Very good vid. Brings up some important questions. I have a feeling that since you have read in Arabic you are going to get comments on YouTube criticizing your Arabic pronunciation, rather than the content of your argument [just my experience from being around YouTube a while].
NabeelThat was excellant :-) I too am hoping to have some things on YuoTube quite soon.
Nabeel, your efforts will be blessed by YHWH. For those of us who speak/read only English, the available Tafsirs of the Jalals and ibn Abbas, seem to ignore the implications, but not so with ibn Kathir! No, no, . . . he even goes so far as to say "the sexual fluid that comes out bursting forth from the man and the woman ... (Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman" (End of quote)Ouch! If Sura 3.7 instructs Muslims to refrain from their own individual interpretations, but to go to those who are well grounded in knowledge, shouldn't they be looking to the early exegetes, then sort through the ambiguous and look for clarity?
I work with a lot of Muslims and appreciate the help with this kind of information. Keep it up!
Appealing to Scientific Miracles is a desperate attempt by Muslims to save their religion. Muslims, please please please be honest with the correct reading of the Quran!!!!!!!!
Nabeel,Good job.Since Muslims have offered a number of different translations and/or interpretations in order to make the Qur'an comport with what we know on this matter, a number of which you debunked, doesn't this in itself seriously mitigate the force of their claim that this teaching of the Qur'an shows its miraculous nature? In other words, the very fact that Muslims themselves cannot agree on how the verse is to be properly translated, the very fact that they cannot agree on what interpretation makes it jive with science, all seems to seriously weaken their claim quite apart from the fact that each attempt is, as you point out so well, seriously flawed.Shouldn't one expect more from a "clear" book?Shouldn't one expect more from an argument that is going to have so much weight placed upon it?I think this shows a prima facie problem with the Muslim miracle claim at this point, something that the further reflection and deeper scrutiny of your video goes on to confirm in pointing out how each individual attempt fails.
you guys who watch the videos please be sure to rate them. as the mohammedans come along they will flag the videos and rate them 1* in attempts to get them removed. also be sure to subscribe to the channelexcellent job nabeel i've been going over and over the debates, and i'm totally perplexed at the lack of logic and even commonsense necessary to buy into the mohammedan myth. but then, as long as their "apologists" are willing to engage in public dialog, that failed belief set opens itself to investigation by free-thinking people, and is willingly, publicly, and quite easily exposed for the myth that it is. mohammedanism is a lie, and truth is killing it(your house, your house, your house is on fire,,, let that ****** ******* burn)G_d bless all here, and may the Holy Spirit shine the Light of Jesus into the souls of the lost who come here seekingPeace, in His love
It looks a little strange with the light and the shadows, maybe you should do that different.However, I think it was pretty good.If I recall correctly, some greek had proposed that sperm comes from/goes through the kidneys, which would explain why this is in the Quran, it was simply the common idea at that time.
Remember!! If ONE "scientific miracle" is shown to be FALSE, then THE ENTIRE QURAN is DEMOLISHED (b/c the quran claims to be a divine book).
"Remember!! If ONE "scientific miracle" is shown to be FALSE, then THE ENTIRE QURAN is DEMOLISHED (b/c the quran claims to be a divine book)." And how many Scientific Absurdities will it have to take for the Bible? Infinitely? http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_scientific_absurdities.htm I am gathering details right now that will not only refute Nabeel's arguments, but also demonstrate that this Noble Verse is indeed a Stunning Divine Miracle! Insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty is Willing). Stay tunned.... Osama Abdallahwww.answering-christianity.com
When Osama says he is gathering evidence, does that mean he is trying to extract semen from his own spine?Osama, you should leave such matters to trained doctors; preferrably doctors who are not being guided by the Qur'an. It is certainly not something to be tried at home by ill-informed laymen.
Osama, we've yet to hear an explanation of the "much discrepancy" of the Koran. It was your false messenger who threw down that gauntlet, and it might have sounded most impressive to the ignorant Bedouins of 7th century. But we all know how the koran cannibalizes itself, especially in light of 21 century knowledge. Allah wasn't even lucid, much less able to empower Muhammad to perform a miracle. Do you never weary of playing the fool?
Osama said: "And how many Scientific Absurdities will it have to take for the Bible? Infinitely?"Osama, when was the last time anyone told you that you should believe in the Bible because it is loaded full of scientific facts?I for one will leave the Muslims the right to become the laughing stock of the world by claiming their book of theology contains scientific "miracles".Keep it up Osama. Your house of cards is crumbling as we speak.
Looks like Nabeel finally got that haircut LoL, Great video!
The Quran: “Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?”1) According to scientists, it took billions of years for the earth and heavens to be in their current shapes after the bing bang. But it took Allah only six days to create the earth and the heavens in their current shapes. So what happened to the rest of the billions of years? Muslim apologists might say there is no mention of the length of a day in the Quran. No such specifics makes statements in the Quran vague at best, which is very unscientific.2) The unbelievers of Mohammed’s time either already knew that the heavens and the earth were joined together or they didn't. If they did, obviously the Quran was not stating anything new . If they didn't, what is the point of asking the question, "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth...", because unbelievers didn't see it anyway. It makes much more sense if it was a statment like "Allah cleave the heavens and the earth...".3)'The Heavens' means the stars, the planets, the nebulae, the galaxies etc. together with all the empty space. In that sense, the earth is still joined together with the heavens. From another planet, the earth will look part of the havens. If Allah is talking about the universe at the time of bing bang, then there was no heavens because there was no earth from which the heavens could be seen. Either way Allah is talking not about the bing bang, but about earth in its current shape being joined together with the heavens.4) The Quran 41:9 through Quran 41:11 and Quran 2:29 says that the earth was created before the heavens were creatd, which is not exactly the bing bang theory.The Quran: “We made from water every living thing.” Genesis 1:20-2120 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
Lol i come on here and see "Great job nabeel" and then write insults towards muslims.I've never got a clear response:Why does the holy spirit control people this way when it tells you be good and sincere to go along with respectful?
Osama said: «And how many Scientific Absurdities will it have to take for the Bible? Infinitely?»...Osama: the presence of those Scientific Absurdities (as you called them) in the Holy Bible is irrelevant to the assumption of it as the true Word of God since:a) the presence of Scientific evidences in the Holy Bible is not, and was never, a central point in the defence of it's authenticity (but it is to the false holy book you call the qur’an);b) the notion of revelation to the Christian faith is not the same as the islamic one… how many times will we have to explain this to you and to all those pseudo-intelligent muslims who speak about this subjects?
Ali... Fernando and I have already given you a clear answer to your question in previous posts and previous threads... so: it's you who're being offensive to us all, it’s you who – following the example of the qur’an – is being written insults to us all (but that’s not a problem to you since you’re following the example of Muhammad), or else you're, as someone noticed, indeed incapable of the most basic rational operations… perhaps that’s the truth since you have shown a totally lack of intellectual honesty clear to be seen by all who what to check it out in the previous threads… telling the truth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is only offensive to those who live in a untruth world… that’s a problem you have to deal with your religion…p.s.: great job in teeling the truth Doctor Nabeel...
Ali said:Lol i come on here and see "Great job nabeel" and then write insults towards muslims.The Quran is itself is a great insult to Christians. Why?1) It denies the Crucifixion.2) It calls Christians and Jews apes and pigs.3) It claims it is the Word of Yehweh (or Allah), which is blasphemy.4) It claims that Mohammed is a prophet of Yehweh (or Allah), which is blasphemy.5) Many verses in the Quran are against Christians and Jews.Besides, at every opportunity, Muslims try to prove the Bible is an inferior book, which is an insult. It is Muslims that start insulting first.
Ali, if you knew Christ's teachings, you would also know His scathing rebuke of the burdensome heresy of the leading scribes and Pharisees of His day. Read Matthew 23; He minces no words, He coddles no impediment to the Kingdom of God; His rebuke is a dagger in the heart of the false teachings that were keeping the people bound in the chains of rituals, while denying them entrance to heaven. If He rebukes the Jewish leaders who focus on titles (loving the name of "rabbi") and rituals, imagine his revulsion over Islam and Muhammad's teachings. Your death-cult not only focuses on suffocating, anti-Christ rituals and teachings, but takes perversion and transforms it into sunnah for Muslims. Allah loves sin, and the filthier it is, the better he likes it. Do not try to use Christ's command to "love your enemies", and turn it into a wimpy, silent acceptance of Muhammadism heresy. You are running toward an eternity in hell, and it is not "love" to let you do so without sounding the alarm. If I have lung cancer, is my doctor showing that he "loves" me, if he diagnoses me with Hay Fever, so he doesn't make me feel sad? Forbid it, Heaven! Tell me the truth, and tell me the treatment I need to start so that I might have the best chance at survival. Islam is a cancer of the spirit and mind; Christ is the only cure.Ezekiel 33 imposes a dire warning to those who remain silent when they see the "Sword of the Lord" coming down on a people. You are of a people in eternal peril. No Christian wants the blood of any unbliever on his hands when he stands before a Holy Christ in that great and terrible day of the Lord. We want you to "choose life", and sometimes I wish YHWH didn't give you that choice, but compelled you to reject the false and cling to the true. If it sounds narrow minded, it's because Christ gives no option. He is the ONLY way to the Father, and so let God be true, and every man a liar. There is a "free" gift of salvation waiting for any who will call upon the name of the Lord. "Free", but not cheap; it can sometimes extract a dear price for following Christ.I pray that you'll be so haunted by the Holy Spirit of the living Christ, that you will have no rest until you submit to the will of the True God.
Ali said: "Lol i come on here and see "Great job nabeel" and then write insults towards muslims.I've never got a clear response:Why does the holy spirit control people this way when it tells you be good and sincere to go along with respectful?"Ali, either engage the topic at hand or run along for some candy. You are not here for any type of honest dialogue or inquiry. Sad really.
This short article on "Quran miracles" was interesting. It's kind of a brief modern history of how 21st century Muslims got into the business of finding science in the Quran. It's light reading:The Myth of Scientific Miracles in The QuranIt was interesting that it mentions the Saudi goverment has an entire division dedicated to finding "science" in the Quran.
OsamaAre you series with you infantile reply. What you need to do my friend is respond to Nabeel’s argument about semen origination from between the backbone and the ribs rather than making absurd claims about the bible. This is just another absurd attempt Osama to prove that the Quran is true by attacking the Bible. However, it will not work. I have yet to meet a Muslim apologist who is able to answer any real questions about the so-called prophet of Islam and the so-called holly book the Quran
AliLol i come on here and see "Great job nabeel" and then write insults towards muslims.I've never got a clear response:Why does the holy spirit control people this way when it tells you be good and sincere to go along with respectful?Why is it that Muslims are so sensitive when people critique the Quran. Can you refute what Nabeel has said in his video. How is unkind or unloving to point out the absurdities in the Quran. In fact Ali those who are led by the holy Spirit will do exactly what Nabeel has done and point out the errors in the Quran.
I liked Zakir Naik's interpretation. It was halarious. Good video Dr. Nabeel. The quran is a scientific embrassement.
Muslim apologists tout that the verse' life originated in water' is a scientific miracle in the Quran. But it is in the Bible (Genesis 1:20). Also,the Greek Anaximander, believed that all life originated in water. Link:http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521851176&ss=exc
Osama,The Bible does not claim to contain scientific miracles.Look at these various translations. With all due respect, NONE of them demonstrate a scientific miracle. Please. No more textual acrobatics.Pickthall - That issued from between the loins and ribs.Yusuf Ali - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:Hilali-Khan - Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,Shakir - Coming from between the back and the ribs.Sher Ali - Which issues forth from between the loins and the breastbones. Khalifa - From between the spine and the viscera. Arberry - issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.Palmer - comes out from between the loins and the breast bones. Rodwell - Which issue from the loins and breastbones:Sale - issuing from the loins, and the breast-bones.
Muhammad simply borrowed the erroneous idea from the Greeks.It is well known that the Greek physician Hippocrates taught in the fifth century BC that:Semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis.Hippocratic Writings, pp. 317-318
Another wonderful example of a scientific miracle in Quran from a YouTube video:The scientific Quran verse:Did you notice:"He renders his chest intolerant and tight, like one who climbs towards the sky". Scientific explanation of the above in the video: If one could climb out to the universe he would lose air because low air pressure and his chest would become tight!!! How can a man know this 1400 years ago? Nope, a man didnt know it, GOD knew it.It can't be stupider than this. The far fetched explanation makes an assumption that the the Quran verse is about going up into space. But when someone climbs up a mountain:1) climbs towards the sky2) His/her chest becomes intolerant and tight.So how come this verse is about space travel?It looks like this miracle is 'islamically' explained at www.answering-christianity.com.Youtube video link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIGo1JcDMwI&feature=related
Muslims,If the Quran contains ONE scientific error,Will you be intellectually honest and disband the Quran as your first standard and evidence?Instead, turn to the WELL-ESTABLISHED way and standards of knowing history. Early sources, etc. Many blessings to you, and thank you for listening.
If you ask me, I wouldn't conclude that the Quran is false if some stuff in it would be scientifically inaccurate.However, the situation is that muslims claim that the Quran is a scientific miracle. In this context, the mistakes falsify the argument.
Matthew said: "If you ask me, I wouldn't conclude that the Quran is false if some stuff in it would be scientifically inaccurate.However, the situation is that muslims claim that the Quran is a scientific miracle. In this context, the mistakes falsify the argument."Well said. I agree. I think the Muslims are forced into the position they take for 2 primary reasons:1) They claim the Quran is the literal letter by letter speech straight from God [this eliminates the possibility of the revelation working through or with the understanding of who it was revealed to]2) When asked to provide a sign for his prophethood, Muhammad said essentially, "The Quran is my sign"So their claims about Quranic miracles falsify the Quran, but abandoning those claims leaves them without a sign to prove Muhammad's prophethood - which also falsifies the Quran.
Victor,1) What is the "fluid" and where is it "flowing/gushing" from, in your understanding?2) Is this verse a "miracle of science" that no one alive in the 7th century would have known about?You have asked some very detailed questions, and placed a firm expectation of a "detailed response". I think it's only fair for you to explain what you understand the verse to mean. Especially since in the vid Nabeel directly invited people to explain what the fluid is and what it is situated between. You seem knowlegable enough not to need to dogde those questions.Looking forward to hearing your understanding of the verse in light of the 2 questions above.
Victor... all your questions were answered in a previous thread in this same blog in a debate, along debate, with Ibn. You just have to look for it. Thanks.
Victor said:"1. Correct understanding of the meaning of the verses in question resorting to authoritative classical arabic dictionaries as required." That's exactly what I did during my debate with Nabeel. You can see the tons of Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran using 30+ books of original Arabic dictionaries at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm It was Nabeel that relied on weak and absurd translations of translators that many of them merely rewrote the translations from each others during the debate. Osama Abdallahwww.answering-christianity.com
Alforreca wrote:Victor... all your questions were answered in a previous thread in this same blog in a debate, along debate, with Ibn. You just have to look for it. Thanks.Elijah writes:And as ussual Ibn had to bite the dust.
One week after I'm bery glade to resume mie comments in this blog withe juste some wordes: I liked bery much this first video from Doctor Nabeel... I'm sure this is going to be a good way to achieve the aimes off Acts17 and AnsweringMuslims... May God blees you all.
Victor--I explained all this in my debate with Osama. If the YouTube video doesn't have enough detail for you, feel free to check out my opening statement in the debate "Is the Qur'an miraculous?"God bless,-Nabeel
Victor said: "Sepher-- (1) it is not important at this stage to explain what the 'fluid' is and where it flows/gushes from in my understanding, let's not forget that it is Nabeel who is claiming to see a scientific inaccuracy here. Obviously he needs to demonstrate this with whatever understanding he has of the said verses while at the same time justifying them. I have not come here to argue for a scientific miracle, rather to critique the very claim of scientific inaccuracy. For I do not see any scientific inaccuracy here at all." So, in other you are hoping to stand solely on a negation, while making no positive case of your own. The problem here is, Nabeel has already made a positive case for what the verse means, and you have not demonstrated his claim is false. He has stated that that well known translators and scholars, such as Shakir, Pickthall, etc, are more qualified to interpret what the verses mean in English than an uncredentialled Muslims, or non-linguist.So, you see, you have to actually demonstrate why these translations, and Nabeel's claim is false. You haven't done that. All you have done is make the assertion that Nabeel's claim is innacurate. If he is wrong please demonstrate it.You have already provided your very own criteria for a correct understanding of the verse:"1. Correct understanding of the meaning of the verses in question resorting to authoritative classical arabic dictionaries as required.2. Correct understanding of the human anatomy and physiological processes involved in semen/sperm production, storage and its emission during ejaculation.3. In light of 1&2 above, that Quranic verses in question are scientifically inaccurate." I would like to see you prove claim #3 above. Please demonstrate how #3 is true, based on 1 & 2. You have made the claim this verse is scientifically accurate. I would like to see you support this claim. This is your very own criteria, mind you.Victor said:"...one needs to approach the Qur'an without the forceful, manufactured re-interpretations of its verses."Somehow I think I'm not the only one whose "irony detector" is going off the charts righ now :D
Victor--I have dissected human cadavers. I have seen at least 20 bodies and all their internal organs. I have studied medicine for 5 years, and I have seen countless CT scans and MRIs. As far as medical illustrations and diagrams, I have seen too many to count.Allow me to post this in caps and bold so that I only have to say this once:SEMINAL VESICLES ARE NOT BETWEEN THE BACKBONE AND THE RIBS! Even having to affirm this makes me feel ridiculous -- it's like having to affirm that chickens lay eggs.The real question is: now that you know where seminal vesicles are located, will you be consistent with your own interpretation of this verse and conclude that the Qur'an is scientifically flawed? You, Victor, provided the interpretation of the verse, you provided your standards for the Qur'an to pass the test, and the Qur'an is wrong by your standards! Will you be honest enough to admit it?I pray, for your sake and for God's glory, that you will display integrity and honesty in your next response.Sincerely,-Nabeel
Viktor said: «do the seminal vesicles fall in between the backbone and the ribs? The answer is, you must confess, a definite yes»...Viktor: are you talking aboute the anatomie of some martian? ore are you implying thate in Muhammad's time thate was the case?
Victor... with that name: are you from Bosnia-Herzegovina? I knew ounce a Muslim named Victor from that lovely country. Please: do not be silenced; great expectations are on you.
Victor: whie are you choosing the coccyx and not anie other elemente off the backbone? Are you chosingue and pickingue? Did not, in Muhammad's times, the ancient arabique had a word for "lower portion"?
Victor,The coccyx sits posterior to the sacroiliac joint. The most anterior aspect of the spinal column is roughly L3 vertebrae [above the coccyx].You are simply torturing the text to try to reconcile it with the facts of human anatomy. Look at the terminology we are using to have this discussion. It is all completely foreign to the text.There is no evidence whatsoever that the Quran is even talking about seminal vescicals, the coccyx, etc. You are simply engaging in a desperate attempt to vindicate the clear error in claiming your Quran is conveying scientific information in this verse.
Victor,Let's see if you are willing to be consistent. Based on the way you are reading the Quran, you must accept that the Bible contains "scientific miracles" that prove it's divine authorship:"Ecclesiastes 1:6 The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit." - The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere."Job 28:25 To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure." - The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago."Isaiah 40:22 "It is He that . . . stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." - The Bible describes the expanding nature of the universe."Hebrews 1:10,11 (written 2000 years ago): ". . . And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They shall perish; but you remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment." - The Bible tells us that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states.So Victor. Apply your method of reading the Quran to the Bible, and you have no way to deny the Bible is a book full of "scientific miracles" and it is proven to be the word of God.[To be clear, as I have stated elsewhere, I do not believe the Bible to be a book of scientific information, rather it is theological and spiritual in it's nature and intent. But if I were to use Victor's method of textual interpretation I would have to conclude there are "miracles of science" in the Bible.]So how about it Victor? Will you be consistent?
Let us not stray too far from the original text. I can read arabic properly, but am by no means a scholar, and after reading the verse myself, I decided to post this. Lets make no bones about what is happening in this video. We have a man, who obviously does NOT speak Arabic, trying to pick on the intricacies involved in translation,.,. He is taking someone elses translation, and forming his rebuttal on that.To be truly versed and ready for a debate of religions, at least learn the language.I personally subscribe more to Dr. Maurice Bucailles take on this (after a quick search on translation) but even then, I am reserved on even his interpretation. Do note, I am no scholar.At the end of it all...Believe what you will, I have my religion, and you have yours.
Wow. If Arabic scholars such as M.H. Shakir and Yusuf Ali can't manage to translate a basic sentence properly, Arabic must be the worst language in the world. Why didn't Allah pick Greek or something? Why use a language that simply can't be translated accurately?3li says that in order to debate a religion, one must know the language. I have never met a Muslim debater who knows Koine Greek, so is 3li saying that all Muslims should stop criticizing Christianity? Or does the rule only apply when we're discussing Islam? If so, Arabic once again seems to be the worst possible pick for the language of the universal religion.
3li said: «Believe what you will, I have my religion, and you have yours»... greate...a) butt whie do you habe youre religione? Can itt stande as s true religion? Iff so, whie? Have you eber stopped to think aboute it for a whille?b) are you sure islam allowes other peoplle to follow, freely, others religions?bie the waie... you also saide thate «To be truly versed and ready for a debate of religions, at least learn the language»... do you realise thate bie this standarde more than 88% of muslimes are nott allowed eben to debate their own religionn?
Victor wrote:Elijah-----The Qur'an is independant of Ibn, Nabeel or myself; one needs to approach the Qur'an without the forceful, manufactured re-interpretations of its verses. Let's see how Nabeel succeeds in substantiating his scientific inaccuracy claims given the workable framework I have provided him.Elijah replies:I will leave you and Nabeel to discuss the semen production. However, I did not understand your point that the Qur'an is independent from you, Nabeel and Ibn. My point is that the Qur'an is not independent from sources that preceeded it, it is based upon those sources we need to interpret the Qur'anic assertions; and even the Qur'an confirms my conclusion here.
3li, Do you then assume that Buchaili was an expert in Qur'anic arabic? What I have read from Buchaille I can honestly state that Buchaille is a master speculator.
@ david..."have never met a Muslim debater who knows Koine Greek": That is EXACTLY what im saying. If you are not qualified, or versed in the language, you shouldn't presume to give a judgment on its meaning. Muslim, or Christian.Logical?"translate a basic sentence"... The reason for these 55 comments is because its not a basic sentence. Its quite complicated, and through the course of your studies, Im sure you know of eejaz and its part in the Quran?You quote me two scholars on this?Im not here to fight, like I said, you have yours, I have mine... All I ask is that you up the ante, and go a bit deeper into your studies.And that goes for both sides.
@ Hogan: "was an expert in Qur'anic arabic?" Do not infer anything.Buchaile was a French Doctor, who delved into islamic literature. all I am saying is that his translation (which was thought to be from consultations with other arabic speaking scholars) is more in line with my understanding of the verse.I am no scholar, and only put that on my comments to put things in perspective for others to know.
Finally, @ fernando.A. Islam, and I would hope, your religion is a thinking mans religion. Its not enough to be born into a religion to be a follower, as Im sure you will agree.B. Yes. We can cite history, and current events back and forth on this one. But read the QURAN in context, it speaks more than some of the followers.C. Can all Christians read Greek? Probably not, hence versions, preachers, denominations and saints.We have our scholars, math-habs, right down to the little marks you see above the letters to make it easier for others to learn arabic :-)You have yours, I have mine.
3li, unswering mie questione («butt whie do you habe youre religione? Can itt stande as s true religion? Iff so, whie? Have you eber stopped to think aboute it for a whille?»), said: «Islam, and I would hope, your religion is a thinking mans religion. Its not enough to be born into a religion to be a follower, as Im sure you will agree»…Ok; we agree about mie religion; butt we disagree about islam: a) I was once a muslim and I was always saide not to aske some questiones; something like the fatwa the Al-Azhar university in Cairo lunched prohibiting muslimes to say Mohammad drived camels; thate he loved women; thate he married a 9 years old girl and so one…Then 3li , unswering another questione off mine («are you sure islam allowes other peoplle to follow, freely, others religions?») said: «Yes»… to sad the evidences fromm your own sources (the qur’an and the hadiths) and the contemporary example off so many acting as true muslimes and basing theire action in those sources say otherwhise… butt I’ll gibe you the change to prove me I’m wrongue… please: elaborarte in the concept off “freedom off religion in islam”… thankes… (bie the way: I know the qur’an quite well… butt one thingue: how is thate you aske me to read in context? The qur’an has no context!!! It’s, muslimes say, the eternal word of allah valid to eberione eberytime… or maybe I’m loste somewhere)…Then 3li, unswering another questione off mine (« do you realise thate bie this standarde more than 88% of muslimes are nott allowed eben to debate their own religionn?») said: «Can all Christians read Greek? Probably not, hence versions, preachers, denominations and saints»… 3li: it’s not Christians thate say one needs to reade hebrew and greek to understand the text and the message off the bible… that’s a probleme you, muslimes habe… not we… the true wordes off God can be translatd to any human language… off course thate knowing those languges are verie important, butt not necessary to reed the Holy Bible since we have translations… that’s not the case in many muslims countries… and ounce again: more than 88% off muslimes do nott know the qur’an althought they can memorise everything in itt… being so small… I also beliebe thate Islam has preachers (nott anyone can orientat the prayers in a mosque…); versions (ooops… some off them weree destroyed bie Uthmans…); denominations (satbiriyahs; qabariyyas; nazzamiyahs; xiias; sunnis; hafsiyahs; ismaelites;…); saints (in manie off those sects… namely xiias)… butt 3li, it’s because we do know greek thate we habe preachers (so was intended bie Jesus since he asked some peoplle to vehiculate is message); versions (so was intended bie Jesus since he asked his gospel to be taught to eberyone in all languages); versions (so was intended bie Jesus since he did not order the killing off those who disagree withe him rather forgabe them…); denominations (since are, precisely those who deny the richness off the Bible’s pollesemy, who don’t understand ites message…) and saintes since we were ordered to be saintes as God is saint…Then, finally, 3li saide: «You have yours, I have mine»… 3li: I wante to beliebe you really beliebe in such sentence… unfortunately ny personal esperience and knowledge off islam says that the orthodox islam do nott beliebe in such… to sad… really: to sad… butt then: I’m also tolde to explain mie religion to those who do nott know Jesus… butt ?m nott ordered to kill those who do not want to becomme Christians or paie a tax…
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said... What I have read from Buchaille I can honestly state that Buchaille is a master speculator.Dr. Maurice Bucailles was on Saudi payroll and that says a lot.
I find it very strange indeed that Maurice Baucaille could write a book like that and not convert to Islam. This simply makes not sense.I suspect that he wrote the book knowing that muslims in general would it raw making the book a best-seller which would make him very very wealthy.I suspect also that he himself does not believe in a word of what he is writes about the alleged Qur'anic prediction of modern science.
Dear Dr Qureshi, I must say that I am disappointed in the arrogance of your response to a request for clarification:"I have dissected human cadavers. I have seen at least 20 bodies and all their internal organs. I have studied medicine for 5 years, and I have seen countless CT scans and MRIs. As far as medical illustrations and diagrams, I have seen too many to count."and"Allow me to post this in caps and bold so that I only have to say this once:SEMINAL VESICLES ARE NOT BETWEEN THE BACKBONE AND THE RIBS! Even having to affirm this makes me feel ridiculous -- it's like having to affirm that chickens lay eggs."There are many many that are Medical Doctors, if your knowledge hasn't made a better person of you then it is wasted.I hope that this is an exception (oversight) to your normal manner of responding to Muslims.Peace, fot
Fernando... Relax, and grasp what I said.butt whie do you habe youre religione? Can itt stande as s true religion? Iff"Islam... is a thinking mans religion" ---> I am a muslim, and obviously believe I am following a true religion. Why would anyone want to follow a fake one. so, whie? Have you eber stopped to think aboute it for a whille?---> "thinking mans religion"-----------------"I was once a muslim and I was always saide not to aske some questiones"...I am a muslim, and know that, as with anything in life, asking questions is how you learn. Mix with people who truly understand religion. I am not one btw :-)-----butt I’ll gibe you the change to prove me I’m wrongue… please: elaborarte in the concept off “freedom off religion in islam”----> Strange. Youve been been calling me out on a paraphrased verse of the Quran this whole time: "You have your religion, I have mine": 109: 6 al-kafiroon.Im not here to fight you fernando. Do your studies, learn about Islam, and Christanity. and careful when you talk about knowing Quran, contextually or noncontextually, too. Quran verses, as Im sure you have studied as a muslim and otherwise, are all delivered at different times. The prohibition of alcohol is something to get you started. --------------the true wordes off God can be translatd to any human languageHence different meanings, "versions"@ the Othman bin Afan (RAA) stab.This is where you need to get history right.Uthman as you obviously know, was the compiler of the Quran: Kufa and Damascus were veering away from established Qureshi script. As a compiler, you compile what is right. To put things in perspective. Ever hear of Abu Bakrs (RAA) war with the false prophets? You think false versions and prophecies werent spread?The reason for the war was precisely that."denominations (since are, precisely those who deny the richness off the Bible’s pollesemy.."So people denying the richness of the bibles words are allowed to be Christians?In the Quran, its a tenet of belief, even with regard to the Bible. (arkan ileman)Careful. I think you meant something else. ---- Finally, please dont make a mockery of my religion. Your parting shot isn't appreciated."m nott ordered to kill those who do not want to becomme Christians or paie a tax"Those are two vastly different topics you deliberately bunched together. But with a simple answer, in an ideal world, live where you choose and be subject to its laws.Dont live in an ummah to be taxed, dont live in the US to be taxed.Dont convert from hinduism to islam, dont convert from islam to hinduism.All of it is relative to where you CHOOSE to live.PS that took forever
3li… I’m always relaxed… always, butt thankes for your preocupation…3li saide: «I am a muslim, and know that, as with anything in life, asking questions is how you learn»… realie? Then I have to say that manie muslimes don’t learn are manie others are prohibited to learn… to sade, to sade indeed…3li, quoting that surah (109: 6) does not mean anything… and you know thate… manie other latter surahs abrogated that early meccan surah… and even surah 109:6 does not implie the acceptance off others’ religion, all in the contrary: is an expression off hatte towards the others creatting an barrier between muslimes and non-muslimes just as Syed Abbu-Ala' Maududi’s “Chapter Introductions to the Qur'na” sates: «If the surah is read with this background in mind, one finds that it was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity»… context inside the qur’an? I agree… historical context? According to muslime theologie no… butt since I do nott believe in islam’s theologie I do read the qur’an in context… I simplie fely strange to see a muslime to say that the message off the qur’an is a circumstantial one…3li then saide tahte he was nott here to fighte me… uff, thankes! One daie I’ll tell you wat muslimes made to me and mie familie… Then he saies: «Quran verses, as Im sure you have studied as a muslim and otherwise, are all delivered at different times»… yep… preciselie wahte I said about latter surahs abrogating others earlier surahs with contradictory massages… butt that I’m sure you know… about studiyen islam and Christianity, Irt’s what I do for the latter 40 years off mie life… 3li then saide something aboiut Uthman… strange eberie muslim as it’s version off whate Uthman did… eben stranger to find you’re so apart off the authentic factes… as you well know… know it’s me: learn and get youre historie righte; this is, without euphemismes and other deviations.3li then asked: «So people denying the richness of the bibles words are allowed to be Christians?»… they called themselves Christinas (I’m reffering to Jehowas witnesses…) eben when no one else recognise them as suche… the historical denominations are due to human conflicts, nott majore theological aspects…3li then saide: «Finally, please dont make a mockery of my religion»… well, strange demand sinve it was you thate satreted mocking Christianity sayind that we have all those aspects of it’s nature due to the lack off knowledge off the original langueges off the Bible… Butt I’m not mocking you’re religion (eben when I think islam is a false religion…) as you know muslimes are saide to give non-muslmies 3 optiones: convertion, paying a degradating tax (it’s nott a simple tax as muslimes pay… it’s to make non-muslimes repudiated and hated… ist’s a tax of protection… against whom? against whate?... neither the SAME tax payed bie everyone… not an apartheid in taxes due to religious believes…), or… dead… 3li… you know this better than me…3li… believe me: peace in Jesus our God to you and your familie… The same peace muslimes took to me and mya famelie…
"manie others are prohibited to learn". That is contrary to muslim beliefs, and, I would hope, any other religion."(109: 6) does not mean anything…"believe what you want, that is Quran, the scholar you quoted after this is spouting ignorance whereas I have given you clear verses."historical context? According to muslime theologie no"... Disagree entirely, the whole reason that literalism has trouble in the muslim world is because of reasons like this. Historical context is important."One daie I’ll tell you wat muslimes made to me and mie familie".. Im a muslim, and have done nothing to you."eben stranger to find you’re so apart off the authentic factes" ... Uthman (RAA) was the compiler, it is well known.Do a wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_ibn_Affan"human conflicts, nott majore theological aspects…" ... My words exactly about mainstream muslims. Intresting about the jehovah witnesses, I dont know much about them, but the little I know intrigues me..."you thate satreted mocking Christianity"... Read what I said again. If I wanted to mock I wouldnt bother replying to you."as you know muslimes are saide to give non-muslmies 3 optiones"Like I said, the law of the land prevails (especially used in war). Read about moorish Islam, and how your 3 options where applied there:Specifically the taxation system (jezya)especially on the jews who were the foremost bankers of the land, and how the system as a whole led to one of the golden ages of its time.And by the way while youre at it, read about the crusades (after the moors) and the way they applied your 3 laws.This isnt tit for tat, this is history.Finally, I know that it isnt much to say, but injustice at the hands of anyone is wrong, and Im sorry if you feel that way about muslims.Just so you know, we were taught about da'wt ilmathloom, the prayer of the oppressed. It is answered regardless of your religionNeedless to say, alot of prayers are needed in this world.
3li said... I am a muslim, and obviously believe I am following a true religion. Why would anyone want to follow a fake one.People follow fake relgions because they are ignorant and gullible.3li said..."Islam... is a thinking mans religion" Looks like you quoted someone's opinion. But in reality, Islam represses the brain activities of its followers. In fact, Allah does all thinking for Muslims. So "Islam... is a thinking mans religion" is a joke.3li said...Finally, please dont make a mockery of my religion. Your parting shot isn't appreciated.How about the Quran mocking Christians and Jews? How about the Quran blaspheming by claiming Allah is the same as Yehweh and thus Mohammed is Yehweh's prophet?How about the Quran blaspheming by claiming that there was no Resurruction? Muslims think they can mock and criticize other religions, but not vice versa.If it is not that bloody, Islam is a big joke.
3li said manie things... manie off them I reallie liked to read... to sad manie are not applied bie muslimes... 3li: I do not believe youre interpretations, butt I do respect your opinions and would love to see all muslimes to beliebe at leaste inn the samme lenght off wave as you... butt please:a) do note quote wikipedia... Uthman's story is not as simple as you say... and you know that: there were politicall aspectes in is "choose and elaboratting" of the qur'an;b) sura 109:6 is nott as clear as you saie... bie tge waie: thates the ortodox interpretatione accepted bie the 4 major schools of islam jurisprudentiall;c) jehowas witnesses... yes... I do feel berie sorrow for those menberes... theie are poeople misled bie other people thate were misled... they wante, in wahte we are speaking, to limit the sense of the Bible to ONE onlie possible way, so they insert and remove wordes from the text to make onlie possible a single interpretation of the text... butt since those menberes are forbiden to rad anithing else (litteralie) than the books writen bie theyr Governing Body they don't eben recogonize thate...;d) aboutt the crusades... I made a thesis on themm... so I reallie know almost eberithing thate has to be known on thate subject... please do take notte: somethingue to be done as a Christian action itt has: 1) to bee made bie Christians; 2) to bee inn touche with the message of the Bible... so... I'll lett the conclusions to you;maie the peace of Jesus be with you and your famelie...
Hi Everybody, i hope you are all wellI am critical of Dr Nabeel's presentation, if you view the response video from my brother fotfoundation you will see why. i sincerely hope the manager of this site will link to this response video which addresses Dr Nabeel and clears up misunderstandings and in the process highlights the immaculate nature of the Quran. Please view the video below:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMQPkDKnOCM
Yahya Snow the immaculate nature of the Quran Al-Maidah 5:116 implies that belief of the Trinity is the belief in 3 Gods and one of them is Mary. And that is just one mistake in the Quran.
Nabeel, Please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/sex_determination.htm to see my new additions that refute you regarding Noble Verses 86:5-7. Brother Yahya, I will look at your video and add it to the article tonight insha'Allah dear brother. Thank you for the link akhi. Take care,Osama Abdallahwww.answering-christianity.com
Victor said: "I asked Nabeel to establish his claim using this framework. Instead of doing that he referred me back to his video/debate."...and why is your framework correct and necessary? Please clarify.Victor said: "Yet you had to find a strawman because you realized that I may be about to refute the case Nabeel presented with regards to scientific inaccuracy."Not at all. I simply raised the observation that reading the Quran with such a "wide breadth" [as a nice way of saying it] is the type of thing that allows you to easily confirm your preconceptions. As for you being "about to refute" Nabeel, I highly doubt it, but I suppose time may tell. What I do find interesting is that you haven't yet demonstrated how Nabeel is wrong. In fact, it would seem that for some odd reason you are going out of your way to be intentionally obtuse in your statements, while at the same time implying that Nabeel is wrong. Perhaps if you concretely demonstrated how he is wrong...? The closest you've come to doing that so far is state [in a very vague manner] that in some way the Quran is accurate. Please feel free to demonstrate how it is accurate. Why be so cagey and obtuse? If you are correct, it shouldn't be too hard to do =)
hey nma, thanks for reading my comment...I am concerned though..:(you said:..Al-Maidah 5:116 implies that belief of the Trinity is the belief in 3 Gods and one of them is Mary. And that is just one mistake in the Quran...on June 1, 2009 4:07 AMI have news for you nma...it says NO such thing...how about actually reading the verse in qustion before commenting on it....the Quran is indeed immaculate...this is further highlighted by the fact that you brought a LIE forward in order to try and 'disprove' the QuranFood for thought my friendi will be addressing a few commen missionary lies soon...look out for it on my blognma..sorry if my tone was harsh but I do call missionary propaganda when I see it...you (I believe) got duped by the Christian missionary propaganda through a lack of Quranic knowledge..ie you were tricked and believed a lie without fully checking the legitimacy of the claim....you were not the one initiating the liepeaceI got to go, please email me if you want to chat as i cannot keep coming back and forth for chat. Thanksps...big thanks to the admin as I think they have not censored any of my comments.may Allah guide us allameen
Yahya Snow said: "I have news for you nma...it says NO such thing...how about actually reading the verse in qustion before commenting on it....the Quran is indeed immaculate...this is further highlighted by the fact that you brought a LIE forward in order to try and 'disprove' the Quran"There is nothing "immaculate" about the Quran. And nma is right, that's exactly what Al-Maidah 5:116 is saying. It declares the "gods" of the Christians are 1)Allah, 2)Isa, 3) Mary. You simply have to destroy your own rational thinking skills and distort the text to cover up this fact.Al-Maidah 5:116 (Y. Ali) "And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden."This Ayah clearly is saying that Christians take Yeshua and Miryam as "gods" in addition to Allah. Now look what what Ibn Kathir says about this verse:Tafsir Ibn Kathir- "Allah will also speak to His servant and Messenger, `Isa son of Maryam, peace be upon him, saying to him on the Day of Resurrection in the presence of those who worshipped `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah,(O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah') This is a threat and a warning to Christians, chastising them in public,....Al-Bukhari also recorded this Hadith in the explanation of this Ayah. Allah said; (If You punish them, they are Your servants, and if You forgive them, verily You, only You are the Almighty, the All-Wise.) All matters refer back to Allah, for He does what He Wills and none can question Him about what He does, while He will question them. This Ayah also shows the crime of the Christians who invented a lie against Allah and His Messenger, thus making a rival, wife and son for Allah. Allah is glorified in that He is far above what they attribute to Him."He portrays the Christian belief as one of having 1)the father Allah, 2)the wife Mary, 3)and Jesus as their son (ostensibly made by intercourse I would assume). Notice the objection of Kathir that Mary is a "rival" [deity] raised to partnership with Allah? Ibn Kathir gets his confusion because this is what the text of the Quran communicated to him.Obviously, if G-d wrote your Quran He would know this is not, nor has it ever been, the orthodox belief of any Christians. Quite simply, the author of this verse was a human who was ignorant of the topic his cheap polemic was written about.
Victor said: "Sepher Shalom--yet again, you are trying to shift the burden of proof on me. Indeed Nabeel needs to provide evidence for his claims of scientific inaccuracy here and not just assert it is wrong."He already made his positive case, and sufficiently demonstrated his position. I'm assuming this is why he referred you back to his video and his debate with Osama initially.So your claim is that the seminal vesicals are lower than the ribs yet higher than than the end of of coccyx elevationally [since the coccyx is part of the spine], and this is what the Quran is describing? Please demonstrate how and why the text is certainly talking about the seminal vesicals and the coccyx in the first place. I don't see anything that suggests that in there. Perhaps you feel it is "hidden" in the Arabic somehow?Additionally, if your assertion is correct lets take a look at a few other parts of the anatomy that also fall elevationally between the ribs and part of the spinal column:the heartthe liverthe spleenthe lungsthe kidneysthe intestinesevery organ of the torso[now here is where things get interesting in my opinion]the esophagusthe mandiblethe larynxyour mouthyour chinall of the anatomy of the throat, and some facial structuresHow is this true?, you may ask. Simple. They are between the top of the ribcage and the end of the cervical vertabrae [a part of the spine/"backbone"], hence they are "between the ribs and backbone" according to your definition.This is just an absurd way you are reading the text. What you are doing is working backwards. You are starting with modern scientific discoveries, and then forcing those facts into the text of the Quran, even if it requires obscure and ridiculous readings that no Muslim ever offered before said modern discovery was made.A good question is; What parts of human anatomy do not fall within your contorted reading? 1) the legs, 2) the cranium (but only what sits above the cervical vertabrae), 3) maybe the arms, but your reading leaves the possibly of saying they are "between the ribs and backbone" since they can hang at your side lower than your ribs and higher than your coccyx.No wonder Nabeel hasn't responded again after his initial 2 or so responses. Perhaps he finds it hard to take you seriously.
Victor... thankes for youre wordes... obvouslie I told Doctor Nabeel the same I saide to you manie times...then you saide: «the classical Arabic dictionaries defined the backbone inclusive of the coccyx»... ooops... When I read in an antient english text thate «the Mulglough sleep in between the stable and mie house» (and find that "house" means in an antient english disctionarie "space off dweeling with all it's specific and diferent componds"), does itt allow me to say thate the author was refferring to a specific aspect compond off the house... behing so, the Mulglough coulde habe, indeed (sigmantequelie), sleept in between the river and the house, eben when the onlie compond off this one was so small thate no one att thate time, seeing were he was sleeping would habe saide this was the case...Victor: your arrempt to defende whae is indefensable in order to defend youre religions his heart-touching, butt itt juste may backfire on you... iff the author off the qur'an was wanting to speek about the coxxyz he coulde habe done much netter that he did speaking abouth the backbone...bie the way: whie did he used the precise therms "ribs" iff he could habe said "bones" iff in an antient arab dictionarie "bones" would include the "ribs"?God blees you...
Stepher Shalom...You indeed destroy your own rational thinking skills if you really believe that the verse refers to the Trinity...None of the commentators say it refers to the trinity...why do you say it refers to the trinity when NO authority on the Quran agrees with you...Christian missionary propaganda has lead you down a path of errorIf a question is asked to Jesus...it does NOT mean it refers to the Trinity. (the Question does not even mention trinity, 'trinity' is in your mind for some reason...is that because that is a doctrine that you have no evidence for?)Please think about it my brother...less interpolation of your own Islamophobic views and more thought is needed when dealing with verses of the Quran.peace..ps email me if you want to talk..i cannot keep coming back and forth.Thanks
Yahya Snow said: "the Question does not even mention trinity, 'trinity' is in your mind for some reason...is that because that is a doctrine that you have no evidence for?"I never once said it mentions the Trinity. Go read my comment again and you will see that word appears nowhere therein. Perhaps the one that has Trinity on the brain is you?, because for some reason you read that into my words.Yahya Snow said: "Please think about it my brother...less interpolation of your own Islamophobic views and more thought is needed when dealing with verses of the Quran." I referred only to evidence from Quran, Tafseer, and Hadith. I didn't "interpolate" at all. I just went with Ibn Kathir's understanding. I don't know why so many Muslims are fixated on both Trinity and Islamophobia. It's odd.My objection is built upon the fact that Ayah incorrectly states that Christians take Mary as a god. As I have already demonstrated, the Ayah clearly makes a factual error in Christian theology, and Ibn Kathir's Tafseer (in which he quotes Al Bukhari) supports that this is what the Quran is saying, and what the Muslims have historically believed the Ayah to say.Please feel free to go back to my previous post and then interact with the context of what I will summarize by quoting here:"This Ayah clearly is saying that Christians take Yeshua and Miryam as "gods" in addition to Allah.""He portrays the Christian belief as one of having 1)the father Allah, 2)the wife Mary, 3)and Jesus as their son (ostensibly made by intercourse I would assume). Notice the objection of Kathir that Mary is a "rival" [deity] raised to partnership with Allah? Ibn Kathir gets his confusion because this is what the text of the Quran communicated to him."Again, I am not arguing the Quran is describing the Trinity. The Quran never once uses the word Trinity [the closest it comes is saying "do not say three"]. I am simply showing the obvious reality that the Quran falsely describes Christian theology. It declares Christians engage in polytheism of Allah + Mary + Yeshua.I have demonstrated the facts of this using, a) Quran, b) Tafseer, c) Sahih Hadeeth [quoted by Ibn Kathir]. So please feel free to read the relevant quotations of the sources I posted and actually demonstrate what is factually wrong with my claim.
Yahya Snow said...I have news for you nma...it says NO such thing...how about actually reading the verse in qustion before commenting on it....I did not say the verse 5:116 said that "belief of the Trinity is the belief in 3 Gods and one of them is Mary" but said it implies the idea. According to Muslims, the belief in Trinity is the belief in 3 Gods. My point is that, the verse 5:116 implies that Christians believe in 3 Gods and that which is not true. No Christians would say they believe in 3 Gods and NT maintains that God is one. The verse 5:73 suggests the same thing. Thus the Quran's implication that Christians believe in 3 Gods is not true and that is just one mistake in the Quran. This link expalins it further: http://www.answering-islam.org/Emails/mary-ezra.htmThere are numerous mistakes in the Quran and if you want to know the truth about the Quran, you can read about them at various non-muslim websites on the internet.
to nmayou said:'I did not say the verse 5:116 said that "belief of the Trinity is the belief in 3 Gods and one of them is Mary" but said it implies the idea.'I say:First of all, the Christians on this thread said it was talking about the trinity...now you admit it does not mantion the trinity and change your wording to 'imply'...are you juggling?btw....it dos NOT imply the trinity, please STOP dishonestly imposing your own anti-islamic views on the QuranTry reading the tafseer...NO authority on the Quran even suggests that the verse in question is concerning the trinity...so please stop twisting things as it is deception.Again...sorry to sound harsh...but I am in favour of the truth and will call deception when I recognise it...nothing personal against you nma.You seem like a nice person...so please do not take it to heart.Take care.
Yahya Snow said. btw....it dos NOT imply the trinity, please STOP dishonestly imposing your own anti-islamic views on the Quran It implies Trinity. Most translations say 'Gods', not 'idols'.So please don't impose your typical islamic lies and deception.
Victor,The vagueness comes from your absurd reading of the verse [although since you've gone out of the way not to take a direct position that might explain a lot].Anyone that is not reading the text in an anachronistic fashion [i.e. forcing compliance with modern scientific knowledge, and reading it back into the text] doesn't have to ask such ridiculous questions as, "Gee, if the Quran said it's between the head and toes, would it still be an error?"You have demonstrated exactly what Nabeel mentioned Muslims have to do in order to cover up this error > "Textual acrobatics".I'm guessing that a person like you could probably find the Theory of Relativity somewhere in the pages of the Quran.Well done. Way to demonstrate Nabeels case =)
Also Victor,Please demonstrate exactly HOW it is that the Quran is talking about the seminal vesicles, the coccyx, etc.None of those words are mentioned or alluded to in the text, and with demonstrating that the Quran is even talking about those parts of the human anatomy, your question is actually pointless.Thanks
Yahya Snow - You say that no tafseer ever says that this verse is talking about the trinity ?How could you miss Ibn Kathir, who said the following:"(Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the third of three.") Mujahid and several others said that this Ayah was revealed about the Christians in particular. As-Suddi and others said that this Ayah was revealed about taking `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah, thus making Allah the third in a trinity. As-Suddi said, "This is similar to Allah's statement towards the end of the Surah,[وَإِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يعِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَءَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِى وَأُمِّىَ إِلَـهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَـنَكَ](And (remember) when Allah will say: "O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah' He will say, "Glory be to You!")[5:116]."Source: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14362
Victor said: "Nabeel doesn't respond. Let me tell you why."Actually, it's because he's on vacation with his wife right now. FYI: Nabeel thinks the Muslim responses are pathetic.
Victor said: "This is my last post on this subject to you for obvious reasons. Don't be tempted in replying back."I'm sorry you feel the need not to respond, but I appreciate the freedom of dialogue allowed here.Victor said: "quranic expression of seminal fluid which comes from the area in between the ribs and the backbone is scientifically accurate, as I have demonstrated."It's funny that you say you have "demonstrated" this. I don't see how you have provided any compelling evidence of this at all. Rather, you were initially intentionally vague and obtuse.Victor said: "From the very beginning what did I ask for? Evidence. Is it yet provided by any brave souls? NO."Actually what you did was ask for evidence based on your opinion of what the text is saying, without first demonstrating your understanding to be correct. Once again, all your request are pointless unless you can first demonstrate that; a) the text is talking about the coccyx, b) the text is talking about the seminal vesicles, c) the "between" mentioned is meant in the sense of elevation in a standing male.You have done none of the above, and none of the above is stated in the text.Victor said: "Because he has to place the seminal vesicles in between b and d ie., in between the ribs and the backbone!!"Once again, you have to demonstrate that the Quran is talking about the seminal vesicles in the first place. And let us not forget that your assertion above is based on the claim that "backbone" means the coccyx. Again, please demonstrate how the Quran is talking about the coccyx. You have unproven assumptions in your request, that make your request meaningless until they are demonstrated.Victor said:"Spare yourself the futile acrobatics with your words as is evidenced from posts here."...""why do I (Nabeel or Sepher Shalom)still believe that the Quran is in error scientifically in 86:6-7 when there is none?"The "acrobatics" are clearly coming from you. Secondly, you are operating under the assumption that the Quran is describing the seminal vesicles, the coccyx, and using elevation while standing as the reference of comparison. I don't see any of that in the text. To me the plain reading of the text does not show signs of scientific accuracy. If you would to demonstrate that the text is certainly mentioning what you claim, I'm all ears [or eyes as it were].You're holding up a house of cards masked in a smoke screen, of which I am not impressed.
Hei... I juste founde an analogie to Viktor's attempt to say the sun is a square: Muhammad coulde also habe saide thate his wordes were pronunciated bie an organ thate was in between his left foot and his righte foot...as you mighte see, we have:a) left foot, b) left kidnei, c) left testicle, d) mouth, e) right testicle, f) right kidnei, g) right foot...so...butt who wold in his right state off minde saie suche thing or whate others to beliebe in such thing?
Hei 3li... see this finne example thate non-muslimes can live in peace withe islam:http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=19602&t=Pakistan%3A+Christians + ready + to + die + for + their + faith
Dear Nabeel, God bless you mightily for standing up for the cross and the flag! You are an extraordinary young man. While many corpulent and complacent Americans, including many in public office, pander to these thugs who pretend they are peaceful until they get a vantage point and chop off your head (or tongue, in the case of Sharia law's dislike for free speech)you and your group are actually making a difference. I applaud you, your obvious stellar intellect, and your pursuit with passion for freedom and the prince of peace. There will be no peace under Islam...let no one be fooled!These are thought killers and murderers. Madea
Hey everybody! the quran is incontestably miraculous and what it contains is indoubtably lawful, whether to yourself or others... When it comes to askin' if drinking is bad. Wouldn't be logical to admit it iiiiis. Thus Allah guides you. When it comes to asking if you should have se till you marry. isn't it logical? so that you don't happen to lose your self selfrespect and your family's likewise. Legally morally happily....Allah orders us in the quran to believe in Mohamed, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Joseph and all ovem. An there are countless miracles... It's enough proof that it's the same God who sent Jesus. And Jesus peace be upon him asks you in the bible to worship one God= mark 22:22 And the most important thing is to worship you one lord...thus there is no trinity or God in three. and if it's hard to believe that God can't cause marry to give birth without a man, how come we got adam and eve? Logical !!!!!!!! be mindful concerning what you're watching ...and you if you think woman are treated badly in islam, aren't they mistreated when they get hit by men when drunk.... Woman are equal to woman in islam because even a man musn't have sex till he marries. n a woman wins a man,thus. what about the subjection of woman during the victorian erra? :D
Yeah, eminem.tv, you surely know what you're talking about, don't you? Show me a Bible that has 22 chapters in the Gospel of Mark. There's only 16 chapters in the gospel of Mark. Repent from your false religion, before it's too late!http://needgod.com
Post a Comment