|
Nezan (m)
|
Have you seen a Jew before? He can talk you to give your last Kobo to him, while he has a pile high of Naira! I wonder if the Egyptians who have been berieved will simply and easily give gifts to their slaves who have caused them so much sadness as they lost their first born, as they are leaving this work for nothing position will give gifts of the most expensive thing; Gold and others? American blacks are still waiting for the promised 40 Acres and a Mule, from the USA, and you expect the egyptian victims in their tyranny to give their possessions to the Children of Israel, and yet America is more liberal and cant even fulfill their own promise? You mean you now doubt the veracity of the Torah which even your prophet said he believe in? Well dont use mind game to drift away from the OP, question is, the koranic translators claimed a samaritan built the golden calf, even before samaritans existed, yusuf alli changed it to mean stranger, abulbanaat translated it to somebody from iraq, while you claim it is somebody's name . . . what a bunch of hypocrites! See your delusionary tactics coming up again: each one of us is describing a single man, and not a tribe! More importantly, he must have left with them from Egypt or joined up with them on the way, but was already an accepted companion at the eent of golden calf. What I saw was Samiri, an identity of a person, a proper name! I am called Babajebu in my family by my inlaws who are not from Ijebu bloodlines. I am called Olabowale because its a name for me. Yet am called others, my muslim name, and Mr. when my family name is used, and father of Lai by my mother, and others as they wish. But it is still me; same here as Samiri is a name of the leader of idol worshipping at the time of exodus of the Israelites. so the meaning is now expanding to accomodate more lies: samaritan, Iraqi, stranger, somebody's name, Leader of idol worshipping. What a funny attempt at legalising illegality  |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
My saying that fired brick did not appear could not have been translated by educated mind to mean that the idea of this method of brick making was at least thought about before, and could not mean that a structure was not at least designed with it. It simply means from my understanding that this technology was not established yet or widespread, a commonly used yet. Your Bible even was saying someting like that; See your dishonesty pop up again? burnt bricks were used by people of the mesopotamian, Egyptians were using sun-dried mud bricks made of straw, yet your koran erroneosly said they were using burnt bricks. Your companion, abulbanaat said here that cut stone meant burnt bricks, and after I exposed you, you are now changing gear, fact is, as at that time, Egyptians were using mud bricks as against the lie mentioned in the koran. Thats not a smart analysis of the verse. With wisdom you will realise that muddy is equal to murky (not clear, cant see through it). A spring is water body, and by Allah when the light is weak, as it is the time of sunset, you cant see the water bottom anymore or clearly because the surface is now murky or muddy looking. So the sun settle into a murky spring? Your explanation is not comprehensive enough. What wisdom are you talking about? wisdom of believing the sun settle in a murky spring? |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
The story which is read in Surah kahf speaks about a powerful person with all the means to help or accomplish a mission, with authority reaching very far and wide, who helped a people to be secured away from an evil race. This must be something of the past, long before Muhammad (AS), a story told by him, in revelation from his Creator, the Author of the Quran. Now Islam of Adam must be crude and almost not resemble the Islam of Ibrahim and that of Ibrahim must not as refined and structured as that of Muhammad! But each has a purity of worship in obedience to Allah, alone, the yardstick of Islam. Now, tell me where in the Quran in Arabic that you found Alexander, except Dhul Qarnain? Muhammad (AS) never gave a name of Alexander. Your islamic scholar and the dictionary of the koran refer to the person as Alexander the Great. That doesnot concern me, what concerns me is the inaccuracy of the koranic rendering of Aleander's history. We are talking about contradictions in the koran, remember? Try to see Niger River at the time of unset and compare it to its clear look at midday in July! This still fail to explain why the koran said that the sun set in murky spring. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
Contradiction No. 13:
S. 21:30.
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made EVERY living thing of water? Will they not then believe? 21:30 Pickthall
However, this related verse contains an additional problematic statement.
Allah has created EVERY moving (living) creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Verily! Allah is Able to do all things. S. 24:45 Al-Hilali & Khan
And Allah has created from water EVERY living creature: so of them is that which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them is that which walks upon four; Allah creates what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things. S. 24:45 Shakir
Aren't there a lot of creatures missing in the "divine categorization" of living creatures that is given in S. 24:45? The author starts with making a comprehensive, all-inclusive statement. He speaks about "every living creature". First he refers to their common origin, i.e. that all of them were created from water, and then he categorizes them according to what distinguishes them, their characteristic property. He gives three categories in which those creatures exist:
‘walking’ with no legs [e.g. snakes and snails]
walking with two legs [human beings (?), birds (?), jinn (?),
walking with four legs [e.g. most mammals (sheep, cows, dogs, horses, camels, etc.) and most reptiles (frogs, crocodiles, most lizards, etc.)]
However, as intuitive as these three categories may appear at first sight, the author of S. 24:45 forgot a huge number of species when he made this statement. Even the Qur'an mentions several creatures that are not covered by this categorization: the gnat (2:26), the bee (16:68), the fly (22:73), and moths (101:4) which are all insects and walk on six legs, the spider (29:41) that walks on eight legs, and all kinds of fish (5:96, 18:61, 37:142) which have no legs and are not walking (or creeping) at all.[1] Moreover, apart from those various creatures mentioned in the Qur'an, there are the octopus ("eight foot", actually, there are about 300 species of octopus) and other cephalopods, various crabs that have ten legs (1, 2), caterpillars, centipedes and millipedes, all of which are not mentioned in the Qur'an.
In fact, for anyone concerned about the "scientific miracle of the Qur'an" the omission of the six-legged insects must be devastating since science teaches that there are vastly more insects than there are animals with no legs, two or four legs taken together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
Contradiction No. 14:
Ants Cannot Talk
At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."
So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by They Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous Servants."
-- Sura An-Naml [The Ant] (27):18-19
But then there are these Amazing Facts About Ants that in contradiction to the Qur'an, ants do communicate using smells, not modulation of sounds. Solomon could not have heard any talk since ants do not produce any.
Additionally, to imagine that ants communicate such sophisticated information as the Qur'an claims seems rather to belong into the land of fairy tales than science (e.g. an ant being able to distinguish between Solomon and a soldier).
Even though basically all communication between ants is through chemical signals, there are, however, a few subspecies of ants which do use some sound communication. But of what kind and complexity is it?
The use of vibrational signals is weakly developed in ants in comparison with communication by pheromones. , Two forms of sound production have been identified., body rapping against the substratum and stridulation, the latter employing files and scrapers clearly evolved for a communicative purpose. , [p. 255]
It has long been known, thanks to the experiments of , that ants are nearly deaf to airborne vibrations but extremely sensitive to vibrations carried through the substratum , [p. 257]
No evidence exists to rank the chirps of stidulation as anything more than simple unitary signals. In other words, ants do not "talk" by modulating sound through time. , sounds , do not appear to vary within species or within the repertory of one worker ant through time. , stridulation in ants produces a monotonous series of chirps with limited meaning. [p. 257]
The signaling pattern is independent of the triggering stimulus. That is, the ants do not modify the drumming to identify the category of danger to the nest. [p. 256]
All the above is taken from:
Bert Hölldobler and Edward O. Wilson
The Ants
Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1990. xii, 732 p.,
ISBN 0674040759, Library Call Number: QL568 .F7 H57 1990
Chapter 7, pages 227-297 speak about communication. Page 228 gives a table of different signals in communication between ants. Of the 17 "messages" listed 14 are chemical, 2 are tactile, 1 is "chemical or tactile". In all the intensive studies of ants, "speech" (modulated sound of complex meaning) has never been observed.
When a live ant is marked with the chemical [one that develops in dead ants], i.e. sending the message that this ant is dead, the struggling ant is nevertheless taken by the others and carried out to the rubbish dump. Chemicals take the precedence over anything else. Surely no intelligent speech communication as claimed in this Qur'an passage. Action is blind reaction to the chemical message [pheromones]. (See From Gaia to selfish genes : selected writings in the life sciences, edited by Connie Barlow, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1991, 273 p, the chapter "From ants to anthropology" by E. O. Wilson, page 153-154.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
Contradiction No. 15:
Thinking located in the breasts?
Surely He knows well all the thoughts within the breasts.
-- Sura 11:5
Die in your rage; God knows the thoughts in the breasts.
-- Sura 3:119
The above is Arberry's translation. Yusuf Ali translates "heart" instead of "breasts," but whether heart or breast, the question would be the same.
This wouldn't even be worth mentioning as a "problem" if Muslims were not stressing so much the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an. The Semitic people thought the location of "thinking" to be in the chest/heart area [many Bible verses show the same view]. I can easily accept it for both Bible and Qur'an that these verses do not make any scientific claims nor do they give medical descriptions of the seat of thinking, but that they just employ the commonly used expressions to communicate the truth the author wants to express here, namely that God knows our deepest secrets and thoughts. To this day we say (in English) that God knows our "heart" and we don't mean the muscle in our physical body but our motives and desires. And we speak that way due to tradition even though we know those are to be located in the brain if one can give it a location at all.
I don't want to parade this example as a difficulty or contradiction in the Qur'an. It only shows that this was the common way of speaking about it in the Middle East and even until today in our "scientific age."
But it is one passage which shows that the Qur'an uses the normal language to communicate, and is indeed very unscientific by doing so. I believe that the Qur'an is equally unscientific in many other verses where Muslims try to extract scientific miracles and which are just lending themselves in their vageness better to be twisted into harmony with some modern science theories even though nothing like that was intended in the text.
But if Muslims insist in a general scientific accuracy of the Qur'an and want to make scientific accuracy of the Qur'an a proof for its divine inspiration, then the above verses are indeed a clear mistake and Muslims who want to make a case for the Qur'an on the basis of scientific accuracy will have to deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
Am still waiting for further refutations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
olabowale (m)
|
@Nezan: Furthermore: Yusuf Ali in his commentary reports that Zul-qarnain is thought to be Alexander the Great. And so does the "Concise Dictionary of Islam." Looking at verses 98-101, this would make Alexander the Great a Muslim -- 1000 years before Muhammad. Yet that is for sure not true. The history does not relate that Alexander the Great had any other religion than the pagan Greeks he came from and ruled over. This is historically blatantly false. And long time, before 1000 years ago, there was Islam, so Nezan and his masters on the web, whats your argument, really? When Noah was a muslim, and even Adam was a muslim, could it be very hard to believe a person after these noble men (AS) to be muslim, too? « #87 on: Today at 10:53:44 AM »
contradiction 12:
In the Qur'an we find the following statements about the moon and the stars:
He Who created the seven heavens, one above the other ,
And We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps , (67:3,5)
And He completed them seven heavens in two days
and inspired in each heaven its command;
and We adorned the lower heaven with lamps,
and rendered it guarded, (41:12)
We have indeed adorned the lower heaven with the beauty of the stars. (37:6)
Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens
one above the other,
and made the moon a light in their midst,
and made the sun as a lamp? (71:15-16)
The above is Yusuf Ali's translation. Pickthall renders Sura 71:16 as
And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?
The Qur'an seems to teach that there are seven heavens, one above the other, whether it was imagined to be like storeys in a high building (flat layers) or like shells or the layers of an onion.
As a poetic way of expression this is acceptable, even though there are, scientifically speaking, no discernable stages in the universe that would allow us to differentiate between those various heavens. Heavens as "eaven" as a whole is unknown, unseen. No scientific exploration can reach the lowest heaven, and at best in what is under the lowest heaven. But then we humans called eveything above in the sky, farther than our vision Heaven! So what you can never know, except you have a superior information source is to give accurate information about what is not easily known. This is the reason Muhammad's materials on the above and about all things mention in the Quran and yes, Jesus are correct, since he said its from Allah through spiritual revelations! However, the Qur'an specifically assigns the stars to a lower or even the lowest heaven, while it states the relationship of the moon to the totality of the seven heavens is that it is "in them" (fehinna). This gives the impression that the moon is at least as far away as the stars if not further. Lets accept that fahinna means "in them", a position that must be correct as we on earth consider everything far up as heaven/heavens and it is clear that the moon is up there, too. No? Didnt Muhammad split the moon and is there heaven obscuring the moon, or do we see the heaven before we see the moon on a full moon night? May Allah help us if Nezan holds the secret of Nigeria, though I dont live in it, but I find its peril if Nezan is in charge! But everyone knows today that the stars are much much further away from the earth than the moon. This is not a small difference, it is an issue of several magnitudes. The average distance from the earth to the moon is 384,400 km, while Proxima Centauri, the closest star to us outside of the solar system, is already about 4.3 light years = 40,682,300,000,000 km (40 trillion kilometers) away, or expressed differently, we need to multiply the distance of the moon by more than 100 million to reach even the nearest of all the stars. And Allah says that a day with your Lord, is like 50,000 years in human period, in one verse and 5 or 10 in another, only to show comparative timing and distances, yet time is not one of the factor/elements that is play with Allah. We should now have ability to reflect. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
And long time, before 1000 years ago, there was Islam, so Nezan and his masters on the web, whats your argument, really? When Noah was a muslim, and even Adam was a muslim, could it be very hard to believe a person after these noble men (AS) to be muslim, too? Contradiction No. 16! Adam and Noah were not muslims! Bring out historical evidence, since YHWH and allah are two different beigns, one been an idol, and the other God Almighty. Jesus are correct, since he said its from Allah through spiritual revelations! This is all about koranic contradictions and not Jesus. Another correction, YHWH and allah are not the same, dude! Lets accept that fahinna means "in them", a position that must be correct as we on earth consider everything far up as heaven/heavens and it is clear that the moon is up there, too. No? Didnt Muhammad split the moon and is there heaven obscuring the moon, or do we see the heaven before we see the moon on a full moon night? May Allah help us if Nezan holds the secret of Nigeria, though I dont live in it, but I find its peril if Nezan is in charge! Contradiction No. 17! Never was it proved scientifically and historically that the moon was ever split into two. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
And Allah says that a day with your Lord, is like 50,000 years in human period, in one verse and 5 or 10 in another, only to show comparative timing and distances, yet time is not one of the factor/elements that is play with Allah. We should now have ability to reflect. This has failed to explain the koranic blunder in the location of the moon relative to the stars, it is a simple fact, no need denying the blunder! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
olabowale (m)
|
i wonder if nezan even try to reflect on anything at all? considering that Angels come to earth, just like that, is distance not relative, based on your knowledge and that of the All-Knower? and long time before any space exploration, Quran talks about it in Surah Rahman, so I wonder if it knows the actual distance and positions of things called celestral?!
I am amased at your thought process and i am very confident that you are the winner in this argument! at least you are not changing or moving a bit, with your heels already dug in the sand!
abulbanaat may be busy with other aspects of his life, can you imagine his not leaving all of those to attend to nezan's?
|
|
|
|
|
|
abulbanaat (m)
|
Yes I am pretty busy. However I will try to answer some of Nezan's full-blown ignorance (as an addition to what Sir Olabowale has been telling him), I had thought he had gone into a lull. Now that he is back, we welcome him. and I think Muhsin will pardon me this time around if I forcefully reply Nezan, he can see himself. Yes i am busy and I was the one that threw the challenge so I must be around. Therefore Nezan wait for my reply, I promise to make it snappy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abuzola (m)
|
 |
No subject
« #109 on: October 19, 2009, 10:27 PM » |
|
@sir olabowale, i have a msg for you in your inbox
|
|
|
|
|
|
abulbanaat (m)
|
Nezan said: “I was the one trying to educate abulbanaat that crucifixion was not used in ancient egypt at the time of Moses.”
I say if you are basing that on your historical ‘facts’ then I say we will not accept it from you because history is subjective and it is often based on human conjectures which are prone to error.
He said: “The fact is that the koran goofed when it said that the Egyptians worshipped many gods, and in another breathe, said that pharoah was the god of the Egyptians.”
I say there is no single verse in the Qur’aan except that its experts have explained it in the light of Sunnah and what has been handed down from the Pious Predecessors.
The verses that you are alluding to are reports by Allaah from what those people say. I hope you will understand. Pharaoh told his people he was their only lord but the people later said: ‘Stop Musa unless he will leave you and your gods.’ What the people inferred from that was that Pharaoh had paraphernalia of fetish that qualified him and those things as gods. Will you now understand O Nezan. Remember Allaah was reporting their conversations. It would have been a contradiction if Allaah had said: ‘Indeed Pharaoh was the god of the Egyptians’ and later said: ‘There are many gods in Egypt.’ Will you now understand?
He said: “Stop derailing the OP, must you always resort to abuse when you are cornered?”
I say while you are sharper in that regards than I am.
He said: “When the Israelites were coming out of Egypt, God caused the Egyptians to give the Israelites gifts of gold, silver, etc, which were later used to make the calf”
I say if this is from the Bible then it is very illogical as Sir Olabowale had said, and that confirms our fear about the Bible – that it is a mix-up of what is from God and humans.
He said: “So what are we to believe now? Yusuf Alli said the name mean watchman. abulbanaat said the name means somebody from Iraq olabowale said its the name of a person.”
Then you have told a lie against me read what I wrote:
“In the Arabic knowledge of ‘Ism Nasab’ (generic name), it will rather be right to say the translation will be a person from Saamarah (in the present day Iraaq) which has nothing to do with Samarita, Saamarah is literally ‘Su Man Ra ah’ (May he who sees (the town) be pleased with it).”
And let me expatiate: What that means is that Saamarah is a coinage of a recent past in Iraaq to refer to a city which is literally ‘Su Man Ra ah’ (May he who sees (the town) be pleased with it). So it can’t be Saamarah of the Qur’aan, so Saamiriyy is a person of a tribe which we don’t know and it is of no significance that we know it.
I even made that clear when I wrote:
“So the person being referred to is another person of another town which we don’t know (and it does not affect us as Muslims in any way if we don’t know it).”
So I hope you can see your folly O Nezan.
He said: “Thank you for backing my argument. Your koran erroneosly argued that Egyptians used 'fired bricks' against 'mud bricks', and abulbanaat was trying to let me believe that 'cut stone' means 'fired bricks'. So much for islam, 'boko haram'!”
I say if you still base that on historical ‘facts,’ Allaah knows more than the historians, to hell with them.
He said: “but your koran made it to appear as if it is Egypt.”
So now it is ‘appear’ but you did say Qur’aan says it was Egypt that was promised the Children of Israel. And I challenged you to produce the Aayah. Now that you cannot produces the Aayah, remember what I said you would be a LIAR, so you are. Can you also bring the verse (s) that make (s) it seems to be Egypt, so that you will receive a feather to your lying business.
He said: “Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring, ”
This verse (and other verses that would be mentioned later) only explains what is applicable to the naked eyes, just as Sir Olabowale as said. And Zul-Qar’nain getting to the setting place of the sun does not indicate that the Qur’aan implies that the earth is flat. The action only refers to the fact that Zul-Qurnain travelled far – Far East and Far West such that he got to a place that would seem to him that the sun was setting (as you see it if you around a river when the sun is to set or rise).
Till today we still say the sun sets and rises because that is what is observable to the eyes. And nobody says whoever says that is ignorant of the science, one because science itself is not constant (they now say the sun moves on its own axis; and a group of scientists in Germany had removed Pluto from family of the planets). So Science is not an embodiment of truth.
He said: “Yusuf Ali in his commentary reports that Zul-qarnain is thought to be Alexander the Great.”
I say: That was the opinion of later English commentators of the Qur’aan (like Yuusuf Alli), it is never the mainstream thought in Islam, so that was a conjecture from them.
“However, the Qur'an specifically assigns the stars to a lower or even the lowest heaven, while it states the relationship of the moon to the totality of the seven heavens is that it is "in them" (fehinna). This gives the impression that the moon is at least as far away as the stars if not further.”
I say: The explanation of that is like what I said over Zul-Qar’nain’s travels above; that is what is observable to the eyes. Indeed the sky has been adorned with the stars irrespective of where they may be (and remember we say Science is not constant).
“In fact, for anyone concerned about the "scientific miracle of the Qur'an" the omission of the six-legged insects must be devastating since science teaches that there are vastly more insects than there are animals with no legs, two or four legs taken together.”
I say: So you want the Qur’aan to mention Arachinds, Molluscs, Amoeba, etc, Haba, this is a book directly talking to the Arabs, reminding them of what they see in their daily lives.
Anyway if the Qur’aan does not mention your favourite ‘six-legged insects’ it has however said:
“And (He has created) horses, mules and donkeys, for you to ride and as an adornment. And He creates (other) things of which you have no knowledge.” [Q16: 8]
What the verse implies that there things you may not know now but He also created them.
He said: “Ants Cannot Talk”
You think so, even Qur’aan says hands and legs will talk on the Day of Resurrection. That is simply spiritual, so the talking of the ants to Solomon too was spiritual, no scientific effort can unravel it just as the science has failed to unravel existence of God.
So take it Nezan, hands and legs will talk. Imagine if your hands and legs testify against you on the Day of Resurrection O Nezan. See this:
“This Day, We shall seal up their mouths, and their hands will speak to Us, and their legs will bear witness to what they used to earn.” [Yaasin: 65]
Even the Qur’aan says the creatures sing the praise of Allaah, even mountains! Science may not be able to explain that because there are many things that are beyond the realm of science, and such things abound in the Qur’aan (this is why we don’t believe in the Qur’aan because of its scientific content but because it is a Revelation from the Lord of the worlds).
He said: “Thinking located in the breasts?”
“I don't want to parade this example as a difficulty or contradiction in the Qur'an. It only shows that this was the common way of speaking about it in the Middle East and even until today in our "scientific age."
I say what you say here has exonerated the Qur’aan of what you have been saying about it viz. Its mentioning that the stars adorn the sky, that Zul-Qurnain got to where the sun rises and sets. Simply all those are based on people perception of those phenomena, that does not mean Allaah did not know the reality but communicated to people in a way that they will understand, and of course take lessons. If Allaah had wished, He would have told us of what goes on in the galaxies but that might not have brought the desired result.
He said: “since YHWH and allah are two different beigns, one been an idol, and the other God Almighty.”
I say: I have always like this side of my discussions with the Christians saying Allaah is an idol being worshipped by the Arabs before Muhammad because Muhammad’s father was Abdullaah (Abdu Allaah). What a reasoning! Since you have brought this, I will challenge you again, O Nezan, to produce your evidence, even your historical ‘facts’ that say the Arabs did (and do not) believe in a Supreme Being.
Again if you fail to then you are a LIAR.
But if Allaah is the Supreme Being, O Nezan, don’t you think you are in for trouble. I pity you O.
He said: “Never was it proved scientifically and historically that the moon was ever split into two.”
I say: Well that was one of the miracles of Muhammad (we Muslims do not bank on the miracles of the Prophet to prove the authenticity of Islam). Since it has been proved authentically that he performed that miracle (Qur’aan even attests to it [Suurah Qamar v. 1]), we believe it, so we don’t need any scientific proof for that the same way we don’t need scientific proofs for Jesus’ miracles.
He said: “I have observed that abulbanaat has now taken the sidelines”
I say: Sidelines ke, never. It is only Muhsin that is trying to prevent me, also I am pretty busy. But this is a religious duty, so that we will establish the proof of Islâm against you O Nezan.
So no relief for you O Nezan, I am at home for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
abulbanaat (m)
|
Lest I forget the 50,000 stuff, so that Nezan will not accuse us again of dodging some things.
Yes Q32: 5 says:
“He arranges (every) affair from the heavens to the earth, then it (affair) will go up to Him, in one Day, the space whereof is a thousand years of your reckoning (i.e. reckoning of our present world's time).”
And Q70: 4: says:
“The angels and the Rûh [Jibrael (Gabriel)] ascend to Him in a Day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years”
So the Nezans of this world think both of them contradict, if they have pondered well, they will see that they did not contradict.
The actions being referred to in each is different:
The first one is arrangement of affairs from heavens.
The second one is movement of the angels and the Ruh.
The first one if humans were to count it will take place in their own 1000 years and the second, in their 50,000 years. But each of the action takes place in a Day with Allaah.
To put it more practically: That A should come down from Allaah to earth will cost a Day with Allaah which will have been our 1000 years, and for B to come down it will cost a Day with Allaah and that will be equall to our 50,000. If A and B were to come down from Allaah in a Day that will be our 1000 + 50,000, let Nezan complete the sum if he still knows Arithmetic. [Laugh].
|
|
|
|
|
|
the_seeker
|
@Abdulbanaat, well said. May Allah continue to increase u in knowledge.
When truth is hurled against falshood, it (falsehood) shall surely perish
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
i wonder if nezan even try to reflect on anything at all? considering that Angels come to earth, just like that, is distance not relative, based on your knowledge and that of the All-Knower? and long time before any space exploration, Quran talks about it in Surah Rahman, so I wonder if it knows the actual distance and positions of things called celestral?! When talking about things in the physical that have been proven using scientific knowledge God has endowed man with, it is better we try to reallign those with our theological beliefs. We should stand up and question the veracity of the claims in our books and try to seek ways of clarifying those errors than turning a blind eye. I say if you are basing that on your historical ‘facts’ then I say we will not accept it from you because history is subjective and it is often based on human conjectures which are prone to error. But all historians agree that Egyptians used mudbricks, the koran been the only dissenting voice. Consider that the koran was written centuries after those events were recorded. I wonder the kind of reasoning you are putting forth here. If history proves koranic records accurate, you rejoice, but when history disproves koranic records you reject it? Open your eyes and stop been fanatic! |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
I say there is no single verse in the Qur’aan except that its experts have explained it in the light of Sunnah and what has been handed down from the Pious Predecessors.
The verses that you are alluding to are reports by Allaah from what those people say. I hope you will understand. Pharaoh told his people he was their only lord but the people later said: ‘Stop Musa unless he will leave you and your gods.’ What the people inferred from that was that Pharaoh had paraphernalia of fetish that qualified him and those things as gods. Will you now understand O Nezan. Remember Allaah was reporting their conversations. It would have been a contradiction if Allaah had said: ‘Indeed Pharaoh was the god of the Egyptians’ and later said: ‘There are many gods in Egypt.’ Will you now understand? I dont care who the verses were alluding to or anything you are trying to conjecture. Study the verses again. The other said Egyptians worshipped many gods (i.e.polytheism) while the other said pharoah was the god of the egyptians (i.e. monotheism). That surely is a contradiction. Stop pretending dude! |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
“In the Arabic knowledge of ‘Ism Nasab’ (generic name), it will rather be right to say the translation will be a person from Saamarah (in the present day Iraaq) which has nothing to do with Samarita, Saamarah is literally ‘Su Man Ra ah’ (May he who sees (the town) be pleased with it).”
And let me expatiate: What that means is that Saamarah is a coinage of a recent past in Iraaq to refer to a city which is literally ‘Su Man Ra ah’ (May he who sees (the town) be pleased with it). So it can’t be Saamarah of the Qur’aan, so Saamiriyy is a person of a tribe which we don’t know and it is of no significance that we know it. I think I have made myself clear on this: other koranic translators rendered this word 'samaritan', yusuf alli changed it to 'samarii' and he translated it to mean stranger, you on the other hand, said it meant 'person from iraq', olabowale first said it was somebody's name, but later translated it to mean 'leader of idol worshippers'. Which is correct? you can see that you people are just trying to conjecture meanings to the word that was the cause of the contradiction so that you will run away with the lie. No sir! your explanations are unconvincing! |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
I say if you still base that on historical ‘facts,’ Allaah knows more than the historians, to hell with them. So if allah knew more than the historians, he ought not to make silly historical mistakes! So now it is ‘appear’ but you did say Qur’aan says it was Egypt that was promised the Children of Israel. And I challenged you to produce the Aayah. Now that you cannot produces the Aayah, remember what I said you would be a LIAR, so you are. Can you also bring the verse (s) that make (s) it seems to be Egypt, so that you will receive a feather to your lying business. Didnt you read through the koranic verses I provided? or are you too scared to study them? calm down man, read through the verses I supplied, if you are not convinced, trash out the verses than pretending that you didnt see them. This verse (and other verses that would be mentioned later) only explains what is applicable to the naked eyes, just as Sir Olabowale as said Read through my response to olabowale on this! It failed to explain away the koranic contradiction that the sun do set in a murky spring. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
That was the opinion of later English commentators of the Qur’aan (like Yuusuf Alli), it is never the mainstream thought in Islam, so that was a conjecture from them. You see your delusion? when yusuf alli translated 'samaritan' to 'samarii', you gleefully followed his translation, but now you are disagreeing with his translation? why didnt you reject his translation of 'samaritan' to 'samarii' as a later English commentry of the koran? You see how dishonest you people are? I say: The explanation of that is like what I said over Zul-Qar’nain’s travels above; that is what is observable to the eyes. Indeed the sky has been adorned with the stars irrespective of where they may be (and remember we say Science is not constant). Isnt allah suppose to know more than what the eye can see? he should have explained it that it is not as it appears to the eye, instead of revealing the contradiction . . . and see what your delusion has led you to? that science is not constant, when all space studies has revealed the same thing . . that the koran lied with respect to the positioning of moon and stars! |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
I say: So you want the Qur’aan to mention Arachinds, Molluscs, Amoeba, etc, Haba, this is a book directly talking to the Arabs, reminding them of what they see in their daily lives. So the koran was only meant for the arabs? interesting to note . . . so why worry ourselves with islam since it is an arabic thingy? You think so, even Qur’aan says hands and legs will talk on the Day of Resurrection. That is simply spiritual, so the talking of the ants to Solomon too was spiritual, no scientific effort can unravel it just as the science has failed to unravel existence of God. So islam now believe in the Holy Spirit? This is getting more interesting . . . only that you are now saying ants now have spirits? So solomon had the gift of communicating with ants? . . . this is pure delusion . . solomon talking with ants spiritually . . I hope this claim is islamic I say: I have always like this side of my discussions with the Christians saying Allaah is an idol being worshipped by the Arabs before Muhammad because Muhammad’s father was Abdullaah (Abdu Allaah). What a reasoning! Since you have brought this, I will challenge you again, O Nezan, to produce your evidence, even your historical ‘facts’ that say the Arabs did (and do not) believe in a Supreme Being. I have already trashed out this issue on many threads. If you are not satisfied, open another thread on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
abulbanaat (m)
|
you yourself have seen it. Your points are to shallow to be contended with, time is precious, nobody has a time to waste. so if you have other 'contradictions' bring them, otherwise face your work in your office or you go to sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
I say: Well that was one of the miracles of Muhammad (we Muslims do not bank on the miracles of the Prophet to prove the authenticity of Islam). So you believe everything in the koran including the contradictions listed above? To put it more practically: That A should come down from Allaah to earth will cost a Day with Allaah which will have been our 1000 years, and for B to come down it will cost a Day with Allaah and that will be equall to our 50,000. If A and B were to come down from Allaah in a Day that will be our 1000 + 50,000, let Nezan complete the sum if he still knows Arithmetic. [Laugh]. Remember this came about as a result of the positioning of the moon and stars, and the response you gave was what olabowale earlier said, you are only re-ehoing him, all the same, this does not explain away the contradiction, you are only trying to amuse yourself  |
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
The contradictions continue once again . . . .
Contradiction No.18:
Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved?
In Sura 10:92, Allah speaks to Pharaoh who ferociously chased the Children of Israel, "But this day We save you in your body, that you may be a portent for those after you." Although this verse makes it clear that Allah saved Pharaoh from drowning, Suras 28:40, 17:103, and 43:55 contradict this, stating that Pharaoh was drowned: "Therefore We seized him and his hosts and abandoned them unto the sea , But We drowned him and those with him, all together , And [We] drowned them, everyone."
When the Qur'an says "But this day We save you in your body, , " what exactly does this mean? Today Muslims want us to believe that this means "We will preserve your body for posterity", but why doesn't then the Arabic say "We will save your body" (but not your life)? Why does it use the preposition "in" (Arabic: bi) when it says "save you IN your body (nunajjeeka BI-badanika)"? The "you" is distinguished from "your body" and what is saved is not "the body" but the "you". The text clearly refers to the saving of the life of Pharaoh [you in your body, i.e. you will stay alive in this body] not "you will die but your body will be preserved for those after you."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
Contradiction No. 19:
Believers, Jews, Sabaeans and Christians -
whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right -
shall have nothing to fear or regret.
-- Sura 5:69
But just three verses further in the text it says
Unbelievers are those that say:
"God is the Messiah, the son of Mary." For the Messiah himself said:
"Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord."
He that worships other gods besides God, God will deny him Paradise,
and the fire shall be his home. None shall help the evil-doers.
-- Sura 5:72
So, are Christians believers or unbelievers? Are they allowed to remain as Christians (knowing they worship Christ) as long as they do what is right, or are they condemned outright for their faith? Do we have to worry or not to worry according to the Qur'an?
Sometimes I even wonder if single Suras were even completely authored by the same person.
Now, the obvious answer that a Muslim would give is that the "true" Christians do not worship Jesus as God. Hence there is no contradiction. But the first verse does not specify that. It only talks about the belief in the existence of God and in the (Judgment of the) Last Day and doing right. Any serious Christian will fall in this category.
Muslims try to save the Qur'an by claiming that any Trinitarian is not a true Christian and hence verse 72 does not apply to them. But the problem is only shifted. Either the contradiction is as above, or, with the shift, the contradiction is with reality. It is historical fact that Christianity has always considered Jesus to be the LORD, to be of the same nature of God.
Therefore, either the Qur'an contradicts itself, or it shows itself very ignorant of historical Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
Contradiction No. 20:
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, -
flog them each with a hundred stripes.
-- Sura 24:2
If any of your women are guilty of lewdness,
take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them;
and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them,
or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
If two (men) among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both.
If they repent and amend, leave them alone;
for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
-- Sura 4:15-16
Yusuf Ali says "men", other translations just say "two". It is the masculine dual form of the word. This "could" also mean a man and a woman, but it might be more natural as reading this as a rule how to deal with homosexual acts, since verse 15 deals only with women, and so the attention turns to men in verse 16.
If 4:16 is about male homosexual acts, then interestingly, the homosexual men are to be left alone when they repent of their deed, while adulterers are to be punished in any case. This alone is not a contradiction, but certainly strange. Maybe because in an homosexual act no other man's right over a woman is violated? While in adultery with the wife of another man the "property" or right of an undefiled wife of this man is violated?
A homosexual act would violate only the wife of this other man but the violation of a woman is not as severe?
Nevertheless, there is the contradiction whether for a female adulteress the is punishment one hundred stripes [Sura 24:2] or confinement in the house until death [4:15].
If 4:16 does not speak only about homosexual acts but also about adultery of man and woman, then another contradictory element is added: If they repent they can get off the hook without punishment? Who will not repent with the prospect of a hundred stripes waiting for them?
Apart from the question whether the punishment should be as in 24:2 or 4:15, how come the man and woman are treated equal in 24:2, but seemingly different in 4:15?
All this is further complicated by the fact that in the Sharia the actual punishment for adultery is stoning on the basis of the Sunna of Muhammad and various hadiths and there are even traditions that the verse of stoning was originally part of the Qur'an.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
More contradictions to follow after your refutations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nezan (m)
|
you yourself have seen it. Your points are to shallow to be contended with, time is precious, nobody has a time to waste. So all the contradictions I have listed are shallow? You now agree that koran has shallow contradictions against your early stand that it contained no contradictions? Thank God, you are now begining to change gear. |
|
|
|
|
|
abulbanaat (m)
|
I had thought you would accuse me of running away having not seen my hands for some days now, I know you would not say that because you once made that blunder on my that other thread and when I hit you back. Please give me some days and I shall show your folly as regard the latest round of 'contradictions' in the Qur'aan which you have gone and brought, ku se, I am very much engaged now but i shall find time to answer you adequately. No respite for you, Nezan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
olabowale (m)
|
nezan let me show you something; when i read anything of the bible, i wrap my heart around it. i wait as long as possible, thinking about it and when its fully digested looking at from the reality of it, then i respond to it. until then i dont react to it, having no opinion on it.
this is why you do no see me going against any biblical verse that says God is One, unique and unlike any of His creations. that is why i do not go against any verse saying that jesus ia a prophet, messenger of Israelites, performing miracles, preaching Onenes of his Lord God. that is why you dont see me saying anything indicating jesus to be human. all of these are reality; the only reason i give opinions about all the impossibilities like God being more than one, a part dying, a part being human, another being ghost, etc.
you should use this strategy to react to Quranic verses! things that are human are just human; you cant expect a person to be abused and not reach a saturation, whereby he/she responds!
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
