivered toward the end of Muhammad’s life:

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." (5:03)

(25-05-2012 07:01 AM)Polakmaly Wrote:  And most important:
Doesn't the quran say god created to earth in 7 days?
Why did he need 7 days if he is allmighty? Why did he need to rest afterwards?
And why did humanity appear 160000 years ago if God created the world in 7 days and that was over 4 billion years ago?

The Quran says six days, not seven:
"And indeed We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six days and nothing of fatigue touched Us." (50:38)

However, a single day doesn't have to be the same length of time as we human beings measure a day on earth (which is 24 hours). We cannot assume anything about the length of the days of God's creation. We certianly cannot assume them equaling the days of the earth or that the Quran says that they are earth days. There are other verses in the Quran which indicate that the days when it comes to God and His actions are different and longer than the days that we humans count. Therefore, the "six days" (sittati ayyamin) could refer to a much longer period of time because the "days" could also mean "age," "period," "moment," "term," and so on.

Time and space are defined by the entities themselves and within the entities they are located in. Time is relative. God, however, is a totally different entity, and He is not confined by this universe. Therefore, we cannot make an assumption about the length of His days and how consistent they are until you know His nature - and since we do not know that - it is not possible for us to determine how long His days should or shouldn't be.

(25-05-2012 07:01 AM)Polakmaly Wrote:  Just 2 days ago I saw an interesting Video on youtube. I am sorry I don't have the link anymore but this muslim scholar said something really interesting.
He said religion and science can co-exist. He said nothing comes from nothing. That's why also the universe cannot come from nothing. Therefore a creator, a god must exist who created all this.
Totally correct. Every kid learns this in primary school. First class of Physics: Nothing comes from nothing.

I agree with that. Nothing can create nothing.

Some scientists tend to say that the universe came from nothing, but I think that calling it "nothing" is misleading, because there is still a thing, but it's just that it doesn't have any force or energy to do work. If there was always nothing - absolutely nothing at all - then there would have always been nothing. If matter was ever created at some time in the past, then it has a beginning and a cause and an explanation. If it can be destroyed, then it has an ending and can't be called infinite and that's why I think that the cyclical model of the universe would not work if matter can appear and disappear out of nothing. If that is true, then an infinite time has already passed, and when dealing with infinity anywhere on the "number line" or concept, you have an infinite number of steps behind and in front, which doesn't sound rational to me.

(25-05-2012 07:01 AM)Polakmaly Wrote:  But his strongest argument is also the weakest.
If nothing comes from nothing, where does god come from then? Something allknowing, allmighty just came out of nothing(although we know nothing comes from nothing) and after uncountable years of darkness he decided to create the universe? I think The possibility of this is as high as the big-bang theory without a god.(So kinda we got a 50/50 chance here if we are correct or notTongue)

In my opinion, though, the creation of the universe and everything that it contains all seem to suggest that there is a mind behind it, or that God was involved in the making of the universe, from the tiniest particles, to cells, germs, DNA, the human body, planets, stars, galaxies, and everything else. I think that matter and energy would not be able to self-organize all by themselves into living systems without an intelligence acting on them. I think there has to be something intelligent in the universe that causes a collection of lifeless particles to turn back on itself and to perceive itself (or to become alive). I do believe in evolution, but that does not explain how life comes from non-living.matter in the first place.

Secondly, we believe that God was always present and thus He is uncreated, so He didn't "come" from anywhere. And there is no end to His existence. God created time and space and that's why He is beyond them. This, in essence, means that God is a timeless reality. All created things exist in time and space, while God is 'outside' of them and/or not limited by them.

(31-05-2012 06:47 AM)Polakmaly Wrote:  Let's take a look at the continents:
There we have Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia,Northern and Southern America.
We know (no matter if god exists or not) that "messangers" where send to africa, asia and Europe to spread the 3 holy religions right?
And god himself says that his love to all humans is equal.
Therefore he must have been interested to give everyone this only one true religion.
There you have "Native Americans"(also called indians) in Northern America, the "Inkas" in southern America, Aborigines in Australia and so many many more. So many thousands, hundredthousands of humans and god didn't bring them the message?
The girl said:" Well yes these continents weren't found at that time yet". Yes they weren't found by humans, but they existed and if god created the earth he must have known they existed and that people;humans live there.
But we know much about the cultures and religions there that time. And we know nothing like islam,chistianity or Judaism ever existed in these parts of the world until we "found" them.
But isn't that a contrdiction to the quran that says that there was send a messanger to every nation?
Because obviously there was not. Or am I wrong?

That is not a contradiction. Why? Because the Quranic expression "ummah" in verse 10:47 is not to be taken in the narrow sense in which the word "nation" is used in the English language. The word "ummah" embraces all those who receive the message of a messenger of God after his advent. This word embraces even those among whom no messenger is physically alive provided that they have received his message, at least. The word in Arabic is used to mean nation, but it can also be used in a broader context that means "people" or a "community" who may share the same goal or origin or both. All those who happen to live in an age when the teachings of that messenger are extant or at least it is possible for people to know about what he had taught, constitute the "nation" (or ummah) of that messenger.

Whenever a Messenger came to a people, they were divided into two groups: (1) Those who accepted the message and (2) those who rejected it and stuck to their deviation. The ones who accepted the message brought themselves closer to the mercy and blessings of God and those who rejected it moved themselves away from the spiritual benefits.

Muslims believe that God sent prophets to the whole of mankind in different lands and at different times. The prophets were not raised only in the Arabian Peninsula. Furthermore, there may have been hundreds or even thousands of other prophets, but we don't know the exact number for sure. We know for certain only about 25 of the prophets according to those which are mentioned in the Quran. There are other prophets which are not mentioned to us as the Quran says:

"And certainly We sent messengers before you; there are some of them that We have mentioned to you and there are others whom we have not mentioned to you". (40:78)

(31-05-2012 06:47 AM)Polakmaly Wrote:  And no matter if I am wrong or not: Why didn't god send a message to these poeple? Didn't he care about them?

God sent a message to mankind as a whole (or so we believe) although not everyone received the message because He didn't speak to each and every person individually. To those whom the message is not made manifest, they will not be held accountable for not being Muslims. For example, someone brought up in an anti-Islam atmosphere may be no more capable of understanding the message of Islam than one living in a remote region physically cut off from all contact with the Islamic teachings. These people are qualified as "weak non-believers" because the message of Islam did not reach them and/or it was not made clear to them. So, God will judge them accordingly, and they will be stationed in places corresponding to their levels of righteousness. This is not to say that they are definitely going to Heaven either because the Muslim position is that, ultimately, no one can tell for sure if someone is going to Heaven or Hell except that it is in the knowledge of God.

There are other who will not be held accountable for not being Muslims: They are those who lack the mental capacity to discern the truth. One verse in the Quran says, "Did We not preserve you alive long enough, so that he who would be mindful in it should mind?" (35:37). This implies that at every such age of life a person may be able to distinguish between good and evil, truth and falsehood, if he likes to, and turn to right guidance instead of deviation, if he wishes. If a person has died before attaining such an age, he will not be called to any account according to this verse.

The Quran contains numerous references to earlier monotheistic scriptures, namely the Torah given to Moses, the Psalms given to David, and the Gospels given to Jesus. These books were for a particular time and community (or ummah) and many other prophets were still to come who could tell the people of what was correct in the books and warn them of corruptions. Muslims believe that the Quran is the last and final scripture which reiterates, confirms, and completes these earlier scriptures, calling upon all people to remember and respect the truths carried in them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2012, 10:55 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  However, the cruelty seems incoherent and so I focussed on it. I sense that you are basically a well meaning and compassionate person, yet you make room for unspeakably inhumane acts.

Well, what you are referring to as "unspeakably inhumane acts" are actually punishments in Islam that are prescribed for certain actions that are considered harmful to society. By nature, all punishments appear to be cruel although with varying degrees. As I said earlier, it is better to implement harsh punishments because they are more effective in reducing crimes than lenient ones. We believe that these punishments have been established by the divine creator as a strong deterrence for those who are thinking of committing a crime.

Punishment has always played an integral part in the concept of justice. We all know or at least expect that if you do something wrong you are subject to punishment in some way or another. This is only fair. Humankind is charged with the responsibility for the choices they make. This is because they are created with the freedom of choice and granted the moral sense of right and wrong. Accordingly, one is not to be punished for the actions of others, or for acts done under duress or because of insanity. All people are equal and innocent until proven guilty: only then punishment is considered.

(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  So I kept digging, but alas, I have not found that which distinguishes humans from animals most of all things - deep empathy and compassion. Your empathy only goes so far and then you slam the door on it.

Surely, I do believe that deep empathy and compassion are very important in our lives. We should all have these qualities in ourselves. However, it would be very detrimental to society if we displayed compassion to every single person on this earth and introduce no punishments for them regardless of what they do. If that was the case, then we would be living in an absurd society where even criminals are walking around doing whatever they want and yet they are being shown love, care, empathy, and living freely without suffering any consequences for their evil actions. That's why, for the sake of justice, there has to be a point where we have to slam the door on empathy and compassion in certain situations in order to make the the world a safer (and a better) place.

(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  It has helped me understand better why Islamic terrorists seem to be more prolific than others.

I'm sorry, but you are actually misinformed if you think that Muslim terrorists are the most prolific out of the other terrorists. The thing about terrorism is that the root causes are always political, not religious. Islam is certainly not the root cause of terrorism nor does it encourage it. On the contrary, Islam denounces all acts of terrorism which I have explained in my oringal post by citing verses from the Quran. The attacks on the Twin Towers on September 9, 2001, for example, were an act of terrorism which most Muslims are repulsed by including myself.

There is a book titled "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," by Robert Rape who is an expert on suicide terrorism. In it, the author includes a collection of many different facts and data about terrorist attacks that occurred around the world from 1980 to 2003 and then offers insights into what the motivations are behind these attacks. The conclusion is that most of the acts of terrorism are carried out mainly to meet political and/or military objectives, not religious ones. Here is an excerpt from the book which says:

"The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. In fact, the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more suicide attacks than Hamas." - Continued here.

(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  Once the mind is made up that the purpose is justified, human lives that happen to collide with that purpose are not included in compassion. That is totally in sync with the culture that justifies cruelty for other reasons.

To be honest, I don't think that cruelty should be justified either, but you should understand that the concept of a punishment is a different thing. Once again, as I said earlier, punishments are established in a society as a "deterrent" which is mainly to secure the lives of a greater number of people from certain acts that risk the lives of others. History shows us that the harsher a punishment is, the more effective it is in deterring crimes, and the more effective a punishment, the better. You didn't address this important point anywhere so far.

(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  It is like Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde, a bright side and a dark side.

The dark side is what you perceive it to be, or something that is based on your own misunderstanding of Islam, but I don't think that there is really a dark side to Islam. Just because you do not like something doesn't mean that it's actually something bad or that there is no reason for doing such things. Again, you have to remember that there is a difference between punishment and unprovoked cruelty. I will keep explaining this to you if you don't understand this, Dom. The fact is that the punishments in the Islamic penal system are there only to enforce social order and to ensure the stability of society by functioning as a strong deterrence. Unless these 'deterrent' punishments are not applied to curb the hardened and habitual criminals from committing the most abominable atrocities, the very fabric of society will be torn. Without a penal system, society will move toward greater levels of corruption and insecurity.

(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  Dear Mullah, if you open the door to cruelty for any reason, it festers on the mind. It leads people back to old instincts that should have been buried at some time during evolution. Not the physical evolution, but the cultural one.

We should not open the door to cruelty for any reason, yes, but that doesn't necessarily unjustify punishments against those who have done wrong. Same thing with the Islamic laws. Punishments in Islam are more of a functional nature, to regulate and deter. We believe that God has laid down a body of mutual rights and obligations which are the true embodiment of justice. He has also laid down certain bounds and limits to be observed and maintained for this very purpose.

In my opinion, imprisonment is not a very effective method of crime deterrence because it is not harsh enough. Many of the serial killers who are sent to prison do not reform after spending their time there. It's like removing them from society for a few months, only so that they can escape and kill someone else. That's why I think that life sentences should occur more often - and especially when there is a strong evidence to prove someone guilty - such as through witnesses, fingerprints, hair samples, bloodwork, DNA evidence, etc.

(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  It dates back to times when people were warlike and, because of lack of better tools, war was incredibly bloody and cruel.

Wars are always bloody and cruel whether or not they happened back then or today. And while many of them may have been "warlike," you cannot say that most people were like that because that is a generalization and unsupported as well. There were also many people with an upright character who were not violent at all. Also, as I explained in my OP, wars are frowned upon in Islam except for the purpose of self-defense and also to fight against oppressive rulers. Islam does not allow wars except for those reasons.

(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  You had to be calloused to live in the times of the first testament, humans behaved a lot more like animals then.

That may be true to a certain extent, but not entirely because, again, there were also many good, civilized, and compassionate humans. Even if that is true, then the reason why many of them used to behave more like animals was mainly due to a lack of strict rules and moral codes in those days, in my opinion. Society needs to have certain rules and regulations as well as penalties to keep the society more peaceful and safe. In Islam, the Shariah plays a role in that because it introduced penalties that are meant to act as a deterrence against crime and other evil actions.

Similarly, if you desire to move in peace and safety on the roads and highways, you must stick to the traffic lanes demarcated for you and observe all the signposts erected along the routes. If you do not, you not only put yourself in danger, but endanger others as well. Then you would automatically make yourself liable to penalties – not in a vengeful retribution – but to regulate the orderly exchanges in man’s life in accordance with justice.

(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  I'd like to think humanity as a whole will progress past that and wars will be a thing of the past and replaced with mutual respect. But all it takes for war to break out is a few individuals to engage in unprovoked cruelty.

I wish the same also. I do not want there to be any wars. But, unfortunately, I cannot put too much hope on that either because nations are always struggling for things like more natural resources, money, land, power, weapons, material gains, etc., and sometimes that can lead to wars as history has shown. And it's not something that I can control. In Islam, however, we are never supposed to go to war just for material gains, money, land, nor any of that stuff. As as I said before, war is only allowed for self-defense and to fight oppressive rulers and/or groups (one example being the Taliban).

Also, it's a historical fact that the major wars between the European nations during the past 100 years have caused a lot more damage to the world than the Muslims did, the only difference being that they didn't do it specifically in the name of religion. Another thing is that much of the hostility that exist in some parts of the Muslim world are more of a result of their political agendas and certain historical and regional conflicts that occurred in the past rather than a result of Islam itself.

(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  So I see cruelty as a medieval remnant of early societal evolution, and I see it as the single most destructive component of humankind.

Again, there is a difference between "cruelty" and "punishment," and Shariah recommends only the latter. We can see that the Shariah helps to preserve the general security of society and reduces crime in society due to the harshness of the punishments. The potential murderer who knows that he will be killed, the potential thief who knows that he will have his hand cut off, and the potential sexual offender who knows that he will be stoned or given a hundred lashes will think twice before going out and committing the crime. If, on the other hand, he knows that he will only be imprisoned for a few months or a few years, then he might not pay heed to the punishment and thus he may not be discouraged from committing the crime.

That's why God has made the punishments harsh and severe, but that is not "cruelty" because there is a reason behind the harshness of the punishments.

(26-05-2012 07:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  Luckily most of us have a healthy capacity for empathy, and in the best of all worlds society will be based on empathy and cruelty will be all but forgotten.

I agree with you, Dom. An atheist is very much capable of mercy and kindness in many greater degrees than a believer of religion while, of course, the vice versa is also true. Some atheists are also very patient and tolerant of theists as well as their beliefs. But, atheist or not, human beings do have limits in certain situations where they would forsake their empathy in order to punish a criminal. If a society aims to show unconditional love and empathy to it's people (and creates no punishments for them at all), then that will result in a society which is much more dangerous and lead to a greater number of crimes which, I'm sure, you do not support.

Islam considers crime an act of injustice towards society, a sin against oneself, and a transgression against God. Punishment is not atonement nor does it erase the sin. A sin is only forgiven through repentance. However, crime is an act of inflicting harm upon other people that cannot be forgiven by repentance alone. That's why there are punishments and life sentences in Islam.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2012, 10:56 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Internet Mullah, you are a patient and polite man and I congratulate you for that. (Much more so than me, for example.)


(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I assume you are here to learn as well as share. That being the case, I will do my best to help you, and hope you will read the following with an open mind.

Yes, I'm here to learn as well as share.

Also, I always try to keep an open mind. Just because my beliefs are different than yours doesn't meant that I am not open-minded.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You are open to the idea you have been brainwashed. I think it is very clear that is the case. Your accounts of Mohammed, your explanations for immoral Islamic teachings, your excuses for the bad behaviour of many of your fellow Islamists all reek of "spin." Many Christians do exactly the same.

Your claim that these are immoral teachings and reek of "spin" are just your own opinions, although you're not necessarily incorrect either.

The thing is that many of the acts of violence that are attributed to Islam are actually a form of state violence which are instigated by extremist Muslims. Therefore, I think that the problem is only with with some Muslims whose beliefs are guided by social mores that have yet to evolve in a manner consistent with the teachings of Islam.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You come up with excuses, explanations and interpretations, which are second hand, and all heavily manufactured to hide the truth...

Islam's fundamental principles are more or less universally agreed upon. However, there are indeed difference of opinion on several matters which are not essentially a part of the core of Islam. These opinions are interpretations of different people. Strictly speaking, even these differences are unjustified and the the majority would argue that those views are clearly against the Quranic teachings.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  that the origins of your beliefs are nothing but a web of fabricated nonsense.

Again, that is your opinion. That's all.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I suggest you step back, take a breath, clear your head and start thinking clearly. An illiterate 7th century desert dwelling empire building tyrant who built up an army for himself and went on to ransack and impoverish his neighbours is interesting history at best, and that's it.

Then you probably didn't read up on the biography of the Prophet Muhammad. What he accomplished is something outstanding in human history: A vast empire that seemed to come from nowhere, the second most widely-read book in history (considering the Bible as the first) even though he was illiterate, and a religion that is adhered to in a greater combination of multitude and seriousness than almost any other in the world today. He was also an honest and a compassionate person. And his legacy still grows to this day.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  To imagine this dude's hallucinations and delusions and convenient revelations are sourced from a god invented by the ancient Jews, a god who you have never seen, touched or heard is an indication of what a good job they have done on you.

I'm sure that you nor anyone else, for that matter, know for sure whether or not this god was "invented" in the first place. That is an unsupported claim.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You, and the people you quote, including Karen Armstrong, keep referring back to the supposed wonderful, rhythmic, multi layered beauty of the Koran, which can only be appreciated in its original language. Blah blah blah.

I don't see anything wrong with that, to be honest. The Quran is the highest form of Arabic language that even the finest poets of that era could not emulate and this was acknowledged by them. In fact, God even issued them a challenge in the Quran to write even a single Surah to match the Quran which up till now no one could.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Some poet(s), almost certainly not the big M, pieced it together. For every commentator who waxes lyrical, there are two who consider it utter tripe. So...who really cares what it says? Any thinking person who hasn't been brainwashed knows this stuff is fabricated mumbo jumbo.

The thing is that Islam had already spread throughout many regions of the world before the death of Muhammad and he was also well-known at the time. There are biographies about the man written by both Muslim and non-Muslim historians with such an accuracy that they contain many specific dates and events which occurred during his lifetime such as where he was born, how he died, who were his wife and children, what battles he fought, what he said, where he slept, etc.

To suggest that the entire Quran was written by some other mysterious, "unknown" Muhammad, is not only unsupported, but also very unlikely.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You need to take your rose coloured glasses off. You need to be honest enough to yourself about the secondary gains you get from promoting gibberish. Ask yourself "am I making any money out of this? Am I getting status? Sex? Power? Prestige? Respect?" Or..."am I being used by others so they get these things?"

No, I don't make any money out of promoting "gibberish." My job is not even related to anything religious. Also, to be honest, I place my faith and my spirituality in a level that is higher than my desire for money, status, power, sex, relationships, and almost everything else. Of course, I would like to have those things (to a certain extent), but they are not even near as important to me as my faith and my learning of Islam. All power, money, status, and those kind of things will eventually disappear after I die. But, Islam teaches that my actions and my faith will be recorded and they will never disappear.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Organised religion is a power game. When you cut through all the bullshit, it is always at the end of the day about power and money. The little people believe the hype and get used. I challenge you to break free from the system. Don't be a power monger and don't be a little person.

I disagree that religion is a power game. Why? Because the problem is always the same, that no matter what institution you're talking about - religion, politics, education, the media, etc. - there are always a few power hungry folks who want to monopolize and use these institutions as tools to force their will on everyone else and make money out of it. Sometimes a religion gets hijacked by extremists for reasons of power and money, and then it goes downhill from there, but that is not the purpose of religion.

Islam calls to restoring social equilibrium whenever it becomes imbalanced so that wealth, economic activity, and the means of production do not become hoarded up by a small group of people, and so that wealth is not passed exclusively among the affluent. Furthermore, Mark, there are also hadiths which say that the poor people will enter heaven before the richer people, and that alone is enough to refute your argument that religion is all about power and money.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  And, most importantly, don't indoctrinate the children with toxic beliefs. That obviously happened to you, but you have the power and the intelligence to break the cycle.

Well, that is up to me. I would just like to teach them about Islam, but I won't force it on them. Then they can decide for themselves.

(25-05-2012 05:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I will eagerly await your response, and will be particularly interested to hear whether you are big enough to accept this criticism. Please be honest. And real. Regards, Mark

I responded to all your points one-by-one. And yes, Mark, I'm being real and honest. Thank you for eagerly waiting for me, though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2012, 10:58 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(26-05-2012 03:57 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Internet Mullah, there are varying types of insanity. People who have such types are logical about somethings, but extremely off base with another. Just because you are insane in thinking that there is a fire going on in your house all of the time does not mean that you suddenly can't reason in other situations at school. ( I am using a acquaintance of mine's experience.)

I don't disagree. Yes, one can be rational in certain areas while being insane in others.

(26-05-2012 03:57 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Again, back then there was no way to fully tell, and muhhamod's ( Totally butchered the name.) life story was a long time ago, a present analysis of the texts that are about his life is not at all, in any way, a reliable source of mental, and or sociopathic abnormalities.

Although there is no way to determine for sure whether or not Muhammad had any mental abnormalities, as I said earlier, we know many things about his life and many of the activities and events surrounding him suggest that he was in a sound and conscious state of mind. There is a stronger reason to think that he was mentally sane.

(26-05-2012 03:57 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  As a response to what Muhhamod did for Islam, I know of tons of cases that a man, or woman have done remarkable stuff for a DELUSION. ( Charles Manson is one good example of ordering people to do stuff.)

Well, in the examples that you are speaking of, there is already proof that they were delusional and that's why you know that. So, these people are not a good comparison with Muhammad. Charles Manson, however, was most probably not delusional nor hearing voices in his head because there is no evidence of that (or else he would have said it himself). I think that he was simply a criminal who was imprisoned several times for his crimes. His psychology may have been affected by the drugs that he was taking, but that is unknown.

Secondly, it is very improbable and even almost impossible that the entire Quran is nothing but a collection of statements that revealed themselves in a person's head just by a mere accident and yet they are considered as the most beautiful Arabic language ever known to man. It is very unlikely that all these powerful and meaningful verses in the Quran are just random statements that just popped into someone's head as a result of only being under a "delusion," yet they all make sense.

(26-05-2012 03:57 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Just because you are devoted, and do stuff for it, does not make it a verifiable, much less even true claim.

Yes, and I do not deny that. Now, see my comments below.

(26-05-2012 03:57 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Perhaps Jesus was a horrible example, or analogy, but nonetheless I will use the same outline.
Buddhists revere their, for lack of knowledge, " Buddha" as a nice guy, and of trustworthy and enlightened character.

Yes, reverence of a prophet (or a certain person) does not rule out the possibility that his or her claims of prophethood is false. But, we have to weigh both the reasons for why it could be fake vs. why it could be true and only then should we make up our mind on which is more likely. So, this means that belief/non-belief is actually a matter of a type of probabilistic calculation - or a probabilistic inference - based on all the facts, information, arguments, and reasoning that we have for Islam as well as against Islam.

As for Buddha, I think that there are much more stronger arguments for Muhammad's prophethood than Buddha, because the life of Buddha is very vague and mysterious (unlike the life of Muhammad). We know many things about Muhammad. Research into Muhammad's life has demonstrated that he was an outstanding human being on a social, personal, and a spiritual level all at the same time. There were many people living alongside the Prophet and actively participating with him in war and peace, in jest and misfortune, in hunger and ease, meticulously documenting every verse and every hadith. Hence you cannot draw a similarity between Buddha and Muhammad in respect to their character and their accomplishments.

(26-05-2012 03:57 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  There are many possiblities and motives as to why Muhhamod might lie.

As I explained before, the idea that Muhammad would lie for certain 'motives' are not supportable with the information that we have about his life, character, events, the opinions of respectable scholars and historians who studied his life, and many other things about his life. If he was lying about his Prophethood, and if he was acquiring the verses of the Quran from someone else for a period of 23, then it is very likely that he would have been exposed as a liar and then his mission would have failed. Yet, there is not a single known incidence of him ever telling a lie about Islam, the Quran, his followers, nor anything else.

I think it is almost impossible for a single man to keep up the facade of telling lies on top on top of lies on top of lies and so on for such a long period of time and yet be considered as the most truthful person by so many people who he was constantly surrounded by, even by people who used to be his greatest enemies.

(26-05-2012 03:57 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Depending solely on descriptions of this man's "Trustworthy" Character may comfort you into thinking he was telling the truth, but other than that, there is absolutely no evidence that the Islamic faith is true. Even saying that his character supports the claims he makes isn't a strong argument for/ nor against/ a religion.

I am not depending solely on Muhammad's trustworthy character. It's a combination of many other things which include specific details about his life, his outstanding compassion and kindness toward others, what knowledgeable historians and scholars have said about him over the years, about the amazing literary aspects of the Quran, the fact there that is not a single statement in the Quran which is contradictory to proven scientific facts even though it was written 14 centuries ago (given that Muhammad was an illiterate man as well), that the Quran is a seal and a preservation of all the past scriptures given to the other prophets who came before Muhammad (pbuh), the wisdom behind Islam's teachings, and several other things that I have talked about in this thread so far.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2012, 10:59 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(26-05-2012 09:37 AM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  I still have problems with calling them scientific at all. When they aren't and you seem to admit that. So why should that give any validity to the book?

I didn't say that they are not scientific at all. I do believe that there are verses in the Quran which have scientific information, and I said that there are even scientists who recognize that some of the information in the Quran go beyond the scientific knowledge of the time and speaks of scientific facts and truths that have been discovered quite recently. Here is an article that I linked to earlier.

Secondly, although certain verses may have a scientific nature behind them, the main purpose of the verses is to point to the beauty and complexity of God's creations. These are what we consider to be some of the "signs" of God that are mentioned throughout the Quran. As I said earlier, the scientific value behind the verses are secondary.

(26-05-2012 09:37 AM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  You could find miracles in Moby Dick if you want to call them miracles, you can do a lot of things if you want them to be true, can't you? I don't imagine that you'd pick up a book and in a few years time go back and call the book miraculous. You'd probably laugh and be on your way.

But, remember that the Quran and Moby Dick have a very different style and a different purpose from each other. It's like comparing apples and oranges. To my knowledge, there are no miraculous aspects and/or claims about the story of Moby Dick. It does not even come close to the level of eloquence, rhythm, the layers of metaphors, and other linguistic elements as that of the Quran. As I explained earlier, the beauty of the linguistic style of the Quran is one the miraculous things about the Quran especially knowing that Muhammad was illiterate. The same thing cannot be said about Moby Dick since we know that the author had years of training and education to learn the English language unlike the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

(26-05-2012 09:37 AM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  It'd simply be a good coincidence that does have the ability to be wrong... or does the time it was written have an affect on your judgement?

Well, I think that it is very unlikely that all the scientific verses mentioned in the Quran are correct just by a "good coincidence." It must be understood that as the number of statements in a book increases, the chances of all of them being correct decrease. In a book titled The Amazing Quran, by Dr. Gary Miller, he explains this concept when he says:

"Now applying this example to the situations in the Qur'an, if one draws up a list of all of the subjects about which the Qur'an has made correct statements, it becomes very clear that it is highly unlikely that they were all just correct blind guesses. Indeed, the subjects discussed in the Qur'an are numerous, and thus the odds of someone just making lucky guesses about all of them become practically nil. If there are a million ways for the Qur'an to be wrong, yet each time it is right, then it is unlikely that someone was guessing."

(26-05-2012 09:37 AM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  I mean, the main problem I have with this is that I've seen some really intelligent theists succumb to standards such as this. Every little thing is a 'miracle'. It feels like a sacrifice of intelligence. But I'll stop ranting.

Yes, maybe there are theists who succumb to such standards, but everyone's standards are ultimately subjective including my own. In my opinion, though, I don't that believe that every little thing in the Quran is a miracle. I do believe that the Quran itself is a miracle when taken as a whole, and I have explained my reasons believing so in several posts in this thread (such as in here, here, and here).

(26-05-2012 09:37 AM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  I've read about the embryology in the Quran and I'm still struggling to find what is so significant about it. Scientists can find many things that appear ahead of their time... what does it prove?

The amazing thing here is that Muhammad was not a person who was trained in the field of biology, embryology, nor anything like that. Secondly, there are no authentic historical accounts that support that he borrowed the embryological information in the Quran from the findings of other scientists. Thirdly, there are hundreds of ways that the Quran could have been wrong about the embryological stages, but yet, the Quran was right every single time. This mathematically implies that there is a significantly less chance that Muhammad simply made some guesses and got all of them correct just by a 'coincidence.'

(26-05-2012 09:37 AM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  There are also errors with the Quran about certain miracles, such as the speed of light - does that take away from the validity of the Quran? or is that just ignored?

Then feel free to point out any of those 'errors,' if you wish.

As for the speed of light, I haven't come across a single verse in the Quran that mentions that. I know that some Muslims argue that verse 32:05 in the Quran implies something about the speed of light, but the fact is that there is no word in that verse that translates to "light" or "speed of light" nor anything of that sort.

(26-05-2012 09:37 AM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  I've heard a lot of these miracles before and some are so vague which means that the passages are open to interpretation it's ridiculous. Like the water cycle one.

Yes, many passages are open to interpretation, but that doesn't mean that they are ridiculous. Even though God's words are open to interpretation, the real meanings behind them will stand by themselves and take precedence over our own interpretation. So, for me, the Quran is a matter of words over interpretation.

(26-05-2012 09:37 AM)ALovelyChickenMan Wrote:  Can you read this please. And answer this question honestly, if this guy was an Islamic scholar instead of an engineer, would his predictions have been seen as divine?

No, not necessarily. If you read that article, you will see that most of his predictions were proven to be wrong anyways. That is not the case for the Quran because there hasn't been any predictions nor statements in the Quran that were proven to be false in spite of the thousands of verses. That's why, LovelyChickenMan, this comparison of yours doesn't even come close to the Quran.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2012, 11:00 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(28-05-2012 11:29 PM)itsacow Wrote:  I was wondering what you thought of women and how they should be treated. I read a passage in the Koran that said if 2 men had... relations that if they were ignorant of the wrongness of that act and later repented, Allah would be forgiving and merciful. Then the next paragraph says that if a woman was adulterous and ignorant of her wrongdoing, then they would imprison her until they decided what to do with her or Allah told them what to do. What I derived from this is "Allah is forgiving and merciful, if you are a man at least."

First, I will quote the verse that you are referring to and then the next one (which are both talking about the same thing).

Surah 4:15
"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way." [Transliteration: "Wa allatee yateena al-fahishata min nisaikum fa istashhidoo AAalayhinna arbaAAatan minkum fain shahidoo fa amsikoohunna fee al-buyooti hatta yatawaffahunna al-mawtu aw yajAAala Allahu lahunna sabeelan."]

Surah 4:16
"And the two who are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful." [Transliteration:"Wa allathani yatiyaniha minkum fa athoohuma fain taba wa aslaha faa AAridoo AAanhuma inna Allaha kana tawwaban raheeman."]

The word "lewdness" used in the first verse above is a translation of the Arabic word "Fahisha." This particular word is often used in relation to sexual acts, but it is not limited to it. "Fahisha" means any ugly word or a deed that has exceeded the border of decency and appropriateness. It can be any act that is considered to be immoderate, obscene, gross, and/or transgresses the bounds of Islam (along with adultery and fornication). In the context of verse 4:15, however, the verse uses the dual masculine of "Fahisha" which is gender neutral and therefore it can include in it both males and females, not just necessarily females. That's why the traditional scholars understand this verse and the next as pointing to Fahisha as a sexual act between members of the two sexes. Fahisha includes any sexual act outside of legal authority, but it is not limited to it. It may even include sexual act within legal authority, but in an inappropriate public manner.

Consequently, verse 4:15 commands us that there has to be four eye-witnesses who testify to the act and if an accuser fails to produce them, it regards him as guilty of a false accusation. If an accuser fails to produce four witnesses, then he is to be punished with eighty stripes as the Quran says (in a different Surah): "Upon those who accuse honourable women [of fornication] and bring not four witnesses as evidence [for their accusation], inflict eighty stripes, and never accept their testimony in future. They indeed are transgressors. But those who repent and mend their ways, Allah is Oft-Forgiving and Most-Merciful" (24:4-5).

More importantly, notice that verse concludes with the words "or Allah ordain for them some (other) way" as I also underlined above. This gives us an indication that this punishment may be awaiting for further orders to come and/or change according to God's will. Those orders came later on in Sura 24 for the same crime (i.e. fornication) - which is flogging a 100 times - for both males and females. Since then, the implementation of flogging as a punishment released them from confinement. This means that verse 4:15 was abrogated by a later revelation. It is simply that one verse qualifies the other and there is no way to read them as contradictory.

Ibn Katheer said in his Tafseer (explanation) of this verse: "At the beginning of Islam, the ruling concerning a woman who was proven guilty of adultery was that she was to be detained in a house and not allowed to come out until she died. So the phrase ‘If any of your women are guilty of lewdness’ refers to adultery. ‘Take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way’" - and the "other way" that Allah made for them was the abrogation of this.

4:16 is a continuation of the same issue started in the previous verse related to Fahisha. The first one mentions women and this one mentions the two (hence the words "punish them both"). I'm going to explain the meaning and the implication of this verse in relation to the next and you can refer to the transliterations that I posted above in brackets (after the translations) to see which words I'm talking about.

"Alathani" does not mean "the two men". Although it refers to the number 2, nothing here specifically states that 2 men are involved in a relation. Theses verses here talk about fornication and not homosexuality. In the previous verse (4:15), God did not say "alatan" (the two women). Rather, he said "alaatee" (several women) meaning for those who commit "fahisha" or lewdness then you should do this and that to them. If God wanted to talk about suhaq (the proper Arabic name for lesbianism) then why did not he say "alatan" (the two women) instead? It is because God is talking to all women in general since this is Surah Anisa ("The Women") and therefore it is for women in general.

Alathan = "the two"; Alathani = "the two who"; Wa-alathani = "And the two who ..."

The "wa" is a conjuction in Arabic meaning "and," so we can ignore that. The important word here is “alathan” which, again, simply means "the two," but not necessarily two men. We can use "alathan" for two men or for a man and a women together. For example, Abdul and Hakeem made the french fries. We would say “huma alathan”; meaning "they are the ones." We can also use "alathan" when we have a male and a female doing an action. For example, Abdul and Ameena made the french fries. We would say “huma alathan,” they are the ones, just like we did in the case of two men.

The word “alathee,” in verse 4:15, is a plural pronoun indicating a group when the Quran talked about women and then, in the next verse, it uses “alathan” which indicates the number two instead of indicating two males or a group of males. That is because God is not talking about just the males, but He is talking about a male and a female committing the same crime.

You obviously looked at a wrong translation of the second verse, itsacow. So, I took the time to correct that for you. Not all translations of the Quran that you find on the internet are faithful translations of the Arabic. If you want more confirmation, i.e. that "wa-alathani" does not mean "two men," see the link below:

Verse (4:16) - "wa-alladhani" - Quranic Grammar
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2012, 11:01 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(15-07-2012 12:45 PM)SlipStitch Wrote:  If your god hated these things so much as it seems he does, why would he have created them in the first place? What is the logic behind putting something that tastes good in front of people who would then want to consume it and tell them they're forbidden from doing so? That seems overly cruel of this god, in my opinion. I know the Christian god used to have the same rules and that Jewish folks still follow those old rules in much the same way as Muslims do now, but it still baffles me that these things are still practiced.

We believe that God has put a lot of tempting things in this world, but there are some of them that God has forbidden for Muslims to consume and/or to take part in. Some of these forbidden things in Islam include alcohol, bacon, ham, and pork, for example. We are not supposed to gamble either as it is a sin according to the Quran. Some scholars say that music is also forbidden in Islam although there is a difference of opinion on that. Why did God forbid these things? There may be different reasons for each of them, but the general reason for their prohibition is that sometimes we have to sacrifice our temptations or the desire for something pleasurable for the cause of a higher end, or for the sake of God, essentially. Refraining from the prohibited things is a way of showing our love and our obedience to Him.

Another lesson of this is that we have to seek the spiritual pleasures more than the material pleasures of this world, and this particular message is conveyed in many places throughout the Quran, i.e. that material pleasures such as food, money, sex, and all that stuff will be of no benefit to us in the next life. All those thing will disappear one day (according to Muslim belief), but our deeds and our actions will be recorded and they will not disappear unlike the tangible things that we see around us.

As for the Islamic prohibition of pork, specifically, the reason is because this one of the foods that are considered "impure" to eat according to verse 6:145 in the Quran. I don't know what that means exactly, but maybe the reason for God banning it is because the harms of eating them outweigh the benefits, or maybe they are banned because of the unhealthy things contained in them such as a high amount of toxins, high fat content, parasitic worms, etc. (hence the word "impure").

Similarly, alcoholic drinks are also forbidden for Muslims because of the potential harmful effects it can have on a person (even when consumed in moderation).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2012, 11:02 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(16-07-2012 07:50 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Specifically this, and your wider statement above. Ive read the thread up till now and I dont wanna jump on the your an evil muslim bandwagon, but it seems to me this contradicts what you said about adultery earlier. In that adultery is a sin that damages society and that the law prescribes the death penalty for the good of all.

That is not a contradiction because it is forbidden to kill the soul except in punishment, and this is the Quranic right. The verses which prohibit killing are only talking about the innocent ones who didn't kill anyone nor commit any crimes against society. I will quote the same verse again and explain the important parts to you and what they mean. The verse says:

"Because of that We have decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul for other than a human life [Arabic: nafsan] or corruption in the land [Arabic: fasadin fee al-ardi] - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind." (5:32).

God mandated this order upon all the children of Israel. The order was sent to the people before us, but it is also binding upon everyone else since the time of it's revelation.

The verse brings two exceptions to the rule against killing. The first one is the killing of another human being or soul and the Arabic word used for that is "nafsan" (a "soul" or a "self"). This means that a person who kills another person - i.e. murderer - falls under this exception. The other exception is for those who cause “fasadin fee al-ardi" which means "corruption in the land." The term "fasadin" can be translated as corruption, damage, harm, and/or injury. This term is a little broad and thus one can argue that Muslims can use the term to justify any killing. However, we cannot do that because killing is a very serious thing and that's why killing is never allowed in Islam unless there is clear, authentic, and unambiguous ruling from God and his messenger such as in the case of adultery, for example.

Adultery falls under the second exception - i.e. "corruption in the land" - because the effects of adultery on society and families are quite tremendous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2012, 11:03 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(31-07-2012 08:43 AM)Jeff Wrote:  What role did god play in the recent Aurora shootings? Per your belief system, did he plan it? Did he know in advance that it was going to happen? Did he have the power to stop it if he had desired to do so?

I don't know what role God played in the Aurora shootings. I would have to be God to know that, but I'm not God.

That said, remember that there is a difference between foreknowledge and predetermination. With foreknowledge, the investor can choose A or B, but will chose either A or B. The one with foreknowledge knows what choice will be made, but there is no forcing of decision. So, the investor has total free will even if the eventual choice is already known by the one with foreknowledge and the one with the foreknowledge did not force a decision. In predetermination, the predeterminer is deciding whether the investor will chose A or B. That is not what we believe according to Islam.

If predetermination is true, then you would be right in saying that God caused the Aurora shootings to occur because He predetermined that such a thing would happen. However, we only believe that God knew about that in advance, but he didn't force the person to do evil. We don't believe in a God who has predetermined everything. Of course, He could have stopped the gunman from killing others if He had desired to so, but whether He intervenes or not is up to Him and, either way, none of that implies that God predetermined the Aurora shootings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2012, 11:04 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(28-05-2012 11:29 PM)itsacow Wrote:  If Islam is the religion of peace, why is homosexuality, apostasy, fornification, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, and witchcraft all punishable by death? If the Quran never mentions it, where did Sharia get these ideas from?

Those are not punishable by death except for adultery. The Quran does mention the punishment for fornication (which is a 100 lashes), but it does not mention the others. Those are in the Shariah, and the Shariah is a system of laws which are derived from the both the Quran and Hadiths. However, the fact that the Shariah promotes the punishing of aggressors and criminals does not negate the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. As I said before, the punishments in Islam are there only to act as a deterrence against certain individuals who wish to cause a greater damage to society such as through murder, theft, rape, adultery, etc.

(30-05-2012 07:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  The idea that the embryology in the Quran is science is bullshit.
First, they got it wrong.

Then, you are most welcome tell me which parts in the Quran they got wrong. You should be able to prove that if you think so.

(30-05-2012 07:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Second, what is right is stuff learned by observation of animals. This was a herding society; they knew a lot more about animals than you city dwellers do.

That is unlikely because there are no reports of Muhammad cutting up animals nor humans. Also, the human fetus is different from the fetus of other animals.

(30-05-2012 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  I didn't say Muhammad was a schizophrenic. I was pointing out the weakness of your argument. The fact that Muhammad got visions even when people were present is not proof of anything except that he got visions.

Okay, but the main question is whether the visions were delusional/chaotic visions or divine visions. I was arguing for the latter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: