₦airaland Forum

[flash= 400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msOlpj886H4[/flash]

tbaba12345: ^My first attempt to get the meaning of the shifting of the earth that you brought up:: led me to isostacy but after some study of the word meaning: i think it is unrelated::

a better translation is:

And He has cast into the earth firmly set mountains, lest it shift with you, and [made] rivers and roads, that you may be guided

And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shift with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves;

The mountains are firmly fixed because of the roots (awtaad):: and that stabilises them and prevents them from shifting from their position... It is simple really>>>

It does not refer to the earth shaking because that will be called 'Zalzalaa': The more certain meaning i think is the movement of the mountain:

It has a simple meaning::

First it was isostocy (Hamza Tzortzis, your famous apologist tries to use it as evidence to show that the mountains stop the earth from shaking), then another rendering of the verse that was a fail, now total revisionism to dribble your way through. . .Maybe you know arabic more than the scholars that translated it to english. . . . . .

And before I forgot your claim about the koran as the only book that talks about mountain having deep roots is false. . The bible in the book of Jonah 2:6 says "to the roots of the mountains, I sank down the earth beneath barred me in for ever But you LORD my God brought me out from the pit

tbaba12345: Mis conception:

A common misconception, usually made by non-Arabists, is that this verse can be literally translated as “and We made that lump into bones”. From this, they conclude that this verse is unscientific because a lump of flesh cannot turn into a mass of bones. However, this is based upon a crude understanding of Arabic grammar and the Qur’an’s eloquence.

This verse, from a grammatical perspective, has the meanings of: “and We made of/from/out of the lump, bones”.

This is why the Indian Islamic scholar Yusuf Ali translates this verse as “then we made out of that lump bones”; M. H. Shakir translates it as “then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones”; and the British scholar of Arabic and Islamic studies A. J. Arberry, in his translation of the Qur’an which is still used by academics today, translates this verse as “then We created of the tissue bones”.

NOT REAL BONES?

Another proposition from commentators is that at this stage there are no real bones. It is argued that the apparent bones are mere cartilage as ossification is incomplete and, as such, the Qur’an must therefore be inaccurate. They further assert that the Arabic term for cartilage, ghurdoof should have been used instead of ᶜidhaam. Although a valid contention, it is misplaced. The Arabic word for cartilage refers to a type of cartilage that is not a precursor to bones, but rather remains as flexible connective tissue, as Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon states:

any soft bone, such as is, or may be eaten and [i.e. the soft or cartilaginous, part,] the firm part that is harder than flesh and softer than bone, of the nose

Conversely, the word ᶜidhaam encompasses the cartilaginous form of the bones as the skeletal framework is put in place. Furthermore, the use of the word ᶜidhaam is more accurate because it also carries the meaning of “bone, but properly applied to the bones of the hands and feet, or of the arms and legs, of an animal, upon which is the flesh.

Perfect islamic revisionism. . .Of course "commentators" will always revise it and make it appear in line with new knowledge, if the scientific knowledge changes the same "commentators" will come and revise it again. . .Classic fraud used by all religions. . .At that level of development bones are NOT formed only cartilage. . .The arabic word for cartilage is not idhaam, it is obvious that a play on words has failed you here. . .How idhaam comes to encompasses the cartilaginous form of bones as the skeletal framework is put in place is your own fraudulent revisionism. . .The koran says bone and so it is. . .Bones not your fraudulent play on words. . . cartilage is NOT a precursor of bones. . .The cartilage later develops into bones. So another fail. . .

tbaba12345: and We made that lump into bones (ᶜidhaam)

From the mudghah stage, ᶜidhaam are created, this is the next stage. The word ᶜidhaam in the Arabic language means bone, and is specifically applied to the bones of the hands and feet, or of the arms and legs of an animal, “upon which is the flesh”. (An Arabic-English Lexicon. Librairie Du Liban. 1968. Vol. 5, page 2087.)


SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATION

The ᶜidhaam stage pertains to the development of the axial and limb skeleton, occurring at around the 5th week. Barry Mitchell and Ram Sharma explain:

The origin of mesenchymal cells forming the skeletal tissues varies in different regions of the body. Mesenchymal cells forming the axial skeleton arise from the mesodermal somites, whereas the bones of the appendicular skeleton are derived from the somatopleuric mesenchyme of the lateral plate mesoderm. After reaching theirdestination the mesenchymal cells condense and form models of bones. The subsequent differentiation of mesenchymal cells into chondroblasts or osteoblasts is genetically controlled. (Embryology: An Illustrated Colour Text. 2nd Edition. Churchill Livingstone. 2009, page 20.)

‘Limb bones’ is the specified meaning of the word ᶜidhaam, and therefore can refer to the development of the limb buds which give rise to the development of the limbs and the appendicular skeleton.
Barry Mitchell and Ram Sharma elaborate on the formation of the limb and appendicular skeleton:

The appendicular skeleton consists of limb girdles and the bones of the limbs. The bones of the appendicular skeleton develop from mesenchymal condensations which become cartilaginous models. (The Fundamentals of Human Embryology. 2nd Edition. Wits University Press. 2010, page 147.)

Summary:

The ᶜidhaam stage: the formation of the axial, limb and appendicular skeleton.

Only that in humans bones are not formed at that stage, limb buds which are mostly made up of cartilage is what is formed not bones. . .

By the way in which stage of development of the islamic model are the brians, eyes, heart, kidneys and Instruments formed?. . .it talks about formation of bones, what about these other vital organs?. . .At what stage are they formed?. . .

tbaba12345: We clothed (kausana) the bones with flesh (lahm)

The kasauna and lahm (the key words in this stage): the migration and aggregation of the muscles cells around the developing limb and axial skeleton, to form muscles, tendons and connective tissue.

so the total summary:

Clothed the bones with flesh . . . In what stage in the human embryology are bones clothed with flesh. . .It seem a play on words has failed you here, i expected you to give me a word and provide a litany of different words as you always do and tell me that they all apply in context and use it to dribble your way through. . .Did the words end or did you not check into your arabic "dictionary"?. . .This is a big fail. . .

Week 4–5
Chemicals produced by the embryo stop the woman's menstrual cycle. Neurogenesis is underway, showing brain activity at about the 6th week.[3] The heart will begin to beat around the same time. Limb buds appear where the arms and legs will grow later. Organogenesis begins. The head represents about one half of the embryo's axial length, and more than half of the embryo's mass. The brain develops into five areas. Tissue formation occurs that develops into the vertebra and some other bones. The heart starts to beat and blood starts to flow.[2]

How does what is written above come close to the nonsense you wrote up there?. . . So the kasauna and lahm means the migration and aggregation of the muscles cells around the developing limb and axial skeleton, to form muscles, tendons and connective tissue? . . . .Where did you get that from?. . .

tbaba12345: There r muslims that try to apply every statement in the Quran and apply pseudo-science to it, even when they are ambiguous.

I think the embryology example is one of the clearest examples of the brilliance of the Quran in terms of natural phenomenon because once you know a little arabic , you become even more certain of it...



That explanation is not correct: It is proposed by some muslims but it is clearly a wrong explanation with no scientific basis:

The quran never said the mountains stops the earth from shaking: the mountains with secure pegs to stablises the mountains NOT earth. We know that mountains continue downwords. The mountains are fixed but can shake. They move with the ground but not leave and walk off. so the

And we placed on earth mountains, lest it tumbles with them, and we placed straight roads therein, that they may be guided.

With all due respect, my explanation of isostacy did not come from any islamic site:: i wrote it up myself. It only talks about the gravitation equilibrum from mountains not the mountains stabilizing the earth.

The only physical phenomenon i tried to highlight is the mountains as pegs..

It is an attempt by some muslims to scientify everything by saying mountain stabilise the earth:: it is an inaccurate depiction, i feel.

Like i said; the quran is a book of signs not science:

You are a disingenuous apologist(like ever other by the way), remember you brought the case of isostasy and some how tried to use it as an explanation for mountains stopping the earth from shaking. . .This was what you wrote. . .

It refers to the gravitational equilibrum of the earth, it changes from place to place and it is affected by..... wait for it the mountains:. . .You tried to use the isostory argument , something you do not fully understand, when i called you out and showed you that you do not know what you are talking about you are now coming with this sorry of an excuse?. . .What has isostosy got to go with pegs?. . .Why did you bring it up?. .Now its obvious you are trying to give the passage a new meaning or render it in another way to escape the fact of pegging to avoid shaking. . .

And we placed on earth mountains, lest it tumbles with them, and we placed straight roads therein, that they may be guided.

Where then does your "Awtaad" apply in this sentence?. . .Pls show me. . .You see? you can only try to hard but you can not run away from it. . .Even from you new spin it still shows that the mountains were placed on the earth so that they stop it from tumbling. . .Do mountains stop the earth from tumbling?. . .

Double post

. . . .I knew it. .You and your fellow islamic apologist are very dishonest persons and very clear liars (sorry for the harsh words) but that is the fact. . If we are to go by the pure nonsense and tricks you applied here, then EVERY thing written in any text can be used to say or mean any thing. . .You took one word, gave a litany of meanings that are all different and used each different meaning of the word to apply to the same word and context where is that done?. . .How dishonest can one be?. . .

For example you said that there are 4 meanings to the word alaqah:
a. Hanging/suspended or clinging
b. Suckling blood
c. Leech/worm like substance
d. Blood-clot

You now went to apply all the 4 different meanings to each stage of alaqah?. . .What exactly does the koran mean when it says the word alaqah in context? Does it mean Hanging/suspending or suckling blood for example?. . .It can NOT mean both at the same time. . .The islamic apologist whose work you copied fraudulently tries to say that alaqh means all the 4 different words at the same time and uses it to construct a long argument. . .A word can have different 2 or more different meanings but when used one one of the meanings can apply at a time. . .You can not take all the different meanings of the word and apply them at the same time. if that is permissible then everything is permissible. . .

I noticed this dishonesty in a debate between Dr Willam Craig and an Islamic apologist, the islamic apologist was doing the same thing you and the apologist whose work you copied and all islamic apologist do. .Take a word give it 4-5 different meanings and then say that all the 4 or 4 different meanings are applicable in the context of what you are saying. . . William Craig showed him the absurdity of that and immediately gave used his method to discredit his argument. . He took 3 different words in Greek give a litany of different meanings to each word and used them to destroy the guys arguments. . .I can do the same with Galen embryological stages, during the question and answer time a guy came and used the guys method to embarrass him. . .I will take the Greek word sperm give it a litany of different words, take the Greek word for Flesh give it a litany of different words and use it to arrive exactly at the same conclusion about the modern human embryological development. . . .

A word can only have one meaning in a particular context when used with or without and object. . .The methods and tactics used by islamic apologist is purely fraudulent.Alaqah has 4 different meanings and all the 4 different meanings are then applied in a particular context and used to explain or give meaning to it. eh?. . .Interesting. . .That is just a play on words and a fraudulent one at that. . .

The three stages of human embryology. . .

Week 1–3
5–7 days after fertilization, the blastocyst attaches to the wall of the uterus (endometrium). When it comes into contact with the endometrium it performs implantation. Implantation connections between the mother and the embryo will begin to form, including the umbilical cord. The embryo's growth centers around an axis, which will become the spine and spinal cord. The brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract begin to form.[2]

Week 4–5
Chemicals produced by the embryo stop the woman's menstrual cycle. Neurogenesis is underway, showing brain activity at about the 6th week.[3] The heart will begin to beat around the same time. Limb buds appear where the arms and legs will grow later. Organogenesis begins. The head represents about one half of the embryo's axial length, and more than half of the embryo's mass. The brain develops into five areas. Tissue formation occurs that develops into the vertebra and some other bones. The heart starts to beat and blood starts to flow.[2]

Week 6–8
Myogenesis and neurogenesis have progressed to where the embryo is capable of motion, and the eyes begin to form. Organogenesis and growth continue. Hair has started to form along with all essential organs. Facial features are beginning to develop. At the end of the 8th week, the embryonic stage is over, and the fetal stage begins.[2]. . .

Pls how does this come close to what is written in the koran?. . . .

tbaba1234: The galen steps are more like this

1. SEMEN MIXES WITH BLOOD
2.Flesh Filled with blood
3. Twigs and silhouttes

Are there only 3 stages in Galen?. . .Now who is dishonest here?. . .Here it is and let me break it down. . .

"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 . 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. Stage one i.e Semen. . .No where does it talk about anything mixing with blood. . .Pls show me where it talks about anything mixing with blood as you claim. . .

But when it has been filled with blood , 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. STAGE 2. unshaped flesh

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. 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. Stage 3 Twigs and silhouttes

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...

... 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. . .Stage 4a, bones. . Stage 4b flesh grows on and around the bones[b][/b]

The Quran says

We created man from an essence of clay,

then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place. (Nuftah)

Then We made that drop of fluid into a clinging form, (Alaqa)

and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, (Mughaggh)

and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms.

HOW DOES THIS LOOK LIKE the same?

NO BLOOD MIXING WITH S-EMEN
NO FLESH FILLED with blood
No twigs or silhouttes

Only that it does not talk about blood mixing with semen, that is your own making. . .And you deliberately forgot to add the fourth part, is it because they look very similar?. . .Yet you shout about dishonesty. . . . . .I actually acknowledge that there are different but similar in some ways. . .Even islamic doctors knowledge that so I don't really know what you are on about here. . .The premise of my argument was that people knew about the different stages of development long before the koran was written and the Koran does not get it completely right when compared to modern embryology. . .

Each stage is different/independent in the quranic narration:
Nuftah then alaqa, then lump of flesh

This fits in brilliantly (almost remarkably) with modern knowledge: I am talking present day knowledge and i can give a detailed breakdown using references from the 2000's.

Nope it doesn't. . .Bone are not formed before flesh, as the koran claims. . .You are free to bring any modern studies that shows bones forming before flesh. . .

tbaba1234: Mountains as Pegs:

Your conclusions are laughable..... It is sad that people come up with things that even a 7th century arab will not believe, if the prophet said that to 7th century Arabs: He would have no followers;

And the mountains as pegs? And [have We not] created you in pairs, (78:7-

The word used for pegs in the Quran is awtaad::

Awtaad is driven deeply into the ground to secure the tents of the desert Arabs: That is where the term comes from:

Driven deep to hold the tent from falling off right?. . .How do the mountains hold the earth from shaking?. . . Considering that the koran says that the mountains are pegs to stop the earth from shaking. . .

So when the word 'awtaad' is talked about: It refers to something driven deeply into the ground: I didn't just come up with an arbitary definition

So my analogy with the mount everest was accurate. And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shift with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves; (16:15)

False, something driven into the ground to serve as a peg, your example Awtaad is driven deeply into the ground to secure the tents of the desert Arabs, secure hear means to hold and stop from falling of. . .That also means the mountains are supposed to secure the earth and stop it from shaking as the koran says. .But mountains to not secure the earth and stop it from shaking. . .That is just not true. . .

Have you ever heard of isostasy?

It refers to the gravitational equilibrum of the earth, it changes from place to place and it is affected by..... wait for it the mountains:

The force of gravity arises from the pull of the whole Earth, but it varies slightly from place to place because of the unequal local distribution of mass in the Earth's surface layer.

If a mountain were simply extra rocky material rising above the surrounding plain, the force of gravity would be greater on the mountain by an amount that depends on the size of the mountain, its density, and the slightly greater distance to the mountain top from the centre of the Earth. (http://www.earthfacts.net/earth-dynamics/earthscrustisostasy/)

so the distribution of mass affects the gravitational equilibrium of an area:

It continues:

An increase in the acceleration due to gravity occurs across mountain ranges, but not as much as would be expected because the extra mass rising up is largely compensated for by the greater depth to which the base of the mountains extends down into the denser supporting medium (the astheno­sphere).

(http://www.earthfacts.net/earth-dynamics/earthscrustisostasy/)

The gravitational equilibrium changes given the features of the mountain:: There is an increase in the acceleration due to gravity in mountain range:

Ted Nield talks about this in his book: Supercontinent – 10 billion years in the life of our planet (Granta).

Read about it here: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/pid/6565;jsessionid=D364AAA75A6F2AC13445470D8B846060

Please read it first:

How does this support the koranic claim that mountains are pegs that stop the earth from shaking?. . .Did you really read what you posted?. . .Its clear you really do not understand what it means, you just went to an islamic apologist website where they really do not know what it means and brought it up as a defense. . . here is a simple explanation of what it means from wikipedia. . ."Isostasy (Greek ísos "equal", stásis "standstill" is a term used in geology to refer to the state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth's lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates "float" at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density. This concept is invoked to explain how different topographic heights can exist at the Earth's surface. When a certain area of lithosphere reaches the state of isostasy, it is said to be in isostatic equilibrium. Isostasy is not a process that upsets equilibrium, but rather one which restores it (a negative feedback). It is generally accepted that the earth is a dynamic system that responds to loads in many different ways. However, isostasy provides an important 'view' of the processes that are happening in areas that are experiencing vertical movement. Certain areas (such as the Himalayas) are not in isostatic equilibrium, which has forced researchers to identify other reasons to explain their topographic heights (in the case of the Himalayas, which are still rising, by proposing that their elevation is being "propped-up" by the force of the impacting Indian plate).
In the simplest example, isostasy is the principle of buoyancy where an object immersed in a liquid is buoyed with a force equal to the weight of the displaced liquid. On a geological scale, isostasy can be observed where the Earth's strong lithosphere exerts stress on the weaker asthenosphere which, over geological time flows laterally such that the load of the lithosphere is accommodated by height adjustments."

If I may ask what do you understand by isotosy and how does it stop the earth from shaking?. . .Bottom line is mountains do not stop the earth from shaking, instead it is the shaking of the earth that causes mountains. . . mountains are formed because the the tectonic plates collide, shaking the earth, so if i were a mountain i would want the earth to shake, to make more mountains. . . .

tbaba1234: ^
Do I have to repeat everything i said earlier::

I would appreciate it if you read: It is almost embarrassing that i have to respond to this again after effectively destroying the galen connection in my last post.

I specifically gave definition to Nutfah including references:

Stage 1
Galen says

the form of the S-emen prevails: óðÝñìáôïò in the 2nd century meant semen(Henry Liddell and Robert Scott. Greek-English Lexicon. 7th Edition. Harper and Brothers. 1883, page 1414.)

The word for s-emen in the Arabic is maniyyin as shown in the verses:

nutfah is not as a synonym for s- emen, rather it is a drop of a single extract coming from the s- emen (and the female equivalent), containing essential substances like a s- perm or egg.

Nutfah can be used for both male and female:

As used in the verse

Verily, We have created man from Nutfah Amshaj, in order to try him, so, We made him hearer and seer. (76:2)

The companion of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Ibn Abbas (6th century) mentions that the nutfah is:

from a weak drop of the water/fluid of man and woman. (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas.)

Ibn Kathir (13th century), while commenting on the 2nd verse in chapter 76 of the Qur’an, cites Ibn Abbas (6th century) as describing the nutfah stage as the mixing of two fluids, therefore confirming the statement above: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1422&Itemid=132

So this is not even remotely related to what galen was talking about:


Stage 2:
Galen says

The second stage, a bloody vascularised embryo with unshaped brain, liver and heart

Galen’s second stage that refers to the embryo as being filled with blood.

If the Qur’an borrowed Galenic views on the developing human embryo, the words that should have been used are (mal-at) which means the manner in which something is filled, and (dam) which means blood(Ibid, Vol. 3, page, 917, Ibid, Vol. 5, page 2134.)

the word .alaqah is used in the Qur’an.

Alaqa means
a. Hanging/suspended
b. Suckling blood
c. Leech/worm like substance
d. Blood-clot
(http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000421.pdf)

The word .alaqah alone would not represent the Galenic stage here, because its meanings do not encapsulate the word “filled” and its use to mean blood-clot would be misplaced as the word for blood-clot in Greek is not what is used by galen.

Ibn Kathir explains the word ᶜalaqah to mean a “dangling clot” and Lane's Arabic-Lexicon (link above) clarifies that it means a blood-clot “because of its clinging together”, rather than its physical appearance.

Therefore, using the Arabic words Mala-t and dam would have been more appropriate, because Galen specifically refers to “filled with blood” and not just blood.

At this second stage, Galen uses the word fleshy, to refer to the appearance of the embryo. This undermines the claim that the quranic stages are similar to Galen, because words that can mean fleshy in Arabic, such as mudhgah and lahm, are used to describe later stages. Galen mentions this stage as a fleshy substance filled with blood.

The word in the Qur’an used to describe this stage doesn’t encompass such a meaning, because ᶜalaqah, if we assume it to mean blood or blood-clot, does not encompass a fleshy substance filled with blood.

If someone had to summarise the following statement into Arabic: a blood filled substance that is fleshy - what words must they use to best represent the meaning of the statement?

One thing is for sure that word is not Alaqa


Stage 3:

The Qur’an mentions mudghah as a chewed-like substance and a small piece of flesh.

In contrast, Galen discusses the “conformation” of “the three ruling parts”, “silhouettes” and “twigs”, which is most likely in reference to limb bone formation. He details these three ruling parts as being more visible than the stomach and the limbs.

However, the Qur’an makes no mention of this, and its mention of limb formation comes at the next stage. It is both implausible and impractical, therefore, to suggest that the Qur’an copied the works of Galen as it does not include any of the descriptions provided by Galen at this stage. Also, the word mudghah would have been appropriately used as a summary of the ancient Greek word ἐμβρύειον (em-vree-on)(Greek-English Lexicon. 7th Edition. Harper and Brothers. 1883, page 460.), which means the flesh of an embryo, however Galen did not use this word.

would the word mudghah accurately encompass the meaning of “the three ruling parts”, “silhouettes” and “limbs”? The answer is no. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that there is no mention of flesh, a small piece of meat or something that has been bitten in the original Greek of Galen’s writings describing this stage.

To assert that the Qur’an borrowed Galenic embryology in light of the striking differences discussed above, is tantamount to claiming that evolution and creationism are similar because they address the same field of science. Many questions are raised that belittle this contention, such as: how could the Qur’an, and by extension the Prophet Muhammad, have known what was right, dismissed what was wrong and ensured that the whole quranic narrative on the development of the human embryo was congruent with reality?[i][/i][size=14pt]

You claimed that embryology is detailed in the quran: unheard of at the time and I said that is false because long before the koran was written others had an idea and gave a detail explanation of it. . .Even muslim doctors acknowledge. . .Your refutations are based ONLY on semantics and not on the idea that other people that existed for hundreds of years knew about it as well. . .The basic summary of Galen embryology is VERY similar to that of the koran if you insist that Galen got it wrong then so did the koran. . .Here is a summary of the stages in Galen embryology. . . \

GALEN'S STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT

STAGE 1. The two semens

STAGE 1b. plus menstrual blood

STAGE 2. unshaped flesh

STAGE 3. bones

STAGE 3b. flesh grows on and around the bones

QURANIC STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT

STAGE 1. nutfa -- male and female fluids

STAGE 2. ‘alaqa -- clot

STAGE 3. mudagha -- piece or lump of flesh

STAGE 4. ‘adaam -- bones

STAGE 5. dressing the bones with muscles

If the two are not similar then I agree I do not know the meaning of similarity. . . Modern embryology does not support the koranic version. . .From the spdc website it says that "The final stage of human development which the Qur'an describes is the creation of bones, and the clothing of bones with flesh. However, according to modern embryologists including Prof. Moore, the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle ("flesh" develops [17]. Thus bone and muscles begin to develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially. Whereas however most of the muscle tissue that we have is laid down before birth, bones continue to develop and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into one's teenage years. So far from bones being clothed with flesh, it would be more accurate if the Qur'an had said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only scientifically completely false, but is directly copied from the ancient Greek doctor Galen" . . .

It then goes on to say that "Even professor Keith L. Moore, once at the University of Toronto, who Muslims love to quote as a scientist who saw the light of the Koran? If you buy Moore’s latest sixth edition University textbook called "The developing human", he actually directs his readers to read an essay by Basim Musallam, who we just quoted. who shows that the Koran merely echoes what Greek doctor "Galen" wrote 450 years earlier. It seems Dr. Moore is not as impressed today. (B. Musallam, The human embryo in Arabic scientific and religious thought, in, G. R. Dunstan (ed.) (University of Exeter Press, 1990) The human embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and European traditions, pp. 32-46)"

Semantics means nothing here, Galen knew about the different stages of embryology long before it was written in the koran, he got some things wrong and so that the koran. . .Even muslims doctors acknowledge the similarities. . .There are difference but over all they are similar and the claim that embryology was not know at that time is a big fail. . . .

1. Historians such as Manfred Ullman and Franz Rosenthal are skeptical about the material referring to bin Kalada. They refer to him as a legendary figure,[ M. Ullman. Die Medizin im Islam. Leiden ad Cologne. 1970, pages 19-20; F. Rosenthal, apud his translation of Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddima, II, 373.] which has literary allusions to characters of fictitious creation. Professor Gerald Hawting, in his essay The Development of the Biography of al-Harith ibn Kalada and the Relationship between Medicine and Islam, writes:

[i]“In these latter sources the information about al-Harith is fragmentary, references to his profession as a doctor are not consistent and, where they occur, tend to be incidental, and there seems to be little information about the nature of his medicine or detail about his life.”[The Islamic World: From Classic to Modern Times. Edited, C. E. Bosworth et al. Darwin. 1991, page 129]

From this perspective, using unreliable or inconclusive historical narratives concerning bin Kalada’s “profession as a doctor” serve to weaken the argument that the Prophet copied the 7th century physician.

2. There appears to be no evidence of a major medical school in either the 6th or 7th century. The academic medic and historian Plinio Prioreschi in his book A History of Medicine highlights that there are no Persian sources that substantiate the claim that Jundishapur played a significant role in the history of medicine

3. It is generally believed that bin Kalada graduated from the Persian medical school at Jundishapur. However, the existence of such a school has recently been questioned by a number of leading historians. For instance David C. Lindberg in his book The Beginnings of Western Science highlights the legendary status of the school:

“An influential mythology has developed around Nestorian activity in the city of Gondeshapur [Jundishapur] in south-western Persia. According to the often-repeated legend, the Nestorians turned Gondeshapur into a major intellectual center by the sixth century, establishing what some enthusiasts have chosen to call a university, where instruction in all of the Greek disciplines could be obtained. It is alleged that Gondeshapur had a medical school, with a curriculum based on Alexandrian textbooks, and a hospital modeled on Byzantine hospitals, which kept the realm supplied with physicians trained in Greek medicine. Of greatest importance, Gondeshapur is held to have played a critical role in the translation of Greek scholarship into Near Eastern languages and, indeed, to have been the single most important channel by which Greek science passed to the Arabs. Recent research has revealed a considerably less dramatic reality. We have no persuasive evidence for the existence of a medical school or a hospital at Gondeshapur, although, there seems to have been a theological school and perhaps an attached infirmary. No doubt Gondeshapur was the scene of serious intellectual endeavour and a certain amount of medical practice —it supplied a string of physicians for the Abbasid court at Baghdad beginning in the eighth century— but it is doubtful that it ever became a major center of medical education or of translating activity. If the story of Gondeshapur is unreliable in its details, the lesson it was meant to teach is nonetheless valid.” ( David C. Lindberg. The Beginnings of Western Science. University Of Chicago Press. 1992, pages, 164-165)

So we are talking of a school that never even existed....

Other historians have written about the existence of the school of which some of them are also muslims, I know you as a muslim will prefer to take the opinions of those that agree with the muslim claim. . .From the same website it says. . ."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 [].G. Sarton, (Williams and Wilkins, 1927) Introduction to the History of Science, vol I, pp. 423-424 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 [A. A. Khairallah (American Press, Beirut, 1946) Outline of Arabic Contributions to Medicine, p. 24].

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 [].H. Bailey (ed) (Cambridge University Press, 1975) Cambridge History of Iran, vol 4, p. 414

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 [.C. Elgood (Camrbidge University Press, 1951) A Medical History of Persia, p. 98]



According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia and al-Qifti [,Ibn Abi Usaybia, "Classes of Physicians" in 649 AH/1242AD; or al-Qifti, "History of the Philosophers", 624AH/1227AD.] 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." [M. Z. Siddiqi (Calcutta University, 1959) Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature, p. 6-7 ]

He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes [E. G. Browne (Cambridge University Press, 1962) Arabian Medicine, p. 1]. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him [ M. J. L. Young et al., (Cambridge University Press, 1990) Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: Religion, Learning and Science in the `Abbasid Period, p. 342 ]. He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his "teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [i.e., Muhammed] [M. Meyerhof (1931) Ali at-Tabari's "Paradise of Wisdom", one of the oldest Arabic Compendiums of Medicine, Isis, vol 16, pp. 6-54 ]. "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." [C. Elgood, op. cit., p. 66 ]

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 [M. Meyerhof (1926) New light on Hunain Ibn Ishaq and his period, Isis, vol 8, pp. 685-724 ].

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)." [L. LeClerc, Histoire de la M‚decine Arabe (Burt Franklin, New York; originally published in Paris, 1876) vol I, p. 123 ] 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 [M. Meyerhof (1926) New light on Hunain Ibn Ishaq and his period, Isis, vol 8, pp. 685-724]."

tbaba1234: The only problem with this hypothesis is that all of the stories of the prophets were revealed in Mecca: Not in Medina:

In Mecca the primary audience were the pagan arabs who had no clue of these stories; The interaction with Jews was in medina; By then most of these stories had already been revealed:

So there was no way, he got it from the Jews because there were none in Mecca at the time...

Let me get something straight. . .Firstly, the koran as we know it today did not exist during the days of Mohammed it came after. The islamic claim is that Mohammed got the revelations recited them to people who wrote them down and later compiled them into a book, that is the muslim claim but the reality of the matter is that the author(s) of the koran as we know it today remain unknown. . . After the death of Mohammad there was a time when Uthman the third Caliph of Islam ordered to burn all the copies of koran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of the koran at that time and so Uthman took this step. According to koran and hadith, Mohammad was the last prophet of islam. Uthman was not a prophet and we do not know whether he kept the valid and original koran or destroyed it? We also do not know how he determined which one was the correct version of koran and the editing that was done before it was presented by him. It is believed that his own version of the koran is what is available till this day. . .

Secondly, we are told in one of the hadith (v) Sahih Bukhari 4.56.814 (A Christian who converted to Islam wrote Muhammad's revelations; then he reverted back to Christianity and claimed that Muhammad knew nothing and he wrote the Quran for Muhammad. . .

I say this because the Christian who wrote the revelations for Mohammed and later claimed he wrote the koran for mohammed because knew nothing should have been familiar with the jewish stories in egypt. . . .

lets assume he got it from the jews; How did he know what to change? filter the rubbish and leave the more reasonable stuff:: Another instance is the noah flood: In islam, It is a local flood that affects only Noah people: Ofcourse, this makes more sense than a global flood:

How come the stories are much more reasonable and in line with historical, common facts?

You said the language was dead before the time of Mohammed and all the hieroglyphics were missing. . .How then did you get to know that what the writers of the koran said was right historically since the language was long dead and the hieroglyphics missing?. . .

There are no records of Jews in Mecca; you will have to come up with a better hypothesis....

But there was a christian who wrote the revelations for him according to the story. . .

The Quran was memorised by the companions of the prophet; including his family and written by those who could write: Any attempt to change it would have led to a huge war... It was compiled in a book form within a few years of his death by abu bakr, the first caliph and later standardised to the Quraishi dialect(The prophet dialect) by uthman. We can be reasonably sure that the book we have today is the Quran of Muhammad.

As i said earlier Uthman ordered to burn all the copies of koran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of the koran at that time and so Uthman took this step.

Most of what we know of Egypt are of the leaders of egypt and about the culture of the people: historical records of Moses in Egypt is not really a problem because he was never a prominent figure in Egypt: Joseph existed in the old kingdom: We have significantly less information about the old kingdom. In hieroglyphics many people are addressed by their titles so their real names are never known.

How did you get to know about old and new kingdom when you admit that the writing were lost and that the language was dead before Mohammed? I am going by your own assertions here. . .

There are way too many coincidences in the Quran.... The simplest explanation would have to come from the divine because there is simply no naturalistic explanation for it. I just touched the surface of what this book contains.

Nope, there is nothing written in the koran that could not have been written by people that lived at that time. . .I said that ancient Greek philosophers for example have written and make fantastic claims long before the koran was written that they could never had known about at that time(I can list them for you if you want), things we are just confirming or discovering with our modern equipment and technology. . .Does that mean they were all revealed to them by the Greek Gods of old?

^^

Am going to the office now, will give a rebuttal later. . .Cheers. . .

tbaba1234: Like i said, you claim there are errors:: show me where they are>

The good thing is that we can look at what galen claimed and what the quran claims since we have the two views:

1st stage:

On s-emen, Galen says:

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 s-emen prevails. 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 s-emen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it s-emen. (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On S-emen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992), pages 92-95, 101.)

So from a Galenic perspective this stage is merely describing what can be seen with the naked eye, which is a s-emen like substance.

This raises a significant contention; if the Qur’an was a summary of Galenic views on embryology then the Arabic word that should have been used to represent this understanding is mani or maniyyan.

In the first stage; This is what the Quran states:

Had he not been a s-perm (nutfah) from a s-emen (maniyyin) emitted? (75:37) (the meaning of nutfah is quite detailed but one of it is singular entity which is a part of a bigger group of its kind (Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, Book 5, page 725.)

This perspective on nutfah highlights how the intended use of this word is not to portray the meaning of s-emen but rather that it is a drop or a substance from s-emen. Also, in another verse the Qur’an explains how the human being is made from an extract of a liquid disdained (s-emen).

And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised( 32:

nutfah is not as a synonym for s- emen, rather it is a drop of a single extract coming from the s- emen (and the female equivalent), containing essential substances like a s- perm or egg.

It is worth noting that Galen adopted the view that the s-emen came from blood. Galen writes:

An artery and a vein are observed to go to each of the testicles, not in a straight path, as they do all other parts, but twisting first in many shapes, like grape tendrils or ivy... Andin these many twists that they make before reaching the testicles you can see the blood gradually growing white. And finally, when the vessel has now reached the testicle, the substance of the s-emen is clearly visible in it...but they generated it from blood, which spent a great deal of time in them; for this is the use of the twisting. And as they altered the quality of the blood they changed it to s-emen (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On S-emen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992), pages 107 - 109.)

Galen also asserts that s-emen from both the male and female mix with menstrual blood. In his book On S-emen, he dedicates a whole section on disagreeing with the Aristotelian position that the male s-emen mixes with menstrual blood, and articulates a case for the mother contributing s- emen as well as menstrual blood to form the fetus.

Galen concludes that the formation of the fetus arises from the two s-emens mixing with the subsequent involvement of the menstrual blood.

The Quranic description is as follows:

We created man from an essence of clay-
then We placed him as a NUTFAH [/i]in a safe place.
Then We made that drop of fluid into [i]Alaqa (baby in womb)
and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators. (development of baby) (chapter 23:14)

Nutfah- nutfah can mean a drop or single entity produce by a combination of drops from the Fluid and the female equivalent, which contain essential extracts or substances like a Fluid or an egg. ((Hans Wehr. A Dictionary of Modern Arabic. Edited by J Milton Cowan. 3rd Edition. 1976, page 974.) ((Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, Book 5, page 725.)(Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 1, page 465) (http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1422&Itemid=132)

Alaqa- a. Hanging/suspended
b. Suckling blood
c. Leech/worm like substance
d. Blood-clot
(http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000421.pdf)

The Galen ideas and processes are not mentioned in the Qur’an. The quranic narrative explicitly states that the nutfah and alaqah stages are distinct and separate using the word then:

So if you say by fire by force:

that nutfah means s-emen (which it doesn't) and alaqa means blood ((which it doesn't) and since galen says s-emen comes from blood: the Quran is copying galen:

You are still wrong:

At no point does the Qur’an mention that the nutfah comes from the .alaqah, and then subsequently mixes with the .alaqah (again!?) to form the human fetus. This clearly undercuts any claim that the Qur’an is similar to Galenic embryology.

The galen ideas are completely alien to the Quran. It is even funny to try and compare.

People try to bring up explanations for things they do not comprehend.

Here is what Galen wrote. . .

https://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/1ap1fo1h4wg3hv1/images/2-2c5d2dde16.jpg

Eglish translation:
"But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and inorder to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetusoverall into four periods of time.
1.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 inthe case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen.

2.But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic Alaqa), and heart, brain and liver arestill unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity andconsiderable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has theform of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find thatHippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus

3.The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the threeruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (ArabicMudgha). You will see the conformation of the three ruling partsmore clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, thatof the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating bythe term their similarity to branches.

4.The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have beendifferentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvellous no longer calls the foetusan embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as ananimal now fully formed (Arabic `A new creation')."

The first stage of Galen corresponds to (Nufta), the drop of semen.
The second stage, a bloody vascularised embryo 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 was when all the organs were well formed, joints were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move.

A dispassionate look at galen and Quran embryology reveal great differences:

There are differences but there are also similarities. . .Even muslim doctors acknowledge that fact. . .It was early Muslim doctors,including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the similarity. Basim Musallam, as Director of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies in Cambridge, U.K. concludes:"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account ... There is no doubtthat medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an andGalen, for Arabic science employed the same Quranic terms to describe theGalenic stages.". . . .

Not only Galen but Aristotle. . .From the spdc website its states that. . "In this section, 728a, Aristotle speaks of the male semen as being in a pure state ... "It follows that what the female would contribute to the semen of the male would be material for the semen to work upon." In other words the semen clots the menstrual blood.

Then he continues, "Nature forms from the purest material the flesh ... and from the residues thereof bones, sinews, hair, and also nails ... and lastly, round about the bones, and attached to them by thin fibrous bands, grow the fleshy parts. ..." 654b

Clearly the Qur'an follows this exactly, sperm clotting the menstrual blood which forms meat. Then the bones are formed and lastly "round about the bones ... grow the fleshy parts" as we see in the following chart.

STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE

STAGE 1. sperm

STAGE 2. catamenia -- menstrual blood

STAGE 3. flesh

STAGE 4. bones

STAGE 5. around the bones grow the fleshy parts"

The bottom line is that is is very clear that for many years before the Koran the development of the embryo was divided into stages. And it was known by many. . There is a long read from the spdic website about how the writing of Galen and Aristotle influence Mohammed. . .I will just list the summary. .

1.The works of Galen, Hippocrates and Aristotle, written originally in Greek were translated into Syriac in the century preceding the birth of Muhammed.
2.The Syriac translations were kept, and taught, in the newly founded medicalschool at Jundishapur, in what is now Iran.
3.One of the earliest and most celebrated doctors to graduate from Jundishapur was al Harith ibn Kalada.
4.Al Harith ibn Kalada became a companion of the Prophet and influenced hismedical beliefs, according to Muslim historians of this period

Mountains as pegs:

(Quran- 21:31): And We have set on earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them.

(Quran-16:15): And he has cast the earth firm mountains lest it shake with you…

(Quran-31:10): He created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it shake with you

From this we can conclude that the writer of the koran thought mountains are pegs that hold the earth and actually prevent it from shaking of the earth. Fact is, this particular reasoning for existence of mountains is a direct contradiction with modern geological knowledge. Mountains have pegged the earth with what? We all know why how and where a peg is being used. Pegs are normally used to fix something against a firm support. We hang pictures/portrait in our drawing room using pegs with the wall. Tents are fixed using pegs with the ground so that they stand firm and so on. But mountains pegged the earth with what object?. . .Ancient people viewed mountains as pegs.Here is what RIK VEDA (Hindu Scripture) told many thousand years before the koran was written.

"Sabita made this Earth fixed by different devices like hills and mountains and sustains sky without pillars so that it does not move" [RIK VEDA]

According to the koran, mountains are there for stabilizing earth from shaking, which is completely false some muslims scholars have tired to defend that position but their arguments have been destroyed completely. . .Mountains are never viewed as the stabilizing factors. I never heard or read that any world famous geologist ever claimed that mountains help earth to stabilize or mountain prevents earth from moving/shaking. Actually Mountains are the source of earth’s shaking. Their formation caused and still causes the surface of the earth to shake. Where there are more mountains, there are more earthquakes and more shaking of the planet earth. . . .

Mount Everest, stands approximately 9 km above the surface of the Earth, has a root deeper than 125 km. The fact that mountains have roots that go into the surface of the earth; could not be known by a desert Arab over a thousand years ago.....

No where in the koran does it say that mountains have deep roots, no where. . .The koran only states that mountains are pegs that are supposed to stop the earth from shaking which no scientific basis and is very false, maountians do not peg the earth and they do not stop the earth from shaking rather they cause the earth to shake as a result of their formation and presence. . .The koran does not say that mountains have deep roots, these are very different things. . .The mount everest example is your own making and has nothing to do with the koran. . .Mohammed and the writers of the koran did not know anything about mount everest and its deep roots. . .

If he guessed, it is one of those many impressive guesses by the Quran.

The koran does not say anything about mountains having deep roots. . .That is your own making. . .

The darkness of the depths of the sea:

The Quran states:

Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with waves topped by waves, topped by dark clouds, (layers of) darkness upon darkness: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allah has not appointed light for him there is no light. (24:40)

https://www.thekeytoislam.com/en/assets/images/g_ocean_light.jpg
This diagram shows the depth that light will penetrate in clear ocean water. Because red light is absorbed strongly, it has the shallowest penetration depth, and blue light has the deepest penetration depth. (Applied Optics, Vol. 20 (177) Smith, R.C. and K.S. Baker. 1981) Also see official NASA website.

In the extreme depths of the ocean there is no light only darkness. The cause for this is that sunrays cannot reach it.
The darkness in deep seas and oceans is found around a depth of 200 meters and below. At this depth, there is almost no light. Below a depth of 1000 meters there is no light at all.

It is very possible that that the people knew about the darkness that occurs under the ocean. . .Or it could be an intelligent guess. . .After all MANY ancient Greek philosophers that lived hundreds of year before Mohammed have written and talked about natural phenomena or about the earths structure and the cosmos they could never have known at that time that we are just discovering. . .So it is nothing new. . .

The verse also talks about internal waves:: "Internal waves at interface between two layers of water of different densities. One is dense (the lower one), the other one is less dense (the upper one)." (Oceanography, gross, p. 204)

Internal waves?. . .Pls where does it talk about internal waves?. . .

Another coincidence Muhammad never sailed on a sea: The chances of him getting this knowledge is limited:

I have already addressed this, others that lived very long have talked about things we are just discovering that leaves us in awe. . .

On the so called error you talked about: The verse says:

We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty [in] the stars,-
[For beauty] and for guard against all obstinate rebellious jinns, (37:6-7)

So in this verse: Allah says that He has created the stars to beautify the heavens and to guard against jinns (unseen creatures) who try to ascend past the lowest heaven:

There is no mention of shooting stars (meteors): Ibn kathir uses meteors (shooting stars) based on his understanding of what they were then...

Now we know a little more about stars: We know that all stars have their orbits and move at tremendous pace:

I do not think it is out of the question that stars moving at that pace act as a deterent for Jinns trying to get past the lowest heavens.

This can't be considered an error because there is no way of getting confirmation of this: Jinns are unseen creatures: Our knowledge of them is limted.

Unless you can see Jinns and how they operate: You can't prove or disprove this.

Stars to beautify the heavens?. . .But the stars are just distant suns. Most of them are solar systems like ours with billions of them having planets revolving round them. . .How they are created to beautify the heavens makes no scientific sense based on what we know about them today, but as for the ancient man that thinks the stars are tiny white dots in the heavens(sky) it makes perfect sense. . .

tbaba1234: In this case they are no longer God: they are demi gods: the god of thunder; the god of war; No one has absolute power: It is still impossible in this case because the duties will definitely clash due to the interconnectedness of our universe: What happens then? whose authority takes precedent? a battle of wills? If one overides the other then they are not God.

Like i said it creates more problems than it answers: One God is the logical conclusion to the order of the universe:

They still are Gods. . .If they can operate in such a way that there won't be a clash, remember they are not humans so there is no need attributing human wills and limitations unto them. . .Ocamm's razor makes sense in this case as I earlier on pointed. . .

True, in Islam there is room for that:

There are four classical schools of thought in Islam: The basic beliefs are the same: There are differences in opinion in issues that are not so clear -cut and that is understandable.

The basic belief is the same: As long as you associate no partners with the creator and accept the prophet Muhammad as his final messenger and do righteous deeds. you are fine.

Anyone who falls outside this and claims to be muslim isn't really one because this is made abundantly clear in the Quran.

As you pointed out, despite the external revelation different schools of thoughts and opinions exist. . .Despite associating no creator to Allah and accepting prophet Mohammed, muslims still hold very divergent opinions on different issues, some castigate others and in some case fight others over differences in opinion and interpretations. .Some call others unbelievers for difference in opinion. . .The bottom line is despite the so called external revelations, disagreements and conflict over interpretation still exist and has not been solved. . .

The egyptian language was dead for centuries before Islam came to arabia:: The details of Muhammad's(Peace and blessings of God be upon him) life are recorded in detail: From the way he combed his hair to how he went to the bathroom. Easily the most recorded man in history. Where did the oral tradition come from? If oral traditions did exist in that regard, then it would have been adopted by the bible writers first.... You would have to produce where the oral tradition came:

Egyptian language being dead does not mean anything here since the story still got to him. . .There were Jews in arabia before islam came and he could have gotten the stories from them. . .Sure the jews living in arabia were familiar with oral traditions already. . . .

Pre-Islamic poetry are still existent today, We know a lot about the pre-islamic oral culture and the things they talked about: Nothing stated is remotely related to Egypt or to Joseph for that matter.

Firstly only part of pre-islamic poetry exist and most of what we know about pre-islamic arabia we know it from the mouth of the muslims. . .The point is jews already live in arabia before Mohammed. . .He could have gotten the story from them. . .The Koran as we know it today did not exist during Mohammed. . .Later redactors could have included it. . .

The questions is where did he get it from?

From the jews that already live in arabia. . . And based on the fact that the Koran as we know it did not even exist during the days of Mohammed. . .

Your hypothesis is one drawn by a man who has refused to believe.

My hypothesis is based on oscam's razor. . .The simplest explanation is always the best. . . .

The lack of evidence of the exodus could simply mean that it only involved people in smaller numbers not thousands as stated by the biblical account.

The biblical account is the basis for all the assumed historical belief of that story. . .So far there is no historical evidence out side the bible or the koran that shows that the jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. . .The Egyptians have no record of Joseph or Moses. . .No evidence what so ever to show that the exodus ever took place. . .

Image123: Heaven's where i come from. There's no place like home. Over here, i'm a stranger. That i'm going home is enough to satisfy. In God's presence, there is fulness, sorry, fullness of joy. Over here on strange land, na so so intermittent joy with lotsa loads of toil, sin and temptation.

I hope you die and go to heaven tomorrow. .. . .

God is "self evident" but can not be shown to exist without the use of holy book, religious convictions, doubtful anecdotes and personal beliefs? Self evident indeed. . .

vedaxcool: Playing dumb? are we? though its is hard to extinguish, find your answer here https://www.nairaland.com/896824/what-atheism-contributed-humanity#10432405[

I din't see you make any sensible contribution there. . .

Allah gives guidiance . . . Don't know what you are yapping about . . .

Hitting you head and reaping thing some myth or superstitious belief will not make me accept it. . .Evidence to show that those that claim this elusive guidence of Allah are better than those that do not is what?. . .

the laughter of a confused mind is merely derilium to the sane, have you ever bothere reading within the context of what I wrote, or are always this confused? ehh! Mr. i got a million dollar in my account? lumping my response to make your usual illiterate case is not baffling Firts let me quote what I wrote and see if the confused mind can read between the lines:

Without much ado, Islam contribution to mankind is what I call the Great Transformation, the arabs were a coarce race who sacrifice their female daughter for no reasons, Islam brought an unceremonious end to such practice. (<<<<<Point number 1) That is just one. Islam brought to the arabs an egalitarian society and abolished class war, it re - emphasis the equality of all, the rich, the poor, the black, the white etc. (<<<Point nmber 2) Again we see the Great Transformation, united the warring factions of the arabs, take medinah for example, the major clans there ended their centuary old strife on the emigration of the prophet pbuh, the prophet pbuh brought an acceptable solution to their troubles. Again Islam did not stop there, the whole of arabia became one united group as a result of Islam. (<<<< Point number 3) We again talk of the abolishment of unhelpful practices such as the alcohol consumption, gambling etc .

[quote]Point number one is clear the arabs sacrificed their duaghters for superstitiops rasons, Islam brought an end to that.

Firstly, I am yet to see any historical account of this claim of yours, secondly if that assertion is true then replaced it with war and strife, killing of infidels, killing of apostates, beheading of criminals, amputation of thieves, stoning to death for adultery etc. . .Which are also all based on the superstitious belief in Islam. . .

Point Number 2 Islam ablosihed class war ansd emphasis the equality of all.

And this can be found in which islamic society. . .

Point 3 before the advent of Islam, the arabs were in serious strife, Prophet Muhammad pbuh ended all this by inter clan war, this again only came about due to Islam.

Really, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Palestine(hams and fatah) Yemen to list a few arab are not in serious strife?. . .Islam has not ended any strife in the Arab world since the arab world today remains one of the most violent regions of the world. . . .

which leaves us with the question, What were you really replying? Again we see our ignorant atheist was answering questions that were never asked and answers never sorted for

I was replying your post. . .

Your Scaricty of common sense can not be attributed to me, as common knwoldge knows the practice of gambling and achohol intake are bad practice, Islam overruled such practice and till date Muslims remain the largest community of non - achoholics and Gamblers! Do you understand what questions are being answered or you are being suicidal as your atheist colleageues are?

OK. . . .

Islam the light which Allah perfects again encouraged charity, thereby promoting compassion and kindness. (<<< Point 4) Many medicine practitioners have spoken well on how Fasting helps the health of those that practice it. Again Islam brought a consistent practice of this Fasting to its adherents, again it is during this practice that the muslims also nourishes his soul.(<<< Point 5) A[b]gain we see prayers the muslim engange in, 5 times a day we pray, the benefit are immense as troubled souls are able to have a sense of peace and tranquility that allows them to undergo very difficult situation with committing suicide as most atheist would.[/b]( <<< Point 6)

The actual benefit of fasting to the human body remains a controversy, while some doctors point to its advantages others have listed or pointed to its disadvantages. . . .Prayer gives a sense of peace and tranquility?. . .And the evidence for that is what?. . .That is why I asked you to provide the evidence that shows muslims that pray have more peace and tranquility than non muslims that do not pray. . .

See how the deluded atheist skips the salient points written then rushed to mis-interprete what I wrote, you again showed you suffer serious moral degradation and you are highly dishonest! my points are clear Muslims that pray feel tranquility and peace. I waiting to see you delusions misinterprete what I wrote, Did I say I have discredited you atheists. . .

Atheist that do not pray also feel peace and trnaqulity. . . .

Now to the gravely ignorant atheist Slavery and racism are one and the same thing, but again in his typical disregard for the truth and honesty and his fanatical clinging on ill logics took my points out of context and again showed ill reasoning, your argument is about what really? That Islam does not attack racism? please explain your use of . . . is your $tupid ploy to enable you change your position once your argument has been exposed as being barely ration nor sane? I ask again are you claiming Islam does not attack racism? cause my point is clearly expressed that Islam promotes bortherminess amongst people and attacks the root of racism, some thing that was hardly done by previous religion . . .

Islam attacks racism, so? Every religion attacks racism so what exactly are you on about here?. . .

I woulkd have replied but this point has been addressed by my muslims brothers, but this again shows your illogical atitude after being answerted mazaje made this statement to show he is not only a liar but lacking any sign of being reasonable, see what mazaje wrote when shown proof of muslim inventions:


[b]You need to know that there is a very BIG difference between islamic contribution and the contribution of muslims. . . .I asked for the contributions of islam. . .Let me give you examples of islamic contributions, most of you have been just running around chasing shadows. . .The islamic laws of inheritance is an islamic contribution. . .Jihad is an islamic contribution. . .Coffee is not an islamic contribution. . .Sweet orange fruit was first cultivated in china does that mean its a contribution of buddhism?. . .Is Newtown's law of motion a contribution of christianity? What about the Mendel's law of hereditary? Is the airplane a christian contribution?. . .What about cars and cameras?. . . Hospitals are not islamic contributions just as aspirins and chloro-quine and not christian inventions or contributions. . .Non of what the writer wrote is an islamic contribution, muslim contribution, yes but islamic contribution, no. . .As for science the greatest scientist that ever lived and the greatest scientist alive today are all non muslims. . .So don't even go there. . .[/b]



Isn't this the most confused mind ever? Is this thinking a product of Insanity commonly associated with atheism . . .? what sort of man keeps changing the goal post . . .

Coming from the same fo[i]o[/i]l that berated Seun for saying that nairaland is a product of atheism. . .Is the car the product of christianity?. . .What about orange. cos I saw your man listing coffe as a product of islamic contribution to science. . .So christian inventions are a contribution of christianity right?. . .You are a senseless joke. . . . . .

So much to say, again in personal hygine Islam promoted clean and healthy living amongst its adherents, take for example using the conveince, muslims are required to wash off impurities from their bodies this we know elements filthiness which are a bases for diseases.

where the write Muslims cities are amongst the 10 most cleanest? so what exactly is the deluded slave of godlesnes saying?

Is islam the only religion that calls for clean and healthy living amongst its adherents?. . .Remember the OP asked for contributions that are uniquely islamic. . .

ariblaze: i dont see the reason for arguments in here. . . .its a very simple thing, even the so called scientists conclude a superior force governs all that which is now. . . .they stopped short of calling him God. .

This statement is completely false. . .

tbaba1234: This contention(complexity of the universe), although valid, is misplaced .

A powerful being creating the whole universe is a far more coherent and simple explanation than a plurality of causes in line with occam's razor.In philosophical terms the principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one.

Occam's razor makes sense in this case. . . . .I understand since there isn't any evidence for singularity or plurality its better to go with the simplest one. . .

What has to be understood is that the best explanation for the origins of the universe is the concept of God and not ‘designer’ or ‘creator’. There may be a possibility of multiple designers or creators, as highlighted by the A380 super jumbo jet example, but there cannot be more than one God. you may argue that they can agree to have the same will or each have their own domain, but that would mean that their wills are now limited and passive. which would mean they are not Gods anymore by definition!.

What is the concept of God? How can there not be one God?. . .The concept of one God does not make better sense than the concept of many Gods when looked at in context and definition. . .

Ibn Abi Al-Izz describes the situation best:

If there were two creators and they disagreed about something, such as one wanted to move X, whereas the other did not want it to moved, or one wanted to make Y a living being, whereas the other wanted to make it lifeless, then, logically speaking, there are only three possibilities.

First, the wills of the two are both carried out;
second, only the will of one of them is carried out;
third, the will of neither of them is carried.

The first case is not possible because it requires the existence of contraries (something being alive and dead at the same time for instance).

The third possibility is also ruled out because it would imply that a body is neither moving nor not moving and this is impossible. This would also imply that both of them are incapable or carrying out their wills, which would disqualify them from being God.Finally, if the will of one is realised and not that of the other, he alone will deserve to be God and the one whose will is not realised cannot be considered God.

This argument can be done away with when the said Gods come about around a specific purpose to create the universe. . .Or when each of them has a specific role to play in creation and maintenance of the universe, it doesn't stop any of them from being God. . .

I will take it slowly this time:

The God of the Universe must necessarily exist outside the universe for Him to create it.... Right?.... For you to build your house, you must exist outside of it:

Therefore, the God of the universe is not bounded by the constraints of the universe because He doesn't need it to exist.

Now, the conceptual differential arguments says that we only appreciate difference/duality because of the constraints of our universe and the concepts which we have used to define things. The creator on the other hand is not bound by the concepts we have defined for ourselves because he exists outside of the universe.

The plurality of causes would mean we have to constrain God to the concepts that define what we see as different.

I really don't see how this negates the existence of many Gods. . . .

The problems with internal revelation has already being addressed:Because Humans have been given a free will for instance and we grow up under different environments : the results of an internal revelation would be different from individual to individual.

If for instance, everyone has a dream and God speaks to us in our individual dreams... My interpretation of that dream is dependent on my experiences:: Some people will take it as a sign from God, others would take it a some weird dream and pay no importance to it. Others might interpret it as an alien abduction. Our individual differences would determine our interpretation of events.

Some people say they have revelations/dreams that made them muslims or christians for instance. While this is possible, it is highly subjective, because sometimes dreams are just a reflection of our daily activities, thoughts and memories.

On the other hand, an external revelation can be looked at objectively, using common sense and intellect.

I agree with you, but external revelation still does not solve the problem of different interpretation, it is evident that the interpretation of the Koran which you according to your argument is a good example of external revelation. . .Many people interpret the Koran very differently based on personal opinions, experiences and prejudice. . .

I will give just one example of the historical accuracy of the Quran:

Titles of Egyptian Rulers in the Quran
1.) First of all, it is important to note that hieroglyphics were lost at the time of the prophet Muhammad.

Moses was not the only prophet who lived in the lands of Egypt in the history of ancient Egypt. The Prophet Joseph had lived in Egypt long before the time of Moses.
We encounter a certain constrast while reading about the stories of Moses and Joseph.
While addressing the Egyptian ruler at the time of Joseph, the work "malik" (the King) is used in the Qur'an and Pharoah is used for the leader at the time of moses

Historical records available today show us the reason for the different nomenclature of these rulers. The word "pharaoh" was originally the name given to the royal palace in ancient Egypt. The rulers of the old dynasty did not use the title.

The use of the word pharaoh as the title of the ruler did not start until the "New Kingdom" era of Egyptian history. This period started with the 18th dynasty (1539-1292 BC), and by the 20th dynasty (945-730 BC) the word "pharaoh" was adopted as title of respect.

Joseph lived at the time of the Old Kingdom, and hence the word "malik"(king) was used for the Egyptian ruler rather than "pharaoh". On the contrary, since Moses lived at the time of the New Kingdom, the ruler of Egypt is addressed as "pharaoh".

In the biblical account, pharoah is used for the two eras: It is a subtle but significant difference.

I don't know what to make of this, Oral tradition is what is used in the past an information was were passed using that tradition for thousands of years, the missing of the hieroglyphics does not really matter as long as the oral tradition which was common at that time was in place. . .The bible I believe gives a better and more detailed of the story of Moses than the Koran and archaeologist use the bible depiction when looking for evidence to support the narrative than that of the Koran. . .What about the complete lack of evidence to support the biblical and koranic narratives, most archaeologist and Egyptologist agree that exodus is non historical. . .100 years of combing of the Sinai desert show nothing to support the exodus narrative. . .

Natural phenonmenon
First of all, the greatest miracle is that there are no errors in the quran's description of natural phenomenon for a book that old.

Embryology is detailed in the quran: whole research papers have been written on the subject. unheard of at the time:
Galen got it wrong, aristotle got it wrong.

http://www.iera.org.uk/downloads/Embryology_in_the_Quran_v2.pdf

There are many others, Quran talks about the depths of the Oceans being the darkest part, the mountains as pegs:::e.tc

There are errors in the Koran. how about the error that shooting stars are missiles sent against Jinns that go to eaves drop in paradise?. . .As for the islamic embryology it is false to claim it was unheard of at that time because muslim doctors like Ibn-Qayyim, agreed when they saw the Koranic material, mirrored a Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD long before the Koran was written. . . In 1983 Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concluded, "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" (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54) In other words when it comes to embryology the Qur'an merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered 450 years earlier. . . .

As for oceans being the darkest parts. are oceans darker than some caves that have absolutely no access to light?. . . Mountains are pegs?. . .Pegs? really?. . .[/quote]

I got this reasons from some where, I added a little to it and it completely sums up why I do not believe in God and religion. Here are the reasons. . .


[b]*[/b]There is not one iota of unequivocal evidence that any God exists.

[b]*[/b]God cannot explain all that exists because God itself cannot be explained. This claim just gratuitously swaps one mystery for another.

[b]*[/b]Religions do not explain any mechanism or process whereby God created everything. It is effectively an appeal to magic.

[b]*[/b]Religious faith is generally indistinguishable from gullibility. Trust and faith, as human concepts, are normally based on experience and reason. Religious faith is necessarily based on belief in unproved and unknowable things.

[b]*[/b]A god or anything that exists outside the realm of natural reality is necessarily unknowable, unintelligible and incoherent. It is therefore irrational to believe in something that is supernatural.

[b]*[/b]Religious scripture:
[b]*[/b]is man-made
[b]*[/b]contains many translation, historical and scientific and interpretation errors
[b]*[/b]is often self-contradictory
[b]*[/b]often contradicts known facts
[b]*[/b]promotes conversion by violence
[b]*[/b]calls for punishment and death to unbelievers
[b]*[/b]contains virtually no specific and unequivocal predictions
[b]*[/b]contains only vague predictions beyond its own time
[b]*[/b]contains many failed prophecies, predictions and unfulfilled promises of God
[b]*[/b]Scripture contains too much that is vague, metaphorical and symbolic to be instructions from a divine being to humans. A perfect being would be expected to be able to communicate much better than that.

[b]*[/b]In order to render most of scripture useful, it must necessarily be interpreted. This makes it easily twisted to support nefarious purposes.

[b]*[/b]The problems with scriptures outweigh any good messages they may contain. If read at all, they should be considered opinion and philosophy and taken with a grain of salt.

[b]*[/b]Morals are based on human sympathy and empathy not on divine guidance. it varies from culture to culture and is always evolving. Establishing moral codes based on theism is unnecessary, riddled with contradictions, and fraught with danger.

[b]*[/b]Religion is divisive in that it pits groups of otherwise indistinguishable people against one another. There are already more than enough differences for humans to fight over. And religion is the most intransigent of such divisions because many people feel it is a divine duty to revile those who believe differently than they do even if they don't see the reason in it.

[b]*[/b]Religions are generally intractable when it comes to substantive compromise with other religions or belief systems.

[b]*[/b]All suggested ways to perceive God rely on internal mechanisms that are subject to personal desires, suggestion, and mistakes. On the question of communicating with God, religion insidiously asks us all to deceive ourselves.

[b]*[/b]People are animals. We are only special due to our more developed brain. (We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees)

[b]*[/b]Every culture that has existed has had God myths and other superstitions. This is often used as an argument for the existence of God. Rather than indicating that there is a true God, this indicates that people are simply attracted to the idea.


[b]*[/b]Goodness, truth, wisdom and all other purported attributes of God are human concepts. When applied to a presumed entity so completely different in kind as to be supernatural, they are meaningless. The idea of God is thus incoherent.

[b]*[/b]Infinity is a concept humans cannot comprehend except in a limited mathematical sense. If God is infinite, this also renders him unintelligible.

[b]*[/b]Belief in an afterlife is insidious, besides there is no evidence to show the human consciousness survives bodily death.

[b]*[/b]Organized religion wastes untold amounts of money and resources that could be used to care for people, promote real knowledge, and advance the human race.

[b]*[/b]Theism puts God above people thereby making people subservient, unimportant and expendable.

[b]*[/b]Religion relies on guilt, fear and outlandish promises to gain obedience.

[b]*[/b]Theism generally precludes any possibility of testing God or questioning his existence substantively. It is something like the wizard of Oz saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

[b]*[/b]The methods used in proselytizing for religion bear an unmistakable resemblance to the methods of confidence men. But the scriptures consider this the great commission of mankind.

[b]*[/b]There are many good rational and logical arguments against theism but not one argument in favor of it that doesn't rely on a fallacy or assumption.

[b]*[/b]There are so many Gods put forth by thousands of religions that no one could ever be certain of picking the correct one, assuming that one exists.


[b]*[/b]Prayer is totally subjective and cannot be shown to have any more efficacy than pure chance.

[b]*[/b]There is no discernable difference between believing in God and having an imaginary friend.

[b]*[/b]People generally rely on facts and evidence in every human endeavor except religion.

[b]*[/b]Unequivocal miracles do not occur.

[b]*[/b]God supposedly speaks directly to the human spirit. This must be, at least partly, the same concept as mind. People who receive messages in their minds are invariably delusional.

[b]*[/b]There is no positive correlation between belief in God and being a moral person.

[b]*[/b]Belief in religion has spawned uncounted cults that draw people in by appealing to the concept of faith without proof and the promise of prophets to come. Some examples are: Jim Jones and the People's Temple, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, Marshal Applewhite and Heaven's Gate. These groups had religious followers who were convinced to brutalize, mutilate and kill themselves and their children on the basis of this kind of blind faith.

[b]*[/b]Religion has an extremely violent history that includes such things as crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, genocide, terrorism and holy war. Untold millions have died in the name of religious icons and for religious beliefs.

[b]*[/b]Religions have a long history of misogyny.Religion is just like racism because it segregates people

[b]*[/b]Religious dogma is practically immune to the incorporation of new facts. The best it can do is strained reinterpretation.

[b]*[/b]The argument that God cannot be proven not to exist is irrelevant when one considers that to do so requires that the concept of a supernatural God be intelligible and coherent, which it is not.

[b]*[/b]There is a well known argument commonly called "The Problem of Evil". It basically says that if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God exists, unnecessary or gratuitous evil would not exist in the world. Thus if God sees this type of evil and does nothing he is either not omnibenevolent because he doesn't care or not omnipotent because he is unable to stop it. There are many counter-arguments that have been used. However the only one that really could defeat the Problem of Evil is if one says that we cannot apply human standards to decide what is or is not gratuitous evil. This may well be true, but that argument renders God unintelligible and meaningless to humans. Either way, the concept of God seems to be highly doubtful.

[b]*[/b]Theists claim that God has given humans free will. However, this free will is anything but free. The choices are forced on pain of death and eternal suffering. It is equivalent to having a slave and saying something like: "I grant you your freedom to leave at any time. But if you do, I will torture you mercilessly and kill you as slowly as possible."

Double post. .

manmacho: if islam has done its home work well, it should not be afraid of the impart of other religion.

it only claims to be tolerant in theory not in practise

What exactly are muslims afraid of?. . .

deols: you keep arguing without stating a fact. State the research claiming this to be wrong and there may be an end to the discussion. Science is based on facts. No scientist would associate with your 'supposed logic'

and btw, why did they move this to the Muslim section. Thought there was a request against that.

I have stated the facts with regards to the research and it does NOT agree with what was said by the prohet, the prophet says that a fly carries disease on one of its wings and a cure on the other wing, that is FALSE, flies carry diseases on their legs and in their saliva not their wings. . .The antibiotic the fly carries are found inside its gut and on its surface not on one of its wings. . .So where is the fact that supports your prophets ridiculous claims of flies carrying disease and cure on their wings? . . .

vedaxcool: Funny they moved the thread here, after mazaje backers bent the rule, they saw the thread that was meant to attack Islam turned out to be a Source of elevation of Islam and headache for mazaje! Hence they quickly moved it to the Islam section to limit the damage We ask now that mazaje has been shown the unlimited benefits of Islam what next?

Pls how has this thread helped in elevating islam?. . . . . .By stating that a house fly carries disease in one of its wings and a cure in the other?. . Is this myth that the elevation of islam?. . . . . .Or is it the lie that Islam has brought peace to the world and egalitarianism when islamic nations remain the most violent, intolerant and most despotic countries in the world. . .I laugh in arabic. . .

tbaba1234: Your questions are many: I hope i can address them..

Your first question is How do i know God is one?

I will present 5 arguments for the oneness of a creator/ God and there are as follows:

1. Occam’s Razor
2. Logical Argument
3.Conceptual Differentiation
4. Uniqueness
5. Revelation

1. Occam's razor: Occam's razor is the law of parsimony. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.(wikipedia definition). Basically what it says is that when there are competing options the one with the fewest assumptions and the simplest explanation is the best one. This is applied in the philosophy of science.

The absurdity of an infinite regress of causes in the creation of the universe creates more problems than it answers....This principle enjoins “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”, in English “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is the best explanation.

In the absence of any evidence or in absence of a need for a plurality of causes we should hold onto the most comprehensive and simple explanation. In this case we have no evidence to say the cause for the universe is actually a combination of two, three or even one thousand causes so the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is that this cause is one. Postulating a plurality of causes does not add to the comprehensiveness of the argument.

There is also no evidence for the existence of a singular cause, there are concepts about singularity and plurality of causes. . .Plurality of causes is valid and legitimate because of the complexity of the universe, which is to say the universe is too complex and requires a plurality of causes coming together around a specific purpose. When it comes to the universe plurality is not posited unnecessarily because of the complexity of the universe. . . Rather than indicating that there is a one true God, to me this only indicates that people are simply attracted to the idea. . . .This argument makes sense and is the best you have proposed so far. . .

2. Logical Argument- The kind of organization existent in the universe necessitates the existence of just one creator. The existence of more than one God could result in chaos: Why? God being the creator has an imposing will. Having more than one creator: all with imposing wills could result in a competition of wills and chaos and disorder.

This argument is completely devoid of logic. . .The existence of many Gods coming together around a specific purpose will not result in chaos. . .Take the A380 super jumbo jet, many people came together around a specific purpose and created it and are maintaining it without competing wills, chaos and disorder, once there is a sense of purpose many Gods can come together,create the universe and maintain it. . .This is the worst argument you have proposed of all the others. . .

3. Conceptual differentiation- What makes us appreciate difference and duality in this world? We appreciate the concept of difference of difference in this world because of space, form, physical features etc. The reason you can perceive two objects above is due to differences in colour, size, and shape, including their placement, in other words there is a distance between them.

In absence of these concepts could you perceive the two objects or any objects at all? You could not, because these concepts (space, placement, siz) are required to perceive any number of entities.

Since the creator of this universe has to be outside it(If the creator of the universe is within it, it will lead to the absurdity that the universe created itself- the universe existing and not existing at the same time), these concepts can not be applied to differentiate because these concepts only make sense in this universe.

The universe began to exist. Therefore a single independent cause is rationally necessary to explain the fact that the universe began to exist and a plurality of causes cannot be perceived due to the absence of conceptual differentiators.

Another argument devoid of logic and full of question begging. . .I can build a house and live inside it and maintain it both internally and externally, it still doesn't mean I didn't build the house. . .many people can build a house and live inside the house maintain it both internally and externally as well, doesn't mean they didn't build the house or they are a part of the house furniture. The christians and jews for example believe in a single cause that created the universe and lives inside the universe. The universe having a beginning doesn't mean it is irrational for it to have a plural of causes. . .

4. Uniqueness- If the cause of the universe was not unique that would mean there are some similarities between the cause of the universe and the universe itself. This is not possible as that would place the cause of the universe within the universe (if you define the universe as the sum of all matter) and this would lead to an absurdity as it would imply that the universe created itself. Now you may ask the question: why can’t the cause of the universe resemble the universe? The answer is straight forward; this cause must be immaterial because it created the sum of all material – which is the universe itself – and another principle that supports this is the 1st law of thermodynamics, it states “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”, simply put energy (in other words matter) cannot create itself. If the cause was material then it would defy this principle as it would mean matter and energy self create. So you can conclude that the cause of the universe must be immaterial and therefore unique.

How does this relate to the oneness of God? Well if there were more than one cause for the universe that would mean they are not unique anymore. However you may still argue that there can be two immaterial causes, and I would reply: what does that mean? It would seem that you are violating Occam’s Razor and I would refer you to the first argument.

Another tenuous argument filled with question begging. . . .Nothing wrong with the cause(s) of the universe living inside the universe. If people come together and build a house and live inside the house, it doesn't mean that the same with the building. . .Nothing says that the plurality of causes can not be immaterial and no they are not violating Osccam's razor in this particular case. . .By the way some monotheist believe in a singular God that is material and lives within the universe. . .Example the jews and the christians, so your argument holds no water. . .

5. Revelation- A simpler way of providing evidence for God’s oneness is by referring to revelation. The argument here is that if God has announced himself to humanity and this revelation can be proven to be from Him, then what He mentions about himself is obviously true. The daring assumptions, from an agnostic perspective at least, are how do you know God has announced himself to mankind and in what form is this revelation?

OK. . .

Let’s take the last assumption first. If God has announced himself to mankind there are only two possible ways to find out: externally and internally. What I mean by “internally” here is that you can find out who God is solely by introspection and internalisation and what I mean by “externally” is that you can find out who God is via communication outside of yourself, in other words it is instantiated in the mind-independent world. Finding out about God internally is implausible for the following reasons,

1. Human beings are different. They have, what Psychologists call, “individual differences”, these individual differences include DNA, experiences, social context, intellectual and emotional capacities, gender differences, amongst many more. These differences play a role in your ability to internalise via introspection or intuition, therefore the results of introspection or relying on your intuition will differ. So you can see that if these processes where solely used to find out about God there would be inevitable differences in our conception of Him.
javascript:void(0);
2. Since the method used to conclude that God does exist is a “common sense” method, or what philosophers call rational thought and what Muslim theologians may call innate thinking, then internally trying to find out about God would lead to fallacies. This is because what can be concluded using the universe as evidence for a transcendental independent cause is that it must be eternal, unique, powerful and personal; anything else would be speculation. The Qur’an aptly mentions “Why do you say about God of that which you have no knowledge?” If you try and internalise what God is would be equivalent of a mouse trying to conceptualise and think like an Elephant. It is obvious that the human being is not eternal, unique and powerful, therefore the human being could not conceptualise who God is. God would have to tell you via external revelation.

A lot of question begging here again, the cause(s) must not be personal, and unique for example, and there is nothing wrong with internal revelations, if we are to go by your argument that the creator(s) are powerful then they can revel themselves internally since they/ it has the power to do that. Christians for example believe in an internal revelation. . .

you know God exists like the knocking of the door, you safely assume that something is there, but do you know who it is? You weren’t expecting anyone, so you cry out “who is it?” in order to find out, and the only way to find out is if the person behind the door tells you. So you can conclude that if God has said or announced anything it must be external to the human being.

Nothing stops a powerful God(s) that can do all things from internal revelation, this concept is agreed by the christians for example. .

From an Islamic perspective this external communication is the Qur’an as it is the only text to claim to have come from God that fits the criteria for a divine text, these criteria include,

1. It must be consistence with the rational and intuitive conclusion on God. For example if a book says God is an Elephant with 40 arms you could safely assume that this book is not from God, as God must be external to the universe.

Nothing wrong with a God that is internal to the universe, I gave you an example of the jewish God for example, it exist both within and outside the universe as claimed. ..

2. It must be internally and externally consistence. In other words if it says on page 20 that God is one and then on page 340 its says God is 3 that would be an internal inconsistency. Additionally if the book says that the universe is only 6,000 years old then that would be an external inconsistency as reality as we know it s that the universe is older the 6,000 years.

3. It must have signposts to transcendence. In simple terms it must have evidence to show that it is from God.

In the case of the Qur’an – and this post is not the place to discuss this in any depth – cannot be explained naturalistically therefore supernatural explanations are the best explanation. Some of these signposts include:

a. The linguistic and literary inimitability
b. There are historical accounts that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation
c. There are some descriptions of natural phenomena that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation

To conclude, since the only way to know what God has announced to mankind is via external revelation, and this revelation can be proven to be the Qur’an – then what is says about God is true. In the context of this discussion the Qur’an says “Know that your Lord God is one”.

What exactly are the historical accounts that could not have been known by man at the so called time of revelation?. . .What about the description of natural phenomena that could not have been known at that time, what are they? Pls list them lets examine them. . .Saying that the only way to know about God's revelation is via external revelation is nothing but question begging and jumping the gun, christians for example and many other religions have no problem with internal revelation and that is consistent with a singular or plurality of causes for example. . .

tbaba1234: All representations of God can not be correct since each claim render the other wrong. Some of the claims are similar(like the Jewish and muslim definition of God).

God gave us minds and intellects to help us make this important decision, probably the most important of our existence. So each of us must examine dispassionately the evidence that each of these ideologies present.

In my experience, one can only determine the true path by putting all emotions aside, emotions blind reality. It is only then we can make a rational choice.

How do you carve things with your hands from rocks, stone and wood and then bow down to it or give it offerings? If it falls and breaks you replace it with another stone, rock or wood;


God has already revealed himself, you just need to be willing to examine the evidence of each revelation using common sense to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Martins asked someone a question on another thread and I will ask you the same questions here. . .Without the validation of the religion you were indoctrinated with, How do you know it's one god instead of several?. . .How did you come to know everything you know about the God you chose to believe in?. . .What makes the existence of many Gods as many believe invalid?. . . How did you come about this knowledge? Don't use any personal beliefs, convictions, holy book or anecdotes. Just tell. . . .

As for people using their hands to crave things, even your own religion does that. . .The Kabbah for example was created by people and is a symbol of reverence in Islam, muslims do not worship the Kabbah but it is of significant importance to the muslim faith despite the fact that it is a man made object. . . .How do you write words and claim it is the word of God and revere it greatly the way the muslims do?. . .What is the differece between words that men wrote and ascribe it to their various Gods and the carvings that men create as the representations of their various Gods?. . .Some people just believe that the images they carve are just a representation of the Gods just as some claim that the books they write are the words of their Gods. . .Why is one claim valid and the other invalid?

tbaba1234: ^I gave you dictionary references and even links so you do not say i am giving them meanings that do not exist...

You can tell me the meanings that do not apply:

The verses mentioned were explained by 6th centuries scholars as meaning male and female.

Far ahead of its time...

Trust me if you know just a little about the literary excellence of this book....

Stay open-minded.. there might be hope for you yet...

As I aforementioned, I am not saying that it is right or wrong and I agree that all the words apply. I have noticed a pattern and have some technical reservations, but it doesn't really matter for now. . .We all learn all the time. . .I have learnt from this exchanges. . .

Martian: Fun fun fun. Sesame street. Today's number is 666

665+ 1=666

11* 60.54545=666

333+333=666

111*6=666

666=fff

666/666= 1

1= the all seeing eye of the illuminati

666 squared= 443556

144000+ 443556= 587556

587556=The number of people going to heaven.

See you next week kids.

Go away you son of satan. . .Its obvious that you are possessed by demons. . .How dare you play with the anti christ numbers like that, don't you have no respect?

tbaba1234: I see no contradiction here: Man is made from clay and water.

The basic unit of life is water and Man is made from an essence of clay. 70% of the human body is water. where is the contradiction?

Man is made of clay and water?. . .Nope, elements found in clay and water are also found in man, in fact all physical bodies in the world are made up of some of the elements found in the human body. . .These elements occur in all physical bodies in the solar system including the sun. . . .

What is an extract? something drawn out.... you can't deny that the elements that make up the human body are also present in clay- the point is not whether you can find them elsewhere.

I don't deny that, If man is made from clay why then are some elements like gold, iodine, lithium found in man but not in clay?. . .I understand what you are saying but i disagree that man is created from clay because of the fact that the elements found in clay are also found in all other living things, and all physical bodies in the world. . .To me saying that man was created from clay on the basis that some elements found in man are also found in clay is the same thing as saying that the sun is is made from clay and fire. . .That is my own position. . .

We are also made of water.

These statements are not mutually exclusive:

for instance, I make food from a host of ingredients: If i mention one first and then mention another. It does not make my first statement is wrong or contradictory.

Sure, i understand. . .

Untrue:

...then We placed him as a drop of fluid (nuftah) in a safe place.

The word used for drop of fluid is 'nuftah'.... It has a host of meanings

It could mean:

1. a dribble, a trickle, a drop or semen (Hans Wehr. A Dictionary of Modern Arabic. Edited by J Milton Cowan. 3rd Edition. 1976, page 974.)

2. a singular entity which is a part of a bigger group of its kind (Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, Book 5, page 725.)

3.the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) explained the nutfah as a combination of substances “from a male nutfah and from a female nutfah" (Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 1, page 465)

4. The Qur’an further clarifies that that the nutfah is a single entity or a drop from a larger group:

Had he not been a s-perm (nutfah) from s-emen (maniyyin) emitted?

5. The companion of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Ibn Abbas (6th century) mentions that the nutfah is:

from a weak drop of the water/fluid of man and woman. (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas.)

6.Ibn Kathir (13th century), while commenting on the 2nd verse in chapter 76 of the Qur’an, cites Ibn Abbas (6th century) as describing the nutfah stage as the mixing of two fluids, therefore confirming the statement above: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1422&Itemid=132

This means the fluid of the man and the fluid of the woman when they meet and mix.

Verily, We have created man from Nutfah Amshaj, in order to try him, so, We made him hearer and seer. (76:2)

Therefore, nutfah can mean a drop or single entity produce by a combination of drops from the semen and the female equivalent, which contain essential extracts or substances like a sperm or an egg.

Do you now see why i say the Quran's word choice is unmatched

Unmatched by what?. . .What I find intriguing is how muslim apologist take a word give it a litany of meanings, chose from some of the meanings they have listed to construct their own argument. . .I am not saying it is right or wrong but i always find it intriguing and it is always the case as i have noticed. . .