Why do you believe Mohammad?

JimiTime

Simple question really. Why is it you think Mohammad was telling the truth when he said that God was talking to him?

Adam Mitchel

Why do we Christians believe Jesus when he said God was talking to him ?

Why do we believe the writers of The Gospels ?,
or the other Christian prophets ?
They said that God was talking to them also.

It's called Faith......and each to their own !

Jari

we believe in Mohammed because he was last messenger of allah (god) and everything he said it was true, it happened or it will happen. he never lied. allah ask us to believe in him.

JimiTime

Well this thread died a death. Does anyone have an answer to a genuine question?

JimiTime

Adam Mitchel wrote: »

Why do we Christians believe Jesus when he said God was talking to him ?

Ask over in the Christianity forum and I'm sure you'll find many answers.

Why do we believe the writers of The Gospels ?,
or the other Christian prophets ?
They said that God was talking to them also.

Last time I checked, this was the Islam forum. The above questions can be asked in the christianity forum if you want. However, I'm asking a question relevant to Islam not christianity.

It's called Faith......and each to their own !

i thought I asked a simple question myself. if that is the muslim stance on why they believe Mohammad, then so be it. Stop making out I'm somehow attacking their beliefs. I just asked a simple question.

JimiTime

Jari wrote: »

we believe in Mohammed because he was last messenger of allah (god) and everything he said it was true, it happened or it will happen. he never lied. allah ask us to believe in him.

You believe he was the last prophet because he said so. What I'm asking, is why you believe he was telling the truth?

JimiTime

Nobody? is there any resource that would deal with this question, or is it a taboo for muslims to answer it? i don't know why it would be taboo. Maybe the mods are on holiday?

oeb

JimiTime wrote: »

Nobody? is there any resource that would deal with this question, or is it a taboo for muslims to answer it? i don't know why it would be taboo. Maybe the mods are on holiday?

Asking him to justify his faith is exactly the same as asking you to justify yours. Why do you believe PDN when he says Jesus speaks to him? You Christians subscribe to the 'Holy Trinity' school of thought, so Jesus is god (would that be a correct description of the holy trinity?).

Asking why you believe Jesus was the son of God is pretty much the exact same question as asking a Muslim why (s)he believes that Mohammad was spoken to by God.

It's all dogma anyway, you believe god spoke to Mohammad, or Jesus was the son of God because that is what you learned in Sunday School or church, and that is what your parents thought you and you are unwilling to examine your faith and look for rational explanations.

This has to be the most ridiculous attempt to start a flame war that I have ever seen 'The voices in my head are better than the voices in your head'

EDIT:
Even as I hit send I started laughing. That exact same argument has been used to justify the deaths of billions of people. Now, that says more about religion than nearly anything else.

Asiaprod

JimiTime wrote: »

Nobody? is there any resource that would deal with this question, or is it a taboo for muslims to answer it? i don't know why it would be taboo. Maybe the mods are on holiday?

Jimi, you got your answer.

Jari wrote: »

we believe in Mohammed because he was last messenger of allah (god) and everything he said it was true, it happened or it will happen. he never lied. allah ask us to believe in him.

Based on your very own method of belief, this answer is totally acceptable. I suggest you leave it at this.

JimiTime

Asiaprod wrote: »

Jimi, you got your answer.

No I didn't. And I clarified what I was asking.

Based on your very own method of belief, this answer is totally acceptable. I suggest you leave it at this.

Did I break a charter rule by asking the question? Because if I didn't, don't 'suggest' I leave it! I have asked a simple question, the only answer I've got misunderstood the question. I am aware of where I am, and have no plans to start a fight or start a crusade. If you look at my A&A questions, do you see me shoot down the answers? No! Why? unlike many posters, I'm actually just looking for the question to be answered. Now you as a Mod have come in here, seen people basically saying I shouldn't ask the question because of my own views. Views which they, and you, have misrepresented. I have no problem if someone goes to the Christianity forum and asks a similar question. By the sounds of it, you need to be enlightened regarding the answer too.
Now why don't you do your Modding correctly and tell the people who have hijacked this thread, by strawmanning my faith and distracting from the question to stop and let the muslims on the forum answer it!

TO THE MUSLIMS OF THIS FORUM: I am not here to start a fight, contrary to the opinions of some of the posters so far. I AM a christian, but does that mean I have no right to educate myself regards Islam? I wont be, and never intended to, bring christianity into this question. Look at my questions on the Atheist forum, and you will see I've not gone trying to ram my faith down peoples throat. Rather I have been thankful for the answers provided, whether I disagreed or not. This is your house, and I am your guest.

So if you can answer the question. Why do you believe Mohammad was telling the truth when he said God was talking to him? Also, due to the lack of constructive response, I mean it when I say it, Is this question a taboo? If it is, I'll look elsewhere for an answer. But to confirm, an answer, and not an arguement is what I seek.
Peacefully, and respectfully,
Jimi.

wes

Same reason as Christians/Jews/Hindus etc. Its down to faith. I was always under the impression, this is common accross all religions.

JimiTime

oeb wrote: »

Asking him to justify his faith is exactly the same as asking you to justify yours.

Fine! But I didn't ask anyone to 'justify' their faith. If the answer to my question is 'we have faith in mohammad' my question is why? Thats a fair question to ask a christian also. I've no problem with that. The answer may not convince, but I'm not asking to be convinced, I'm asking to be educated. I'm not asking so that I can argue my point of view, but to understand someone elses. Simple. Unfortunately, not many muslims answered, and you guys start lighting fires.

Why do you believe PDN when he says Jesus speaks to him?

Could you show me where I said 'I' thought Jesus spoke to him? I can tell you I said that PDN 'claimed' this, and you can choose to believe him or not.

You Christians subscribe to the 'Holy Trinity' school of thought, so Jesus is god (would that be a correct description of the holy trinity?).

Asking why you believe Jesus was the son of God is pretty much the exact same question as asking a Muslim why (s)he believes that Mohammad was spoken to by God.

Ok, so whats the problem? If you ask the question in Christianity, with a desire to just get the answers, then there's no issue.

It's all dogma anyway, you believe god spoke to Mohammad, or Jesus was the son of God because that is what you learned in Sunday School or church, and that is what your parents thought you and you are unwilling to examine your faith and look for rational explanations.

Asiaprod, I'm curious to know why my Genuine Question had you all hot and bothered, when it didn't breach any charter points, yet something like the above just sails right by?

This has to be the most ridiculous attempt to start a flame war that I have ever seen 'The voices in my head are better than the voices in your head'

Maybe that is an insight into your head and your 'methods'. However, its certainly got jaff all to do with my question. You like your assumptions. Some people, like myself, are not in the habit of trying to start arguements. Though, to give you the benefit, many people pick fights by starting with a contentious question. Unfortunately, you are jumping the gun. Maybe you should stop listening to that voice in your head.

Even as I hit send I started laughing. That exact same argument has been used to justify the deaths of billions of people. Now, that says more about religion than nearly anything else.

'Arguement'? Are you talking to yourself? There has been no arguement here, apart from you and that guy who went on about christianity. The assumption just seems to be: Christian asks question on Islam forum, he must be starting a fight. As I said, that might be an insight into how you work, its certainly not how I do.

Now if you don't mind, please stop trying to start a fight. Do you have a 'GENUINE' answer to my question? If not, I'd appreciate if you take a backseat.
Thanks.

JimiTime

wes wrote: »

Same reason as Christians/Jews/Hindus etc. Its down to faith. I was always under the impression, this is common accross all religions.

My question is why you have faith in Mohammad? Why do you believe he was truthful when he said God spoke to him?

To give an example, I don't have faith in Jesus, because he said he was the son of God. My faith is based on a few things. The fulfillment of the prophecy of his life and death. The consensus of the witnesses that testified about him. The fulfillment of the prophecy of the destruction of Jeruselem etc.

So my faith is based on things. What I'm asking is, why is it you have faith in Mohammad?

BTW, I'm not here to argue, either mine nor your faith. I'm just trying to find out what your faith is based on. Thank you for ignoring the previous goings on. i appreciate your input.

Samson

JimiTime wrote: »

Ask over in the Christianity forum and I'm sure you'll find many answers.


Last time I checked, this was the Islam forum. The above questions can be asked in the christianity forum if you want. However, I'm asking a question relevant to Islam not christianity.

Eh?
His questions were rhetorical, and I think he gave a perfectly reasonable answer to the question you posed. In other words, as Christians have their faith in Christ, Muslims have faith that God did actually speak to Mohammad.
This faith is generally derived from what is drummed into you as a child.

By the way, do you have some problem with Christians posting on this forum?

Notorious

JimiTime wrote:

My question is why you have faith in Mohammad? Why do you believe he was truthful when he said God spoke to him?

You say you don't have faith in Jesus, well as Christians thats who you're supposed to have faith in God and his son. Now I'm not saying you personally, but thats the general 'guidelines' I suppose.

Muslims don't worship Muhammad, they worship God. Muhammad is a prophet, a messanger. I'm sure you know that the Quran is seen as the speech of God, as it was told to Muhammad and was written down without any editing.

Taken from a passage in a book ("Islam: A Very Short Introduction" by Ruthven, M. (pg24)) I have:

That it is God, rather than Muhammad, who speaks in the Quran is evident from the way many of the utterances are prefixed by the imperative 'Say!', addressed to Muhammad. God refers to himself in the first person singular and plural; but the Prophet is also addressed, by the Book itself and told about God as a third person.

I think what you want to know is why is the word of Muhammad believed. Anyone can sit in their house and write a book and say that the book is actually the word of a higher power. I can't answer you that, but Muslims wouldn't question such a thing. That would be seen as questioning God, the creator.

As an aside, if you're looking to learn more about the religion, the book is very interesting. Its a short read and you could get it for less than €10.

Jari

JimiTime wrote: »

You believe he was the last prophet because he said so. What I'm asking, is why you believe he was telling the truth?

Because scattered throughout his life were many proofs, he was able to recite the Quran a truly beautiful and perfect text because it was Allah's words, he was illiterate yet this perfect text reiterating the word of Allah as relayed to the Jews and to the Christians while clarifying any discrepancies that had crept in either inadvertently or through the interference of man. This from a man who had no education and could not have known all that was contained in it, particularly sections of the text refering to scientific matters that have only been proved in recent years.

Also there were so many incidents that defy explanation throughout his life it would be impossible to deny that he was the prophet of Allah. For example the selection of the direction of the prayer see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWMIFHb2og. This was possible despite the fact he never went to Yeman. View and see.

JimiTime

Notorious wrote: »

You say you don't have faith in Jesus,

Did I? Maybe i wasn't clear. I certainly do have faith in Jesus. I have faith in him for certain reasons. Thats what my question was was. What are the reasons that muslims have faith in Muhammad.

Muslims don't worship Muhammad, they worship God. Muhammad is a prophet, a messanger. I'm sure you know that the Quran is seen as the speech of God, as it was told to Muhammad and was written down without any editing.

Yeah, i understand that.

I think what you want to know is why is the word of Muhammad believed.

Bingo:)

Anyone can sit in their house and write a book and say that the book is actually the word of a higher power.

Indeed they can. Some do.

I can't answer you that, but Muslims wouldn't question such a thing. That would be seen as questioning God, the creator.

So it is frowned upon to question why you believe Muhammad was telling the truth? Would that be accurate?

As an aside, if you're looking to learn more about the religion, the book is very interesting. Its a short read and you could get it for less than €10.

Thanks for responding, and the book recommendation. As for learning about 'Islam'. I'm more trying to educate myself on the personal views of muslims.I.E. The 'whys' of their faith rather than the 'whats' if you know what I mean. There are many people, some actually on this very thread, who don't know why I have faith, yet assume they do. I just want to know the 'why' of the Muslim faith. As I said previously, I'm not looking to argue about it, just to know why you have the faith you do.
Thanks again,
Jimi.

JimiTime

Samson wrote: »

Eh?
His questions were rhetorical, and I think he gave a perfectly reasonable answer to the question you posed. In other words, as Christians have their faith in Christ, Muslims have faith that God did actually speak to Mohammad.
This faith is generally derived from what is drummed into you as a child.

By the way, do you have some problem with Christians posting on this forum?

As a Christian, I think it would be very Ironic if I was to have an issue with Christians posting here. You have a view that Faith is merely a product of something being drummed into you as a child. Problem is, there are people from many faiths who converted from other faiths, so thats not the case. Also, the question I'm asking is 'Why' you have the faith you have. Now people have started to respond to the question, so I'd like to keep these distractions from the thread. If you want to ask me anything, or criticise my Faith or 'cheek' in asking a muslim a simple question, please PM me and I'd be happy to answer. I don't want this thread getting derailed by peoples feelings about me, and their assumptions about me. I'm just here to ask a simple question, not to convert or be converted.
J.

wes

@JimiTime, Jari has basically answerd the question you asked me, better than I could. I hope you don't think me rude for not answering, as I see no reason, as it has been answered already.

JimiTime

wes wrote: »

@JimiTime, Jari has basically answerd the question you asked me, better than I could. I hope you don't think me rude for not answering, as I see no reason, as it has been answered already.

If Jari has expressed your feelings also, then great. Thats all I'm looking for. I don't think its rude at all. Thanks for your input. As i said, I'm just looking for an insight into why you trust Muhammad etc. Not looking to call you up on your answers.
Thanks again.
J.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Simple question really. Why is it you think Mohammad was telling the truth when he said that God was talking to him?

no

JimiTime

rarnes1 wrote: »

no

Ey?

Agathon

JimiTime: Why do you believe he's not a prophet? - I don't mind if you spill your heart out in explaining this, I won't chop your head off!!

Who was Muhammed (p) in your views? Have you tried to read the Qur'an and understand it?? We believe every single Prophet came with the one message: 'Believe in One God and follow the Messenger's teachings' Muhammed (p) didn't contradict any of the Prophet's before him, he never lied (according to his enemies/history), etc. From reading his Seerah (Biography) from different sources, we see a character who was sincere in all his dealings. We believe that the Qur'an could not have been written by any man alive, therefore, we believe what's in it. It's nothing to do with being brainwashed, sunday school, or any of that rubbish. There's logic in our belief as Muslims.

JimiTime

Agathon wrote: »

JimiTime: Why do you believe he's not a prophet? - I don't mind if you spill your heart out in explaining this, I won't chop your head off!!

One reason would be that I have no reason to. 'My perception', which is open for scrutiny, is that you had 'one' man, who wrote down what he 'claimed' was the words dictated to him from God. Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons) Claimed the same thing. Why should I not believe Joseph Smith? What I find in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, are many people testifying to matters of God. I see clear fulfilled prophecy such as The rise and fall of world powers, the birth and death of Yeshua, the destruction of Jeruselem. These would all be factors that show 'to me' a divine message.

Muhammed (p) didn't contradict any of the Prophet's before him,

Based on what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you reject the words of the prophets of the OT because you believe they were corrupted over time? Also you reject the NT writings. So what do you base your opinion that Muhammad doesn't contradict any of these prophets on?

Thanks for your input, and invoking me to question.

Agathon

If you've studied the seerah (biography of the prophet) for example: 'The Sealed Nectar' or read a bit about the final Messenger (p) you would see many prophecies. You can believe whoever you want to believe, but be sincere in your research of the scriptures. The core message of every other Messenger (we believe there were over 24,000 or so), including of course the old testament was: 'There is ONE God and I am his Messenger'; other beliefs include prayer, alms, charity, being good to neighbor, etc. Does Prophet Muhammed (p) contradict this in his Islamic Message to mankind?

The main question is: if you don't believe he is a prophet (p), what is your reason? - you haven't really given a proper reason we can actually discuss, so I take it you believe he is a Prophet!! Read or listen to even an introduction to the concept of Allah and the prophets from a good Islamic source near you. I don't really understand your original question. Why do we all really believe anything. It's in our references (The Noble Qur'an, The Seerah, The Hadith). What are your sources/references/criteria for believing in people? - Nostradamus/Astrologers also predicted some things (Are they prophets of God)?

getz

god spoke to mohammed-also to jesus-also to abraham--to joseph smith[mormons] also to george fox on top of pendle hill [quakers] can anyone prove different?

Agathon

getz wrote: »

god spoke to mohammed-also to jesus-also to abraham--to joseph smith[mormons] also to george fox on top of pendle hill [quakers] can anyone prove different?

OK let's see your references now for these people you've just mentioned. Could you point me in the right direction to get a source of their core beliefs & history ... I'll have a quick browse through them. I know the New Testament has many contradictions in it so that's out of the way (but I believe that Isa was a true prophet because he's mentioned in the Qur'an as one); where's Ibrahim's original scrolls (I would believe in him 100% of course because he is one of the main Prophet's); where's Josph Smith's & George Fox's scripture so I can have a look at them. Do you actually believe strongly in these people (are you convinced? -- What's your reason??)

JimiTime

Agathon wrote: »

'There is ONE God and I am his Messenger'; other beliefs include prayer, alms, charity, being good to neighbor, etc. Does Prophet Muhammed (p) contradict this in his Islamic Message to mankind?

I never said he did. I said that since you reject the hebrew writings as corrupt, how do you know that this was the message of the previous prophets? Is it because Muhammad said it? or the Qur'an? Both? Do you see what I'm asking?

The main question is: if you don't believe he is a prophet (p), what is your reason? - you haven't really given a proper reason we can actually discuss,

Thats because that is nothing to do with what I'm asking. I've quite simply asked why 'you' believe that Muhammad was telling the truth when he said that a) He was a prophet of the most high and b) That the Qur'an is literally Gods dictation.

These are both the claims of a man, just like a Christian believes Christ was a man who claimed certain things. Why do you believe Muhammads claims is my question?

I don't really understand your original question.

Simple really. As I said earlier, Joseph Smith made claims similar to that of Muhammad. He said he was a prophet, and also that he had a book that was given by God (the book of mormon). So why should I believe Muhammad and not Joseph Smith? I'm really not trying to be contentious, I'm just looking for a reason as to why you believe Muhammad was who he said he was. Surely thats a simple question?

It's in our references (The Noble Qur'an, The Seerah, The Hadith).

Thats the thing though. I'm asking why you believe Muhammad when he said that your above sources, written down by him, were dictated by God?

Your answer above could be translated back to my Mormon example like so:

Jimitime: Why do you believe Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said he Got the Book of Mormon from God.

Mormon: Its in our references (The book of mormon)

Can you see how that is not answering my question?

What are your sources/references/criteria for believing in people?

There can be many. It is said Elijah called fire down from heaven to consume a sacrifice offered to God. It is said that he raised a boy from the dead. It is said that Yeshua raised people from the dead, turned water into wine, made leapers clean and blind men see.

Daniel claimed he had a vision from God which showed him the world powers that had passed, were present and were to come. It was on the button with its accuracy. Even about the rise and sudden death of Alexander the Great, and Greece's subsequent division into 4. It wasn't vague neither.

The record of Christs life show he prophesised the destruction of Jeruselem. This also came to pass. These 'fulfilled' prophecies show something of a divine nature.

So are there such things that show 'you' Muhammads source was divine? Fulfilled prophecy etc?

- Nostradamus/Astrologers also predicted some things (Are they prophets of God)?

Firstly, do they say they are? And secondly, could you show me a clear fulfilled prophecy by them?

Seriously though, I'm not looking to debate with you. I'm really just looking for a concise reason as to why you believe a) Muhammad was a prophet of God and b) That the book he wrote was dictated to him by God via the angel Gabriel.

JimiTime

getz wrote: »

god spoke to mohammed-also to jesus-also to abraham--to joseph smith[mormons] also to george fox on top of pendle hill [quakers] can anyone prove different?

Sorry getz, but I think your way of questioning will have us decend into a proove your religion debate. I really don't want my OP to get lost in such a malee if you wouldn't mind.

Agathon

Sorry JimiTime if I've sounded arrogant in the last few posts. I think it's better to talk face to face about these things as there is a lot of misunderstanding. This message is going to be a bit longer than the others but it's just there to prove my point about the Prophet (p) and his source (the Higher Power of the Qur'an):
There are hundreds more but I'll leave it at 8 pieces of evidence (I can go into much more detail about these if you think they're vague in any way. I just want to remind you that the Qur'an is a book which Muslims believe to be the literal word of God, and this book was revealed one thousand four hundred years ago to the Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu alayheewa's-Salaam), who lived in the Arabian city of Makkah. Now I believe that if anyone were to analyze the Qur'an, they will find that the Qur'an contains many statements - many correct scientific statements which were not discovered only until recently. Therefore, the question I ask you is: how could a man in the Arabian desert, fourteen hundred years ago, have this kind of scientific knowledge? The technology and the means to get this kind of scientific information simply did not exist at that time. Advanced equipment and sophisticated methods were not developed at that time. Therefore, the only conclusion a person can make is that there had to have been a greater power other than man who was the author of the Qur'an. Man could not have been the author of the Qur'an because there is no way a man could attain that type of scientific knowledge.

If a statement in a book, whether it is the Qur'an or any other book, agrees with modern scientific fact, then it can be one or more of the eight following possibilities:
1. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an was a genius - he was like Albert Einstein or something, and he discovered these scientific statements.
2. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an guessed; he just guessed "I wonder what this could be" and he got it right.
3. The author of the statement was a great scientist; so basically he had a laboratory in his backyard, he conducted experiments and that is how he came to the conclusion of these modern scientific facts.
4. Maybe it is just a coincidence, like a poetic statement which just happens to match up with science. What that means is that the author had no intention of talking about modern science. He had no intention, and it was a pure accident, and out of accident the statement agrees with modern science.
5. Perhaps the scientific fact is observable, like for example to say 'bees have a leader'. Well I think if you observe the bee hive, you will see that it is something observable; there is nothing really miraculous about that.
6. Information already pre-existed in history. So what this basically says is that the author of the Qur'an basically plagiarized from another source, maybe Aristotle or something like that. So that is another possibility. Also, How was he able to detect truth in an ocean of falsehood and myths? How did he know this is the right one and not copy wrong statements like most people do when they plagiarize?
7. Which is a source greater than man the author of these statements.

If you study the Qur'an you will see that the Qur'an does not contradict any established modern scientific fact. This is a true statement. many have tried to find scientific errors in the Qur'an, but they have failed; but that's not what I'm trying to prove here. I want you to understand that the logic of Islam and the Qur'an is much more than just blind faith for the majority of the 1.2 billion Muslims.

Okay, I hope you're still with me now ... sorry about the length of this post, but here are eight pieces of evidence like I said, I can name hundreds. But I'll stick with eight:

[ Evidence #1: Quran on Bee s role in nature ]
This is what modern science has to say on the topic of zoology, in particular bees. Today science tells us that the male bee has only one purpose, and that is to reproduce with the female - there's really no other purpose for a male bee. Now here's the important point - however, the worker bee or the soldier bee is a female bee. She is the one that builds the nest, leaves her home, and goes out in search of food. This what modern science tells us - that we have discovered only recently. Now it takes a specialist in the field to detect the sex of the bee - you cannot look at it from the naked eye - it is impossible, there is no way you can look at it that way. Now let me show you what the Qur'an says about bees. Now, keep one thing in mind here. In the Arabic language, animals are either male or female. Like in English we have the word cow - "the cow in the pasture" - that does not tell us if the cow is male or female. But in Arabic animals are either male or female. There is no gender neutral term for animals. Let's look inside chapter sixteen verse sixty-eight. It says over there: "and your Lord taught the bee" (here it is specified a female bee) "to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in men's habitations, then to eat of all the produce and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord."

This is exactly what modern science today tell us - that the bee that goes out and builds the nest, that goes out looking for food, as what the Qur'an has mentioned, is indeed the female bee.

So anyway, I'll have to raise a question now. How did the author of the Qur'an know this scientific statement, that the bee that leaves the nest in search of food is the female bee?

[Evidence #2: Lost city of Iram]
If you look in the Qur'an it talks about a city named Iram inside chapter eighty-nine, verse seven. Now, there's something very unique about the city Iram, which is that nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram before. You can look through all the pre-Arabic or Arabic literature, none of the companions of Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), or Aristotle's work, or the Hindu scriptures, nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram yet this is a city mentioned in the Qur'an. And for this point many people have actually ridiculed the Qur'an and made fun of it because it is talking about cities which nobody has ever heard of. And even one of the most famous critics of the Qur'an, his name was Wellhausen, he stated that Iram was actually a fictional place - it didn't exist - whoever wrote the Qur'an just made up some corny city and then put it in the Qur'an. This is basically what many people thought, especially Wellhausen. Some Muslims also, they felt very ashamed of this fact and so they said "okay, okay, Iram is not the name of a city, actually Iram is the name of a person, yeah, yeah it is the name of a person," because they felt ashamed on this point. Well, anyway, all of this changed in 1978, because there was an archeological dig and they discovered a city named Ebla. Now in this city Ebla, they looked in the library and there they discovered a city that Ebla used to do business with, and low and behold, that city was named Iram. The very same exact city as mentioned in Surah eighty-nine, verse seven of the Qur'an. And that was done in 1978. Now, how was the author of the Qur'an able to have knowledge of this city? This is a question I would like to raise. And even the person who wrote the article from National Geographic in 1978 - I believe it was the December edition,
I'm not sure - but he even makes specific reference to this. He says "Iram, this is that strange or obscure city that was mentioned in the Qur'an." That is even mentioned in the National Geographic article. So how did the
author of the Qur'an know that such a city existed?

[ Evidence #3: Quran on barriers between different seas ]
We are now going to move away from archeology and we are going to talk about oceanography. Today, scientists tell us that there is actually a barrier between the bodies of water, and that this information has only been discovered recently, using advanced equipment. Now let me give you an example: there is actually a physical barrier between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. This barrier - the two seas basically differ in, number one, temperature, salinity, and density, and between these two seas there is an actual physical barrier. And of course, this barrier between the seas which we are talking about is not visible to the naked eye.

Let's see what the Qur'an has to say on this topic. Inside chapter fifty-five, verse nineteen it says over there: "He it is how has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress."

Now this is a statement which completely agrees with modern science. Scientists have only recently discovered that there are barriers inside the ocean, between the seas, and I gave an example between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. So anyway, we see that this statement of the Qur'an agrees with modern science.

[ Evidence #4: Quran on barriers between salt and fresh waters ]
Anyway, let me move on to the next piece of evidence. Proof or evidence number four. We talked about barriers between the two different seas, which differed in temperature, salinity, density, etc. But science today has also told us that there is a barrier between fresh and salt water. In fact this barrier which the scientists talk about - they call it the zone of partition. So basically, on one side of the zone of partition you have salty water, and on the other part of the partition you have fresh water. And this has been also clearly, explicitly stated in the Qur'an. Let's look at chapter twenty-five, verse fifty-three: "it is he who has let free the two bodies of flowing water, one palatable and sweet - (referring to fresh water) - and the other salt and bitter ."

Now here is the important point I would like everyone to take heed to: "yet he has made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed."

[Evidence #5: Quran on no light on the bottom of the seas]
Okay, let me continue. Now, we are still on the topic of oceanography. Let's look at the fifth piece of evidence. Scientists have only recently discovered that at the very bottom of the ocean it is completely dark. That
is, you are going to have to travel one thousand meters, and after you have traveled one thousand meters in the ocean, it is complete pitch darkness. In fact, if you have ever seen the movie Titanic, the Titanic is actually at the very bottom of the sea, and the Titanic right now resides in complete total darkness. Now man, on the other hand, he could probably swim about - at the most - forty meters down in the ocean without special equipment. So he could only go about forty meters, but like I said, once you go down one thousand meters, that is when you see that it is complete pitch darkness. And scientists have only recenlty been able to discover these details - pieces of information about the seas.

Now let's see what the Qur'an has to say about this. Chapter twenty-four, verse forty of the Qur'an. It is talking about the disbeliever that: "the disbeliever is like the darkness in the vast deep sea,(and it goes on in the same verse 'if a man were to stretch out his hand, he can hardly see it; and for he whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light.') It says in the Qur'an: "there is no light for him" and it is talking about the vastest deep ocean. So the Qur'an is saying at the very deep, dark levels of the ocean it is complete darkness, and that is like the analogy of a disbeliever - he lives in complete darkness. Again, this is exactly what scientists today have told us - that the ocean, after one thousand meters, is complete darkness. I would raise a question: how did the author of the Qur'an know this type of scientific information?

[ Evidence #6: Quran names the lowest point on Earth ]
Okay, let's look at evidence number six over here. We are going to get off the topic of oceanography. I have produced for you three pieces of evidence of oceanography. Basically, that the author of the Qur'an knew that there was a barrier between the seas. Number two, he knew that there was a barrier between salt and fresh water, and the author of the Qur'an also knew that at the very depths levels of the ocean is complete darkness. Let me now move on to proof number six here. We are going to talk about geology. If you have a topographical globe - topographical globes show the elevations and depressions of the earth - and if you look at where is the lowest point on the earth, you will see that that is around the Jerusalem area. That is the lowest point on the earth. Anyway, let me read to you this verse of the Qur'an. Again, this is what scientists today tell us: that the area around Jerusalem is the lowest point on the face of the
earth. Surah thirty, verse two of the Qur'an says "the Romans have been defeated in the nearer land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious." Now, this word, "nearer land," that the Romans have been defeated in a nearer land, the word is adnaa 'l-ard, and if you look in the dictionary, they have two meanings for adnaa 'l-ard. One is "nearer land," which many commentators used, because it is a lot easier for people to understand "nearer land". But if you look for the other meaning of this verse, I'm sorry, for this word, adnaa 'l-ard, you will find that it means the lowest part of the land. So, the Romans were in fact defeated at Jerusalem, and that is the lowest point on the earth. So let me read to you this verse again: "the Romans have been defeated in the lowest part of the land." It can also be read that way, that is, any scholar of Islam will tell you that is an equally fine interpretation, because the word adnaa 'l-ard has two meanings: "nearer land" as well as "lowest part of the land". And of course the Romans were defeated at Jerusalem. So here is a statement which completely agrees with modern science. So we see here that the author of the Qur'an used a word in which one of the meanings was lowest land. And has also made a prophecy which came to pass. Could that be a coincidence? This is my question.

[Evidence #7: Quran correctly states Iron is not from Earth]
Anyway, let's now jump over to the topic of astronomy. Now, we know that there are many elements in the universe today, or in our planet today - I'm sorry. Scientists today tell us that after studying the element of iron, that iron could not have been created on earth. And not only that, they say iron could not have been even created in our universe. They say that in calculating the energy required to form one atom of iron, it was found to be about four times as much energy of the entire solar system, just to create one atom of energy. Scientists go on to tell us that this kind of energy is not observable in our sun, our planets, in our solar system combined. So, what they are telling us is that iron could not have been formed on earth, neither in our solar system; rather, it should have come from some external source. That is the only place where iron could have come from.

Now, if we look in the Qur'an, we see that the Qur'an actually talks about things which were created on earth. So basically, someone would look at the Qur'an and say "well, yeah, that's reasonable, I mean how else would a man one thousand four hundred years ago - you know, he looks around his surroundings he sees that everything produced comes from the earth: grass grows from the earth, pairs come from the earth, so yeah, that's very natural." But now the Qur'an also talked about where iron came from. Now, we would assume that the Qur'an would say that iron came from the earth, just like human beings, pairs, just like everything else - like any man would.

Notice what the Qur'an says about iron. Surah fifty-seven, verse twenty-five: "We sent aforetime our apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the balance that men may stand forth in justice." Now here is the important part I want everyone to pay attention to: "and We sent down iron."

It says in this verse that God sent down iron to the earth which the meaning is when people study the Qur'an that iron could not be created by the earth; rather God says We sent down iron from out of this solar system. That is exactly what modern scientists today are telling us - that iron could not be produced by earth. The earth does not possess the type of energy, nor does our solar system, and that is exactly what the Qur'an is stating. Okay, so the question I would like to raise in regards to this is how did the author of the Qur'an even know that certain elements are not from earth? What would ever make him come to that conclusion? A man one thousand four hundred years ago in the desert - if he was the author of the Qur'an, how would he have that type of information?

[Evidence #8: Quran states Sun and Moon have Orbits]
Okay, let me move on to the next piece of evidence. And this is going to be my last piece of evidence here, and then I am going to give a summary. Today, we all know, and I think this is not a surprise for anyone, that the
moon actually moves in an orbit - a circular path, we all know that. But the scientists also tell us today that the sun also has an orbit, which many people do not know. Yes, all the planets are revolving around the sun,
but the sun has an orbit in which is revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. So both the sun and the moon have an orbit. This is what scientists have only recently discovered.

Let me now point you to chapter twenty-one, verse thirty-three of the Qur'an. It says over there: "and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating."

The Qur'an clearly states that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that word, falak, if you look in the Hans-Wehr dictionary, that word refers to a woman's chest, a round woman's chest. So it talks about that the sun and moon have a circular orbit. So this is a statement which clearly agrees with modern science.

Okay, but let me show you how that coincidence keeps happening in the Qur'an. Look at this verse over here, it says, inside chapter thirty-nine, verse five: "He coils the night upon the day and coils the day upon the night."

Okay, I am all done over here, and I just want to review, very quickly, the eight pieces of evidence which I have mentioned in this post and hope it answers all of your questions about Prophet Muhammed (p), The Qur'an and Islam's proof of a Higher Power:

#1. I talked about bees: how the Qur'an correctly said that it is the female bee which leaves the house.
#2. I talked about a city named Iram, which no one has heard [of] until 1978, and this city was mentioned in the Qur'an and archeologists dug up the city. I'm sorry, the archeologists dug up a city named Ebla, and they found out that a city named Iram did exist.
#3. barriers between the seas: this was clearly stated in the Qur'an.
#4. barriers between salt and fresh water.
#5. that at the bottom of the ocean, it is complete deep darkness after, of course, one thousand meters.
#6. the Qur'an clearly pointed [to] the lowest point on earth by using a word adnaa 'l-ard, which one of the meanings is "lowest point." Plus a prophecy fulfilled after 7 years... coincidence??
#7. the Qur'an clearly stated that iron did not come from earth, rather God said "we sent down iron," meaning it came from some external source, which is exactly what scientists today tell us.
#8. the Qur'an clearly stated that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that is exactly what scientists today tell us. And there are more on Astronomy, Embryology, etc. Not one single error in his statements!!! Lucky?!?

JimiTime

^^ Thaks Agathon for such a detailed posting. So are the reasons you detailed above why 'you' believe Muhammads claims?

BTW, is there any fulfilled prophecy in the Qu'ran? Also, are there any prophecies that have yet to be?

thanks again for your great input.

Agathon

JimiTime wrote: »

^^ Thaks Agathon for such a detailed posting. So are the reasons you detailed above why 'you' believe Muhammads claims?

Well I suppose they are JimiTime. Why do you believe that Jesus was God when he never said it??

BTW, is there any fulfilled prophecy in the Qu'ran? Also, are there any prophecies that have yet to be?

Well I mentioned one in the previous post (#6 I think). I'd say if you ask a good Islamic Scholar on one of the web sites or in a Masjid near you they'll give plenty of prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled. Mine would be scattered ... But some of the familiar prophecies are in this link:

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/379/

JimiTime

Agathon wrote: »

Why do you believe that Jesus was God when he never said it??

I think thats an assumption on your part. Did I say that Jesus was God?

Well I mentioned one in the previous post (#6 I think). I'd say if you ask a good Islamic Scholar on one of the web sites or in a Masjid near you they'll give plenty of prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled. Mine would be scattered ... But some of the familiar prophecies are in this link:

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/379/

Thanks again.

getz

the church says and the new testament that jesus said ;i am the son of god; in the dead sea scroll they now say he said ;i am a son of god;the church has tried to hush this up--i have been banned from the islam web so i will not comment on mohammed--

rocksteady

Agathon wrote: »

Okay, I am all done over here, and I just want to review, very quickly, the eight pieces of evidence which I have mentioned in this post and hope it answers all of your questions about Prophet Muhammed (p), The Qur'an and Islam's proof of a Higher Power:

If i may, I would like to go over some of this evidence.

Agathon wrote: »

#1. I talked about bees: how the Qur'an correctly said that it is the female bee which leaves the house.

I dont know much about bees, but at the very least I can say theres a 50/50 chance of getting it right when saying if bees are male or female. Another thing is you say that in Arabic, animals are either male or female, there is no gender neutral term. What happens when you are describing an animal but don't know if its either male or female? Is Arabic similar to French, where its not the aniaml thats male or female, but the noun?

Agathon wrote: »

#2. I talked about a city named Iram, which no one has heard [of] until 1978, and this city was mentioned in the Qur'an and archeologists dug up the city. I'm sorry, the archeologists dug up a city named Ebla, and they found out that a city named Iram did exist.

The Qur'an was written about 1400 years closer to the existence of the city Iram than we are today. Also wikipedia mentions that "Ubar was mentioned in ancient records, in its Arabic form "Iram", and was spoken of in folk tales as a trading center of the Rub al-Khali Desert in the southern part of the Arabian peninsula" (although I cannot see the reference for this, so I dont know when these ancient records are dated from), meaning that other people had heard about it too.

Agathon wrote: »

#3. barriers between the seas: this was clearly stated in the Qur'an.

See #4

Agathon wrote: »

#4. barriers between salt and fresh water.

The very fact that freshwater and saltwater (and different oceans) are clearly different (in taste, colour and movement) is a big indication that there would be some sort of barrier between them. The Qur'an says nothing of its nature, just that its there.

Agathon wrote: »

#5. that at the bottom of the ocean, it is complete deep darkness after, of course, one thousand meters.

This would be pretty obvious to anyone who spends any time on the see, what with you not being able to see the bottom and all.

Agathon wrote: »

#6. the Qur'an clearly pointed [to] the lowest point on earth by using a word adnaa 'l-ard, which one of the meanings is "lowest point." Plus a prophecy fulfilled after 7 years... coincidence??

Seeing as the author was an Arab talking about a battle between Arabs and Romansd, its not unexpected that he would say that the Arabs would win. Since Jerusalem is the lowest point in the world (well its actually the shores of the dead sea but close enough), it would also be the lowest point in Isreal. For the natives to assume that the lowest point they new of was the lowest point in the world is not really unexpected either.

Agathon wrote: »

#7. the Qur'an clearly stated that iron did not come from earth, rather God said "we sent down iron," meaning it came from some external source, which is exactly what scientists today tell us.

You said at one point "That is exactly what modern scientists today are telling us - that iron could not be produced by earth.", However this is wrong. Iron in the earths crust is mostly (but not entirely) from meteorites, however Iron is also the major component of the earths core, it is in fact the most abundant element on earth (4th most abundant on the crust)

Agathon wrote: »

#8. the Qur'an clearly stated that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that is exactly what scientists today tell us.

You use chapter 21 verse 33 ("and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating") to say that Qur'an says the sun and the moon have an orbit, but can you show how where it points out the sun orbits the milky way (ie not the earth) while the moon orbits the earth? Chapter 21, verse 33 could be very easily interpreted to mean that as it gives no indication the sun and moon orbit different things.

Agathon wrote: »

And there are more on Astronomy, Embryology, etc. Not one single error in his statements!!! Lucky?!?

I would appreciate some more, if you are willing.

Agathon

I think thats an assumption on your part. Did I say that Jesus was God?

sorry JimiTime but I thought Christians believed Jesus is a part of God or god/trinity or something like that) Is he not God incarnate??

If i may, I would like to go over some of this evidence.

I don't want this post to be too long; I think we're off the original subject, I'll try to explain the first piece of evidence in a bit more detail. And see where we go from there.
On bees, there's a 50/50 chance, and in fact on all eight there's a 50/50 chance! There was an Arabic cartoon which was broadcast in the Arab world (I watched it in Libya when I was 10 or 11), and the hero was a male bee going out to search for something. So even Arabs ignorant of the Qur'anic text still make the mistake of the worker bee being male (that was a few decades ago) -- I suppose that's just fiction ... Also I want to bring up one of the books which were written much before the time the Qur'an was revealed, and that is the works of Aristotle. Because I think when you look at Aristotle's works here, it's going to give us some insight, because he did some research on bees, which a lot of people don't know. Anyway, when you go to his books on meteorology you will find that he has done studies on bees. This is what Aristotle had to say - and actually Aristotle did make some scientifically correct statements regarding bees - Aristotle discovered that there were three categories of bees, and he discovered that there was such a thing as a leader bee, which today we know are queen bees, as well as drones and workers. So he did make some correct discoveries inside modern science when it comes to bees. But that can very easily fall under the category of (6), that this is something which is observable. Meaning, if you study the bee hive, you're going to see the same thing.

Anyway, here's an important point on Aristotle. Aristotle also made many scientific errors regarding bee study. I'm going to give you seven scientific errors, which Aristotle made.

1. Aristotle first of all thought the queen bee was actually a male, which is wrong, it is female.
2. Number two: he thought bees do not give birth to young, but they fetch their young from flowers, which is actually false. We know that bees are actually hatched from eggs.
3. Number three: Aristotle thought bees come from olives, which of course we know is not true.
4. He said the honey comb of the bee is actually made from flowers. This is false - the honey comb is made from wax.
5. He knew of bee's wax though, but he thought the bee's wax comes from the gum of trees, which is completely scientifically inaccurate - it comes from the wax glands of the bees.
6. He said female bees do not sting because nature does not provide females with weapons, but this is also false, because female bees are the ones that are stinging you. They are the ones with the stingers. The male bees don't have stingers.
7. And he basically thought that the worker bees were basically sexless, meaning they had no male or female parts to them.

So these are basically seven scientific errors which Aristotle made. Now I want to ask a question - I want to raise a point here. What is the scientific truth over scientific error ratio for Aristotle? Well, I believe it is one over seven(1:7). For one scientifically correct statement he made seven errors, and that's reasonable. There's nothing wrong with that, because that's how scientists learn and make discoveries. They make these discoveries by a trial and error method. what is the ratio of the scientific error over scientific truth for the Qur'an in relation to bee study? Who can tell me? Well, it is one over zero (& this is for all of the scientific facts as we will see). Aristotle's was one over seven, the Qur'an's is one over zero (for one area). Which means that the author of the Qur'an could not have plagiarized this from any source, because if you're copying from a source, believe me man, I know this [from] first hand experience: you're going to copy some of the wrong answers too. Also the Qur'an's main message was not scientific. Science just shows up as a normal occurrence so as not to distract the people from the main message. It just came naturally as if the Author was not concerned about functions of the universe but to get one core message across: 'There is ONE Creator without a doubt, Follow your Warner who has come to you with this fact before it's too late.'

The other issues about barriers, Jerusalem, iron, etc., are debatable. The main thing is if you look at the interpretation of these verses properly you will come to the conclusion that the author naturally describes them without effort (even though some things are not mentioned, the scientific error ratio is always 1:0). I don't want this post to gone for longer than it should with posts so we'll discuss each point one by one, if you're happy with evidence #1 (that it's 50/50 chance), we can move onto the next piece of evidence (the famous city of Iram that only Muhammed(p) seemed to recall until recent excavations!!) Is this plagiarized I wonder!? (maybe even taken from the great wikipedia web site, which in my opinion is the lazy-man's research tool & it's not even accurate half of the time!)

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

Because I think when you look at Aristotle's works here, it's going to give us some insight, because he did some research on bees, which a lot of people don't know.

Apologies on intruding. But I find it next to impossible to stay out of the rather distorted statements that circulate about so-called scientific miracles in the Quran. I think you can half guess they are all contestable. But I’d simply draw your attention to one thing Aristotle said about bees

Their size is double that of the worker bees. By some they are called the mother bee, as if they were the parents of the rest; and they argue, that unless the ruler is present, drones only are produced and no bees. Others affirm that they have sexual intercourse, and that the drones are males, and the bees females.

Now, Aristotle may have had mistaken ideas about bees. But it is perfectly obvious from the quote above that he is speaking at a time when ‘others’ hold that worker bees are female. Hence, there is really no surprise that the author(s) of the Quran might have the same idea.

This pattern, you may know, happens in any of these so-called ‘miracles’ that get investigated. The ultimate source of the claim is always a distortion either of what the Quran says or of the ‘evidence’ supporting a miraculous anticipation of knowledge. I sometimes wonder if the intention of whomever generates these claims is simply to flood the world with so many claims as to make it impossible to squash each individual one.

Hence, I’m certainly not going to try to refute every variant of every claim made. I’ll simply remind you that not so long ago the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia was stoutly insisting that it was heresy to say the world was round and orbits the Sun. The simple fact is that the Quran does not contain any miraculously anticipated scientific knowledge. It actually maintains that the sky is held up by invisible pillars.

Agathon wrote: »

Aristotle's was one over seven, the Qur'an's is one over zero (for one area). Which means that the author of the Qur'an could not have plagiarized this from any source, because if you're copying from a source, believe me man, I know this [from] first hand experience: you're going to copy some of the wrong answers too.

I'm not sure this logic actually stacks up, but in any case the Quran is very clearly drawing on material from the world around it, including the errors about the Sun and Moon both orbiting the Earth.

Agathon

I'm not sure this logic actually stacks up, but in any case the Quran is very clearly drawing on material from the world around it, including the errors about the Sun and Moon both orbiting the Earth.

Schuhart, does it actually say this in the Qur'an or are you making it up. Have you even read these statements about the sun & moon orbiting the Earth or are you taking someone else's words for it. The Qur'an just says the sun has an orbit (there's no mention of milky way, earth, etc.) Why is that so hard to believe. The main thing is, it's actually a scientific fact - True?? - The sun is in an orbit. Now you might say he guessed and got it right, that's a valid point but don't change the subject. Do you agree with me ... Do you think it's an educated guess and he got it right by coincidence?? That's all I want to know.

Anyway, the main issue here is the bee (evidence #1): Do you think he guessed and got that right also?? - That's all I'm asking. I'm not saying it's a miracle. I'm asking how did he get it right? - It is right isn't it?? Answer the question and we'll move on. You'll understand what I'm trying to get at once you can actually give me an intelligent answer on how he got it right... It's not a riddle!!

rocksteady, Are you still there?? We can move on quickly to other pieces of evidence one by one, once you give me a quick answer for this without going off on a tangent and your own theories. It's simple - How did he get this scientific fact right? look at the algorithm again & choose one of the 7 possibilities. In fact, all you have to write is a number. I'll get to the last piece of evidence in time and we can argue about that then, there's no point in jumping all over the place. Focus on #1 or just leave it! Everybody has their own opinions in the end and we can go on forever about different theories...
Sorry for sounding arrogant; this is text for you -- that's why I said it's better to talk face to face about these things.

rocksteady

I only have a few minutes to post at the moment, so this will be short.

Agathon wrote: »

The other issues about barriers, Jerusalem, iron, etc., are debatable. The main thing is if you look at the interpretation of these verses properly you will come to the conclusion that the author naturally describes them without effort

Well no, the main things is if you look at these verses, fully knowing the facts in question, then you can interperet them in a way that matches up with the facts. However, 1400 years ago, before most people knew that the moon revolved around the earth, the earth around the sun and the sun around the milky way, passages that say "and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating" and "He coils the night upon the day and coils the day upon the night." are a more than a little ambiguous.

Agathon wrote: »

Anyway, the main issue here is the bee (evidence #1): Do you think he guessed and got that right also?? - That's all I'm asking. I'm not saying it's a miracle. I'm asking how did he get it right? - It is right isn't it?? Answer the question and we'll move on. You'll understand what I'm trying to get at once you can actually give me an intelligent answer on how he got it right... It's not a riddle!!

I already asked if it was the case in Arabic (as it is in French) that it is nouns that have sex, ie that the bee in question was not refered to as female because the author knew it was female, but because the word bee (in Arabic) is female.

Thats all for know, I've things to do.

PS. if you feel this is dragging the thread off topic, then maybe we should start a new one?

Agathon

I already asked if it was the case in Arabic (as it is in French) that it is nouns that have sex, ie that the bee in question was not refered to as female because the author knew it was female, but because the word bee (in Arabic) is female.

I've already answered that for you if you've looked at the first paragraph of my reply up there! There was an Arabic cartoon where Arabic people have made the worker bee male: Bashar the bee, it's called (& it's in the male & not the noun!) The prophet(p) could have easily said 'And your Lord inspired the male bee' OR he could have made a mistake if scientists found out it was actually the male bee which goes out, etc. I know you're probably very busy but all you have to do really is say it's a 50/50 chance. There's no riddle or strange interpretation/brainwashing involved ... The verse is clear!! How did he know??

Well no, the main things is if you look at these verses, fully knowing the facts in question, then you can interperet them in a way that matches up with the facts. However, 1400 years ago, before most people knew that the moon revolved around the earth, the earth around the sun and the sun around the milky way, passages that say "and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating" and "He coils the night upon the day and coils the day upon the night." are a more than a little ambiguous.

I already said we'll get to these one by one ... can we not try to do this slowly so we don't get confused and muddled up. It's better for you since your busy. By doing it in small pieces instead of arguing about the whole thing. If you think evidence #1 is ambiguous say so; but it seems clear to me - '...And your Lord inspired the Female Bee to go out...' Was it a good guess?? We can then go onto Iram, then Oceanography, then Astronomy; but we must get this out of the way and cleared.

Agathon

rocksteady wrote: »

PS. if you feel this is dragging the thread off topic, then maybe we should start a new one?

I suppose it fits fine under the title: 'Why do you believe Muhammed (p)' ... But it looks like JimiTime has no more input, he seems happy enough with his answer!! I'm glad he's not as stubborn as a lot of atheists, scientologists, etc.!!!

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

Schuhart, does it actually say this in the Qur'an or are you making it up. Have you even read these statements about the sun & moon orbiting the Earth or are you taking someone else's words for it.

Indeed, I have read the text in the Quran on which this statement is based. Verse 21:33 seems clear enough to me in its context. To read into it an anticipation of the Sun’s movement relative to the rest of the Galaxy is rather too much. I think that takes language into a space where we can read anything into the text that we want.

But, of course, this is not the only reference the Quran makes to the movements of the Sun. Verse 36:38 talks about the sun running to a ‘resting place’ – a concept that only makes sense if the world is flat. It also seems to me quite clear that Sura 36:40, by asking us to consider the fact that the Sun does not overtake the Moon (making days and nights erratic), is talking of a situation where the Earth is static and the Sun and Moon rotate about it. This all adds up to the Quran describing the Earth as static with the Sun and Moon rotating about it and, as the quote I’ve posted from the Grand Mufti above illustrates, possibly flat. There is absolutely nothing strange or inexplicable in how it is described, given knowledge at the time.

As a little side issue, I was tickled pink when I came across this quote from ‘The Koran for Dummies’ by Sohaib Sultan

The Koran shows an innate knowledge of astronomy in pointing out that the sun and moon alternate by day and night in a ‘rounded course’ (21:33) which alludes to the fact that both the sun and moon rotate around the earth, a ‘scientific’ discovery that was made well after the Koran’s revelation.

I’d guess the mindset of the author to be of interest. He’s been taught, presumably, that the Quran contains information miraculously predating scientific discovery. He can see the Quran describes the Sun as orbiting the Earth. Hence, he writes something we can all see is pure fantasy. I think this says all we need to know about the so-called ‘scientific miracles’. They each just amount to someone cooking up a claim and, when challenged, saying ‘oh, I didn’t quite meant that, er, I didn’t quite mean that either’ as they retreat, searching for some ambiguity they can hide in rather than admit the emperor has no clothes.

Agathon wrote: »

I'm asking how did he get it right? - It is right isn't it?? Answer the question and we'll move on. You'll understand what I'm trying to get at once you can actually give me an intelligent answer on how he got it right... It's not a riddle!!

A more pertinent point is whether there is anything particularly remarkable in saying ‘he got it right’. By the same token, its hardly a miracle if he refers to a city that was remembered 1400 years ago, and then a reference to that same city is discovered subsequently. Yes, worker bees are female. Yes, Aristotle records ‘others’ as having this opinion about one thousand years before the Quran. Yes, this means there is nothing remarkable about this appearing in the Quran or, indeed, about it reportedly appearing in the Talmud before that. So how could the Quran have this right? Because it’s consistent with what others thought.

Given our anxiousness for straight answers and getting on, do you accept the Quran is wrong in stating that the Earth is static? Could you give us an intelligent answer on how it got that wrong? Or in Sura 43:12 and 51:49 which wrongly states that all living things come in pairs, ignoring the possibility of asexual reproduction?

I could go on, but like nasty old Thrasymacus in Plato’s Republic, I find myself wondering what’s in it for me.

Agathon

Given our anxiousness for straight answers and getting on, do you accept the Quran is wrong in stating that the Earth is static? Could you give us an intelligent answer on how it got that wrong? Or in Sura 43:12 and 51:49 which wrongly states that all living things come in pairs, ignoring the possibility of asexual reproduction?

Schuhart: I'd say you weren't very good at exam questions. Somebody asks you a question about something (e.g. how did Muhammed get the female bee right in the Qur'an?) and you go writing two or three paragraphs about other things (sun, moon, earth, settings, etc.) - & then ask the examiner a question!! What has that got to do with bees in all fairness?!! I said we'll look at the bee question first and then we'll come to other things as we look at these pieces of evidence one by one. It's just
a more organized way of debating something. If you want I'll start another thread about errors in the Qur'an...

As a little side issue, I was tickled pink when I came across this quote from ‘The Koran for Dummies’ by Sohaib Sultan

I'll come back to this but I just want to ask a simple question: Is this author an Islamic scholar/interpreter (or did he/she even ask a Scholar)?? You seem to go about things the wrong way. You google things and see what comes up? - If you want to study the Qur'an, actually get one and read it for a start. Secondly if there's any confusion go and ask a knowledgeable Imam (preferably face to face); and don't go to atheists who despise religions & religious people!!

I could go on, but like nasty old Thrasymacus in Plato’s Republic, I find myself wondering what’s in it for me.

I dunno? - enlightenment?? Maybe, I suppose, you get to prove your point whatever that is (Muahmmed(p) was lying, which is untrue??!) I
seriously don't really know what's in it for you, but you seem to ignore an easy question on the basis of, what exactly?? -- It's simple really - did he guess? Why do people seem to think this is a trick question? or riddle? or
miracle (if they say he guessed)? or a brainwashing method?!?

Anyway, about evidence #1, so we go on (the way people go on about this simple question makes me wonder about some of the guys on this forum - they just love to argue for no particular reason - very stubborn about something so simple, it's unbelievable!!) ... seriously, I'm not spinning my own interpretation in this verse. Just read the verse about the bee and answer the exam question as best as you can without trying to compete with the examiner!! Use your head. clear your head. Read the question (you don't need to go to wikipedia or google for the answer, it's actually in your head if you know how to use it!!) And then we'll go to evidence #2 ... go on, take a chance!!!!!

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

Schuhart: I'd say you weren't very good at exam questions. Somebody asks you a question about something (e.g. how did Muhammed get the female bee right in the Qur'an?) and you go writing two or three paragraphs about other things (sun, moon, earth, settings, etc.) - & then ask the examiner a question!! What has that got to do with bees in all fairness?!! I said we'll look at the bee question first and then we'll come to other things as we look at these pieces of evidence one by one.

I’m puzzled as I actually did answer your question very clearly. I said, very clearly, that I’d expect the reason the Quran states that worker bees are female is because people are recorded as saying that for about a thousand years before the Quran was written. Do you now understand I have answered your question, and that there is clearly no miracle involved in the description of the sex of bees?

Could you now answer mine? I thought we both wanted to get through this quickly. You asked me for an intelligent answer on how he got it right. I’ve given you one that includes a reference to Aristotle, which is about as intelligent as you will get from me.

Can you now give me an intelligent answer as to why the Quran got it wrong by very clearly stating that the Earth is fixed? Surely one straight answer deserves another.

Agathon wrote: »

Is this author an Islamic scholar/interpreter

Yes. So was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia I mentioned earlier.

Agathon wrote: »

You seem to go about things the wrong way. You google things and see what comes up? - If you want to study the Qur'an, actually get one and read it for a start.

Unlike many, I actually do read whole books and stuff. I have a copy of the Quran (right here in front of me now). I haven’t read it much of late – as I honestly just got dragged in here because of this inane miracles stuff that is so patently false.

Agathon wrote: »

Secondly if there's any confusion go and ask a knowledgeable Imam (preferably face to face); and don't go to atheists who despise religions & religious people!!

Unfortunately, I actually am one of those despicable atheists. I doubt if I’d find an Imam any more willing to answer a frank question than you are proving to be.

Agathon

I said, very clearly, that I’d expect the reason the Quran states that worker bees are female is because people are recorded as saying that for about a thousand years before the Quran was written. Do you now understand I have answered your question, and that there is clearly no miracle involved in the description of the sex of bees?

So basically, what you're trying to say is, it's an assumption; an educated guess?? Muhammed (p) just basically followed all of the ignorant people around at the time (a lucky guess I suppose) - he didn't fall into the same reasoning as Aristotle? He didn't make the same mistake as some Arabic cartoonists did a couple of decades ago? he just decided to put it in there and coincidentally it's scientific fact?? ok, I'm going to move onto evidence #2: Iram, but before I do, I want to clear one thing with you about this so-called Islamic scholar and the Mufti you seem to reference (they both don't know what they're talking about - they're bringing their own views into matters that actually need specific Qur'an interpreters of the highest order & honest scientists (without any prejudice of world views). There are many books on Islam and science, but one I found interesting and highly recommend is: The Bible, The Quran and Science, by Dr. Maurice Bucaille. His a neutral scientist who researches most scriptures.

Can you now give me an intelligent answer as to why the Quran got it wrong by very clearly stating that the Earth is fixed? Surely one straight answer deserves another.

You got this totally wrong. I'll actually get to this when we reach Astronomy, which will be pretty soon if we actually analyze each of these verses logically (without competing or bringing in prejudice); But I want to also get this thing cleared:
Scientific errors really are not germane to the topic - they're really irrelevant. Let me explain to you why. Let's hypothetically say again that there is this book we found - an ancient book - two thousand years ago - I'm just giving you a hypothetical. And in that book you found every single concept of modern day chemistry that scientists have only discovered today. I don't think anyone would hesitate in concluding that man could not have been the author of this book - nobody would hesitate on that conclusion. Now let me throw this in this equation also: what if there were two pages filled with scientific errors also in that book? What does that mean? Does it change the fact that there are statements in that book which a human being could not have known two thousand years ago? Of course not, it does not change that fact. So again I'm talking logically here. Logically, scientific errors are irrelevant. Whether a book contains scientific errors or not is really irrelevant. It does not prove or disprove anything. These are all emotional arguments. They're basically used to capture a shock effect, but it doesn't prove or disporve the fact that this book cannot have been written by a man - it had to have been a greater source. I hope you understand that - I can repeat that point again in case anyone needs to. But as I said, if you look in the Qur'an, there is nothing in the Qur'an which disagrees with established modern scientific fact, though that is not being debated here.

Okay, having said all of that, If you look through most of my posts you'll see the full logic. Print it out and see if you can understand it because I seem to be seriously repeating myself a lot. So can I move onto the second piece of evidence (#2): Iram?? Have we established that the Prophet (p) guessed right for the bee being female as science says now?

Basically the thing about bees, some people have mentioned male bees, some people have mentioned female bees, and some people have mentioned sexless bees.. well.. there is a very good reason for this. Because it is a 50/50 chance! It’s either male or female! So some people got it right, some people got it wrong. That’s why you see some books you will find male bee, some books say female bee. But my point is, that the Quran got it right. Again I also showed you, that it does not matter what the other books state.

So, the probability of guessing the right bee is ½. It doesn’t matter what book you find it in or what people assumed at the time, the probability is ½ , so that is very important as we continue… it’s ½. Anyway, lets talk about Iram. Firstly is it possible, that maybe….. some way…… some how……. the author of the Quran somehow knew of the city called Iram, I don’t know how, but maybe some way he has done that? So, ok, maybe it was a coincidence or it was luck and I cited that in my algorithm at the very beginning. What do you think about Muhammed (p) on Iram? I don't want to go off tangent like the first piece of evidence ... Answer the question like you'd answer an exam question. You don't need to argue another point for now. We don't want posts to go on forever!!

Agathon

The Qur'an was written about 1400 years closer to the existence of the city Iram than we are today. Also wikipedia mentions that "Ubar was mentioned in ancient records, in its Arabic form "Iram", and was spoken of in folk tales as a trading center of the Rub al-Khali Desert in the southern part of the Arabian peninsula" (although I cannot see the reference for this, so I dont know when these ancient records are dated from), meaning that other people had heard about it too.

I just want to go back to rocksteady's original quote above:
I don't think you read the piece properly in your haste. Read the paragraph below again slowly:

You can look through all the pre-Arabic or Arabic literature, none of the companions of Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), or Aristotle's work, or the Hindu scriptures, nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram yet this is a city mentioned in the Qur'an: Only Muhammed (p) who must have heard it from an unkown wizard in Arabia or something as you claim! You could say Iram was wiped out from history (almost to a fictional level) All of this changed in 1978, because there was an archeological dig (which is impossible at the time of Muhammed(p) and they discovered a city named Ebla. Now in this city Ebla, they looked in the library and there they discovered a city that Ebla used to do business with, and low and behold, that city was named Iram. The very same exact city as mentioned in Surah eighty-nine, verse seven of the Qur'an. And that was done in 1978. Now, how was the author of the Qur'an able to have knowledge of this city? ... And even the person who wrote the article from National Geographic in 1978 - I believe it was the December edition, I'm not sure - but he even makes specific reference to this. He says "Iram, this is that strange or obscure city that was mentioned in the Qur'an." (HE DIDN'T GO TO WIKIPEDIA FOR HIS REFERENCE) That is even mentioned in the National Geographic article. So how did the author of the Qur'an know that such a city existed?

Well again, we would look at the algorithm and we could see that it is any one of those 7 possibilities, perhaps. Some people have guessed or basically made a hypothesis that Iram is a city in Southern Arabia. There's
really no proof for that, but some people have basically guessed at that - but anyway, let's go along with that. you might say- "oh what's so big about an Arab talking about a statement in Arabia? There's nothing really
strange about that or something miraculous." I would ask you to really look at that argument a little bit more carefully, because the point is, it does not really matter if it is in Europe or China or Malaysia. The point is
that no one in history - in ten thousand pages of hadith literature as well as all history - has ever heard this city named Iram. And how is it mentioned in the Qur'an, this city? That is like me coming saying that let's say in Montana there was an archeological dig, and there we discovered a city named - I'll just make up some name, Montezuma, no not Monetzuma - Bohemia! I'm just going to think up some name here. And Bohemia is actually a city, which is five thousand years old. Now if somebody in Florida was talking about a city called Bohemia, that would be something very profound. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. How was that person in Florida talking about a city named Bohemia? Would there be anyone who would come up tonight and say "oh, no, no, no, that means nothing, that could be nothing - it is simply an American talking about a city in America." Well of course that would be foolish. So, there's really no basis for that argument. It seems that Muhammed (p) was the only one aware of this city until 1978's archeological dig. Do you agree that this was some sort of coincidence or lucky guess??

And then we can move onto evidence #3,#4,#5 (oceanography - Barriers & darkness in the ocean (even though Prophet Muhammed (p) lived in the middle of the desert and there has never been any record of him going near sea water!!)
Again, maybe he just made an educated guess like you say - we can move onto evidence #6, and the infamous Astronomy issues(#7 & #8) if you actually think he made the educated guesses about these scientific facts (1:0 truth over error ratio for each one) even though you think they were vague. They seem clear to me!

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

Muhammed (p) just basically followed all of the ignorant people around at the time (a lucky guess I suppose) - he didn't fall into the same reasoning as Aristotle?

You are making the mistaken assumption that the choice was between 1. Following Aristotle or 2. Following ‘ignorant people’. I’m suggesting option 3. which is repeating what might have been the opinion of reliable people around the author(s) of the Quran. You’re setting up a straw man and ignoring the plain fact that Aristotle documents the conventional wisdom 1,000 years before the Quran was written was that worker bees were female.

You seem to be having great trouble accepting the plain fact that this ‘discovery’ that you have been told is so special actually isn’t so special after all.

Agathon wrote: »

I want to clear one thing with you about this so-called Islamic scholar and the Mufti you seem to reference (they both don't know what they're talking about - they're bringing their own views into matters that actually need specific Qur'an interpreters of the highest order & honest scientists (without any prejudice of world views).

Clearly, as this is the internet, I’ve no idea of your qualifications. But, as I have documented, Sohaib Sultan is a young Islamic chaplin in a US university. From the interview, he displays impressive modesty about his role. But I’d suggest that to hold that position he would need more than a passing knowledge of the Quran. The Grand Mufti would be the highest religious official in Saudi. Hence, I suggest that I’m providing more scholarly corroboration of what I’m saying than you are.

Agathon wrote: »

There are many books on Islam and science, but one I found interesting and highly recommend is: The Bible, The Quran and Science, by Dr. Maurice Bucaille. His a neutral scientist who researches most scriptures.

No-one, apart from people who seem to thirst for external verification of the Quran as if they fear it cannot stand on its own merits, takes that book seriously. And the antics of the Saudis get up to, using their chequebooks to try to buy the opinion of Western scientists, is well documented. Again, this all seems to suggest a lack of confidence in the spiritual value of the Quran.

Agathon wrote: »

Scientific errors really are not germane to the topic - they're really irrelevant.

This is an incredible statement. What you are basically saying is if the Quran has some statement vague enough to be read as anticipating science that’s incontrovertible proof of its truth, but if it contains plain factual errors that’s not to be taken as proof of its error.

This is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to disturbing facts.

Agathon wrote: »

But as I said, if you look in the Qur'an, there is nothing in the Qur'an which disagrees with established modern scientific fact, though that is not being debated here.

But we’ve already seen that the Quran conflicts with the modern scientific fact because it states very clearly, in several verses, that the Earth is fixed and does not move. You have simply refused to answer this point, despite the fact that I gave you the clear answer you demanded. With respect, I don’t feel you are treating me fairly in this discussion by your refusal to engage on this point, despite my willingness to answer the question you posed.

Agathon wrote: »

What do you think about Muhammed (p) on Iram?

I frankly don’t care, and I’ve already explained why.

Agathon

I frankly don’t care, and I’ve already explained why

With respect, I don’t feel you are treating me fairly by saying this. The discussion was going logically up towards your arguments but you seem to be impatient to deal with one thing at a time.

I was trying to debate normally with rocksteady but you seem to make me want to go off subject altogether. Can you remember before you intruded we were were going to discuss these 8 pieces of evidence one by one.

You kept jumping to errors and bringing in Mufti's and so-called scholars, etc. We can actually discuss these 8 pieces of evidence very quickly but for some reason, stubborness or I dunno, people aren't being rational about the ACTUAL topic we're on (which is #2 Iram now).

Please be patient with me, everything you've mentioned will be discussed in due course. I'm not refusing to engage on these points, I've said it about three or four times, I'm getting to that topic of the debate, but can we take this one step at a time. Don't worry, there's plenty of time to cover everything .... I'm not going to run away after brainwashing you!!!

I said it before to rocksteady if you can recall I'm going to debate about these pieces of evidence first, one by one, and then you can call the shots about whatever topic you wish... Can we be a bit civilized and organized in our discussions?? The questions I'm asking are not even that difficult. I'll clarify them if you like; add detail to each topic. But they can analyzed in a very short period of time. So stay with me on the topics or else just give up (on #2)!!

Agathon

Schuhart wrote: »

You are making the mistaken assumption that the choice was between 1. Following Aristotle or 2. Following ‘ignorant people’. I’m suggesting option 3. which is repeating what might have been the opinion of reliable people around the author(s) of the Quran. You’re setting up a straw man and ignoring the plain fact that Aristotle documents the conventional wisdom 1,000 years before the Quran was written was that worker bees were female.

You seem to be having great trouble accepting the plain fact that this ‘discovery’ that you have been told is so special actually isn’t so special after all...

So what you're trying to say is, the reliable people were 100% it was the female bee that was the worker bee?? You don't seem to get that it's 50/50 chance no matter what ... It's impossible for anybody at that time to know for sure, hence Aristotle's analysis!! Most of the people (reliable or ignorant) are guessing. Muhammed (p) guessed with a 50/50 chance that this would be right, when the time came (which was in our century). It could have been wrong. Do you not agree, at least, that there was a 50/50 chance it could have been wrong? Or do you believe that just because there was reliable people, they were the most confident people ever; and that gave Muhammed (p) the confidence to go ahead and put it in his book?? In the end, it's a 50/50 chance, as rocksteady said. True??

I actually don't think it's special or even a miracle. It's just a point about a simple issue that you have blown out of proportion altogether for some reason!!

Schuhart

Agathon wrote: »

I actually don't think it's special or even a miracle.

That's grand. I'm happy to leave the point there.

Quranic miracles so far = zero

Agathon wrote: »

With respect, I don’t feel you are treating me fairly by saying this. The discussion was going logically up towards your arguments but you seem to be impatient to deal with one thing at a time.

Well, in fairness, you did seem to introduce a note of urgency in seeking an answer to your first point. And I don’t see the point of delaying over Iram as I’ve already said its hardly a miracle if he refers to a city that was remembered 1400 years ago, and then a reference to that same city is discovered subsequently. I mean, is there anything more to the point than that?

The city of Troy was similarly a legend until it was actually discovered. Do we take that as proof of the Greek Pantheon?

Does this move us on to point 3, with the situation still Quranic miracles so far = zero?

Agathon wrote: »

Please be patient with me, everything you've mentioned will be discussed in due course

Fair enough, but is this actually going anywhere?

(Apologies on being a bit cranky, but I've been working late and, in any event, I sort of suspect I know where you're taking this. I suspect, perhaps unfairly, that despite your apparent dislike of data acquistion from sources like wikipedia, that you're working through the dialogues suggested by Dr Zakir Naik on youtube for handling atheists. You do realise that the Dr Zakir's dialogues only work on the imaginary atheists he pictures in his dreams?)

Agathon

Schuhart wrote: »

...And I don’t see the point of delaying over Iram as I’ve already said its hardly a miracle if he refers to a city that was remembered 1400 years ago, and then a reference to that same city is discovered subsequently. I mean, is there anything more to the point than that? The city of Troy was similarly a legend until it was actually discovered. Do we take that as proof of the Greek Pantheon?

OK, we can move on, if we wish; but I just want to repeat a few things since we forget a lot lately: There's no documentation of Muhammed (p) ever going out near any city named Iram, Nobody around him ever mentioned a city by the name of Iram, It's not in any scripture and he was illiterate, so he took smebody's else's word for it and guessed that it was a true place, even without proving it for himself. He just decided to put it in his book with confidence. I suppose that's just a coincidence. Anyway, like you said there's nothing special about that piece of evidence, since Troy was also a 'coincidence'; or a reliable source (100%)!?

Schuhart wrote: »

(Apologies on being a bit cranky, but I've been working late and, in any event, I sort of suspect I know where you're taking this. I suspect, perhaps unfairly, that despite your apparent dislike of data acquistion from sources like wikipedia, that you're working through the dialogues suggested by Dr Zakir Naik on youtube for handling atheists. You do realise that the Dr Zakir's dialogues only work on the imaginary atheists he pictures in his dreams?)

I can swear to you right now, even though you probably won't bleieve me, and there's no reason why I would say this, but I have never ever in my life read anything written by Zakir Naik. I've heard of his name before, but I swear I have never seen his dialogues. Now that you've mentioned it I might have a look some time later. Thanks for the reference!!

I know this may sound strange, but seriously don't know him. For example, I know Ahmed Deedat, Harun Yahya, Khalid Yasin, etc., but I never got read any of Zakir Naik's works (he sounds like a good read).

Anyway, to continue, after clearing that ssumption about me, did you look at evidences #3, #4 & #5 (oceanography) in my previous posts. Have a look and please stop making me repeat myself a lot, I know you're a busy man, so look at all of the posts (with these 3 pieces of evidences in them) and then reply after analyzing them. Sorry to sound arrogant again, but stay on topic and answer as if you're in an exam (don't compete)! We're getting to your favourite topic (& the errors, i-A)...