Simplicity of Islam

No problem..

laterz all..

For at least now, we know that the bible and christianity is simpler rather. Its straight forward, no pros and cons. Keep the faith and pray only once a week or in the confine of your home, is good enough in the face of our god.

QL - I have a communique from you I can not read...

Sorry, Militude... Sir!

My statement of simple things need a short discussion may not be meant as literally as you interpret it.

Since you know harmagedon then probably you have access to the jewish history. Heard of a story of a cow the jews were ordered to kill?

i see your spelling is as bad as your reasoning :-)

i just think your '>1 page = not simple' argument is nonsense...

Multitude,

Is that a rhetorical question?

"I think it is fairly obvious that simple matters can be dealt with in, oh lets say, 1 page."

Is that a law of physics?

A 7 page discussion on simplicity.

I think it is fairly obvious that simple matters can be dealt with in, oh lets say, 1 page.

As goes for religion, in particular Islam, it has been complicated immensely to confuse "Ahmed the Plumber'. Complicating matters will lead to having a select number of people being able to understand the full story, while the majority has no choice but to follow.

The key-element of any religion is 'group behavior', the masses are to follow and listen and not to dispute. Sharia regulates this perfectly, just like the Catholics were masters in getting their flock in line.

Ummmm....I think its going to be March 23rd, 2076

When is your flight to hell so i can arrange for red carpet :D

Wow. What hate. I'm SO glad I'm going to hell.

what r u talking about?

Why ask people who when you are the one who started it all. The 10 wives, the 7 virgins in heaven, and what else?

Polygamy or homosexuality are not my business, everyone has his own opinion, way of living or believing, and mine is, even if I don't agree, to accept it and not to try to convince that is it correct or not. We are all different.

take any thread on homosexuality in QL and see who condones it... profile them if you please... findings would be interesting... anyway, that's who...

Those who criticise Islam for permitting polygamy.

Who are "they" ?

Who is Islam?

Let's pretend Islam condones homosexuality and see what happens to it LOL (ashaghfir Allah).

Khalid the tiger..They think that Islam or the Prophet invented polygamy.

Islam Regulated Polygamy :

Among all the polygamous societies in history there were none that limited the number of wives. All of the relationships were unrestricted. In Islam, the regulations concerning polygamy limit the number of wives a man can have while making him responsible for all of the women involved.

"If you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you,, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one or one that your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice." (Qur'aan 4:3)

This verse from the Qur'aan allows a man to marry more than one woman but only if he can deal justly with them. Another verse says that a person is unable to deal justly between wives, thus giving permission but discouraging it. [This inability to do justice in this verse is explained by scholars based upon the comment of the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) to one being in control of his feelings such as having stronger feelings towards one or another of his wives and not necessary material equity as demanded. Indeed every man knows himself and must greatly consider his ability to be just in a polygynous situation. See this issue's Fataawaa - Ed]

"You will never be able to deal justly between wives however much you desire (to do so). But (if you have more than one wife) do not turn altogether away (from one), leaving her as in suspense…" (Qur'aan 4:129)

While the provision for polygamy makes the social system flexible enough to deal with all kinds of conditions, it is not necessarily recommended or preferred by Islam. Taking the example of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is instructive. He was married to one woman, Khadijah, for twenty-five years. It was only after her death when he had reached the age of fifty that he entered into other marriages to promote friendships, create alliances or to be an example of some lesson to the community; also to show the Muslims how to treat their spouses under different conditions of life. [Again the author makes a good point but we should not overlook societal conditions as well as the examples of the companions who married several wives as well as the recommendation of the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) to marry a youthful wife to one of his companions. -Ed.]

The Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) was given inspiration from Allah about how to deal with multiple marriages and the difficulties encountered therein. It is not an easy matter for a man to handle two wives, two families, and two households and still be just between the two. No man of reasonable intelligence would enter into this situation without a great deal of thought and very compelling reasons (other than sexual) [although the sexual appetite is a very legitimate consideration depending on the abilities and characteristics of the partners and their circumstances. - Ed]

The Second Marriage :

Some people have said that the first wife must agree to the second marriage. Others have said that the couple can put it into the marriage contract that the man will not marry a second wife. First of all, neither the Qur'aan nor hadeeth state that the first wife need be consulted at all concerning a second marriage let alone gain her approval. Consideration and compassion on the part of the man for his first wife should prompt him to discuss the matter with her but he is not required to do so or to gain her approval. Secondly, the Qur'aan has explicitly given permission for a man to marry "two or three or four". No one has the authority to make a contract forbidding something that has been granted by Allah. [This issue has been previously discussed and some scholars make a distinction between a wife indicating that she does not want to be in a plural marriage and saying such a marriage is haraam -Ed.]

The bottom line in the marriage relationship is good morality and happiness, creating a just and cohesive society where the needs of men and women are well taken care of. The present Western society, which permits free sex between consenting adults, has given rise to an abundance of irresponsible sexual relationships, an abundance of "fatherless" children, many unmarried teenage mothers; all becoming a burden on the country's welfare system. In part, such an undesirable welfare burden has given rise to bloated budget deficits which even an economically powerful country like the United States cannot accommodate. Bloated budget deficits have become a political football which is affecting the political system of the United States.

In short, we find that artificially created monogamy has become a factor in ruining the family structure, and the social, economic and political systems of the country. It must be a prophet, and indeed, it was Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) who directed Muslims to get married or observe patience until one gets married. 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported Allah's Messenger (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) as saying, "Young man, those of you who can support a wife should marry, for it keeps you from looking at strange women and preserves you from immorality; but those who cannot should devote themselves to fasting, for it is a means of suppressing sexual desire." (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Islam wants people to be married and to develop a good family structure. Also, Islam realized the requirements of the society and the individual in special circumstances where polygamy can be the solution to problems. Therefore, Islam has allowed polygamy, limiting the number of wives to four, but does not require or even recommend polygamy. [This statement must be qualified and the author has herself pointed out some circumstances where it would indeed be recommended. Perhaps it would be better to view the statement as meaning a lack of recommendation in normal circumstances, and Allah knows best - Ed.].

In the Muslim societies of our times, polygamy is not frequently practiced despite legal permission in many countries. It appears that the American male is very polygamous, getting away with not taking responsibility for the families he should be responsible for.

source:

http://sisters.islamway.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=11

And the best of all... they condone 'HOMOSEXUALITY'...

Earlier on in the same thread, you were admonishing QL for quoting on Christianity from the Deen show because they were Muslims... eventually though, all the claims made by the show turned out to be true so you were wrong in thrashing those scholars

But when Gypsy quotes a Christian view of Islam and it is proved beyond doubt that the material is ABSOLUTE HOGWASH, I don't see you admonishing Gypsy... suddenly you want to be neutral... And that too when you're the ONE person who is MOST picky choosy when it comes to quoting proper references atleast when Muslims make a post...

Hardly neutral... it brings a to mind a term the Europeans like to use.... 'Christian secular'... maybe you are 'Christian neutral' :-)) ROFL!!

Do you notice how some will defend nudity, toplessness, co-habitation and extra-marital relationships, while they see polgamy as 'immoral'!!

I don't know what religion you subscribe to...

But has it occured to you that the Bible does not prohibit polygamy?

And this is still a hotly debated topic among Christian priests?

Many hero's in the Bible are polygamous...

QatariLady said zhyiellha ...

Apparently you're the kind that prefers cheating and prostitutes over decent, legitimate wives.---->>( Vouch your words before throwing to others)

Fine..Have it your way and fill your societies with AIDS, postitutes, single moms and fatherless children.

--->>( Is divorcing someone doesn't leads to Fatherless children, singlemoms, etc, etc..?)

How good are those words that are coming from YOU!! this is coming from a DECENT lady like you, Darn!! I give a standing ovation and a millions claps for the things you've said... Shame!!!

For sure I'm not in rage my dear..

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

I would like to see you raging in this manner the next time anyone attacks Islam as a 'people's faith'!

Exactly

does your religion doesn't thought you how to respect others? does your religion taught you to provoke someone and jump up to conclusion without any reliable source on your words. Have you ever think of what you are saying? SHAME ON YOU!! SHAME YOURSELF... IF I were you, you must check yourself and read your books... YOur words doesn't coincide your faith. ( Do not mock other faith Like what you are doing... I am just giving back what you are showing...). Shame on your face!!! YOu are the one who make simple life to be complicated... It shows how bad your character is... duh? A very religious person like you says a very indecent word to a public.... what a shame!!! Gurl, the TRUTH HURTS that's why you are so Darn mad of what I am saying.. It was just a point of view..Now, you are so ungrateful...

I suppose to appreciate you on how strong your belief coz I read alot about your way on

expressing ur words. But now, I am taking back my words.. Darn, its onE Freak person then!!!

this is what you called-- having so much to say about doing good things but never did it to herself....

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

Oh no..no don't sleep yet. It's still 2.16 am. Islam is simple made difficult. Theres too many do's and don'ts. Too many reasons and too lengthy description and a mouthful of explanation to get it correct.

the good of society. It has responsibilities first and foremost, before it is a right.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

This is a system that's designed with the well-being of the societies in mind regardless of my or your ego..

It's getting late..Good night.

Apologies.

That sounds like an apologist response trying to justify polygyny....

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

OMG. Now the real condemmation is coming. ZHY a prostitute? Someone call the moral police to catch her please. (I mean catch the instigator).

INDEED!

.

.

I didn't make a mockery of any faith. I only stated what some people believe.

subject. Why do you want to bait me to say something about a subject I have no personal frame of reference on or knowledge about? Maybe that is what you and your friend "huck" like to do when it comes to dividing up the world into opposing and warring states, but not me :-)

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Dracula, your entry here is unauthorized since you boycotted religious threads.

Or else I will call you Muttaween (Driving people out of religious forums)

Good.. Tell that to yourself ..

QL it is not good to mock others faith!

zhyiellha "apparently you're a prostitute"....????

lol..

BIG word for a PUBLIC FORUM!

.,

.

MOD..are you here?

.

.

Yeah those who worship someone's p****..Sounds familiar?

at least in Libya polygamy it's legal with written consent from the first wife (up to four wives).

.

.

There are people who believe that salvation could be attained through having sex!

Apparently you're the kind that prefers cheating and prostitutes over decent, legitimate wives. Fine..Have it your way and fill your societies with AIDS, postitutes, single moms and fatherless children.

Zhyiellha, for the time being or until you can decide could you remain Agnostic?

Like me.

But I have not yet disowned Hinduism.

qatarilady-- i'll give a very big laugh on what you are saying..

Action speaks louder than words my dear.....

Yalla... non sense....

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

It's not obligatory to have 2,3 or 4 wives. It's permitted. People choose how to live their lives. As simple as that.

[quote:] "both are Immoral whatever the case maybe... having four wives and having sexual intercourse outside marriage."

It's a shame if you cannot see the difference between a legitimate relationship and a "hit'n'run".

level then...

edifis..just giving some sort of neutral mind...

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

Why do you need time?

Boycott is not a gradual process/

zhyie, what about 'our' testosterone level???

:D

who's gonna do something about it? ;P

Life's a bitch and then you DIE! ;)

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

You must interrelate your actions with your words coz It conflicts all in what you are trying to Promote.. whatsoever...

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

Boycott Religion.

That shed a light why men qoes to Ramada Qube because they have a higher testosterone level..hah? steam!!

qatari--- Sexual needs are needs. Do you realise that different men are born with different levels of the testosterone hormone?

so meaning you are having High sexual pleasures?? Needs to have it more and more.. C'mon, everyone need it and not to be hypocrite.. now you are perceiving science way.. Sexual intercourse with others doesn't gives happiness nor satisfies HUMAN SOULS but overall scenario its Immoral. ...

QATARIlady, both are Immoral whatever the case maybe... having four wives and having sexual intercourse outside marriage.. I don't know how u differentiate Morals from Immorals..

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

"half British half Italian sexual needs are needs."

This IS simple!

.

.

ZH, thats even a worse terminology. I agree. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Which commandment is that

Sexual needs are needs. Do you realise that different men are born with different levels of the testosterone hormone? This makes some men more sexually active than other. If they can't have more than one legitimate wife, they will cheat on their wives. A legitimate marriage is better than cheating.

And when women outnumber men in a given society, they would want to marry a married man, otherwise they'd be lonely.

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

Every body would like to have 4 wives but remember its immoral. Thats equivalent to a chicken who can mate any of their female at anytime

REJECT RELIGIOUS THREADS!!

Can you explain more what is Simplicity means? having four wives is not solution.. That is Lust.. Having four wives at the same time is a lust of Sexual needs.. what is acceptable to u is not acceptable to others....

I am not saying My Religion is true and i will never claim in any means nor promoting it..

but lets just look at the view point of it... the whole scenario...

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

Historically, almost all Mormons have the belief in plural marriage in their background.

However, now, almost all Mormons reject the current practice.

REJECT!

.

.

In other words, --no Simplicity but purely no Satisfaction in life......

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

Again and again, the bottom line is we all say.. "My Religion is Greater that yours" or "Mine is true, yours is fake" or in an extreme way "My Quran is true, Your bible is fake". That leads to no where right, even if we bash each other till the end of the world. The only solution is be tolerance and moderate. Its better that you keep your own religion, I will keep Mine" and peace.

"Four wives are permitted"?

.

.

Four wives are permitted because it's a simple religion. Different solutions for different needs. Overly strict rules are a turn-off and lead to rejecting the religion altogether.

Do you think its not complicated and sounds Immoral?

Wish we just shouldn't post Religious stuff, coz we all just ends up with bashing threads and throwing words.. Sick!!!

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

Religion.. Without faith and doing what it should be.. then Its no used....

=============================================

" ..mAny aRe cAllEd, but fEw ArE ChOoSen.."

=============================================

be humble

I asked you about the authenticity of the source

Which is something you seem to do all the time when a Muslim makes a post

But I guess you find it impossible to comment against something that is Anti-Islamic

You are more anxious to point out how Muslims find the website contentious i.e. not willing to take criticism

Let's put things into perspective.

Religious leaders did fight but in self defense and for just causes. The prophets were not sent to good ppl. Good ppl would already be on the right path so they would be left alone. When ppl begin to go astray and immerse in corruption and injustice God would send a prophet to bring them back on track and to bring justice back in the society.

The corrupt leaders would refuse to follow the prophets because following them would mean losing their status and power.

the prophets wouldn't give up and run away but would defend the mission they were sent for courageuosly to sustain justice.

Had they given up their missions would have been aborted immediately.

So-called peaceful philosophies, like Budhism and Hinduism and the other things you mentioned, didn't have to fight because they did not face the same resistance as most likely they left corrupt political leaders alone. In fact it occured to me now that the caste system of Hinduism might have originally been invented by politicians who had the ppl think it was religion to affirm their status.

As always, a pleasure. Looking forward.

Hmmm.. There's a gap of misunderstanding here.. I'll get back to it later..

Have a nice evening.

Maybe, just maybe, QL... it does not matter whether you follow a philosophy or a religion. Morally and ethically the Buddhists win the first price for being peaceful and harmonious, their teachings are clear and for all to understand.

Also Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism may be added to these.

Islam, Christianity and Catholics have such a nasty stamp on the worlds' history and have committed so many unforgivable crimes that their word has become highly disputable.

Aren't you boycotting religious topics? Or are they just toooooo irresistable? :)

why qatarlady, I think budhism is the most peacefull one...

What about in terms of true religion?

For a religion to lead you to Paradise it has to be recognised first.

Budhism and Hinduism should be eliminated. These are philosophies not religions.

QL,

If religion was about afterlife and the dedication to God, I would be extremely careful in pretending my religion was the one true religion, as chances (considering world religions) that you are part of the wrong group, hence it is easier to denounce all religious groups, respect them and take the positive of their preaching, and make sure you accomplish a respectable life on your own.

If I were to number religion as preferred religion it would be

1 - Buddhism/Taoism

2 - Christianity/Hinduism

3 - Islam

4 - Catholicism

When they know that they working hard there whole life in search for hidden thing and find this thing in HOLY Quran after that they believe that this is not human written book.

One more thing I want to add not only one scientist wrote this comments a lot of scientists wrote so if any one believe or not, none of my issue but I do believe in all this.

Go through these two sites a lot of you can find.

http://www.wonderfulinfo.com/islam/prophet.php

http://islamgreatreligion.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/comments-from-top-scientists-on-quran-muhammadpbuh/

I said thick-headedness is on the other non-Muslim side. As far what causes it..Hmm.. desires maybe..

QL indeed... so does Islam/Religion make people thickheaded or is this a natural flaw in humans?

As I stated over and over again..Religion is about the afterlife. Any monkey can live this life without a religion telling him how to behave and what school to go to. God owns Paradise, and He's the one to decide what makes you qualified to get a position there.

As goes for the simplicity of Islam, yes...just like I have been saying for hundreds of times.

Take the 10 commandments and ignore the ones that relate to God, and you'll be well on your way to lead a good and fulfilling life. Since we have progressed in time and not all wrong-doings may be covered by the 10 commandments Common Sense becomes a subject, which is basically given to us by birth as our creator has equipped us with free will and a consciousness of being.

In case you are weak and do not think you can handle your life yourself, please feel free to involve God... yet you expose yourself to the danger of indoctrination by evil that derives from peoples that interpret religion and preach according to their standards. Islam has many of such peoples today, Christianity had many of such throughout history (however we have Tom Cruise and Oprah now as false, yet peaceful, prophets) until the HUMAN became more important than God, hence secularism is a god-given right that has been fairly successful.

Islam is simple. ppl are thick-headed.. On the other side I mean :)

The funny thing about this Topic is that it has been going on now for 6 PAGES LONG, for DAYS AND DAYS.

NOTHING but NOTHING that is considered SIMPLE

Requires such a long discussion.

Hence, the Tittle contradicts reality.

He worked in Saudi Arabia. How else do you think he knew about the Quran. His profile and the latest international awards he acquired don't support what you're implying :)

He was Christian but I heard he converted to Islam..Not sure though.

Belief is usually based on knowledge and evidence otherwise it's blind belief.

Why more and more non Muslim scientists enters Islam?

agreed Mr. Moore is a scientist, but what he says about faith is his own personal interpretation. and it doesnt need to be universally acceptable coz one scientist says it. Please note that there has been scientists who ardently believed in and argued for racial superiority. Their scientific knowledge doesnt necessarily always supercede thier personal beliefs.

Btw, wht religion does this guy believe in? and did he make these statements on Quaran when he was working under his Saudi 'employer'? Just curious.

researched the issue. My faith doesn't lie in science.

I DO know that Answering Islam is a highly contentious source for Muslims, just as Answering Christianity is for Muslims.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

I would be curious to hear about your comment on the source of Gypsy's quote... the famous Dr. Lactantius...

I traveled on Wednesday afternoon (EST) and have been away from QL since then. I just read some of your posts from Wednesday afternoon where you think Gypsy and I have some kind of conspiracy theory going on. I have read the posts in this thread but not clicking on all the links. I do read and write very quickly in my native language, oh great speed reader! My comments were about the web source (Answering Islam) and not the content of your argument. I believe I was clear that this discussion doesn't interest me as a matter of debate because my faith is not based on science. And yet, you just hung around on this thread hoping I would say something else (after I had begun my trip) so you could attack. I really don't know why the mods haven't banned you again for being a public nuisance. lol

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

islam is the best.

:)

be humble

cliches

You are welcome sxh..You hit the point there. "Its well said than done".

well said

The (faithful) slaves of the Beneficent are they who walk upon the earth modestly, and when the foolish ones address them answer: Peace!

Well all these personalities are desperate people who have not achievement or no way out to beat the rest practically. And no wonder that they goes back to the basic or something oral to hide out their failures. progressive and develop people just won't do that or even don't have time for such a thing. Again it explain why most of us easterners are way back behing the rest. It's just like "Talk Only, No Action"

And you say you can ask a 6-year-old boy what's his perception on how he was born.

Watch this video of a Canadian medical doctor, Dr. Keith Moore, declaring that from the Quran's detailed description of the embryo he is certain that it must've been inspired by God as those details couldn't be known until centuries after the revelation of the Quran.

This is what Wikipedia says about Dr. Keith Moore:

Keith L. Moore is a professor emeritus in the division of anatomy (department of surgery), former Chair of anatomy from 1974 to 1984[1] and associate dean for Basic Medical Sciences (Faculty of Medicine) at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He has also worked at the King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Moreover, he is a founding member of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists (AACA). He was President of the AACA between 1989 and 1991[2]. He is most known for his textbooks on the subjects of anatomy and human embryology.

He has co-written (with professor Arthur F. Dalley II) Clinically Oriented Anatomy, which is the most popular English-language anatomy textbook in the world, used by scientists, doctors, physiotherapists and students worldwide. The book is especially popular because of its 'blue boxes' - passages of text on blue background that relate the classical anatomy to real-world concepts in the diagnosis and treatment of human patients. The book has been translated into multiple languages. He also co-wrote (with professor Anne M. R. Agur) Essential Clinical Anatomy.

Awards:

The American Association of Clinical Anatomists awarded Dr. Moore with their Honored Member Award (in 1994).[3][4] In 2007, the American Association of Anatomists awarded him with the first Henry Gray/Elsevier Distinguished Educator Award[5].

The Simplicity of islam made its so difficult to others, When i see all these arguments Q.Lady. Islam is not religion for any one for time passing discusions. You made it so difficult. What did quran said:

فاذ خاطبكم جاهلون قالوا سلاما

you reject the existence of God based on the random behavior of subatomic particles?

WTH does that have to do with anything?

Are you asserting that God cannot function beyond Rutherford's model of the atom?

In your own words.... 70 years later it is accepted by MANY scientists (SOME DON'T)

I thought everything in science was in black and white...

Why is there a disagreement?

'probability' is the creator?

That's like saying (the popular analogy) Monkey's could create Shakespheare

Actually even worse

cos monkey's have atleast SOME intelligence

you're saying unintelligent matter and conditions can simply combine to create life...

You just BELIEVE that is possible... just as I BELIEVE there is a God... we are no different

Something by chance which hasn't been recreated in a Laboratory?

How can you calculate the probability of something that you haven't even been able to explain?

You are just being arrogant

If you want to talk science, then you should have the knowledge required. If you quote magazines like Scientific American or Nature then you are not a scientist. That is "Popular Science". And concerning Einstein, who says that he was right?

And even if he believed in God he never used it to argument on his theories. When he did it, he faced a problem with his understanding, especially when Quantum Mechanics appeared. He hated it. (God doesn't throw dice). 70 years later it is accepted by many scientists (some don't) that probability is the creator. It is based purely on mathematics and that's another reason why Einstein refused it. Bad luck for him.

I know... when all else fails... start slander...

Your logic about studying ten or twenty years before I make up my mind is a moot point... There are several renowned scientists who believe in God. Albert Einstein was not an atheist...

I don't have a problem with people of science being agnostic, that makes sense... but people of science cannot be atheist and then back it up with science... that is poor logic...

Besides, easy on the arrogance... you know nothing of my knowledge of science... so don't jump to conclusions...

Non of the above have actually give a real materialistic benefits of science that we mankinds enjoy today. While it was written perfectly as some claimed. We have all the wonderful science descovery in medicene, space, engineering and so forth, all the product of the hard work of these scientist without relying what is written in ancient time. It dosent help much.

veris, the difference between QL and me is that she knows, and I know based on our current understanding, implying that tomorrow my knowledge maybe false. I also do not try to convince anybody. Feel free to study science for 10 or 20 years, then let's talk again. Everything else is bla, bla, bla.

The problem I have with science is that as much as it has developed, it still has not be able to create 'life' from inanimate objects (not derived from other living beings). Let alone to prove that life could be created by chance. And then evolve in to much higher and infinitely more complicated forms including the intelligent variety of life i.e. human beings...

So until that has been scientifically proven and demonstrated, people of science ought to be more humble before they assert their school of thought on others who don't agree with them... doing so would be against the grain of science itself...

So far, any argument put forward by a scientist on the origin of life has been based on theories and speculation. It is not based on something that has been proven in a laboratory.

They day you create life in a laboratory purely from chemicals found in nature but not derived from an already living form... you can begin claiming that life was not created by God. The day you create an intelligent creature, you can then start claiming that humans were also not created by God. But even then the argument would not cease as you would then still need to prove that all of this can happen by 'chance'.

But by putting forward your science argument until none of these have been proven... you are no better than QatariLady... the only difference is that we call our God 'Allah' whereas you call your God 'Science'

Oh I thought he was a physicist. This tells you how much I know about Physics.

When I was in high school I used to read a problem in Physics AND the solution to it but I found them both to be 'problems' lol

I'm sorry, QL. This is a preacher, not a scientist. Appreciate your efforts, though. If you "really" want to know what's going on in physics, please go here:

http://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph/new

I said I cannot argue with you in Physics, so I bring a physicist to argue on my behlf :)

Watch this pls:

&feature=related

The Quran is not only a book of guidance to Muslims.

Ever since the first messenger, it was hard for humans to believe that God would choose a human to deliver the message of God. That's why a supernatural miracle was needed to help ppl believe.

In the case of Muhammed, the last Prophet, there was a need for a short- and long-term miracle. Hence was the Quran.

As a short-term miracle, the Quran challenged the eloquence and rhetoric of Ancient Arabs who used to debate in poetry. A woman poet, Al-Khansaa, is said to have a poetic debate with a man who had prepared a long poem whose theme was Pride. The moment he said the first verse of his poem, Al-Khansaa told him: "Hold on! In this one verse I can show you seven weak points." And she did so he withdrew from the debate. Those tough linguistic critics couldn't find one weak point in the Quran, so they figured out it must had been inspired by a Divine power.

The scientific facts that are in the Quran come to show the Quran as a long-term miracle, so modern people will know it's been inspired by a Divine power.

Talking about clots and bones et al.

Lets say, I ask a 6 year old kid about his perception on how he was born. Or a layman (with no medical knowledge whatsoever)is telling his son how he came into being.(An extension to the birds n bees thing). How would he describe it?

I do not see anything more technical in these verses than how these people would have explained the same phenomena. Same goes for the rain verse and bone n tissue verse.

If you see ancient eastern n greek mythologies you can see things that can be correlated to anything from aviation to human embryo cloning to WMD's. Would you say God had chosen them too for this wisdom?Its just human imagination, IMHO.

Also why do you need to ratify ur faith in a religion by saying that it gives explanation for all natural phenomena? If thats what you want from a religion, then all you need to keepwould be a children's encyclopedia and forget religious texts. and I thought religion was supposed to be a guide for the spiritual path!

I guess we will never learn more about PM's lightning fast reflexes...

How did she do soooooo much in 60 seconds or less

PM is faster than lightning to point out how Muslims are too sensitive on websites that dwell on sensitive issues

but she has no issues with the fact that Gypsy has quoted from such a website and then it turned out to be ABSOLUTE TRASH

She asks QatariLady and I why we feel threatened

But she asks not Gypsy why she quotes research that turns out to be horse manure

that neither Gypsy nor PM want to comment about this Dr. Lactantius...

or about the fact that Galen's works were actually preserved by Arab scholars

nor about PM's superhuman reading and typing speed

Now we reach a matter of belief where the discussion stops.

I wouldn't debate that knowledge on embryology existed in some form around the time of the Prophet Mohamed PBUH... maybe it did

However, your earlier allegation was that a verse of the Quran was copied almost verbatim from Greek Texts including the four stages and then building a link from a Greek Physicist to a University to the Prophet's disciple... that's a very strong statement

and that has been proved wrong... now pulling out Aristotle and stuff... in my native language there is an expression for this kind of behaviour... 'lying in the same mud that you have fallen already and then rolling around in it'...

I didn't accept loss, I said we've gotten to a point I don't understand, but if you follow the litteral translation then it's wrong. Bones don't come before tissue.

Also I don't speak Arabic, so whatever alqaa means and people translate it as clot, then I'll take it to mean clot, which is wrong. There is no stage of pregnancy where the embryo is a clot.

And finally I've shown you that the knowledge was there, that people knew the stages of embryo development. You can either accept that or not, but frankly for me to keep trying to make you see that I would need a research grant, or at least a better tool then google.

Believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.

Again.. The word 'clot' has nothing to do with the Quran.

[quote:] "Just like bones don't come before tissue."

We've discussed this already and you accepted loss on it :)

Do you have new argument about it?

Sigh. when in doubt conspiracy theories eh versi?

Gypsy writes a post at Wed, 22/07/2009 - 1:29pm

Snap comes PM's post agreeing vehemently with Gypsy's post at Wed, 22/07/2009 - 1:29pm

Very interesting bcos I am an above average speed reader and typist

It takes me 40 seconds to read the whole of Gypsy's post

It takes me 50 seconds to type PM's post

(I encourage the reader to try it on their own to see how long they would take cos my estimates are very conservative, most people would take much longer)

i.e. it takes one and half minutes to read Gypsy's post and then type out PM's post...

And in between PM also would have to visit the website

reflect on what Gypsy has written and then make up her mind...

and yet she does all of this within 60 seconds... and that is assuming that Gypsy posted at exactly 1:29:00

Now how is that possible?

Scenario A : PM knows exactly what Gypsy is writing cos they are staging a little play

Scenario B : PM doesn't bother to read Gypsy's post but still proceeds to frantically agree with her regardless of what Gypsy has written (Now why would that be?)

And I've said that makes the translation questionable. Because clot is wrong, there is no stage of pregnancy called the clot. Just like bones don't come before tissue.

It's not a matter of translation. It's the Arabic words that are accurate. There's no translation for 'alaqa' but I had to explain it. In the English translation 'clot' is mentioned simply because there's no equivalent to the word 'alaqa'.

The Hadith of the prophet are also great sources, and people make mistakes by sticking only to the holy Quran.

And saying HAD been mapped out and saying DETAILED descriptions of a Uterus are not the same as saying generally.

If you want me to show you detailed solid findings QL you will have to pay me to fly to a place with a library that has these books.

And the Quranic verse is ANYTHING but detailed. It's vague and the translation is questionable.

All that you say is pure speculation

and you have based it on another load of speculation

I regret having spent time to inquire in detail on the matter you presented

All I have talked about is lost on you

Either you don't get it or you don't want to cos you are biased

I thought you'd be a person who can be reasoned with but it doesn't seem likely

you cannot appreciate and don't value authenticity of a piece and factual consistency

BTW... I'd love to see what these pro-Islam sites you are talking about have to say on the topic cos I haven't come across anything of that nature... or are you making that up too??

As I said before one schoolar found that there is more than 300 good manners and values in the holy Quran.

ARRGGGGHHH. I right these long answers and then my internet goes out. Grrrrr.

Ok, here's the links, there's more but I can't remember what I put into google to get them:

http://www.quranicstudies.com/articles/medical-miracles/does-the-quran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/Embryo/BiblecopyGreek.html

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=169064

There was one called imam something though....

ARRGGGGHHH. I right these long answers and then my internet goes out. Grrrrr.

Ok, here's the links, there's more but I can't remember what I put into google to get them:

http://www.quranicstudies.com/articles/medical-miracles/does-the-quran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/Embryo/BiblecopyGreek.html

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=169064

There was one called imam something though....

[quote:] "EVERYTHING that could be known about the physical development of the embryo had been mapped out."

That's the same as the previous article.. Generally mapped out.

Dare to show me detailed solid findings as in the Quran, not assumptions.

Quran teach us when doing something to do it in the best way.

Quran tells you the value of your self and different people.

Quran asks people to seek for the knowledge.

Quran tells us that there are good things about chrsitian people.

Quran tells us to spend our money and effort wisely.

As I said before there was one schoolar who found more than 300 good manners and values that Quran teaches the people to do and have them.

I must say it's funny that while all these medical essays about the history of embryology I'm leafing through mention Aristotle, Galen, etc. None of them use the Quran as a link, and the Quran was never used as the basis of scientific research or methodology. So I guess not many people believied in what it said (including Muslim doctors) not just me.

The site is really offensive to a lot of Muslims because it rebuts and attacks a lot of very sensitive issues. At the same time, the Muslim site called Answering-Christianity is its mirror image and hated by many Christians. It would be interesting to figure out which came first :-)

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

While I can't provide links to the actual quotes, here's an article from the Canadian Medical Association Journal on the History of Embryology that says that between the original findings of Aristotle till the works of Galen EVERYTHING that could be known about the physical development of the embryo had been mapped out. So they would have known of your "cling" QL, they would have known everything except certain issues with the actual sperm meets egg cataylst and even then there guesses were virtually spot on.

And in relation to your maybes, you're still working with the biggest maybe of all i.e. MAYBE God told him. stones & flying saucers QL, stones & flying saucers.

"The next important step came in the herculean

achievements of Aristotle (late 4th century)

whose book "On the Generation of Animals" is

described here as the first great compendium on

this subject and of the same class and type as

the modern textbooks of embryology by Balfour

and Graham Kerr! As a result of his study of

chick embryos at successive stages of incubation

from the third day on, and the va'st number

of dissections made by him of embryos from

every sort of animal available to him, he was

able to construct a remarkable chart of comparative

embryology (reproduced in the book) that

laid the foundations of comparative morphology

and supplied the framework also for the construction

of the science of biology itself. His

genius previsioned many modern ideas. Thus

in a brilliant discussion of the problem of

embryogenesis he recognized the antithesis between

the theories of epigenesis or pre-formation

(fresh development versus simple unfolding of

pre-existent structures) and declared himself in

favour of the former viewpoint; and he formulated

in his writings views that foreshadowed

the modern physico-chemical ideas of causation,

such as the action of organic catalysts and the

sort of clockwork mechanism that is apparently

inherent in the ovum, and observed that in development

general precede particular characteristics.

A relatively large amount of space and

much study has been devoted by our author to

a careful estimation of the actual value of

Aristotle 's immense contribution to posterity,

and the conclusion is drawn that the solid ground

gained by his wonderful powers of observation

and correct deduction far outweigh the effect

of the few minor mistakes which naturally crept

in to such a huge volume of work; although it

is recognized that his insistence upon a biological

explanation and Final Cause exerted an unfortunate

influence on the progress of science

in the hands of the scholastic metaphysicians of

later generations, who were not possessed of his

penetrating scientific genius and sense of relative

values.

A little later than Aristotle the Alexandrian

School was at its height (3rd century B.C.),

and contributions were made under it to embryology

by Herophilus and others, and later

from Rome by Soranus (30 A.D.), whose accurate

anatomical knowledge is shown in the picture

by him of the uterus, the first made and which

is figured; and by Galen (150-180 A.D.), whose

valuable studies upon the morphology of the

embryo were made subservient to his pronounced

vitalistic convictions and thus as it were closed

the door upon further experimentation for the

next thousand years."

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=20&q=Galen+on+embryology&hl=en

Duplicate

I'm sorry to tell you this, Gypsy, but you're only being argumentative without real things to prove. Your posts are full of maybe's, can't-be-sure's and assumptions.

Who discussed the issues prior to the other is irrelevant. Accuracy and factualilty are what count.

But it does matter QL, because if they are referring to a clot, as in blood clot, then its referring to a common misconception at the time. So therefore there's nothing miraculous about it.

PM versi is calling for, and basing his accusation of me, on other pro-Islam sites that are calling for the article to be taken down because the authour doesn't put his real name. Given the venoumous nature of some of the responses and the usually Muslim reaction to such things, I'm not surprised by that.

Who says I'm threatended, I've simply explained how hard it is to find links in google to direct excerpts from ancient texts, and since QL, I can't find direct quotes from Galen I can't be sure that he DIDN'T mention the clining to the uterus, especially since that would be pretty obvious to the human eye after 6 weeks. Also we have no idea where the quote we do have of Galens is the proper translation. The point is the stages of development were written and discussed PRIOR to Mohammeds including them in the Quran and that Mohammed had a companion who would have known them.

That indicates you feel threatened or offended to me, even though it has been qualified as a source with an agenda.

I have actually read the whole thread, but to be honest my faith isn't based on or enhanced by trying to prove the "scientific validity" of the Quran. I'll leave that to others.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Whether the 'clot' is right or wrong is irrelevant to the Quran. The word 'alaqa' that later takes the form of mudhgha etc. on the other hand IS miraculous, because this is what the fetus-to-be does at this stage..

You are the devil's advocate... as always... not literally of course...

Gypsy has shown her alternate views... true...

But why do you think we are threatened and that we are not debating?

I guess you haven't read the thread... I suggest you do before making general statements...

We are NOT threatened and we HAVE debated and in fact we have proven based on FACTs that the link she has given is nothing but a load of horse manure... Gypsy is the one threatened and unwilling to stand up and defend it...

I am surprised that you are standing up in defense of a piece without a true attributable source... very out of character for a person of your profession...

I'm not saying they're wrong, but their findings aren't as detailed and precise as the description in the Quran. So they cannot be the source of the Prophet's knowledge.

About this quote:

"Another Hadith says "If a male's fluid prevails upon the female's substance, the child will be a male by Allah's decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed" [25]. Surely this is not referring to dominant and recessive genes at all, as certain Muslims have claimed."

This is false. However, the Quran does mention male and female creation, where Allah says what means: " And made of him a pair, the male and female." (75-39)

Couldn't "clot" also refer to blood, or more specifically menstural blood which was a misconception that continued until the 16th century, as embroyos don't come from a blood clot.

Don't forget there were also other Scientists that worked on gynaecology, like Sonarus, who's works were very popular and were the basis for Galens & many later Arabic scholars works, which we've unfortunately lost.

Or the All-Knowing God :)

Galen's theories, and the theories of Hippocrates on embryology haven't been proven wrong. They are as correct as possible for the time. Your point?

With reference to the discussion on embryology in Quran... we are debating SCIENTIFIC FACTS

A scientific fact that has been proven scientifically wrong is not worth squat any more...

Khalid's posts are works of fiction to you because his beliefs are different from yours. Not because you prove him to be scientifically wrong.

So you cannot liken the two... they are two different things

The twin definition of the word 'Alaqa', i.e. 'clot' or 'clinging' as has been found in very modern scientific findings... i.e. something that did not exist at the the time of either Galen or Prophet Mohamed...

That didn't strike me till just now... That's a very good find... its something that needs an historian/scientist/linguist/theologian all rolled in to one :-)

I warned people about the agenda of the article, however what he's quoted from Galen and the fact that Ibn Kalada was a companion of Mohammed and attended a school that taught Galen's teachings (and Hippocrates) is true.

I would say this is less a work of fiction then Khalids "athiest turn Muslim" posts, or in fact any of the "true science in the Quran" posts.

If someone is going to be turned away from Islam because of that post, well, obviously they weren't very good Muslims to begin with. I figure most will do what QL did and completely ignore or mis-read most of it.

posts for dawah are wrong.

It has been pointed out that the site has an agenda and from what I can see Gypsy is just showing that there ARE alternate views. Why is that so threatening? Debate them or ignore them. :-)

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Even so, what's in this article doesn't hold as solid evidence that the Prophet got his 'knowledge' from Greeks, because what's in the Quran is more precise and detailed than the general findings of the Greeks.

They described the general stages of pregnancy for instance, which IS mentioned in the Quran, and which they managed to get through examining the aborted fetus, but they didn't tell the Prophet that the 'clot' clings to the wall of the uterus leading him to 'come up' with the word 'alaqa' which literally states the position of the clot at this stage. This clinging nature is found only by examining the fetus with the assistance of modern technology like altrasound.

Gypsy can you please tell me who's work this is... can you give me a background of the author?

Don't you think its curious that Dr. Lactantius figures in a book about the greatest frauds in the Christian religion?

Doesn't it bother you that something you have posted as fact about our Holy Book may be a complete work of fiction?

You can't compare this to Khalid quoting from Muslim sites. If you can prove conclusively that any of those posts or threads are factually wrong, I will second your motion to have it removed.

One of the attributes of a Muslim is that he or she would not hesitate in pointing out an error by a person of her own faith or on her side. In the way that QL has disagreed with me on this thread... She has a different opinion from mine... We agree to disagree... But neither of us would stand for the other when one thinks the other has gone wrong

In the same way, I would not hesitate to tell Khalid that he should removed a misleading post. But before you do that, you need to identify a post by Khalid and then prove that it is factually WRONG or attributable to a suspicious source... in the same way that I decimated your post...

If you think of what I have posted... what it means that we can never know what Galen actually found... because all his works were translated to Arabic... and obviously there is just no saying how much of facts may have been distorted.

Besides, the source is questionable.

Well if that's what you want to believe then great QL. You're faith is really quite admirable.

I don't agree with versisimilitude on this particular thing. I wouldn't want you to delete the post as it does show that what Greeks found is really irrelevant to what's in the Quran.

LOL. I told you the article was in question and PM verified where it came from, so no, I won't delete it as it's just as "factual" as all those muslim sites that Khalid is posting, so why shouldn't he delete them?

Secondley Versi it comes back to this, hundred rocks on the floor, broken window, Cause: rocks or space ship?

If you insist on beliving the scientific "facts" in the Quran are the work of God, then fine, I've stated why I believe they are the work of man.

QL, I think he saw a problem in his society and said and did what he had to to fix it. I see no shame in that.

In case I failed to make myself clear about the difference betweetn the original Arabic Quran and any other translation, see this video about a non-Arab Muslim reiterating the importance of learning Arabic to thoroughly grasp everything in the Quran. (very enjoyable indeed!).

http://www.thedeenshow.com/videos.php?action=listvideo&sid=35

As I stated earlier sometimes the choice of certain words has a miraculous aspect to it. Like describling the 'clot' in the womb as 'alaqa' which refers to the fetus-to-be position in the womb.

1- If you say that everything was created by Allah (God), then who created Allah?

2 - Why does Allah not show Himself?

3- If you say that Allah is omnipotent (all powerful, can do everything), then can He make a rock so big that He can't even lift?

4- Can Allah make another Allah exactly as Himself?

5- Why only one Eternal and Everlasting as you mentioned in this thread?

6- Why Allah? Why not flying spaghetti monster or invisible flying pink unicorn?

if they want the answers they can go to:

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/answering-hard-questions-atheists-224

I do not want to copy big text and paste it.

Welcome back..

I'm still waiting for that lunch!

Popcorngirl..

If the topic irritates you, use this formula: Skip It!

And on and on....................will you give it up? You believeve in Islam and all it's teachings we don't.

If Islam is that great do you not think it would carry itself and not need 2 or 3 people on a forum that is SUPPOSED to be about living and working in Qatar NOT A LETS CONVERT TO ISLAM site.

You can convey this message all you want but wiser people would have got the hint by now. WE ARE BORED....WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW. IF WE DID WE WOULD ASK.

This forum is about the 'simplicity of Islam.........thank god it is simple as this lot who are sprouting it would not stand a chance with something that stretched them.

________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

What did you mean when you said

"I'm sorry, but this is nonsense: "You say there aren't flying saucers because scientists said they didn't exist not because you went and searched in outer space to see if they exist or no.

"I made calculations considering possible scenarios under maintenance of fundamental physical laws that I detected to be obvious (after I was taught them - which I didn't believe until I could prove them for myself - ) and by myself I found they tell me that it is impossible. I don't need other "scientists" to tell me what is right or wrong!"

Honestly, I don't believe in Aliens either. But I would never make a statement that I can scientifically prove that aliens or flying saucers don't exist...

people of EACH religion can't just respect each other's beliefs and not try and force the other to swallow what their religion says...

A BELIEF is just that...a BELIEF....it doesn't have to have proof..it just IS....

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the main difference between a dog and man.

-Mark Twain-

As I said previously that it is very very interesting that how we human with a little brain try to evaluate / asses things, where as scientists and other intellectuals, who have more power to use their brain (if compared with a normal human), are in view that there is a power who runs all the business of this universe.

I think that if a person is not having intention to find the truth no one can make him understand (Abu Jehal is the best example of that)

have a look at this video

Unfortunately this is not subtitled.

Knowing it will make things more clear and I found a good web site and I would like to share the following with you:

By Yasien Mohamed

Extracted with slight modifications from "Fitrah: The Islamic Concept of Human Nature" © 1996 TA-HA Publishers Ltd.

In attempting a definition of ‘fitrah’, I give an exposition of its linguistic and religious meaning. The religious understanding of fitrah is based on the positive interpretation of fitrah…

Suffice it to say that linguistic and positive religious explanations have one thing in common: both define fitrah as an inborn natural predisposition which cannot change, and which exists at birth in all human beings. What makes our religious understanding positive is that it not only acknowledges fitrah as a natural predisposition, but also one which is inclined towards right action and submission to Allah, the One God.

After discussing the implications for human responsibility, I compare, for the benefit of Western readers, the Islamic concept of original goodness with the Christian concept of original sin. I argue that the doctrine of original sin, from an Islamic point of view, cannot be reconciled with the notion of Divine mercy nor the human responsibility. Since the doctrine of original sin features significantly in the Christian concept of human nature, and as Islam and Christianity are the world’s largest revealed religions, this aspect of their creeds presents an interesting contrast, well worth investigating.

for more you can go to:

http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/DefinitionFitrah.htm

also in this site you will know:

1. The Linguistic Meaning of Fitrah

2. The Religious Meaning of Fitrah

3. Fitrah and Human Responsibility

4. Alienation from Fitrah

5. The Christian Doctrine of Original Sin

"So you are saying that a disk shaped vehicle cannot be airborne?"

Where exactly did I say this?

Gypsy... this text you have presented... I've spent two hours researching it... please read the following text fully and carefully with an open mind

the summary of the article which you posted was...

Galen discovered the four stages of the embryo

It was common knowledge in Greek Medicine

Taught at Academy of Gundishapur

Nafi Ibn al-Harith goes to Gundishapur

Two thousand years later...

a paragraph in Galen's work which is contained in Corpus Medicorum Graecorum sounds very identical to a verse from the Quran...

Hmmmm... suspicious you say...

I have two fundamental issues with this

Firstly,

Was it Galen's work that influenced the Quran or was it the Quran that influenced Galen's work?

(From Wikipedia) "In 191, a fire in the Temple of Peace destroyed many of Galen's works, particularly treatises on philosophy. Others were lost in the destruction of the Library at Alexandria and in the general chaos associated with the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Arabs captured and preserved some ancient medical texts during the expansion and Golden Age of the Arab Empire - only those works exist today, and some still exist only in Arabic translation, while others exist only in mediaeval Latin translations of the Arabic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen

Subhanallah... All works of Galen on medicine exists ONLY in Arabic or Latin translations of Arabic. Now if I am an Arabic translator and I am translating a piece of work from Ancient Greece... How likely would I be to draw parallels from the ancient text and the Holy Quran? VERY LIKELY

Secondly,

The author of the piece is fictional if not an ABSOLUTE FRAUD

the piece that you have referred to has been credited to a certain Dr. Lactantius who is supposed to be a practising doctor in the UK. Strange though, more detailed information of the author is not provided. One would imagine that kind of stuff would turn up pretty quickly on the web right?

Subhanallah... the name does turn up in a very few places... and among them... in a book called 'Forgery in Christianity'

He has an entire section dedicated to him... feel free to read of his grand exploits

http://books.google.com/books?id=2-wPGhBskwgC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=Dr.+Lactantius+forgery&source=bl&ots=mY6PY-line&sig=fQeQg-Pleo2_mYfFdkoZ9aRYwDI&hl=en&ei=yb1lSuxlwfu2B5TLuPMP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Please delete your post as it is obviously spurious and has been created with the sole intend to misguide people with false fabrications

And if you please... take a moment to reflect on the same verses in the Quran which are in question

1) In this video Dr. Tagatat Tejasen explores Anatomy, and the verses from the Holy Quran dealing with Human skinHe accepts the Islam by its logic

2)Prof. Milan from Czech Republic converted to islam after reading the Holy Quran.

3)Here you can seen a Mathematic athiest converting to Islam

http://talk.islamicnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=17142

German athies converting to Islam

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15807135/Tv-Report-German-Atheist-Convert-to-Islam-English-Subtitle

Your analogy about the Mona Lisa is amazing you must be an artist!

MD..

It will be a waste of time if I argue with you about physics. I'm not a physicist :(

That's so sweet thank you..

But to say he was quite an amazing man but you still don't believe he talked to God..Well, first of all he never claimed to receive the message directly from God but through the angel Gabriel. I know this doesn't make any difference to you but I wanted to clear this out.

And if you don't believe he got the message from God this means that to you he was either a liar or schizophrenic (astaghfir Allah)..

Liars and schizophrenics don't achieve amazing results as he's done.

Among his ppl he was nick-named 'The Truthful and Honest' because during 40 years this is what he showed.

can you disprove the claim?

Magic Dragon... THIS is true arrogance...

"I made calculations considering possible scenarios under maintenance of fundamental physical laws that I detected to be obvious (after I was taught them - which I didn't believe until I could prove them for myself - ) and by myself I found they tell me that it is impossible."

So you are saying that a disk shaped vehicle cannot be airborne?

It is a "claim", my friend. That doesn't make it "true" for me. There is no proof.

What's arrogant about saying that the authentic quran was in Arabic?

Its like different painters reproducing the same painting

Leonardo Di Vinci has one original Mona Lisa

Now if someone long back decided that its impossible for everyone who wants to see the Mona Lisa to travel all the way to Paris... so he gets five painters to recreate the painting and then send it out to five different cities...

Everyone is happy... because more people get to see the painting and enjoy it... Now more people know what the painting looks like and more people can enjoy/appreciate its beauty

Now if you were an art student and you look at one of the recreations and say to the curator of the museum,"Hmmmm... I'd like to learn more about the brush strokes Leonardo used"... what would you expect the curator to say?

He would say... "Go to the Louvre and study from the original"

That's all QatariLady is saying. If you want to have a handy version with quick access, a translation would be sufficient. However, if you would like to go in to real depth, you should refer to the Arabic Quran.

I don't see how you can debate the importance of this given how the translations of the Bible have eventually evolved in to different editions with significant changes... and like you said have been influenced by the writers and their times... by maintaining the sanctity of the original, the Quran has survived the ages without a taint on its authenticity in a form still recognizable by the speakers of that language... something no other book can claim

It is all the more miraculous because there are few books that can claim this. And its even more wondrous that it is in Arabic. And there are no other widely spoken languages that can claim to have not undergone significant changes in the last two thousand years...

Yep its sure simple just like the simpletons who get off on it

"he came as the Christ, the Messiah, the Immaculate Conception and he will return in the Last Days to lead his true followers to victory over the Antichrist by the Will of the Almighty".

Prove it!

i like to post some good points from Yusuf Estes

Former Christian Preacher:-

"Can You Compare the Bible to the Quran?"

A Christian asked us - So, We Did it! - And we made a website about it!

We get many requests to compare The Quran and the Bible. This one has many attacks against Islam, Muslims, Quran and prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

So, working with many Muslims and Christians, together, we made a new website with something for everyone - We hope it is beneficial to all!

After you read this article - please check out the website we made for it: 911Bible

Questions

From a Christian brother -

> Hi I am a Christian and I was wondering why you believe like this?

> I can't accept Islam because of the Quran and the way it was formed.

> I also find it interesting that the Quran was said to have come from Gabriel when the Bible comes directly from God (Allah).

> I can't find any good reasons to believe the Quran over the Bible.

> It's also interesting that the Bible says, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." (Galatians 1:8-10)

> Islam fulfills Jesus' prophecy when he said, "whoever kills you will think that he offers God service." (John 16:2)

The Bible says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16)

> Here the Bible claims to be infallible. The Quran however, also claims to be infallible, but it also states, "God annuls what Satan casts." (Q22:52)

> So if Satan inspire verses how can one know which ones are valid and which are not?

> Furthermore, if some verses can be inspired by Satan then how can I know that all of them aren't and that it's all a lie?

> The Bible never makes a statement like this, so it seems that the Bible has more of a chance of being true than the Quran.

> Now You Compare the BIBLE to the QURAN

Answers

Hello dear friend:

Thank you for writing to me. I appreciate that you took the time to express your interest and concerns about the Quran and the Bible.

You started by asking me about the reasons for my beliefs. I would like to first make some things clear to you about what it is we do believe and begin with: IslamBasics or go online for this: Video Presentation

Here are some important points to keep in mind:

1. As Muslims we cannot lie about anything, especially about our religion.

2. We have original recorded sources of our religion:

A) The Quran [click] also: www.QTafsir.com

B) Teachings of Muhammad: www.prophetofislam.com

This is a unique part of Islam, not available in any other ancient religions.

3. Sometimes "questions" contain misinformation. We must qualify what it is that someone is saying against what they are implying.

4. If during the answer, you hear yourself saying, "I didn't know that" or "This is good," then are you ready to worship your God and your Lord without and partners?

This what Islam is really all about. The most important subject is the worship of Almighty God, without any partners or associates or "gods" besides Almighty God

The most important thing to take into consideration is that fact that it is not you nor I who guide the people to Allah. It is only Allah who guides and it is only Allah who misguides. So, if you desire guidance to all truth, the One to ask is the One Above. If you are sincere, and honest with Him, then there can be no doubt that He will always guide the sincere to the Right Path.

There are some who do not want to be guided. Rather, they prefer to make up their own way or religion that suits them and makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. Naturally, that would not be acceptable to the One who is to be worshipped (Almighty God). That would be someone making up what they like and expecting the Lord of the Universe to accept it even though He has already ordained what it is that He wants from the people as worship to Him without partners.

You are concerned over the origin of the Bible and of the Quran. That is normal and you are most entitled to the truth and history of both.

Many people like yourself fear that there may be corruption or interpolation within the Holy Books. For instance, when some of them discover the problems with the Bible, they might even leave belief all together. That would be all too sad.

Actually, a large part of your concerns may be put to rest as soon as you acquire some very basic knowledge about these two subjects.

Your ignorance is your best excuse and you are most welcome to share from the many years of knowledge and experience that we have accumulated concerning this important topic.

A Muslim must agree with at least a number of your statements, due to the very message of the Quran itself.

Consider that you said that the Bible came directly from God. Where else could it have come from?

The very first words in the Quran confirm that the Bible was "sent down" before the Quran and it is from Allah.

Also, Muslims cannot be considered as believers unless they do confirm that the Bible was originally from

Almighty God. So this is no longer a point of discussion, in that we both agree.

Was the Bible sent down in English? - No. That would be most facetious to consider when we take into consideration that English is only a 940 year old language.

Does the Bible still exist in the original form in which it was revealed and in the original languages? - Again, No.

Can any scholar of the Bible say with absolute certainty which of the verses of the Bible came to Abraham, or Moses, or David, or Solomon or Jesus? - No.

Do you accept that the English version of the Bible is the same thing that was held in hands of the Great and Noble prophets of Almighty God? - No.

Of course you don't.

After all, only the most inept and uneducated, from the most backward of civilizations would dare make such a silly claim.

Does the book in night stand by the bed in every hotel and motel in the world, in English, that Christians call the "Bible" today - represent the exact great and noble

Bible of Moses, David and Jesus? - No.

Do English versions contain different meanings, contradictions and mistakes? - Too many.

Read from the introduction of the Bible I grew up with:

"Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of

Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation. (Refer to this link on IslamCode.com)

Bible? Do I, as a Muslim, believe it came from God?

- Yes! Absolutely. No doubt.

Quran? Did it come from the same God?

- Again, Yes! It claims it is from Almighty God (and it confirms the same about the real Bible).

Quran? Was it sent down in Arabic?

- Yes. It says so in it;

"A reading sent down in the clear Arabic language..."

Quran? Does it still exist in the original form?

- Yes. It is preserved in two (2) ways in the original form. Both in writing and in oral recitation exactly as it was revealed over 1,400 years ago. And still available all over the world in the original classical Arabic language.

Do scholars of Quran sate with absolute certainty that the Quran today is the same one that was sent down to Muhammad?

- Yes. They all do.

Do we accept that the Arabic version of the Quran is the same thing that was held in the hearts and memories of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him?

- Yes. Ask any Muslim scholar.

Does the book that the Muslims call the Quran today represent the Great and Noble Quran of Muhammad, peace be upon him?

- Yes. No doubt.

Quran? Does anyone know what it sounded like?

- Yes. All Muslims recite it in Arabic in their prayers five times a day.

Bible? - Anyone know what it sounded like? - Only a few experts claim to know how some words might have sounded but they are not one hundred percent sure about most of it.

Bible? - Are there different versions with omissions, deletions, changes, missing books? (Compare Catholic Bible [73 books] to Protestant Bible [66 books])? - Yes. Many.

Quran? - Are there different versions with omissions, deletions, changes, missing books? - No.

Does the Arabic Quran contain mistakes?

- No. Not even one.

Bible? - Do people still memorize it today as they once did thousands of years ago, in the original language? - No.

Quran? - - Yes. All Muslims have memorized at least some books of the Quran and over 9,000,000 (nine million) have memorized the entire Quran, living today.

In fact, a young man came to me about 7 years ago and asked to know more about Islam. He liked the idea of God being the Only God and He is Almighty and does not accept people to set up rival gods with Him in worship. He became a "Muslim" (one who submits their will to the Will of God on earth as it is in Heaven). And today he has memorized the entire Quran from cover to cover in the Arabic language.

Do you think that this is something small? Do you consider all of the above comparisons and then just keep on blindly making statements without evidences? - No, of course you don't.

I feel certain that you are smarter than that and in fact, you are probably somewhat like myself in that you are a seeker of truth, rather than an ignorant promoter of evil, ignorance and hatred. Right? - Of course you are. And as a seeker of truth, you want evidence and plenty of it.

You came to the right place. And you are most welcome.

But before we begin a deep discussion regarding these wonderful revelations that the Almighty sent down to us, I would like to offer some reference materials for you to read and contemplate prior to our anticipated lengthy correspondence. Agreed?

Good. Here are the links to some of the basics to help you get to the first levels of basic knowledge of textual understanding:

Bible: IslamCode.com and TodayIslam.com/bible

Quran: AllahsQuran and QTafsir.com (explanations)

FREE Quran (download for your computer) IslamTomorrow.com

After you have completed your fundamentals for preparing for a dialog with me on these issues, I will be waiting for you with open arms and caring heart.

Please, do as I did many years ago:

First, clear up your mind and clean out your heart from the prejudices and bias of ignorance and misguidance.

Then open up to the message of Jesus, peace be upon him. Remember, he came as the Christ, the Messiah, the Immaculate Conception and he will return in the Last Days to lead his true followers to victory over the Antichrist by the Will of the Almighty.

Wouldn't you like to join him, peace be upon him? So, would we.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense: "You say there aren't flying saucers because scientists said they didn't exist not because you went and searched in outer space to see if they exist or no."

I made calculations considering possible scenarios under maintenance of fundamental physical laws that I detected to be obvious (after I was taught them - which I didn't believe until I could prove them for myself - ) and by myself I found they tell me that it is impossible. I don't need other "scientists" to tell me what is right or wrong!

We're not doubting the ability of Mohammed QL. I do think he was quite an amazing man. I just don't think he talked to God.

See you laterz

This topic is becoming "Simplicity of flying saucers"

That's why I said IF he was respectable.. not someone deceiving the public to gain funding. You say there aren't flying saucers because scientists said they didn't exist not because you went and searched in outer space to see if they exist or no.

The way the Prophet transformed his ppl from total chaos to order without getting anything in return for himself proves he was an honest person. An honest person doesn't CLAIM things that aren't real.

No, I'd think he was off his rocker or ask him to show me pictures or proof of some kind.

I would not, QatariLady. Because there are no flying saucers. Whatever the scientist would say would be a political issue and not necessarily the truth. Maybe he needs more funding for his research from Congress.

Strange, how when faced with a question that you don't know the answer to, some people will say it must be fairy creatures, rather then accept and live with the fact that they just don't know. Doesn't seem very logical to me.

and that is proof for what?

If a respectable NASA scientists said he saw a flying saucer and he wasn't joking I'd believe him. Wouldn't you?

Thanx.. This is what we're debating about. For some reasons it doesn't sound logical for them that the universe was created. To them it came out of thin air, or 'nothing', or dunno.

Strange. The Prophet did mention that some ppl when asked after death who their God is, they'll say: huh. I don't know.

I don't see an authentic Bible, nor an authentic Torah, nor an authentic Quran, QatariLady. I don't even see an authentic Homer. The fact remains: You say the Quran is the word of God revealed to Muhammed in Arabic. I say that is not the case. From this point on, we are just discussing things intellectually, and that isn't too much fun at all. Both of us are right, QatariLady. I cannot prove, you cannot prove. Nothing you show as proof is proof. Even the report of an eyewitnes is no proof. It's just a story how he saw it through his eyes. A subjective description of an event. (Ask a policemen how many different reports from eyewitnesses he will get on a traffic accident).

So you see a broken window with a hundred rocks lying on the floor and you still say it's the flying saucer?

LOL. Well thats brit for ya. :P

Ancient scientists, other scholars .. This is plural not one rock!

There have been at one point of time an authentic Bible and an authentic Torah. Any Arabic translation will be a translation of the Bible, not the Bible.

If someone will criticise one of Shakespeare's work, do think it's logical to sett off from a translation?

britexpat would say there were flying saucers. He was abducted, he claims.

But there isn't more then one rock, there's the rock and the flying saucer. Rock=ancient knowledge, other scholars, etc. Flying saucer = God. Get it?

This is arrogant: "It's the only authentic one as it was revealed in Arabic".

As if any "revelation" which was in any other language cannot be authentic.

It is interesting that how we human with a little brain try to evaluate things, where as scientists and other intellectuals, who have been given more power to use their brain (compared with a normal human), is in view that there is a power who runs all the business of this universe.

Answer to the question that “if there is a GOD” and how to prove it, is that is there any thing like DARKNESS exist? The answer is that there is nothing like DARKNESS but when there is no light its called DARKNESS. Is there any thing “cold’ exist, no but when there is no heat it is called COLD. Can we see cold or darkness NO but we know that if there is no LIGHT it is called darkness and if there is no heat it is called cold.

No body saw GOD but different experiences tell us that there is a POWER who dominates this universe.

All Religions are a chain of a command and has been sent to human in different time. Moses, Jesus and Mohammed (peace is upon them) were given guide lines (holy books) to set up a better society on this earth. In fact the power (ALLAH, GOD or call him by any other name) is one but the messengers of him with guide lines were sent in different times for only one purpose. The problem is always created by the followers when the acceptance of some thing new vanished from them.

The LAW of the power ALMIGHTY is that we must do the justice among the people. Take any war (which have been discussed in the thread) were fought not for religion but when people started injustice. Followers of any religion were never given any authority to kill each other but yes it was asked by all the humanity that “when you see the injustice is done try to fight that out by all means as the injustice is the basic cause of any problem.

Take any example and start it from home. If there are four brothers and one of them is not handled equally, obviously being human he will try to get his RIGHT all means and if not given then no blame goes to him if he seeks help even from outsiders against his own blood and flesh. We can see examples in our every day life. Yes, most of you right when you say that the religion is made the base of any fight or war, where in fact if the justice was done by the CROWN AND CHURCH OR CROWN AND MOSQUE then there would not have been a problem.

Now days European or call it western especially in UK and Scandinavian countries the justice system is appreciate able NO DOUBT. See the basic is the justice over there which does ease thing for their generations. Believing God or not that is a different matter but we can not blame religion for KILLINGS OR WARS BUT WE CAN BLAME INJUSTICE FOR THAT.

Bible was a true word of GOD but now we have more then 28 Bibles we do not know what to do about that where as QURAAN still has the same words since last 1500 years, nothing changed.

Muslim or Christian not doing some good can not be a reason to blame ISLAM OR CHRISTINITY OR GOD OR JESUS OR MOHAMMED (PBUT).

ALCOHOL is prohibited not because SATIN sits in that but it is true and proven by science that when it is taken more them limits (most of the people do take it more them the limits) it harms your body, see driving restriction while under the influence of alcohol. No one can guarantee about the alcoholic person. Most of the times 2 out of 10 persons are sober, when they are under the influence of alcohol. HARAM means that that thing is harmful to human that’s all.

WE also have to realize one thing that the SCIENCE is going to discover more and more, it is in process as we can see that some times scientist say that the theory or the practical of some formula or knowledge has been changed according to new research.

So we do not have to act like one who KNOWS every thing.

If there was more than one rock how would you know which one broke the window, unless it says "I did!" or someone honest and crdible says I saw a specific one hitting the window?

It's the only authentic one as it was revealed in Arabic. What's so arrogant about it?

So, only the Arabic version is the "guaranteed" truth? That's arrogant, dear Lady.

The rock is lying next to the broken window.

LOL.. OK where is 'the rock' now? You're making it up!

Not hypocrite MD, but the ppl who translated it did their best in relaying the meaning to help non-Arabs understand the Quran, but being humans they cannot guarantee that they won't make linguistic or logical mistakes.

This is a basic difference between human beings and God. We make mistakes, God doesn't.

The Quran is only proof that Mohammed existed and CLAIMED God spoke to him, not proof of God. There is no proof of God.

Frankly QL your view is a bit like a person who see's a broken window with a rock lying next to it and says the window must have been broken by a flying saucer.

Ibn Kalada isn't here nor any written claim by him. We didn't see God but we have a book that is said to be His book. Why reject the existing written book and assume this important knowledge belongs to someone without a written proof?

You believe in Ibn Kalada without any proof and reject believing in God who has the universe AND the Quran as proof.

You either accept the translations or not, QL. You cannot say I accept them to teach people who don't speak Arabic, and then, I don't accept them when the translations are used to criticize. What a hippocratic thinking you have.

Non-Arab Muslim can know a lot about Islam by reading translations of the Quran. Many ppl who embraced Islam said that the first step was reading a translation of the Quran.

When I said don't rely on translations that was in response to those who criticise it or claim to have seen contradictions in the Quran. This is how the Bible was lost. The dsciples wrote their own views on the Bible and others came and brought a series of translations.

"I was asking about basic issues that any Christian believer should be able to answer. If believers don't know why the religion says what it says then they're no more than blind followers."

It's good that you mentioned this, QatariLady. According to your opinion all but the 300 million Arabic speaking (and reading) Muslims are no more than blind followers. They cannot know why the religion says what it says because they don't understand the language of the Quran.

LOL. It has to be full of maybe's because obviously Ibn Kalada isn't here to answer the question himself. At least I have proof of two people who existed at the same time with x-knowledge and were know to talk. Rather then your BIG maybe, which is the exisitence of God.

You're asking me to prove my sources and unfortunately the only way I can do that for you is to link to on line ones. Personally I do prefer to read the info myself and draw my own conclusions, which I have. But I can't footnote my brain, so....

Your recent post is amazignly full of maybe's.

It isn't logical to give credit to someone he NEVER claimed to deserve.

Now you say that you have a degree in Hippocrate's stuff why are you relying on google or any on-line source?

LOL. Well Hi Pot, guess what you're black!

QL you can't accuse me of custom making things to my imagination when you are willfully ignoring fact and common sense to hold onto your belief.

Again, it's Occums razor (the simplest belief is often the correct one) is it more likely that Mohammed heard the information from a doctor, or from God. Given the evidence I think it's defintely the doctor. As to why he never said anything, maybe he didn't know or didn't care, or maybe he did and his protests have been lost. Again, More belivable than a sky daddy.

Ibn Kalada studied in Persia which was in a state of war with Mmslims until years after the Prophet's death. It's only logical that they will find it a good opportunity to prove him deceitful and exploiter of other ppl's knowledge.

[quote:] "But when it comes down to Mohammed getting his information from a doctor or a voice in his head, I'm going to go with the doctor."

That's IF the doctor did say that he gave this info to the Prophet but he didn't and you're willing to give him this credit just to prove the Prophet was not a prophet.

I said earlier that you live in a world custom-made to your imagination. And I still believe this statement is true.

The presence of the scientific facts is apparently to prove to contemporary science-oriented ppl that it was revealed by a being that is extraordinary.

Many have. It's a shame you can't access this site to see the sources, but there you go. And if you look at the school it was in Persia so it would have been translated to Persian, not Arabic.

I'm not saying this site is 100% accurate, after all it has a pro-Christian bias, but it does make some very valid points and backs them up.

Galen described in detail the stages of the embryo. He based his knowledge on the teachings of Hippocrates & Aristotle, and his theories were taught to Ibn Kaladha who was a companion of the Prophet.

I have issues with this text because the source is not clear... which book is it taken from?

I checked de semine and Gamen on google to learn more about the specific book that it was taken but I couldn't really find anything

Gamen's works apparently were not translated in to Arabic until 100 years after the death of the prophet

Even if your theory is true... lets take it granted for a second...

Most scientific theories of old times have been proven wrong and rewritten

Many scientific theories put forward by Galen have been disproved

Why is it that none of the scientific theories in the Quran have been proven wrong?

The holy Quran veses were written at Muhammads life but gather after he died.

Some people were writing the holy Quran statements in order not to forget.

And correct me if I'm wrong on this, but my impression of these "scientific facts" was not that Mohammed said they were revealed to him by God, but that they PROVED the existence of God....There is a difference.

Nope. But when it comes down to Mohammed getting his information from a doctor or a voice in his head, I'm going to go with the doctor.

Well Hippocrates & Aristotle were long dead so they couldn't really stand up and say "hey, that was my idea" as for Ibn Kalada, he died before Mohammed did and I believe the Quran was finally written down AFTER the death of Mohammed, also it looks like Kalada never converted, so who knows what the situation was. Again:

voice in head, doctor, voice in head, doctor. Going to go with doctor.

Were you?

If Ibn Kalada, Hippocrates and Aristotle didn't claim they had made those discoveries we cannot assume they had.

How do you know? Where you there sitting and listening to he and Mohammeds conversations?

Ah, now I'm seeing where you were getting it. No no, they aren't saying that they had any part in writing the Quran, they are saying that these later doctors acknowledged the works of Golan and Hippocrates and used them as guides. Which would say that if Golan and Hippocrates had been wrong, why would they use them?

I wrote that before reading the post about Ibn Kalada. This is a weird name I don't recognise it. Obviously he didn't have any role in narrating Quran or Hadiths. His role was to give healthy advice only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafi_ibn_al-Harith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Jundishapur

Where are you getting stuff about cardiovascular systems??? We are talking about Ibn Kalada NOT Ibn Al-Qayyim or Ibn Sina?

The famous Muslim doctor that did make discoveries related to the cardiovascular system is Ibn Sina. He was born (according to Wikipedia) 300 years after the death of the Prophet in Afghanistan and died in Iran. No way could he either participate in 'authoring' the Quran.

"the most celebrated early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary of Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." [38]

He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes [39]. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him"

al Harith Ibn Kalada not Ibn Al-Qayyim

Ibn Al-Qayyim was NOT a companion and he wasn't a doctor either.. He was born in the 8th Hejri Century, that's almost 700 years after the death of the Prophet.

It's not saying doctors added anything. It's saying one of the best doctors in the Arab world was a companion of Mohammed while he was "writing" the Quran.

Muslim doctors did not add anything to the Quran. Muslim Caliphs preserved it as is.

The first stage, geniture, corresponds to [nutfah], the drop of semen; the second stage, a bloody vascularised foetus with unshaped brain, liver and heart ("when it has been filled with blood") corresponds to [alaqa], the blood clot; the third stage "has the form of flesh" and corresponds to [mudghah], the morsel of chewed flesh. The fourth and final stage, puer, was when all the organs were well formed, joints were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move [20]. If the reader is in any doubt about the clear link being described here between the Galenic and the Qur'anic stages, it may be pointed out that it was early Muslim doctors, including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the similarity. Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concludes

In the first section the article describes how ancient philosophers found that pregnancy goes through stages. That's all it says.

1- I didn't find anywhere in the article that they found that bones are created first and covered with flesh as the Quran explicitly says. To them everything is made of blood.

2- The Arabic word 'alaqa' doesn't describe the shape of the fetus-to-be, but its position in the womb. The word 'alaqa' is derived from 'alaq, ya'laq' which means 'to cling' or 'to be attached to'. And this is the position of the fetus-to-be in this particular stage, attached to the wall of the uterus.

Well sadly thats the only site I can find that actually addresses these "scientific facts" in the Quran and puts them in context.

that attempts to "debunk" Muslim claims. There is a site called "Answering Christianity" run by Muslims for the purpose of debunking Christianity. They are part of the Religion Olympics I referred to earlier.

BTW, QTEL seems to block Answering Islam, but not Answering Christianity; at leats not when I tried to access both sites some time back.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Funny that a site providing explanations ot Quranic statements is blocked. :P So much for critical thinking.

That's strange...It's not censored for me, anyway:

The account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an, ar-Razi and al-Quff is identical to that taught by Galen, writing in around AD 150 in Pergamum (Bergama in modern Turkey). Galen taught that the embryo developed in four stages as detailed below.

Galen: De Semine in Greek

English translation:

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...

... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow [19].

Qur'an: Sura 23:13-14 in Arabic for comparison

English translation:

Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (Alaqa, a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh (Mudghah), then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!

The first stage, geniture, corresponds to [nutfah], the drop of semen; the second stage, a bloody vascularised foetus with unshaped brain, liver and heart ("when it has been filled with blood") corresponds to [alaqa], the blood clot; the third stage "has the form of flesh" and corresponds to [mudghah], the morsel of chewed flesh. The fourth and final stage, puer, was when all the organs were well formed, joints were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move [20]. If the reader is in any doubt about the clear link being described here between the Galenic and the Qur'anic stages, it may be pointed out that it was early Muslim doctors, including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the similarity. Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concludes

"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account ... There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages" [21].

Stages of development - a modern idea?

It has been said that the idea of the embryo developing through stages is a modern one, and that the Qur'an is anticipating modern embryology by depicting differing stages. However many ancient writers besides Galen taught that humans developed in different stages. For example in the Jewish Talmud we learn that the embryo has six stages of development. Samuel ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish physician, and one of many with an interest in embryology [22]. The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as

golem (formless, rolled-up thing);

shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac);

'ubbar (something carried);

v'alad (child);

v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and

ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).

Yet with the benefit of modern science we now know that the formation of a human being is a seamless continuation from conception to birth, hence the reason why there is so much contemporary confusion about abortion and embryo research. For if we develop as a continuous process it is impossible to draw hard-and-fast boundaries about when life starts. This makes a nonsense of the Qur'anic verse which says (71:14) "When He created you by (divers) stages".

More examples of borrowing from ancient Greek writers

If we look at what the ancient Greeks taught we can clearly see that all the other references to embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith can also be traced directly back to them. For example there is a Hadith in which Muhammed is questioned about why a group of red camels have a grey camel among them, and it is due to a hidden trait. But Aristotle noticed that babies who were born that looked unlike either of their parents would often take on the appearance of their grandparents [23], so that the characteristic skipped a generation, being what we now know as recessive. He also tells us of a woman from Elis who took a black husband and although their daughter was not black, their daughter's daughter was black, demonstrating a gene which skipped a generation in exactly the same way as Muhammed described [24].

Another Hadith says "If a male's fluid prevails upon the female's substance, the child will be a male by Allah's decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed" [25]. Surely this is not referring to dominant and recessive genes at all, as certain Muslims have claimed [26], but is simply repeating the incorrect belief of Hippocrates that both men and women produce both male and female sperm. The sex of the resulting child is determined by which sperm overwhelms the other in strength or quantity:

"... both partners alike contain both male and female sperm (the male being stronger than the female must originate from a stronger sperm). Here is a further point: if (a) both partners produce a stronger sperm then a male is the result, whereas if (b) they produce a weak form, then a female is the result. But if (c) one partner produces one kind of sperm, and the other another then the resultant sex is determined by whichever sperm prevails in quantity. For suppose that the weak sperm is much greater in quantity than the stronger sperm: then the stronger sperm is overwhelmed and, being mixed with weak, results in a female. If on the contrary the strong sperm is greater in quantity than the weak, and the weak is overwhelmed, it results in a male" [27].

Earlier in the Hadith, Muhammed says that the reproductive substance of men is white and that of women is yellow. This sounds very much like the content, white and yellow, that is found inside developing chick-eggs, and which Aristotle was known to dissect [28].

Later in the same Hadith an angel is apparently sent by Allah to shape the embryo and ask what sex it is going to be. Notwithstanding that sex is actually determined at the moment of conception according to whether the fertilised egg has two X chromosomes (female) or an X and Y chromosome (male), and that there is some ambiguity about the age of the embryo when the angel appears (Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported that Muhammed said 40 or perhaps 50 days, not 42, and Abu Tufail maintains that Muhammed said to Hudhaifa b. Usaid that sperm resided in the womb for 40 days), Hippocrates taught that it took 30 days for the male genitals to form and 42 for the female embryo [29]. No wonder the angel has to wait for forty-two days before it learns the child's sex. In reality, prior to 7 weeks of gestation the ovaries and testes appear identical and the external genitalia only start to diverge around 9 weeks.

Sura 39:6 says that God made us in stages in threefold darkness. There have been many interpretations of this verse, including that of as-Suyuti who said that there were three membranes surrounding the foetus, one to carry nutrients to it, another to absorb its urine, and the third to absorb other waste products. Elsewhere it has been suggested that they are the abdominal wall, the uterine wall and the amniotic sac in which the foetus sits. This is entirely observable to the naked eye, as Hippocrates described dissecting pregnant dogs to find puppies sitting in the amniotic sac inside the uterus [30]. A rather macabre practice of Queen Cleopatra was to rip open the wombs of her pregnant slave-girls in order to see their foetuses, according both to Rabbinic traditions and Plinius [31]. Furthermore, the Romans introduced the custom of opening the womb of a pregnant woman if she died before she had delivered her baby; the woman and her baby would be buried side-by-side, thus giving rise to the term "Caesarean section".

It is said by Muslims that sura 80:20 describes how easy Allah has made it for delivery of the infant, but this contradicts sura 46:15 ("his mother beareth him with reluctance and bringeth him forth with reluctance"). In fact 80:19 is talking about man's origins from a drop of sperm, and 80:21 about his death and burial, so it is entirely logical that 80:20 refers not to the process of parturition (giving birth) but to the whole of man's life being made easy for him by God. In the context this makes a lot more sense, does not contradict 46:15 and does not go against the weight of obstetrical evidence that makes giving birth one of the most dangerous things a woman can do in her life. (In Mozambique, childbirth is the seventh most common cause of death in women, and worldwide a woman dies in labour every 53 seconds.) The Biblical teaching that women give birth with much pain (Genesis 3:16) is far more realistic.

Sura 46:15 also says, "The duration of pregnancy and separation [weaning] is thirty months" and sura 31:14 informs us that "his separation is at the end of two years". This implies that the duration of a normal pregnancy is six months. Nowadays with advanced neonatal facilities it is just possible for a small proportion of babies born at 24 weeks' gestation to survive, albeit with severe disabilities in many cases. In Muhammed's day no babies could have survived at so premature an age, and the Qur'an is wildly inaccurate about the duration of a normal pregnancy.

Sura 33:4 says that Allah has not put two hearts into any man. Yet duplication of the heart has been admitted, albeit with reluctance by Geoffrey-Saint-Hilaire and celebrated anatomists including Littre, Meckel, Colomb, Panum, Behr, Paullini, Rhodius, Winslow and Zacutus Lusitanus [32].

In other places the Qur'an contains commands which have been claimed to be fantastically advanced and sensible, when in fact they were known and followed by far more ancient civilizations. In sura 2:222, Allah tells Muhammed that menstruation is an illness and men must not have sexual intercourse with their wives until they are cleansed from their periods. Yet 2000 years earlier Moses received the command not to have sexual intercourse during a woman's period (Torah: Leviticus 18:19) but this was very definitely not for health reasons, but for religious, ceremonial reasons. Having sex during one's period is hardly likely to cause male infertility, endometriosis and fallopian tube damage, as has been claimed by some Muslims with no scientific evidence, even if it might be unpleasant for the couple. But perhaps more importantly menstruation is not an illness; indeed the shedding of the endometrial layer of the uterus helps to prevent uterine cancer. Progesterone has to be included in hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) in post-menopausal women to induce an artificial menstruation every month to prevent a build-up of endometrium which could become cancerous!

But how could Muhammed have known these things?

It is one thing to find the Qur'an repeating the same embryological ideas as those described originally by the ancient Greeks, but is there any way in which we can be sure that the material was familiar to the Arabs of Muhammed's day? Given that so much of what the Qur'an says is based upon Galen's beliefs, it is particularly significant that some 26 books of his work were translated into Syriac as early as the sixth century AD by Sergius of Resh' Aina (Ra's al-Ain). Sergius was a Christian priest who studied medicine in Alexandria and worked in Mesopotania, dying in Constantinople in about AD 532 [33]. He was one of a number of Nestorian (Syriac) Christians who translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac; others included Bishop Gregorius, al-Rahawy, al-Taybuti, the Patriarch Theodorus and al-Sabakti [34].

The Nestorians experienced persecution from the mainstream church and fled to Persia, where they brought their completed translations of the Greek doctors' works and founded many schools of learning. The most famous of these by far was the great medical school of Jundishapur in what is now south-east Iran, founded in AD 555 by the Persian King Chosroes the Great (also known as Anusharwan or Nushirvan), whose long reign lasted from AD 531 to around 579.

The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam Jundishapur was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time, combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine. The combining of different schools of medicine foreshadowed the synthesis that was to be achieved in later Islamic medicine [35].

Arab medicine, to deal with only one side of this question, borrowed from many sources. The biggest debt was to the Greeks ... The medicine of Jundi Shapur was also mainly Greek. There must have been Syriac translations in the library of the hospital there long before the Arabs came to Persia ... According to Ibn Abi Usaybi'a the first to translate Greek works into Syriac was Sergius of Ra's-al-`Ayn [sic], who translated both medical and philosophical works. It was probably he who worked for Chosroes the Great and it was his translations in all probability which were used in Jundi Shapur [36].

According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia and al-Qifti [37], the most celebrated early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary of Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." [38]

He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes [39]. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him [40]. He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his "teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [i.e., Muhammed] [41]. "Such medical knowledge as Muhammed possessed, he may well have acquired from Haris bin Kalda [sic], an Arab, who is said to have left the desert for a while and gone to Jundi Shapur to study medicine...On his return Haris settled in Mecca and became the foremost physician of the Arabs of the desert. Whether he ever embraced Islam is uncertain, but this did not prevent the Prophet from sending his sick friends to consult him." [42]

Harith Ibn Kalada was unable to father any children, and it is said that he adopted Harith al-Nasar (Nadr), who was apparently a cousin of Muhammed, and also a doctor by profession [43]. Interestingly Nadr mocked Muhammed, saying that the stories in the Qur'an were far less entertaining and instructive than the old Persian legends he had grown up with. Perhaps he recognised that the Qur'an had human sources for some of its stories? As a result of this Muhammed became his sworn enemy, and the Prophet put him to death following his capture in the Battle of Badr in 624 [39].

So we have just the link we need to show how "The translations (into Syriac) of Sergius Ras el Ain, penetrated to Jandi-Shapur. During the first years of the 7th century [more likely the end of the sixth century], Harith ben Kalada studied medicine there and Muhammad owed to Harith a part of his medical knowledge. Thus, with the one as well as the other, we easily recognize the traces of Greek (medicine)." [44] To summarise: Sergius died about the time that Chosroes the Great began his reign, and may even have been employed by Chosroes to translate Galen from Greek into Syriac. Halfway through his reign Chosroes founded Jundishapur, where Galen's manuscripts must surely have been kept in translation. Towards the end of his reign he had an audience with Harith Ibn Kalada, who later became associated with Muhammed.

We also know that according to Muslim traditions part of at least one verse in the Qur'an that relates to the developing human came originally from human lips. While Muhammed was dictating verse 23:14 to `Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, the latter got carried away by the beauty of what he heard about the creation of man, and when Muhammed reached the words "another creature" his companion uttered the exclamation "Blessed be God, the best of creators!" Muhammed accepted these words as though they were the continuation of his revelation and told Ibn Abi Sarh to write them down, even though they were quite clearly his companion's words, not Muhammed's or Allah's words [45].

This really does beg the question: since we know that at least one verse of the Qur'an contains the added words of a mere human being, how can we possibly be sure that this did not happen anywhere else in the Qur'an?

After the fall of Alexandria in AD 642 knowledge of Greek medicine spread even more rapidly throughout the Arab world. In the 9th century Hunain Ibn Ishaq (AD 809-873) made perhaps the definitive Arabic translation of Hippocrates and Galen [46], [47], [48] and al-Kindi wrote over twenty medical treatises, including one specifically on Hippocrates.

Indeed, the writers of the Arabic medical literature acknowledge as their sources the major Greek and Indian medical traditions. For example, one of the earliest Arabic compendiums of medicine is Ali at-Tabari's "Paradise of Wisdom" [49], [50], written by a Christian convert to Islam in about 850 at Samarra in Mesopotamia. In it he said that he was following the rules set down by Hippocrates and Aristotle regarding how to write his treatise. It contains 360 chapters, and the fourth Discourse, beginning at chapter 325 is entitled "From the Summaries of Indian Books". Chapter 330, from Sushrata, "The Genesis of the Embryo and of the Members" claims that the embryo results from mixing of sperm and menstrual blood (vis-a-vis Aristotle!) and describes various constituents of the embryo. The medical historian Arthur Meyer summed up the whole of the Arabic embryological tradition when he said that at-Tabari "depended largely upon Greek sources, which would seem to imply that he could obtain little from the Arabs. Moreover, since Aristotelian and Galenical teaching survived side by side for over a thousand years without a known Arabic counterpart, it is doubtful if the latter existed" [51].

An extraordinary passage from the writings of the medieval philosopher Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya shows how heavily the later Arabic writers depended upon the Greek doctors; in one continuous discourse [52] the words of Hippocrates explain the Qur'an and Hadith, and the latter are used to explain Hippocrates. For example:

"Hippocrates said ... 'some membranes are formed at the beginning, others after the second month, and others in the third month ...' That is why God says, 'He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, by one formation after another in three darknesses'. Since each of these membranes has its own darkness, when God mentioned the stages of creation and transformation from one state to another, He also mentioned the darknesses of the membranes. Most commentators explain: 'it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta' ... Hippocrates said, 'The ears are opened, and the eyes, which are filled with a clear liquid.' The Prophet used to say, 'I worship Him Who made my face and formed it, and opened my hearing and eyesight' etc. etc" [53].

Here is someone writing a medical account who includes Hippocrates (bold type), the Qur'an and Hadith (bold italics), commentaries on them (italics) and his own thoughts (normal type) in one and the same paragraph. Of course the intelligentsia of Muhammed's time would have been familiar with both Greek and Indian medicine.

Other embryologists were known but added nothing new to Galen, for example Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn 'Abdallah Ibn Sina (AD 980-1037) who wrote a Canon Medicinae. Clement of Alexandria included familiar information and believed that the embryo was formed through the combination of semen and menstrual blood. Lactantius of Nicomedia in AD 325 opened eggs at varying stages of development.

The site is censored :)

[quote:] "But, I warn you to ask questions about the concept of religion when the people available to answer are not qualified other than through their belief."

I was asking about basic issues that any Christian believer should be able to answer. If believers don't know why the religion says what it says then they're no more than blind followers.

Well this is the best article I can find on the issue. http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo.html

Granted it's from a questionable source (at least questionable in their motives to do it) but it doesn't seem to be a topic much discussed, probably because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Without a degree in philosophy I don't think I will be able to understand their writing especially if the books are written in old English.

I was hoping that you can help me see that what the Quran and Prophet said does exist in their books.

Sorry QatariLady but I'm afraid the complete works of hippocrates are not available through google. I recommend doing what I did, which is take a 4 year degree or (the horror) read one of their books. They should be available through Amazon.

considering how MD flushed your different translation theories down the toilet

Are you saying that the old testament is of no interest to Christianity?

if the Bible is too complicated for you why enter into debate about it? You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written a hundred years before Jesus, so why bring them up?

They were discovered in 1945 a good (let me do the maths for you; one thousand, nine hundred and forty five years after Jesus was born) so tell me what is the point of bringing them up?

Unless you were trying to prove in a very odd way you knew something.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have no bearing on the Bible at all. They are up there with the Shroud of Turin and Kadajee etc.

Go back to KG love. (pats vermins head and says night night)

_________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

Good Night

veris, I would not want to continue now. Let's not forget the idea of the founders of religion: make the life of people better.

Good Night.

Its always fascinated me from when I was very young... the dead sea scrolls... the mystery...

but this whole Bible thing is too complicated for me...

You also may want to study the latest results on the Qumran roles (Dead Sea Scrolls). They contain several verses similar to the book of Jesaija (Old testament), which led some scientists to the conclusion that Jesus' teachings already appeared 200 years prior to him. The community of the Essenes (a male community) developed a figure called the "Master of Light" which some Christian scholars tried to identify with the figure of Jeus, and when that didn't work they applied it to the person of John, who baptized Jesus in the Jordan River. However, none of these connections seem to be really working. The secrecy about the roles for at least 40 years contributed to the confusion. Lately the rolls have been posted on the Internet and you can download and study them yourself if you are interested and able to read aramaic.

I just wanted to know more about the oldest version of the Bible...

methods and facilities, in many places wine was often drunk mixed in with water to prevent water-borne disease.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

finding this funny now. Vermin when you are ready, answer when you can lol.

_________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

religion is a very powerful tool in the world of power and politics...

Let's have a closer look, veris. Saddam Hussain did not need religion, he had his secret police (weapons). Iran holds the nation together with religion. Saudi Arabia would fall apart without religion. And kings and emperors used religion to secure their dominance. Jesus said: "My kingdom is not on Earth". He clearly addressed the powerhungry Jewish lobby of his time. He, and that makes him so adorable, did not want to gain any earthly power. Of course, he was misused in the following centuries. They say that Tiberius, the emperor of Rome converted to Christianity because he saw a sign. This is romantic, but bullsh*t. He had no choice, because the Christians in his empire became too powerful to be neglected. So he declared Christianity as the state religion and saved his as*.

Stop quoting facts and truths; you know he does not get it. Jeez, give the man a break and give him time to google and WIK stuff :-)))))))))))))))

__________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

what you say makes more sense

You tell us, you are the religious scholar on here and please do tell us all why the Dead Sea Scrolls are so valuable to this discussion?

Oh by the way, use your fantastic IQ and not WIK. You make it so easy Vermin :-) thank you.

_________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

verisimilitude, the Bible is the Old and the New Testament. The New Testament contains four "canonic" gospels, versions of Jesus' life as accepted by the Vatican. Unfortunately there are more gospels around. The Vatican, however, does not canonize (accept) them. The version of John (written in Greek around 200 AD) tells a different story than the version of Mathew (around 70 AD). Marcus' and Luke's "versions" lie between those two. And now listen: none of them is an eye-witness report! All are written with respect to the political situation at their times, and that is why I say, religion is a political instrument. And the Bible is one of the tools, together with the fabrication of sins and the inquisition.

You make it so much simpler...

those folks at wikipedia... they talk about all these different versions!!

Some of which got banned and stuff

and then these old versions that pop up from here and there every now and then

and then verses are edited

and sometimes entire books and volumes are missing...

What was all THAT about?

What question was that?

What sects are you talking about?

You tell me what the Dead Sea Scrolls are? I don't give a toss, you do. You do the work as you are so bothered about yet again one very small part of the whole picture.

_________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

you still didn't answer my question though...

do all the different sects accept any of the translations that you talk about...

What are the dead sea scrolls?

BTW MD... what was all this falsehood that you had us believe that there was no single Bible or something???

You also did not explain about how verses went missing :-/

Both.

And PM I admire you still being the advocate here. You are far more patient then me, however, he is thick.

________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

Thick or Sick?

Does it really matter that Noah drunk Alcohol?

At that time alcohol was drunk because it was easy to produce (loads of vines). Jesus turned water into wine, was he an alcoholic too? No. Wine was drunk then as they had that or dirty water.

If that is all you can pick up on in the Bible?

Shows how narrow minded, lacking in knowledge and truth regarding history you really are.

I really despair of how thick some people are.

__________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

really doesn't understand what he reads or he is knowingly lying which would be worse. I would hate to ponder on his level of faith or self-esteem if it needs dishonesty to prop it up. :-(

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

are not Christian Scholars. If you can't understand what you read in the Bible about Noah, go to an Old Testament scholar with a PhD and/or DD.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

I think the problem we have with Vermin and Ql is basically they are uneducated people who spout vitriol and venim and cannot debate at all. All they do is twist words and have very little knowledge of their own religion let alone anybody elses. Have you noticed when they are losing they always revert to insults? Shows low IQ really and generally low esteem and perhaps a slight lack of faith in their religion.

Leaving all that aside.

Vermin, as I have already put in these oh so long and boring tirades of yours; the Bible was translated NOT MODIFIED; in order for the masses to understand it. Your religion is very narrow geographically. Christianity was and still is more widespread.

If you care to expand your knowledge (and it is obvious really you are incapable of that) I suggest you google.......that's g o o g l e (to make it simple for you) and then research (that means read about and study) Christianity.

Our Bible was translated because it was written in an Archaic language and Latin and was not understood by Europeans. At that time England was French/German speaking but was slowly evolving, that's e v o l v i n g (something you may wish to try) and the language was translated by religious scholars who had no reason to change, into English. This was around 1611. Since then the English language has c h a n g e d; again a concept you cannot grasp. So in short, we Christians accepted the fact in order for this truly wonderful and great religion to survive the Bible had to be translated for them (the masses) to read.

The basic scriptures, ethics, principals did not change.

Now you are you not the brightest person in Qatar, and for that I feel sorry for. However, even you and your very limited knowledge ( of everything) cannot really argue against some of the best religious scholars in the world.....oh and by the way EVEN Islamic scholars have admitted that the Bible has not really been changed by translation. It is still the same as written down by MAN from the teachings of JESUS who was given them by GOD.

Vermin, shut up, go to bed, lick your wounds, admit defeat and stop making an ass of yourself.

________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

The whole issue came up when QL said that he said the Bible states Noah was an alcoholic which is not true -- from the Bible or apparently from Evans. Once that was clarified, you are the one who keeps arguing about the fact that we both agree on: the Bible states Noah got drunk ONE TIME.

What's your problem that you want to keep misrepresenting me just so you can call me names an attack me. I'm not going to rise to your baiting anymore because I think I have made things as clear as I can. If someone (READ: YOU) wants to lie about what I have said and keep attacking me then that's something you have to live with.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Can I ask you instead?

or me. If you have a question about the Bible, read it yourself and if you still do not understand, ask someone who is a real scholar. Easy, right?

I still think you are being disingenuous -- especially when you call me a hypocrite. Just another one of your name-calling attacks on me.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

They have presented simple facts that can be cross verified by ANYONE... I trust them to do that much

They say the Bible says Noah was drunk... I looked in the Bible and lo and behold... it says Noah indeed was drunk... AND naked... and so and so forth...

I wouldn't look at them to do an interpretation of the Bible though... that would be a different matter... I did not look to them to learn what this chapter signifies... for that I'd look up a Christian Scholar maybe...

So I don't see any inconsistency

I assure you that I am not being disingenuous to discredit anyone... But I think someone likes to make these open ended statement that he/she hopes people would interpret it the way he/she likes to but yet leave enough room for her to retract when needed...

I still don't understand your argument on why we should not listen to Joshua Evans but we should listen to you...

I think I will nominate that as today's 'PMs hypocritical act of the day'

You have continued to misrepresent everything I wrote so I have been defending (and CLARIFYING AND RE-CLARIFYING for you) what I said.

No question about Noah being drunk. ARE WE CLEAR? Or do you want twist things around dishonestly again?

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

I discredit them as Christians scholars. I don't even discredit them as Muslim scholars because I am not knowledgeable about their Islamic studies. I am aware that neither of them completed even a Bachelor's degree in Religious Studies or Theology.

My point is that MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS should be held to teh same standard of scholarship, shouldn't they? If you say we cannot take someone's ideas about the Quran seriously unless they have committed years of formal study at an Islamic university, why would you accept less for a Christian? Unless you are looking to discredit Christianity....

Do you really not understand what you read or are you just intentionally trying to wind me up by distorting what I have clearly written?

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

you've just gone on and on about QatariLady using the word drunkard instead of drunk and you've just beaten that to death...

Even after everyone agreed that she might have used the word wrong and moved on... you've just held on to it cos it was the only point you had to discredit the Islamic perspective

I am not using them because they are convenient. I am using them because I trust them as Muslims to act with true faith. And no one here has presented any substance yet to discredit any fact about Christianity put forth by any of these individuals...

Now let me ask you...

Why are YOU so anxious to discredit Joshua Evans?

Why are YOU so anxious to discredit Estes?

What on earth do you mean when you say

"I don't understand why you hold MUSLIMS to a higher level of scholarship than you do these Christians."

Are you insinuating that everyone should hold Christians at a higher level of scholarship than Muslims?

HAVE to study each other's religions in their course of study. That would probably relieve a majority of errors being promoted about the other religion.

And yes, real theological scholarship takes some time and dedication in an appropriate university -- for Muslims and Christians. That is what I was trying to get at with QL and my antagonist. He just doesn't want to apply the same standards to Christians that he insists be applied to Muslims. Go figure.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

QatariLady, nothing about tolerance. By the way, do you know the origin of the word tolerance? In Latin "tollere" means to suffer, or to take something although you don't like it. So, tolerance is a difficult job. But, I warn you to ask questions about the concept of religion when the people available to answer are not qualified other than through their belief, which, of course has nothing to do with an objective research into a sociological phenomenon called "religion".

Good night all

Dear MD.. I'm asking coz you seem to know a lot about Christianity. Now if you asked ME in return about Islam I'll answer your questions light-heartedly. Can't we be a little tolerant here?

"Why do you credit him as a religious scholar anymore so than me?"

If we were face to face, I could have expressed my exact reaction to you comparing yourself to him most appropriately...

He was drunk (on that one occasion according to Genesis) and while he slept in a drunken state he was unaware of his nudity or the actions of his son.

IS THAT REALLY SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? Or are you just trying to discredit me by twisting what I have written, in effect lying about it and me?

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Oh yeah, and, QatariLady, don't ask people what they believe or think, ask them what they know, if you know what I mean.

Oh, I forgot, I also urge you to study Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin - so you can read and interpret the "originals". Alltogether another 10 to 12 years. See you in 2028!

I said he wasn't an alcoholic or drunkard according to the Bible. You either don't understand clear ENglish or you are being disingenuous to discredit me.

I also never said you can't listen to ANYBODY. I am saying I don't understand why you hold MUSLIMS to a higher level of scholarship than you do these Christians. I can only think you are using them because they are convenient and you think no one will notice how these people do not really seem that knowledgeable about Christianity.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Dear QLady, if you want to know what the Bible "means" you should take a 5 year (10 semester) theology course at a university, add another 2 years for your dissertation and after that you should come back here and talk about the things that you are just assuming right now.

Let me refresh your memory PM

You had said...

"He was saying its real point had to do with Noah being "unaware" of the actions of his son Ham, whose son (Canaan) was subsequently cursed. The Prof stated that this is about Ham's sin; he had impregnated Noah's wife (his step-mother) and gossiped about his father's nude drunken state to his brothers."

The way you put it... its as if Noah were just taking a nap and then Ham lied/gossiped about him being drunk/nude to his brothers...

So Christians don't say that this is the way to salvation?

I believe him wrong. Why do you credit him as a religious scholar anymore so than me? I actually was a Children's Church director for many years. Does that make me a Biblical or Religious scholar? NO.

And I did not deny that the Bible says he made wine and drank it. REREAD MY POSTS. My religion professor didn't say Noah wasn't drunk. The point he was making was that being drunk made Noah unaware of his nakedness and led to his sons seeing him like that (Ham gossiped about him but the others covered his nakedness).

QL, I realize that wine has to be made. I don't think there is any argument over that.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

You are the dodgy bunny today... you keep hopping from one bush to the next bush... without looking at the mess you've left behind...

You first said Noah wasn't drunk, now you agree he was drunk

First you said we can listen to people who used to be Christian but now you say that's not good enough, infact now you say you can't even talk to youth ministers!! that we need to listen to Christian scholars

You continue to try to trivialize Muslim scholars

No one pointed to either Estes or Evans as a trophy the way you put it on this thread... but you bring it up anyway... I have no idea why you would want to bring that up out of nowhere... unless...

I understand your point. In fact I watched many debates between a Muslim preacher (Ahmed Deedat) and Christian prominenet religious ppl. Honestly I found the same result. Too many unanswered questions.

It was the Roman Law requested and used by the political Jewish 'elite' which saw their power slipping away which killed Jesus, not God!

How would a gentle forgiving God require that the best person in his community be crucified so He can forgive sinners. Wasn't there a 'gentler' way?

I am simply saying that he has not accomplished what most people consider the hallmarks of Biblical and Theological scholarship; and if you are questioning what it says in the Bible you should really ask someone who has achieved those hallmarks. Again, I would point out how many times people have criticized me for my views on Islam and said they are not consistent with the "scholars". If you apply that standard to Muslims, why wouldn't you apply it to Christians.

To be frank, I find that many born-Muslims like to point to converts like Estes and Evans in order to VALIDATE Islam by emphasizing the fact that these people were raised as Christians and rejected Christianity for Islam. I was just talking to my daughter about this as I have been reading and typing and she noted there are similar Christian groups that love to celebrate and publicize when they get a Muslim to convert to Christianity. I guess to many people there is some kind of Religious Olympics involved and the one with the most converts sweeps the gold medals. I, personally, am put off by all this and have refused to be used in this manner.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

BTW, wine doesn't 'come out' in a vineyard. To say that Noah planted a vineyard then he drank from its wine is like implying that he MADE the wine too!

I don't know what was "revealed" to Jesus. I only know that people gave different stories about the same events. And even the accepted versions of the Gospel have massive inconsistencies. But that's not the point. The essence of the stories are the same: Jesus broke with the mosaic tradition of a revengeful, punishing God and replaced him with a forgiving and gentle God. The church (politics) introduced the scheme of sins, otherwise they would have lost their political power. There you have my opinion: Religion is politics. It defines who has the power and who doesn't. Therefore I reject it.

you continue to discredit a learned Muslim brother...

And you discredit him for something which he is 'supposed' to have said... I've listened to the videos (Masha'allah fantastic videos) and only one video refers to the incident wherein the host refers to Noah being 'drunk'

You discredit Joshua for his background... but EVEN SO his understanding of Christianity as a youth minister would still be better than yours... a layman

And yet you had no qualms in giving an interpretation of the verses which I have not seen anywhere else on the web wherein Noah was not drunk even... how convenient... and you credited it to some prof who may or may not be a scholar or even a youth minister...

Allahumma inni a’udhu bika min alfitna

Yeah HER God :)

OK, MD. When you say it was written by different ppl each had his view.. Doesn't that mean that some of the 'original' view that was revealed to Jesus was lost?

No, it's the "wish of God".

MOD this is money laudry business please take action.

alimat007, that's a refreshing hi-jacking.

Don't you say that we Muslims suck up whatever we're taught without questioning? Then why do you get irritated whenever anyone questions your religions?

Certainly I don't get irritated when questioned, provided that no name-calling is involoved.

"That's because the translations are written by human beings based on their interpretation and on their knowledge of the other language (English in this case), so it's possible that they may make a mistake.

Many ppl did find translations very useful at least to give a general idea on what Islam is, but you cannot consider them exactly like the Quran."

QatariLady, you are confirming exactly what I claimed: but you cannot consider them exactly like the Quran.

Therefore, and I'm repreating myself: Allah is only for the Arabs.

That's because the translations are written by human beings based on their interpretation and on their knowledge of the other language (English in this case), so it's possible that they may make a mistake.

Many ppl did find translations very useful at least to give a general idea on what Islam is, but you cannot consider them exactly like the Quran.

Now compare this to writing the Bible.

PM..

Joshua Evans did say that he quit studying Christinanity when he couldn't find answers to his questions.

Can't we just agree to disagree?? This discussion is going nowhere. But it's fun to read though.

MD and FU: I'm with you guys all the way. Good reasoning and arguments.

If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough...

@ Qatarilady,you quite clearly have neither knowledge nor respect of your fellow human beings nor the different religions they follow...as long as it's not yours,it's wrong,that pretty much sums up your attitude & it's because of people like you that people around the world currently have the wrong idea of Islam/Muslims,so please,i 2nd what popcorngirl said but not just for Christianity but for any religion or lack of it...respect the beliefs of your fellow human beings even if you don't accept it & when you don't do that,how in blazes do you expect them to respect what you're saying?...

100% QatariLady. You still don't get it: there is no "REAL" Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are manuscripts which were accredited or sanctioned by the Vatican. But this is politics and has nothing to do with authenticity. Other manuscripts were excluded because they weren't "conform" with the ideas of the ruling clerics.

Why did he say: Cursed be Canaan?

QL, the translations are not good enough. Whenever there is a disput about a sura the Arabs always point out that the translation does not meet the Arabic original. And then the discussion is finished.

So according to this fact, how much content of the REAL Bible do you think you have now? 90%, 60%, 20%?

that about Noah (haven't had a chance to listen yet; it's still downloading). I don't see how anybody who READ or studied the Bible came up with the fact that it says Noah is an alcoholic (or drunkard). Someone who imbibes alcohol in one instance and learns the lessen of how being drunk is bad for you would not be considered an alcoholic or drunkard. This is a term used for repetitive abuse of alcohol.

Here is the verse he is referring to:

http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Genesis&verse=9:20-27&src=9

Genesis 9:20-27 (King James Version)

20And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

24And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

27God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

In all good faith NO CHRISTIAN would say that the Bible presents Noah as an alcoholic.

BTW, Joshua Evans was also not a formally ordained minister. He studied at a community Bible College in SC for a year or so and then became a self-styled "youth minister". I would really caution us against taking these people's words for what the Bible says -- not because they are Muslims, but because they are not theologians or scholars. And after all, don't all the Muslims here say that we have to take our information from the TRUE scholars to really understand?

As for me, I find the Bible and the Quran translation pretty easy to read and comprehend. But when/if I REALLY don't understand something I would look for what is being taught in schools of theology (both Islamic, Christian or Judaic). I think the Biblical verse about Noah is pretty clear though. He is not presented as an alcoholic.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

QL, the Bible was written by many different people, each added his/her own view. There is no "Original".

How many times do I have to explain this? See the video pls it'll tell you so much..

Yes you can know Islam from a translation..The translations ARE good enough.. Pls see the video..

Ask her please if there is an authentic version of the Bible in the original language that they can weigh all the translations against?

God belongs to the Arabs. If you don't know Arabic, sorry. No translation is good enough. Forget it. Don't even bother trying to explain. I feel excluded from the eliterian group of Arabic speaking people. Luckily they're only 300 million.

where did you go

Could you explain to me why between the different 'translations' as you call it... there are entire verses missing?

Also can you tell me if all these different translations are all accepted by all the sects of Christianity?

See this video too and listen to what he says about reading the Quran in English and then reading it after he learned Arabic so you can get what I meant before :)

http://www.thedeenshow.com/show.php?action=detail&id=703

unfortunately 5 of them are to do with Muslims

This topic is about Islam

the one that remains is regarding the Quran and Bible...

I'd like you to tell me...

what are the dead sea scrolls?

Not hatred just facts; something you don't deal in obviously ;-)

_________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

spew that hatred

Islam versus Christianity.

Fact: there are more Christians than Muslims.

Fact: people are more frightened of a Muslim than a Christian.

Fact: The Koran has been translated many times over; just like the Bible.

Fact: Muslims drink, eat Pork, sleep out of wedlock, have bastard kids and catch VD, batter their wives and kids and abuse just like any other religion/culture.

Fact: inspite of your shouts and copy and pastes you ARE NO BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE.

Fact: most other religins accept their shortcomings. You don't.

I am so bored with reading about how bloody fantastic Islam is. It's a way of life.......YOUR WAY OF LIFE. Not ours, live it, love it, but please SHUT UP and stop spewing this bile and crap.

WHEN and if you EVER FULLY understand Christianity or any other religion other then your own, come back and we will debate but until then, please don't use an open forum to discuss a religion that is not actually really respected by an awful lot of people. All you are doing is spreading hatred; in other words you put people off not invite them in.

________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

You're right about the word 'drunkard' and yes the Prophet who was alleged to commit adultery was David (Astaghfir Allah).

He said it in this interview:

http://www.thedeenshow.com/show.php?action=detail&id=674

Yeah probably it was "drunkard" I'm not familiar with the word I just heard it from him. According to him the Bible said it so explicitly.

No one said Yusuf Estes was a Christian preacher.... he was in the entertainment business

In which case Qatarilady may have recounted the fact wrongly... as I myself have pointed out to her later in the thread

but to negate a former Christian preachers view on Christianity just because he has become Muslim or to question the authenticity of learned Muslim scholars (the deen show) is wrong

Besides... most people would rather be drunkards than be drunk, naked AND have incest running in the family... or commit adultery for that matter...

Bottomline... you had reasoned poorly on the three counts that I mentioned in my last post

And if you think my comments on this thread constitutes harassment then you need to get your head checked

"drunkard"? In that case the implication would indicate that he was an alcoholic. But I cannot find any verse in the Bible that refers to him as a drunkard; only that he got drunk that one time off of wine he made.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

The minister I was referring to is Joshua Evans.

islam..

lalala.. lalal...

and was not a Minister of a formal Church that I can find. He was raised in a religious family (Disciples of Christ which is a Protestant denomination) and started a music Gospel program. I can't find any evidence of him going to college or working as a Minister, but maybe you can provide a link?

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Would you please quote some of these statements?

It's common sense that if Muslims did reach these findings scientifically, non-Muslims will say yes YOU found what YOU have in your Holy Book. However, when non-Muslims discover what Muslims have in their book that would be more credible. Don't you think?

She said the minister said Noah was an ALCOHOLIC -- something entirely different from someone being drunk at one point. There is no evidence in the Bible that Noah was an alcoholic that I know of. If you can provide proof then do so.

Otherwise, get off my back. I am sick of you harassing me relentlessly.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

possibly the Prophet committing adultery with a married woman referred to in the bible could be the story of David and Bathsheba

Prophet Dawud and Queen of Saba are also referred to in Islamic literature but the story does not involve adultery

Anyway, in Islam, Dawood is a Prophet, I am not sure if in Christianity he is considered a prophet... but alteast Wikipedia thinks he is :-)

While the scientific fact was deemed written in this part of the world, now practical what scientific achievement did one implement here. I mean we should not be talking about it only, do it, and give result for the benefits for all mankinds and to gain acceptance world wide. Glorifying historical events is never sufficient if we are to progress ahead.

I wouldn't want to comment on hearsay...

As far as I can understand...

it refers to him as being drunk

but I don't think it calls him a drunkard if that's what you mean...

Yes I do. We have these ancient civilizations writings and artifacts. Pick up a book that isn't the Quran (try the teachings of Hippocrates, Aristotle, Plato, even Confucious or Buddha) and you'll find all your "science". Again, more conceivable that he heard it from a teacher then from the VOICE OF GOD!!!!!

this is what QatariLady said

"I heard a former Christian (religious) minister mention that in the Bible it's mentioned that Prophet Noah was alcoholic, and one Prophet committed aldultery with a married woman.. Prophets don't do that! Such things cannot be misunderstandings!"

You told her

"you should definitely NOT look for answers to questions about Christianity from MUSLIMS"

then I commented

"I find it ironic that you chide QatariLady for seeking answers about Christianity from Muslims and then you being 'Muslim' go on to deliver a standing lecture on Christianity on the very same post"

You justified yourself by saying...

"You know that I used to be Christian, which I why I pointed out... the difference between Protestants and Catholics"

and then you went on to explain the Noah episode in the Bible and among other things, you said...

"QL. I thought you were saying you got your information from this Muslim on "the deen show" like the statement that Noah was an alcoholic in the Bible."

I have SEVERAL issues with this...

Firstly, you are saying that we should not believe the former Christian Minister because he is MUSLIM now. And then you say we should believe you inspite of being a Muslim because you used to be a christian?

Secondly, you have questioned the authenticity of information provided on 'The Deen Show' which is mostly hosted by converted Muslims and among them, learned scholars such as Yusuf Estes who too was a Christian. Are you insinuating that our learned brothers would LIE to us about Christianity?

Thirdly, I searched on the web on the said passage from the Bible and I did not find an interpretation which did not say that Noah was NOT drunk... In fact what I did find was even more disturbing interpretations... I even found a piece of art work which is on the Sistine Chapel depicting the incident 'very graphically'... in any case, all the interpretations I found said that according to the Bible, Noah WAS drunk.

The former Christian did mention that the Bible explicitly says that "Noah was a drunker".

There IS evidence that Muhammed got his message from God but you refuse to acknowledge it. When the Quran accurately describes scientific facts about the world you say MAYBE ancient civilisations found them out. Do you have evidence that they did?

How Islam views the Universal Creation?

Here is the web site:

http://www.al-islam....

It is a debate or conversation between Wilson and Cheri and I am sure many of you will like it.

Because there's no proof they aren't made up. And I don't see God coming around to vouch for them. So, while there is evidence for the theory of evolution, and evidence for the Big Bang, there's absolutely no evidence that Mohammed spoke to God, any "evidence" is simply believers trying to make evidence of other things "fit" with their religion. It's all conjecture (and not very good conjecture at that).

And for the love of Pete I have read and watched everything that there is no read and watch on Islam and I'm sorry but it's all the same repetitive jargon, and I can't possibly watch anymore without shooting myself in the head.

To expand on what Gypsy said, atheists havent yet decided on how they prefer their universe. made in a day or over thousands of years.

How Islam views the Universal Creation?

Here is the web site:

http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries/4.html

It is a debate or conversation between Wilson and Cheri and I am sure many of you will like it.

Why do you say that religion 'makes them up'? Can you prove it?

I urge you to find a way to watch the videos on www.thedeenshow.com

No, that isn't how we explain the creation of the universe. We DON'T explain the creation of the universe because we don't know yet what created it. It's religion that makes up stories to explain what we don't know yet.

Because how atheists explain the creation of the universe; living things evolved from unliving things.

QL: video doesnt work here. You can send me a write up.

Abt theories. there are quite a few theories on evolution. No scientist has ever claimed that one particular theory is THE ultimate answer to the question of evolution. All they have said is that some aspects can be explained successfully by a particular theory and some cant be. Dont know which particular theory you are talking abt here.

Btw, we were talking about creation of universe and now you are talking abt evolution (of species?). Hope you know they are not one and the same.

Watch this video to see how the evolution theory began and dismissed:

http://www.thedeenshow.com/videos.php?action=listvideo&sid=42&id=252

Every type of creation was created separately.

Whoever said the universe came out of thin air? If an atheist said that, sorry I missed it. All they would say is 'dont know' or they might believe in scientific theories. Havent met anyone who gave 'thin air' as an answer.

and comparing universe with a computer....no comments. Hope you have read about how the conventional concepts of time, matter and space can evolve wrt each other.

Of course they're free to believe so.. This in not a fight. We're exchanging opinions. When I said 'stupid' I was commenting on the idea that the universe came out of thin air. This is what atheists believe which I do find stupid in the same way YOU'd find it stupid if I said computers came out of thin air.

QL: May be being the devious guy that he is supposed to be, he hid it. :-p He doesnt look for credit, if the stories I hear abt him are right!Btw, Satan was only one of the options I gave you.

Atheists dont need answers. They are perfectly fine with saying "we dont know yet". If they did not have viable reasons, why would they remain atheists?

Abt life after death, you CHOSE to believe in what your holybook tells you. It was a choice. Nobody proved it to you. You believed coz it made sense to YOU, which is perfectly fine.

Same way, other people CHOSE to believe in absence of after life or reincarnation or 'dont know' coz it made sense to their intellect. Does that make them less intelligent? Lesser people? IMHO, no. Its, again, a personal choice. Nothing universal, at least from what we know till now.

Do you approve of unmarried couples living together?

Why can't you simply accept that "we don't know yet" just like one hundred years ago we didn't have the car, or had never made it to the moon, or knew what a black hole was. Doesn't it make more sense to say, "We'll find out someday" rather then believe in something that there is no proof of.

Because divorce affects the spouses' emotions immensly even if they find it the best solution, and could lead their children to be affected by it too unless the spouses were very fair and smart enough to consider their children's psychological needs.

Sorry, any religion that accept divorce is a no-no to me! If a simple thing as this is tolerated, what more with other moral issues?

Marriage is not a simple man-made act. It's a divine act created by God/Allah Himself! The legitimate way of pro-creation!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

[quote:] "if universe could indeed have happened only by the act of an omnipotent power, why couldnt it have been Satan? "

If Satan WAS an omnipotent power and he created the universe, why didn't he come out and say: This is my creation? Why does he let other beings take the credit for it?

Atheists are preaching but they don't have good viable reasons to use. They don't have answers to who created the universe? Why are we here? What comes after death?

Agree with QL on 'legitimate' way out. but I wouldnt call it obnoxious coz thats the word I wud use for having to live in a bad relationship. I would call it jus plain unfortunate.

I've seen ppl around me who're not so-happily married and are being patient, knowing that a person is rewarded greatly if he/she endures adversity. However, there must be a legitimate 'way out' in case a person cannot endure this adversity. Misery cripples a person and could cause them to suffer immensely leading them to develop psychological disorders. Or it could lead some spouses to fall in adultery.

The Prophet described divorce as the most abnoxious of the permitted. It is abnoxious but still IS permitted as a last resort so a person doesn't live in misery.

QL: Having definite ideas about how the universe came into existence and which religion is sensible et al is perfectly fine.

What is not fine is a reluctance to accept the fact that there are people with ideas different to your own, that they are also perfectly sensible ppl and that they have as much a right to voice their opinions without being called stupid or talked down to.

For eg, if universe could indeed have happened only by the act of an omnipotent power, why couldnt it have been Satan? Or some other megalomaniac who wanted to create a whole group of followers who are supposd to follow his ways and sing his praise 'or else'? or say, why couldnt it have been a nice departmentalised hierarchy of Gods to take care of various agendas?Why does it HAVE TO be one single God as in your mind?

Because your religious books and what you have been taught tell you so, right? Is there any other reason?

To me, that is a perfectly valid reason. As long as you accept that people who do not choose to believe in that doctrine also make sense in their own way. There need not be one single universal truth. There can be many.(Like Gandhi said- There are as many religions as there are people)You need an ability for multi-dimensional thinking to accept that.

Havent seen anybody here starting posts preaching atheism. Now that is what I would call tolerance.

Peace.

I'm not a Catholic. And when did I say that widow and widower can not re-marry? You have a lot of things to consider before opening your comments!

QatariLady, by your reasonings, it seems that marriage in Islam is not that serious because you rely on the possibility of divorce and re-marriage? If you provide an alternative action as such, it means that it's not a blessed union. A blessed union withstand the test of time! Ask those happily married (and even those not-so-happily married but feared Allah/God's commandments). If both spouses learns to obey their individual duty as commanded, then it will last "til death do they part". ANd that's the time they can re-marry!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

from this Muslim on "the deen show" like the statement that Noah was an alcoholic in the Bible.

BTW, we were taught that Noah got drunk and woke from his drunkenness on one occasion but that's not considered being an alcoholic. You have to know that the Bible refers to Noah being a Righteous man, the one who God chose to save and through his family's survival on the ark repopulate the earth. I remember having a discussion on this in a Comparative Religion class when I was in uni and the Professor was saying that this passage is often misinterpreted by Muslims and Jews, and that even many Christians do not understand it. He was saying its real point had to do with Noah being "unaware" of the actions of his son Ham, whose son (Canaan) was subsequently cursed. The Prof stated that this is about Ham's sin; he had impregnated Noah's wife (his step-mother) and gossiped about his father's nude drunken state to his brothers.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

the difference between Protestants and Catholics. Hardly a lecture, but I know you need to find something to attack.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Why you getting all aggravated when QatariLady asked dmightysolomon about Christianity?

And I find it ironic that you chide QatariLady for seeking answers about Christianity from Muslims and then you being 'Muslim' go on to deliver a standing lecture on Christianity on the very same post... Hmmmmmmm...

You should refrain from jumping to conclusions. I was asking dmightysolomon about Christianity because he's Christian.

Divorced is recognized among Protestants. Also, there are some circumstances which allow divorce in Catholicism.

QatariLady, you should refrain from making statements about a religion that you know so little about. And you should definitely NOT look for answers to questions about Christianity from MUSLIMS; just like we Muslims do not appreciate it when Christians discuss our faith and get things wrong.

Dmigty, you should avoid speaking for all Christians, and instead speak only as a Catholic. Protestants do not teach that "Holy matrimony" exists in which there is only a one time shot at a marriage recognized by God. That would leave a lot of widowers and widows out in the cold. The Protestant Reformation attempted to address many of the practices and doctrine of the Catholic Church that many thought needed resolution.

I didn't drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Here you are discussing a topic, the difference between spirituality and religion, which has a very thin line.

So, I suggest you consult some sources besides a dictionary.....

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_religion_and_spirituality

http://www.voai.org/similarities_and_differences__be.htm

http://www.enotalone.com/article/4265.html

http://hubpages.com/hub/Difference-Between-Religious-and-Spiritual

I was in doubt, and think the external/internal explanation is the most appealing. Yet, they cross/overlap.

Hence, not 1 single definition is correct.

In Islam a spouse is described as "sakan" which means something like 'serenity'. You can't live in serenity of you're not in love with your spouse. That's why you're entiltled to get a divorce if you were married to the wrong person. Without having the right to re-marry you're deprived of the chance to live in serenity.

http://yadiin.blogspot.com/

Alma Wad... ...

How can anyone fight against religion and not deny spirituality?

my answer: religion= spiritual path

religion is not= institutes,so called religious leaders

many of the so called enemy of religions fought against the latter ... k gibran for example

church, it means it's part of their belief or doctrine. Child marriage is rampant. Polygamy is also rampant although not encourage (?), as they claim, the mere fact that it's tolerated, then it's acceptable to them.

Re-marriage after divorce makes the sanctity of marriage a joke. Marriage is a holy matrimony (not a joke).

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

Your statement spirituality has nothing to do with religion is wrong

If you say spirituality and religion are two different things, that I can agree...

BTW... your example

"We don't go around killing people not because we are religious but because we are spiritual.Two different things."

Nonsense...

I am sorry but what you are saying makes no sense... I have quoted to you from the dictionary...

I did not say spirituality is the same as religion... I quoted from the dictionary...

If you still have problems with what I said... I suggest you get in touch with the people at Merriam Websters or Oxford and get the dictionaries revised...

We don't go around killing people not because we are religious but because we are spiritual.Two different things.

Life is Beautiful...Indeed!

Your post where you said:

[How can anyone fight against religion and not deny spirituality?

Sprirituality is defined as sensitivity or attachment to religious values

If Atheists don't believe in God

they cannot believe in Spirituality]

Spirituality is not the same as religion. Religion is not spirituality. You do not have to be religious to be spiritual. And being religious does not make you spiritual. Going to church every Sunday and donating a portion of your income does not make you spiritual. It makes you a religious follower.. not necessarily a religious person.

Spirituality is natural. We all have it, whether we know it or practice it, it is in us. And it really is a rather simple thing. We want to be happy and live a "good" life. To have friends and be social and have a special someone. Religion is manmade and hence fallible.

Life is Beautiful...Indeed!

Firstly LIB, the discussion is about atheists

Atheists are people who don't believe in God/Deity

So the question is about spirituality and God

Not spirituality and religion...

Secondly, you can check the definition of spirituality in any dictionary and you can see reference to religion and God in both definitions

According to Merriam Webster

Spirituality : sensitivity or attachment to religious values

According to Oxford

Spiritual : relating to religion or religious belief.

So you cannot be an atheist and still be spiritual

Khalid, atheists believe in nothing. I mean, they don't believe at all. They hate to believe, they like to know instead.

Human for them is like a mechanical device no feelings nothing.

Life is Beautiful...Indeed!

How can anyone fight against religion and not deny spirituality?

Sprirituality is defined as sensitivity or attachment to religious values

If Atheists don't believe in God

they cannot believe in Spirituality

http://yadiin.blogspot.com/

many times those famous atheist just fought against the abuses of organized religions - and did not deny that humans need spirituality

Last words of atheists

M.F. Rich: "Terrible horrors hang over my soul! I have given my immortality for gold; and its weight sinks me into a hopeless, helpless Hell!"

Thomas Paine

"I would give worlds if I had them, that The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help me! Christ, help me! . . No, don't leave; stay with me! Send even a child to stay with me; for I am on the edge of Hell here alone. If ever the Devil had an agent, I have been that one."

Sir Thomas Scott: "Until this moment, I thought there was neither God nor hell; now I know and feel that there are both, and I am doomed to perdition by the just judgment of the Almighty!"

Sir Francis Newport,the head of an English infidel club: "You need not tell me there is no God for I know there is one, and that I am in His presence! You need not tell me there is no hell. I feel myself already slipping. Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know I am lost forever! Oh, that fire! Oh, the insufferable pangs of hell!"

http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/atheisms/deathwd.html

The last words of the atheist Mirabeau: "My sufferings are intolerable; I have within me a hundred years of life but not a moment's courage. Give me more laudanum that I may not think of eternity."

Gibbon, the historian, a skeptic: "The present is a fleeting moment, the past is no more, and my prospect of futurity is dark and doubtful."

http://www.southside-churchofchrist.com/basics/docs/lstwrds.htm - Jarrod Jacobs

Caesar Borgia: --- "While I lived, I provided for everything but death; now I must die, and am unprepared to die."

Thomas Hobbs: --- "I say again, if I had the whole world at my disposal, I would give it to live one day. I am about to take a leap into the dark."

Voltaire: --- "I am abandoned by God and man; I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months' life." (He said this to Dr. Fochin, who told him it could not be done.) "Then I shall die and go to hell!"

Robert Ingersoll: --- "O God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul!" (Some say it was this way: "Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul if I have a soul, from hell, if there be a hell!")

Elaborate pls.

on their death bed :-p

I have to say as well dmighty, I haven't noticed anything in the Quran that promotes child marriage...I think you might be confusing the culture with the religion.

you can say it four times if you want to...

but the fact remains

Christianity does not prohibit polygamy or child marriage...

It might discourage it, but doesn't prohibit it...

Has anybody ever compared "Time Line of Human Race Existance on Earth v/s Time Line of Religions."

If so then it would clarify many of the questions.

I know by QL you don't mean me lol.. It's confusing sometimes though

and you the major hiccup who never agrees :/

:D

marriage!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

until QL becomes stable enough then I will change it for you and the others who's disgusted with the pic also but for the meantime, enjoy the rough ride

It would appear that QL has a case of the hiccups. :P (not Qatarilady QL but QL QL)

...of your avatar...lol :)) when are you changing it btw???lol...

Life is Beautiful...Indeed!

It can be tough been lonely.

http://yadiin.blogspot.com/

child marriage is a sin and it is not advocated in the Koran at all ...

Yes Muslims get divorced and re-marry. Loneliness is unbearable.

its ok life, it felt like everybody is pointing their fingers at me...lol

double post above.

Life is Beautiful...Indeed!

mayday,mayday..1234

:D

Houston, we have a problem...

in the Christian era? QatariLady, "divorce" was implied in the Bible but with no re-marriage. What you and other practice is divorce with re-marriage!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

in the Christian era? QatariLady, "divorce" was implied in the Bible but with no re-marriage. What you and other practice is divorce with re-marriage!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

in the Christian era? QatarLady, "divorce" was implied in the Bible but with no re-marriage. What you and other practice is divorce with re-marriage!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

...try and prove themselves superior by pointing fingers at others and this is how we have succeeded in killing millions. We have killed more people for religion than all the meteorites,earthquakes,floods,tsunamis etc.put together.When will we stop from :

Life is Beautiful...Indeed!

...try and prove themselves superior by pointing fingers at others and this is how we have succeeded in killing millions. We have killed more people for religion than all the meteorites,earthquakes,floods,tsunamis etc.put together.When will we stop from :

Life is Beautiful...Indeed!

in the Christian era? QatarLady, "divorce" was implied in the Bible but with no re-marriage. What you and other practice is divorce with re-marriage!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

You're right. I believe the reason born-Christians turn atheists is the misconception that religion puts rules that will make you misreable. Just imagine someone marrying the wrong person and his religion tells him you're stuck!

We are both happy and no need for religion...

The three issues you said you had with Islam...

multiple marriage, child marriage and divorce

I say you did not choose them wisely

Bible does not forbid polygamy and neither does Quran(lets keep polyandry out)

Bible does not forbid child marriage and neither does Quran

Certain Christian sects forbid divorce whereas Islam permits it...

But I find it amusing that you hold Islam's allowing of divorce against it... a majority of people would be in favor of allowing divorce

Life is Beautiful...Indeed!

Not since I was 12 nope.

:D

Does yours include religion ?

Yup I am. Although I have to say I'm not quite content to die yet. There's a few more things I'd like to do first. :)

.

So is it permitted to get a divorce according to the main religion? regardless of the sects?

I think its unfair of you to hold child marriage against Islam...

Neither Islam nor Christianity forbids or encourages child marriage

Not if you actually enjoyed your life.

qatarlady, I think religion is on how we live our life here today and not after life...my opinion only

@ qatarilady,every religion,like Islam is basically simple,common-sense,do-good sort of deal,no religion preaches hatred or war or killing or any of the negatives we see around us today,problem is,among other things,a lack of acceptance & respect of other faiths among human beings,to illustrate,my religion(what it is,is besides the point) doesn't forbid me to occasionally enjoy a few beers(which i do) or play a game of cards with some friends(which i don't but because i'm not into it not because i have something against it) but by making the blanket statement you did about ending up fighting with one's neighbours/hating each other displays a lack of respect for something(religion or whatever else it may be) that's different from yours...Islam prohibits drinking & gambling,i respect that but don't expect me to accept it just like i wouldn't expect you to accept it but you ought to respect it as someone else's choice not yours...

I understand religion to be about the afterlife not how to live here and now. It's really meaningless if we would work the hell out of ourselves and then pfff it's gone. What a disappointment!

...need a religion in the first place? Simple or otherwise? Is humanity not a religion?

Life is Beautiful...Indeed!

I still turned out a well mannered,responsible person with good morals.

Why, do you think Atheists are all snarling,drunk, bad mannered immoral criminals with no sense of direction in life ?

you thought Christianity is Catholicism, no it's not. In the same way as Islam has many sects, Christianity is also divided in sects. So as a test, if any sect is practicing a non-teaching, it's false. It's the same argument I am using against multiple marriage, child marriage and divorce.

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

Nope i dont like highways or longways

i like short cuts

either yes or no or GUN DHAAAAAAAAAAAAZ :D

What does Christianity say about divorce? And why are ppl getting divorce anyway?

I follow his instruction. I am arguing with your views about the three issues regarding multiple marriage, child marriage and divorce. It is forbidden in our religion. I am a Christian who believe in ONE GOD and a mediator between men and God, the Man Jesus Christ!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

Maybe you're mistaking Islam for George Bush.. Democracy my way or the highway :)

How Taliban, Husny Mubarak or Hitler run their countries is THEIR issue.. Islam has nothing to do with it.

Actually I know quite a few miserable Qatari's and I also see many that aren't abiding by any of the rules, becuase if they did they'd be miserable.

and impose islam on every one and spread around the words of Islam

then again if no one agreed then i will use Taliban ways

either listen to face the bullet :P

Were you raised atheist?

Do you see that the Qatari ppl is living a miserable life? We abide by MANY of the religious rules but I cannot say we're miserable. Yes we have difficulties from time to time but deal with them. People aren't PERFECT but content and generally fairly good.

thats it,the end,no more,khalas !

I plan to enjoy my life now,and not worry about any afterlife.

If you choose to believe in jannah (I think ?) then good for you, thats your choice.

The rules imposed by religion (some of them anyway) if followed by everyone would make this world a very very dull place. So I'd be miserable.

What do you mean by a miserable life?

Phookit..

Again I ask you if you really think that this life is worth living if it isn't a preparatory phase for an eternal, perfect life?

Don't know. I'm sure they'll figure it out someday though. I'm quite content to wait till then, I don't need to believe in fairy stories about big sky daddies who made us from clay and now sees fit to order us to live miserable lives.

.

OK.. You explain to me how the universe existed?

Well that's pretty stupid, you said everyone needed a creator, so God needs one too. After all according to you things can't just appear.

From Buddhism to atheism to Islam, the story of a Chinese Muslim.

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-4133.html

I just became Muslim? Ex-Atheist. What do you think guys?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090704064641AAtbyBs

He is infinite.. Nothing created Him otherwise you'll keep thinking backwards; who created that one, who created the one before..etc. But He is infinite..

I welcome comments. But if you find such topics to be provocative then skip them.

Well then who created God?

I believe you qatarlady and I also hope that others see you that way.peace

Nothing comes from its own.

[quote:] "When God/Allah gave man a free will or when He laid what is good and bad, He specifically told man to choose the good one to "live". It's not a choice, it was an instruction."

Even if it's an instruction why not follow it? You accept to follow the instructions of your boss for some thousands a month why act arrogantly and argumentative with God? :)

johnpur..

Generally I AM a good person I believe but I'm not an angel or even a perfect human being.

so I presumed you are talking about Zero, the King mentioned in the Bible!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

Huh.. Its a public forum Qlady,Posting a thread is like shouting in public. Everyone hears and might respond too

If only those who agree to the thread responds, you will just have 2 comments in the first page. ;)

______________________________________________

- Listen to Many...Speak to a Few -

If I said that the computer you're using now came out of thin air.. No body made it.. Isn't that stupid? Well, the universe is more complex so it's even more stupid to say no one has created it.

Phoolkit.. When you said if you're born in England you're Christian I got it that you were talking about yourself.. So what's your religion?

qatarlady, you seemed to be very devoted with your religion, I hope that you are as good as a person could be in terms of attitudes towards others

I don't know what Zero you're talking about, but I'm talking about the number

comparing God to Zero (although Zero's specific work was prophesied in the Bible, he is not God, he is just a king).

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

This thread about Islam.. The title says so.. Maybe you entered by mistake :) Nothing obligatory really..

.

The issue is when you want everybody to follow you.

Beleive in what you believe. Keep quite and leave the rest of them alone.

______________________________________________

- Listen to Many...Speak to a Few -

It is your religion as a child but when you grow up you begin to hink and evaluate things. Then it's either confirmed or dismissed.

I don't mean any offense but from what I see, most of those who say they're Christians are actually more or less atheists. Obviously when they grew up they dismissed what they'd been taught.

Phookit you say that you're Christian but you're skeptical about the existence of God, Paradise and Hellfire. Christianity doesn't teach that Paradise and Hellfire don't exist. Then where did you get this information that they don't exist?

Not to a lot of people.

Wow. So you're calling people who don't believe what you believe stupid?? Well you known what they call that don't you?

agree with you arien, I think it would be more peacefull that way

Qatarlady, I was baptize a christian so I am a christian.

and don't teach me how to deal with it.

yes I seldom read the bible but I go to church every sunday so I know my religion very well for your information.

It's not simpler.. It's stupid :)

on these three issues, you opted for the "free will" reasoning which is valid to you but not really absolute. When God/Allah gave man a free will or when He laid what is good and bad, He specifically told man to choose the good one to "live". It's not a choice, it was an instruction. Here lies the complication, what is the standard of man to say it's good? An act or thing maybe be seen as good in one's view but in God/Allah's view, it's wrong!

To Osama, what he did in the twin tower is good but is it? There should be no justification for any wrongdoing. Let us be judge comes judgment day! God's commandments is very clear and not subject to man's interpretation. Let the written words be interpreted by what is written also! Not by human interpretation!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

'Church of England' then that is your religion.Whether you choose to follow it,is irrelevant.On official forms, you put your religion as 'C of E'

It was clonned and God saved Jesus.

here are two nice videos they are really really good

1. Is Jesus God?

&feature=related

2. Monotheism And Trinity

&feature=related

Compare one God to Zero. Even simpler. :)

[quote:] "seldom read the bible"

Then how do you say you have a religion? A religion isn't a label that you carry. Know your religion so you know what's required of you.

Those issues are clear no misinterpretation about them.

4 wives are permitted but not forced depending on the husband's needs and a wife can ask for a divorce if she doesn't accept.

Divorce is also clear either the wife asks for a divorce or the husband divorces and each one is fairly treated.

Child marriage is permitted but the society adjusts it based on culture and education. In all cases fairness is crucial.

I have a religion, I belive in it and abide by its commandments and that's it. khalas

no need to tell the world that my god is like this and like that, that others should do this and do that.

seldom red the bible and never red a quran before but grew up a christian so I'd rather leave it that way, why complicate things.

taking 4 wives is not marginal. Child marriage is not marginal. Divorce is not marginal!

"Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship"

Those interpretations are related to marginal issues not the religion itself.

Compare monotheism and trinity..One God or three-in-one?

If it's so simple how come so many people don't agree on the interpretations?

Read this thread

http://www.qatarliving.com/node/613027

and see how injustice almost caused a plant to be blown up.. This is a non-religious issue.

One of its kind in the history of Human race , happend centuries back. Qlady ;)

What we discuss, the latest was yestrday at Jakarta.

cheers bye

______________________________________________

- Listen to Many...Speak to a Few -

You, too, Lady.

Two pre-Islamic Arab tribes faught for 40 years, God knows how many were killed over a camel race :)

This is the video I saw about the former Christian minister

http://www.thedeenshow.com/show.php?action=detail&id=674

Have a nice evening..

Poison, food , flight and crashes are irrelevant to the subject in discussion too Qlady.

yes, No Religion is about killing ,But it produces fanatics who kills.

______________________________________________

- Listen to Many...Speak to a Few -

QLady..lol

I disagree, nothing can motivate like religion..History speaks...leave aside the assumptions, lets talk about the facts.

______________________________________________

- Listen to Many...Speak to a Few -

the church in Germany is a joke ...anyways, the church don't divorce you , the authorities do.

Those same fanatics will kill for other reasons.. Again irrelevant :)

Funiculus was talking about divorce and how the church forbids it but now ppl ARE getting divorce. What's the rule?

Do ppl have to stop eating because some food is poisonous?

Do ppl have to ban airflights because some planes crash?

Religion is not about killing.. It's irrelevant.

Take it as an intellectual example that man should not fight with God, QatariLady. It is not meant literally. Or how do you explain John saying:"In the beginning was the word". That is pure intellect, not for little or not educated people. The Bible was not written for "normal" people.

whats the point in distinguishing the details after a massacre??. and its increasing day by day.

Instead of preaching the religion,they should rather spray some light to this idiotic brains to stop them from killing innocent people.

The one caught alive in the Mumbai terror attack, during

the interrogation, was answering the cop to his question why he did it?,..''

I was told I will become a big man and go to heaven''.

He was also asked whom he was suppose to kill..

'' all the people in the railway station''..

he opned fire with his ak47 at the crowd and killed 52 of them.

______________________________________________

- Listen to Many...Speak to a Few -

I did read some captions of the Bible.. It was related to a fight between God and someone or something.. (cannot remember.. it was a long time ago). I didn't find it logical that GOD will engage in a physical fight with something and it even caused God to feel weary after that.. Sounds really strange!

In the worst case, QatariLady, I can tell him where it is written (English version, of course).

You should not listen to too many, QatariLady. Read the Bible, and find out for yourself, just as I read the Quran (Sorry, an untrustworthy translation from Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan from the Islamic University Al Madinah Al Munawwarah).

Hopefully the bet didn't cost you a fortune :)

I heard a former Christian (religious) minister mention that in the Bible it's mentioned that Prophet Noah was alcoholic, and one Prophet committed aldultery with a married woman.. Prophets don't do that! Such things cannot be misunderstandings!

.

Just respect.

"Life is exploring literally and figuratively"

phookit, you make it too easy. She will come up with a sura in the Quran. Wanna bet?

.

"short, less-than-perfect life " as much as I can.No need to worry about stuff that may not exist.

And like MD says...

"Unfortunately some followers of Jesus deliberately altered the Bible. "

Says who ?

Rules are rules, not for me. If they make no sense, then they make no sense!

One of my uncles used to drink alcohol and he was indeed more fun but silly (sorry) when he's drunk.. Anyway, rules are rules.

And by the way, it is no problem that the text is altered. We know it was written by humans!

"deliberately"?? How do you know? Where is the "original"?" Maybe it's their personal view? Who can blame them? You?

That's my point too. Pure religion doesn't inflict misery on its followers. Unfortunately some followers of Jesus deliberately altered the Bible.

Simple, QatariLady, when I drink I am more forgiving. When I'm sober, I'm strict, straight, and I accept no mistakes. Drinking makes me a lovable person. I even play music for people when I'm drunk. I don't do this when I'm sober.

Again you feel that you don't need religion because you don't believe in the afterlife. Do you think that this short, less-than-perfect life is sufficient and worthy of living if it wasn't a "preparatory phase" for an eternal, perfect life?

QatariLady, yes you did. And that was respectable. however, I was you were not the only one I can credit for this noble act.

Actually when i said - Thank you Jesus, it was more of an sarcastic remark towards the hypocrite catholic church that does not allow divorces in the Philippines, which causes loads and loads of misery and unhappiness, which I refuse to believe is 'Gods will' .