Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Can "Modern Science" be found in the Qur’an?
A general rebuttal of this Muslim polemic by Andy Bannister
Every so often on newsgroups like soc.religion.islam and in other circles a particular argument surfaces. This is the claim that within the pages of the Qur’an, modern science can be found. Everything from comets to astronomy, embryology to geology, all this and more are claimed to be found in various Suras. And then it is argued that because Muhammad could not have known this science, the Qur’an must be divine.
Rebuttals to this argument usually consist of debating the particular point of science being advanced (see for example some of the excellent work by Andrew Vargo which can be seen elsewhere on the Answering Islam site). Whilst this is easy enough to do, it becomes somewhat irksome having to do it again and again. Therefore in this short paper, I have tried to produce a rebuttal of the very concept of modern science in the Qur’an. I believe that the polemic itself contains inherent logical flaws, and I hope that the points in this paper can be used whether embryology, geology, or any other point of science is being claimed as proving the Qur’an.
The paper arose out of a debate on the soc.religion.islam newsgroup about rivers and oceans, hence some references to that subject.
Anyway, here are six inherent flaws in the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument:
1 Those who pursue the argument leave no room for alternative interpretations 2 The argument as it stands makes Allah out to be weak 3 The argument is a modern polemic 4 At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument does not find science in the Qur’an, rather it uses science to judge the Qur’an 5 Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything 6 Applying the argument means that the Qur’an is no longer authoritative Conclusion I hope that people find this paper of use. What I found both fascinating and encouraging was some of the responses that Muslims made to it. I had several who actually agreed with what I had said, and disagreed with their fellows who had been trying to use this polemic to promote the Qur’an. For example, a Muslim called AbdulraHman Lomax wrote of point 4 above "this is, in fact, the reason why our scholars generally reject the efforts to proclaim ‘science in the Qur'an’" and concluded his reply to my post with the words "Basically, *Andy is right.*".
Finally, for those who are interested, here are the links to the original debate in the archives of the soc.religion.islam newsgroup:
The posting from Suleiman that started it all. My reply to Suleiman and his friend Abujamal (basically the text of this paper). AbdulraHman Lomax’s reply to me. Please feel free to use and/or distribute any part of this paper. If you have any comments or suggestions, then do please email the author at andybannister@mac.com.
1) Those who pursue the argument leave no room for alternative interpretations
The very nature of the Qur’an means that Muslims often have alternative interpretations of what a particular verse means. There is nothing wrong with this; exegesis is often a difficult, tricky business, especially when we do not know the exact historical context in which a particular verse was revealed. For example, consider Dhu Al-Qarnayn/Zul-qarnain in the Qur’an. Muslims are divided over who this mysterious traveller, referred to in Sura 18, actually is. Some (e.g. Yusuf Ali) believed him to be Alexander the Great, others disagree and have other theories as to his identity, such as Cyrus the Great. There is plenty of room for healthy debate.
However, those who preach the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument are not relying upon what a particular verse says, but upon their interpretation. In fact, it might be better to rename their position as the "Belief that an interpretation of the Qur’an contains modern science demonstrates that it is from Allah." No verse in the Qur’an has yet been found to contain outright science (see point 2 below for more on this).
Consider Sura 25:53 which was what started this particular thread on the soc.religion.islam newsgroup:
"It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed." (Sura 25:53; Yusuf Ali)
Now the Muslim with whom I was debating (subsequently backed up by several others) argued that:
"the above verse of Quran clearly refers to the meeting between big rivers and the larger seas and oceans, where the river in some cases goes in the sea water for miles without mixing between the two entities of water. it is a well recognized phenomenon these days by scientist, also, the Quran clearly and undeniably points out to the reason for that, sweetness of one and saltiness of the other, in modern scientific terms, its differences in specific gravity between the two entities, which is also the explanation provided by modern scientist." (Suleiman, in thread "Scientific facts and Qur’an", soc.religion.islam, 4-Nov-99; online source)
However, when you compare the various English translations of the Qur’an, you begin to see that the verse is not talking about rivers, but bodies of water, according to the Arabic (I have a Muslim to thank for pointing this out to me):
YUSUFALI: It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.
PICKTHAL: And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them.
SHAKIR: And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet that subdues thirst by its sweetness, and the other salt that burns by its saltness; and between the two He has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction.
Now in order for a "modern scientific" interpretation to work, one has to insist these are not two seas or sheets of water, but that one is a river. The Arabic does not make that distinction. Why is this important? Because in order to find modern science in this verse, Suleiman et al have to insist that one body of water is a river (fresh water) and that one is an ocean (salt water). They can then introduce the idea of rivers of fresh water flowing into the seas and not mixing. Now, laying aside the issue of whether (as I would claim) or not (as Suleiman et al would claim) these two waters mix, there is a more fundamental issue. If the Arabic does not specify one is a river, then there is a much simpler interpretation:
1 The first "sea" or "body of water" or "bahr" (in Arabic) in question is the Red Sea (close to Mecca and Medina) and known to Muhammad, which is salt water. 2 The second "sea" or "body of water" or "bahr" in question could be any local sheet of fresh water (plenty of oases to choose from). 3 These two "seas" or "bodies of water" or "bahr" are separated by land; this is the impassable barrier. 4 Hence Sura 25:53 was actually a comment by Muhammad on the wondrous miracle (as he saw it), that Allah has seen fit to separate fresh and salt water. This interpretation has a number of advantages going for it over the position put forward by Suleiman and others who would claim a modern scientific miracle in this verse. The advantages are:
i Suleiman claimed that Muhammad had probably never seen a river flow into the sea (he "lived thousands of miles away from rivers and seas" according to Suleiman’s first post on 4-Nov-99) If Suleiman is correct in this statement, then this fits my latter interpretation above, as in Muhammad’s mind fresh water and salt water did not meet. ii It means that Sura 25:53 is applicable both to the time the verse was written (circa 600AD) and today; the Muslims who first read it could understand it and praise God for his provision, as can Muslims today. The alternative interpretation requires that this verse was meaningless for 1,300 years until those of us with the advantage of modern science could probably explain its meaning. Therefore the Qur’an was not relevant to all men at all time. iii It explains why Muhammad wrote Sura 25:53. Despite having no concept of rivers/oceans and mixing/non-mixing, he would, however, understand the importance of fresh water, and it is perfectly understandable why he sees a supply of fresh water, separate from undrinkable salt water, to be an example of Allah’s provision and therefore worthy of mention. In order to use Sura 25:53 to support the "modern science proves the Qur’an" position, then this latter interpretation needs to be rejected in favour of the former, with no real arguments in favour of the former interpretation other than it must be right because it is a miracle! (Note: Suleiman’s interpretation does not show that the Qur’an contains a miracle, merely that his interpretation of it is something special).
2) The argument as it stands makes Allah out to be weak
If Allah was going to use science to prove the Qur’an, then why not do it in a way that does not depend upon clever exegesis from the supporters of that argument? Rather, Allah could have done it in a way that was indisputable. For instance, why not predict TV with a verse such as: "Say: ‘Men shall watch images that move in a small box that stands in the corner of their dwelling.’" Or the moon landings: "Say: ‘Lo! And men shall walk upon the face of the moon, and plant a flag thereon.’" Do you see? Verses such as these could have no argument against them, unlike the current situation, which requires a) a somewhat tortured exegesis of these "miracle verses" and b) a categorical insistence by those who interpret them that theirs and theirs alone is the right interpretation (often ignoring over 1,000 years of what previous Muslim scholars and interpreters have said.)
You see, elsewhere in the Qur’an, when it speaks about a subject it is crystal clear. Consider Sura 3:2:
"Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal. " (Yusuf Ali)
Nobody could argue other than that this verse is claiming that Allah is the only god, who is living, self-subsisting, and eternal. It is very clear as to what it means. If a "scientific miracle" exists in the Qur’an, then it would be a wonderful proof of the divine authorship that Muslims claim for it. Yet apparently this miracle is buried away, requiring clever exegesis and interpretation to find it. Somehow this doesn’t add up, does it? If Allah had meant for there to be science in the Qur’an, it would have been written clearly.
3) The argument is a modern polemic
I find it very interesting that the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument is a recent one. Can anybody find a Muslim scholar putting this argument forward five hundred years ago? Or two hundred years ago? Or even one hundred years ago? Answer: probably not. And the reason is that it is a modern polemic. You see science is not a recent thing, yet this argument is. Why? Because it is only recently that Muslims have found that people have begun questioning the Qur’an, rather than accepting it blindly. The need has arisen for more proofs of its "divine authorship", proofs that might appeal to a scientific, Western mind-set, as Islam has sought to make inroads in the west. And so this argument has arisen.
An interesting thought is this; that whilst the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument being a modern polemic does not prove it wrong per se, it does pose Muslims who seek to use it with an interesting problem. And the problem is this; that if they are not careful, they will bind the Qur’an to one era. You see, if Allah intended to place science in the Qur’an as a sign, then presumably one hundred years from now, Muslims must still be able to find "modern" science. Yet science will have progressed. So consider:
The Qur’an consists of approximately 6,400 verses. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that 10% of these can be cleverly interpreted so that they appear to contain "science". Therefore we have 640 verses for our source material. Now, as the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument has become so popular in the last 30 years, verses have been quoted at a massive rate. Let us assume that 20 new verses per year are put forward as containing science. That means (given the 30 years figure) over 90% of such verses have already been used up, and in less than 5 years time, there will be no more source material. Do you see what this means? Looking back in 10 years time, over Muslim history from 700AD - 2010AD, people will see that the Qur’an allegedly spoke to modern science from 1970 - 2002 and then fell silent on the subject; that revelation ran out. What does this tell us? That the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument is a modern polemic, limited to a small time frame, that will soon burn itself out as the source material dries up.
4) At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Qur’an" polemic does not find science in the Qur’an, rather it uses science to judge the Qur’an
The arguments in the soc.religion.islam newsgroup over the exact meaning of Sura 18:86 prove this point marvellously. Here is that particular passage again:
"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."" (Yusuf Ali)
Now of course no Muslim would claim that this verse was supposed to contain science. Why? Because we, at the beginning of the 21st century, know full well that a man cannot reach the place where the sun sets. Why, given a fast enough aeroplane, one can even "chase" the sunset (or indeed overtake it). And of course we know full well that the sun certainly does not reside in muddy puddles, lakes, or in any other body of water. Fine. But here comes the rub: what Muslims have done in using this polemic is to use science to judge the Qur’an. Those verses that appear to be scientific are proclaimed as a miracle, those verses that appear to contradict it are stated to be metaphysical, or metaphoric, or whatever. For example:
Sura 18:86 = talks about someone finding the sunset = scientific nonsense = therefore it is claimed to be speaking metaphorically! Sura 25:53 (for example) = talks about two separate bodies of water, one salt one fresh = does not contradict science = therefore is claimed to be scientific Do you see the problem? Muslims claim that the Qur’an is God’s final revelation, containing guidance for living and all that is true. Yet those who pursue the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument inherently contradict this fundamental tenet of Islam. Logically, they have to claim that science, not the Qur’an, is the ultimate truth, and use the former to judge the latter.
5) Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything
As I explained in point 4 above, the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument relies upon selective exegesis, picking up and using those verses that seem useful, and ignoring those that cause difficulties. By exactly the same method one can prove anything. Suppose I want to convince people that I am a prophet with the ability to foresee the future. Now I first wrote this paper at the time of an important England/Scotland football match that took place here in the UK on the 14 November 1999. Imagine that before the match, I had made three statements:
England will win Scotland will win It will be a draw Now after the match (which, incidentally, England won 2-0), I simply say: "Statements 2 and 3 were metaphoric, I never intended them to be taken literally. However, in statement 1, I was talking about fact. Therefore I am a prophet!" It does not take a genius to see the fundamental flaw in this reasoning. Yet those who preach the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument rely on exactly this reasoning; show them dozens of verses in the Qur’an that appear to contradict science (the one I often point out is Sura 18:86, quoted above), and they will claim: "It’s fictional, a story" or "It’s metaphysical" or any number of other possibilities. When it comes to correct and proper exegesis, the end cannot be used to justify the means.
6) Applying the argument means that the Qur’an is no longer authoritative
If some Muslims wish to argue that the Qur’an contains modern science and is therefore a miracle, then there is a further problem. The logical extent of their argument is that the Qur’an is no longer authoritative. Let us suppose for example that Sura 25:53 does talk about the science of oceans. However, it is only one sentence. In order to find out more about this subject, we need to step outside of the Qur’an, as it is not authoritative. There are a wealth of journals, books, and scientific papers that we could read to find out more than the Qur’an teaches on this subject. This then leads naturally to the question: if we can learn more about one subject in the Qur’an by reading externally, then why not others? How can Muslims claim that the Qur’an contains all the guidance mankind needs for living? Perhaps we need to read elsewhere? How do they know that the Qur’an teaches us all we need to know about God’s nature? Or about how he wants us to live? Perhaps they need to read elsewhere to get the full picture? And so on. The "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument destroys the authority of the Qur’an.
Conclusion
It is impossible to argue a position in isolation. There are always consequences, implications of the position you choose to hold or preach. And this is true of the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument. For many Muslims it sounds very nice and neat in theory, and if it were true it would indeed be a proof of the Qur’an. However, for a Muslim who chooses to use the polemic, the logical consequences are dire; it is restrictive, it demotes God, it sets up science as a higher standard than the Qur’an, it doesn’t prove anything at the end of the day, and above all, it removes the Qur’an’s authority over anything. As a polemic it is both weak and dangerous, and as such I believe best avoided by Muslims.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
I know you would like us to avoid using the Qur'an to show it is a miracle as it contains scientific facts which could not be know in the 7th century. The whole of this piece does not deny that fact, and we dont use science to confirm the Qur'an. What we say is this is ONE proof it must come from God as Muhammad (PBUH) could not have know the science it contains. No one Book could be the authority on the whole of scientific knoweledge so number 6 above make no sense. We dont claim that it contains the WHOLE of scientific knowledge. Alla does not need to use science to prove the Qur'an as it contains many other "proofs" ie prophecies, history, that Muhammad (PBUH) could not have known so He doesn't have to predict a TV set. The Qura'an says if angles were to come down with a physical book you would still not believe in it. The other "miracles" is that is can be intrepreted from the time it was revealed to the present and contains verse that are yet to be "proven" by modern science and leaves room for the future.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Tman, there is some wonderful stuff in the Quran, but I differ with my muslim friends because Islamic texts categorically deny the crucifixion and death of Jesus at the hands of the Jews.[4] The Qur'an states that the Jews sought to kill Jesus, but they did not kill or crucify him, although a likeness of it was shown to them. Instead, he was raised alive unto the heavens:[21]
“ “That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto the himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise.”[Qur'an 4:157–158]
This passage of text Tman is calling God a liar because it's contrary to what the Holy Bible says about the crucifixion. Tman, lets look at 1 John 1:1-4
The apostle John prefaces his epistle to believers in general, with evident testimonies to Christ, for promoting their happiness and joy. The necessity of a life of holiness, in order to communion with God, is shown. (5-10)
That essential Good, that uncreated Excellence, which had been from the beginning, from eternity, as equal with the Father, and which at length appeared in human nature for the salvation of sinners, was the great subject concerning which the apostle wrote to his brethren. The apostles had seen Him while they witnessed his wisdom and holiness, his miracles, and love and mercy, during some years, till they saw him crucified for sinners, and afterwards risen from the dead. They touched him, so as to have full proof of his resurrection. This Divine Person, the Word of life, the Word of God, appeared in human nature, that he might be the Author and Giver of eternal life to mankind, through the redemption of his blood, and the influence of his new-creating Spirit. The apostles declared what they had seen and heard, that believers might share their comforts and everlasting advantages. They had free access to God the Father. They had a happy experience of the truth in their souls, and showed its excellence in their lives. This communion of believers with the Father and the Son, is begun and kept up by the influences of the Holy Spirit. The benefits Christ bestows, are not like the scanty possessions of the world, causing jealousies in others; but the joy and happiness of communion with God is all-sufficient, so that any number may partake of it; and all who are warranted to say, that truly their fellowship is with the Father, will desire to lead others to partake of the same blessedness.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Who should you believe? The direct Word of God to the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad (PBUH) the Qur'an, or the word of "John" who was not an eye witness and whose account was written at least 60 years after the "event", in other words hearsay. None of the Disciples witnessed it as the Gospels ALL say they ran away, so whose account are you going by? Who gave the report as to what happened that day as an actual eye witness. It is entirely possible it happened as the Qur'an Reveals and as Muslims believe. "They touched him" after he wa sressucted? Theytouched a spirt ,or a flesh and blood man? See Crucifiction or cruci-fiction thread for another account of the events of that day, which is more realistic than what you believe.
Still waiting on the maths solution to three days and thee nights from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
This is a rebuttal to Andy Bannister
1) Those who pursue the argument leave no room for alternative interpretations
The very nature of the Qur’an means that Muslims often have alternative interpretations of what a particular verse means. There is nothing wrong with this; exegesis is often a difficult, tricky business, especially when we do not know the exact historical context in which a particular verse was revealed. Those who study the science of the Qur’an and the Hadith know the exact historical context in which each verse was revealed.
No verse in the Qur’an has yet been found to contain outright science. There are too many verses of exact science to reproduce here, but here are a few examples: 25. 54: It is He Who has created man from water, (man is 97% water). 23. 14: Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create! This shows the ORDER of the development of a foetus, some of which could not be detected without modern instruments, and some by only discetting a corpse of a foetus! Even the most ardent Muslim hated would not claim that Muhhamad (PBUH) did that. 21. 30: Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? This is what scientists call the Big Bang theory. How could he have know this without modern instruments?
"It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed." (Sura 25:53; Yusuf Ali) When you compare the various English translations of the Qur’an, you begin to see that the verse is not talking about rivers, but bodies of water, according to the Arabic. For sure the Arabic does not use the word “river” because its not something that most Arabs at the time would understand as we do today, but what other body of “flowing water” that is sweet other than a river? So the terms used could be understood by people of all times.
If the Arabic does not specify one is a river (see above), then there is a much simpler interpretation: 1 The first "sea" or "body of water" or "bahr" (in Arabic) in question is the Red Sea (close to Mecca and Medina) and known to Muhammad, which is salt water. 2 The second "sea" or "body of water" or "bahr" in question could be any local sheet of fresh water (plenty of oases to choose from). Or any river he might have seen onhis travels to other countries. 3 These two "seas" or "bodies of water" or "bahr" are separated by land; this is the impassable barrier. Land is NOT an impassable barrier, so it could not mean land. 4 Hence Sura 25:53 was actually a comment by Muhammad on the wondrous miracle (as he saw it), that Allah has seen fit to separate fresh and salt water. In order to use Sura 25:53 to support the "modern science proves the Qur’an" position, then this latter interpretation needs to be rejected in favour of the former, with no real arguments in favour of the former interpretation other than it must be right because it is a miracle! See intrepretaion above, and Muslims don’t claim its amiiracle, but a scientific fact, the waters don’t meet.
2) The argument as it stands makes Allah out to be weak If Allah was going to use science to prove the Qur’an, then why not do it in a way that does not depend upon clever exegesis from the supporters of that argument? Rather, Allah could have done it in a way that was indisputable. For instance, why not predict TV with a verse such as: "Say: ‘Men shall watch images that move in a small box that stands in the corner of their dwelling.’" Or the moon landings: "Say: ‘Lo! And men shall walk upon the face of the moon, and plant a flag thereon.’" Do you see? Verses such as these could have no argument against them, unlike the current situation, which requires a) a somewhat tortured exegesis of these "miracle verses" and b) a categorical insistence by those who interpret them that theirs and theirs alone is the right interpretation (often ignoring over 1,000 years of what previous Muslim scholars and interpreters have said.) The verses need no torture to explain its plain enough for the simplest of minds and need no interpretation. There are billion of examples Allah could use, like the TV above, but its up to Him to use the ones he wants, and they are require no “tortured” explanations: eg; 30. 2: The Roman Empire has been defeated- 30. 3: In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious. This is a historical fact and was Revealed in the Qur’an before it happened.
3) The argument is a modern polemic The need has arisen for more proofs of its "divine authorship", proofs that might appeal to a scientific, Western mind-set, as Islam has sought to make inroads in the west. And so this argument has arisen. And because the need is there now, that is why we use the proofs that have been in the Qur’an for 1400 years to shown the ”modern” mind. And as more scientific discoveries come to light, we can point to them as having been in the Qur’an from that time.
An interesting thought is this; that whilst the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument being a modern polemic does not prove it wrong per se, it does pose Muslims who seek to use it with an interesting problem. And the problem is this; that if they are not careful, they will bind the Qur’an to one era. You see, if Allah intended to place science in the Qur’an as a sign, then presumably one hundred years from now, Muslims must still be able to find "modern" science. Yet science will have progressed. So consider: The Qur’an consists of approximately 6,400 verses. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that 10% of these can be cleverly interpreted so that they appear to contain "science". Therefore we have 640 verses for our source material. Now, as the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument has become so popular in the last 30 years, verses have been quoted at a massive rate. Let us assume that 20 new verses per year are put forward as containing science. That means (given the 30 years figure) over 90% of such verses have already been used up, and in less than 5 years time, there will be no more source material. Do you see what this means? Looking back in 10 years time, over Muslim history from 700AD - 2010AD, people will see that the Qur’an allegedly spoke to modern science from 1970 - 2002 and then fell silent on the subject; that revelation ran out. What does this tell us? That the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument is a modern polemic, limited to a small time frame, that will soon burn itself out as the source material dries up. The Qur’an is a Book for all times and there is no chance of the source material drying up, because as stated above, as more “discoveries” are proven by modern science, then more verses which might seem obscure now will see the full light of day. Eg: 34. 3: The Unbelievers say, "Never to us will come the Hour": Say, "Nay! but most surely, by my Lord, it will come upon you;- by Him Who knows the unseen,- from Whom is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the Record Perspicuous. Now in the time this was Revealed although they could not PROVE there was anything less than an atom, the verse made sense. Now that we can PROVE there is something less than an atom it takes the verse to a finer degree without changing the meaning. So the more science progresses, so the more we will be able to understand the Qur’an a little better without taking away anything from how it was understood through the ages, it just gets better with time, now THAT is a miracle!
4) At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Qur’an" polemic does not find science in the Qur’an, rather it uses science to judge the Qur’an. The arguments in the soc.religion.islam newsgroup over the exact meaning of Sura 18:86 prove this point marvellously. Here is that particular passage again: "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."" (Yusuf Ali) Now of course no Muslim would claim that this verse was supposed to contain science. Why? Because we, at the beginning of the 21st century, know full well that a man cannot reach the place where the sun sets. Why, given a fast enough aeroplane, one can even "chase" the sunset (or indeed overtake it). And of course we know full well that the sun certainly does not reside in muddy puddles, lakes, or in any other body of water. Fine. But here comes the rub: what Muslims have done in using this polemic is to use science to judge the Qur’an. Those verses that appear to be scientific are proclaimed as a miracle, those verses that appear to contradict it are stated to be metaphysical, or metaphoric, or whatever. For example: Sura 18:86 = talks about someone finding the sunset = scientific nonsense = therefore it is claimed to be speaking metaphorically! Sura 25:53 (for example) = talks about two separate bodies of water, one salt one fresh = does not contradict science = therefore is claimed to be scientific Do you see the problem? Muslims claim that the Qur’an is God’s final revelation, containing guidance for living and all that is true. Yet those who pursue the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument inherently contradict this fundamental tenet of Islam. Logically, they have to claim that science, not the Qur’an, is the ultimate truth, and use the former to judge the latter. I am not getting the point because we do not claim the Qur’an ONLY contains science, and all the verses are scientific, some are metaphors, as you state , but some are ALSO scientific which you can’t deny. There is nothing in the Qur’an that you can point that is not true.
5) Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything. Yet those who preach the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument rely on exactly this reasoning; show them dozens of verses in the Qur’an that appear to contradict science (the one I often point out is Sura 18:86, quoted above), and they will claim: "It’s fictional, a story" or "It’s metaphysical" or any number of other possibilities. When it comes to correct and proper exegesis, the end cannot be used to justify the means. This is true, if it appears the verse contradicts science, it can be called a metaphor, but that does not negate the fact that there are clear scientific facts in the Qur’an. Eg: 23. 14 “Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature,” that don’t rely on interpretation or metaphors, that Muhammad (PBUH) could not have know 1400 years ago. So even if you discount all the ones that seem to contradict science, and which we call metaphors, we are still left with NUMEROUS plain ones that are proven scientific.
6) Applying the argument means that the Qur’an is no longer authoritative
If some Muslims wish to argue that the Qur’an contains modern science and is therefore a miracle, then there is a further problem. The logical extent of their argument is that the Qur’an is no longer authoritative. Let us suppose for example that Sura 25:53 does talk about the science of oceans. However, it is only one sentence. In order to find out more about this subject, we need to step outside of the Qur’an, as it is not authoritative. There are a wealth of journals, books, and scientific papers that we could read to find out more than the Qur’an teaches on this subject. This then leads naturally to the question: if we can learn more about one subject in the Qur’an by reading externally, then why not others? How can Muslims claim that the Qur’an contains all the guidance mankind needs for living? Perhaps we need to read elsewhere? How do they know that the Qur’an teaches us all we need to know about God’s nature? Or about how he wants us to live? Perhaps they need to read elsewhere to get the full picture? And so on. The "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument destroys the authority of the Qur’an. We can claim the Qur’an contains all the guidance mankind needs for living because it says so itself it does not make that claim on any other subject: 5. 3 This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.
Conclusion It is impossible to argue a position in isolation. There are always consequences, implications of the position you choose to hold or preach. And this is true of the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument. For many Muslims it sounds very nice and neat in theory, and if it were true it would indeed be a proof of the Qur’an. None of the above refutes that the Qur’an contains scientific truths that could not have been know when it was first Revealed.
However, for a Muslim who chooses to use the polemic, the logical consequences are dire; it is restrictive, it demotes God, it sets up science as a higher standard than the Qur’an, it doesn’t prove anything at the end of the day, and above all, it removes the Qur’an’s authority over anything. As a polemic it is both weak and dangerous, and as such I believe best avoided by Muslims. If science was the only “proof” of the Qur’an then what you say would be true, but it is only a tool we use to appeal to the “modern” mind. It also contains prophecy, as pointed out above which was fulfilled in history. It contains sublime poetry that can only be appreciated by someone who is a “scientist” of poetry. At the end of the day it is not a “science” book, but a Book of Signs, so it could not contain the whole of scientific knowledge. The only authority it claims is the Word of God on how to live your life. The only thing weak and dangerous is your attempt to deny that the Qur’an contains science that could not have been know by a man who lived 1,400 years ago unless he received this knowledge form ALLAH (SWT).
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Tman, who Was The Spirit That Squeezed Muhammad At The Cave?
It is of great importance to identify the spirit who squeezed Muhammad at the cave of Hira near Mecca. After his encounter with the spirit, Muhammad was afraid that what happened to him was from a Jinni. Then later, Muhammad declared in the Koran that the spirit who squeezed him was the angel Gabriel. We read in Surat Al-Baqarah 2:97: Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel - for he brings down the (revelation) to the heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe. Was the spirit really the angel Gabriel? The answer is: Absolutely not!
First: Had the spirit been Gabriel, he would have calmed Muhammad and relieved his fear. But the spirit left him in extreme distress. Gabriel appeared to many people before his alleged visit to Muhammad and each time the first thing he did was to allay that person's fear. Gabriel appeared to the prophet Daniel. Daniel was afraid but Gabriel touched him, he did not squeeze him, he only touched him: And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, "Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision." So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face. . . but he touched me, and set me upright. . . (Daniel 8:16-18). Gabriel appeared to Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, who is called Yihia in the Koran; he identified himself and said to Zacharias: Do not be afraid, Zacharias... I am Gabriel that stand in the presence of God (Luke 1:13, 19). Gabriel appeared to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mary was greatly troubled but Gabriel said to her: Do not be afraid, Mary (Luke 1:30). But the spirit who squeezed Muhammad left him frightened and in great distress. Therefore the spirit could not have been the angel Gabriel.
Second: Had the spirit been Gabriel, he would not have contradicted his former revelations. Six hundred years before Muhammad, Gabriel said to Mary when he appeared to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called Son of God (Luke 1:35). But the spirit who appeared to Muhammad said to him: ...and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved (literally those who are infidels) of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they (Surat Al-Tawbah 9:30 MPT). Gabriel said to Mary that Jesus would be called the Son of God. The spirit who gave the revelations to Muhammad said that this is the saying of the infidels, and declares that Allah Himself fights against the Christians who confess that Jesus is the Son of God. Was the spirit really the angel Gabriel? Could Gabriel contradict himself in such an important matter?
Third: Had the spirit been Gabriel, Khadija would have believed Muhammad's testimony and would not have tested the spirit the way she did. We are told by Ibn Hesham, who wrote Muhammad's biography, that Khadija tested the spirit who squeezed Muhammad. She said to Muhammad: "Would you please tell me when the spirit comes to you?" When Muhammad told her of the spirit's arrival, Khadija said "Muhammad, sit on my left thigh." Muhammad sat on her left thigh. "Do you see the spirit?" she asked. "Yes." "Then sit on my right thigh." Muhammad sat on her right thigh. "Do you see the spirit?" she asked. "Yes," he answered. "Then sit on my lap." Muhammad sat on her lap. "Do you see the spirit?" she asked. "Yes," he answered. Khadija uncovered a feminine part of her body while Muhammad was sitting on her lap. "Do you see the spirit?" "No," he answered. Then Khadija said, "Muhammad, that spirit is an angel, not a devil" (Ibn Hesham, part 2, pages 74, 75). What a strange way to test a spirit!
Fourth: Had the spirit been Gabriel he would not have given a false scientific revelation to Muhammad. The spirit said to Muhammad: Read: in the name of thy Lord who Createth. Createth man from a clot (Surat Al-Alaq 96:1-5). These words are scientifically wrong. Professor Haanein Muhammad Makhloof, on page 508 of his Dictionary of the Meanings of Words of the Koran, says that the Arabic word "alaq" translated into English as "clot" means frozen blood. Man was created from the dust of the ground, not from frozen blood. Even the Koran states this fact: Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man from clay. When I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in prostration unto him" (Surat Sad 38:71, 72). Here the Koran contradicts itself. In one instance it says that many was created from "a clot" which means "frozen blood," while in another it says that man was created from "clay." The fact is, man was created from the dust of the ground as the Bible states. Dr. William Campbell in his book, The Koran and The Bible, says on page 185:
As every reader who has studied human reproduction will realize, there is no state as a clot during formation a fetus, so this a very major scientific problem. Would the angel Gabriel make such a scientific error? Fifth: Had the spirit been Gabriel, he would have taught Mohammad to read and write. The Koran declares that Allah taught Jesus how to write.
In Surat Al-Imran 3:48 it is said concerning Jesus: And Allah will teach him the book and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel. Ibn Katheir in his exposition of the Koran (Vol. 1, page 344), says: The book mentioned here means writing. We would expect that Muhammad, who calls himself the seal of the prophets, would be taught to read and write. The spirit said in his revelation to Muhammad: Read; and thy Lord the Most Bounteous, who teaches by the pen, teacheth man that which he knew not (Surat Al-Alaq 96:3-4). The question is, if God teaches man that which he knew not by the pen, why did He not teach Muhammad how to read and write, instead of leaving him illiterate all his life? There came a time when Muhammad was in doubt concerning the revelations he received from the spirit. The Koran recorded: If thou wert in doubt as to what we have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: The truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord; so be in no wise of those in doubt (Surat Yunus 10:94). The "Book" mentioned in this verse is the Bible, and that shows very clearly that the Bible was the final authority for Muhammad even when he was in doubt. If Muhammad had been a learned man he would have known the truth directly from the Bible. But the spirit left him illiterate.
Muhammad had the right to be in doubt of the revelations given to him by the spirit which appeared to him at the cave of Hira, for that spirit was not the angel Gabriel. If he was a learned man, he would have known what the New Testament says concerning Satan: And no Wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14 NKJ).
It is obvious that Muhammad was totally deceived, for he was illiterate, and could not search for the truth as it is recorded in the Holy Scriptures which were available in his time.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
You cant compel God to act in the way that might seem logical to you, "First: Had the spirit been Gabriel, he would have calmed Muhammad and relieved his fear" this does not prove that it was not Gabriel, jut that he did not calm him down. 2) Of course he would be called the son of God and you Christinas are still doing that to this day, but he was not the only one inthe Bible called the son of God. 3) You are always quote from some person who follows your false line of reasoning. Who is Ibn Hesham? I have studied my books on the Prophet Muhammd (PBUH) and have never heard this ludicrious story before. I have told you many time when you try to speak for Islam you must quote form authentic Islamic sources and not his stupidness. 4) The first stage of an embryo, not the first man, is like a clot of blood. 5) Why would he have to teach Muhammad (PBUH) to read and write? Teaching a person a book does not mean to read and write, ever heard of recitation? The Arabic word not only means "read" it also means "recite". this is the Bible before it was corrupted by mistranslations and all this verse means what is revealed to him was revealed before. You can be illerate and still be learned, learned enough to reveal 6,000 verses, in rhyme, which were not know at that time 1400 years ago. Again Pharasee, satan would be preaching against himself if it was he who revealed the Qur'an because it contains numerous verses which condemn the devil. Try another track, that one don't make any sense. Mr Slippery 3 days and night, do the maths.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Second: Had the spirit been Gabriel, he would not have contradicted his former revelations. Six hundred years before Muhammad, Gabriel said to Mary when he appeared to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called Son of God (Luke 1:35). But the spirit who appeared to Muhammad said to him: ...and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved (literally those who are infidels) of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they (Surat Al-Tawbah 9:30 MPT). Gabriel said to Mary that Jesus would be called the Son of God. The spirit who gave the revelations to Muhammad said that this is the saying of the infidels, and declares that Allah Himself fights against the Christians who confess that Jesus is the Son of God.
Tman, you're Rambling and Babbling and you haven't told me anything, explain the above please.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Pleas dont come back until you have read an authorised copy of the life of Muhammad (PBUH). There are 2 good ones by Karen Armstrong, a former nun, and Martin Ingis both available on amazon. We could spend all year here answering all the lies about Muhammad(PBUH)and that would put us nowhere, so wheel and come again when you learn some more.
Luke 1:35 (New International Version)
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.
Footnotes:
1. Luke 1:35 Or So the child to be born will be called holy. I did not print that, its one Christian source.
The Sons of God
The Muslim takes strong exception to the Christian dogma that "Jesus is the only begotten son, begotten not made". This is what the Christian is made to repeat from childhood in his catechism. I have asked learned Christians, again and again as to what they are really trying to emphasize, when they say: "Begotten not made".
They know that according to their own God given (?) records, God has sons by the tons:
"...Adam, which was the son of God."(Luke 3:38)
"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair... And when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them..." (Genesis 6: 2,4)
"...Israel is My son, even My firstborn:" (Exodus 4:22)
"...for I (God) am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." (Jeremiah 31:9)
"...the Lord hath said unto me (David): 'Thou art My son: this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7)
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 18:14)
Can't you see that in the language of the Jew, every righteous person, every Tom, Dick and Harry who followed the Will and Plan of God, was a "Son of God". It was a metaphorical descriptive term commonly used among the Jews. The Christian agrees with this reasoning, but goes on to say: "but Jesus was not like that". Adam was made by God. Every living thing was made by God, He is the Lord, Cherisher and Sustainer of all. Metaphorically speaking therefore God is the Father of all. But Jesus was the "begotten" son of God, not a created son of God ?
Begotten Means "Sired"!
In my forty years of practical experience in talking to learned Christians, not a single one has opened his mouth to hazard an explanation of the phrase "begotten not made". It had to be an American who dared to explain. He said : "It means, sired by God." "What!?" I exploded : "Sired by God?" "No, no!" he said, "I am only trying to explain the meaning, I do not believe that God really sired a son."
The sensible Christian says that the words do not literally mean what they say. Then why do you say it? Why are you creating unnecessary conflict between the 1,200,000,000 Christians and a thousand million Muslims of the world in making senseless statements?
Reason for Objection
The Muslim takes exception to the word "begotten", because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex. How can we attribute such a lowly capacity to God? Metaphorically we are all the children of God, the good and the bad, and Jesus would be closer to being the son of God than any one of us, because he would be more faithful to God then any one of us can ever be. From that point of view he is preeminently the son of God.
Although this pernicious word "begotten" has now unceremoniously been thrown out of the "Most Accurate" version of the Bible, the Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.), its ghost still lingers on in the Christian mind, both black and white. Through its insidious brainwashing the white man is made to feel superior to his black Christian brother of the same Church and Denomination. And in turn, the black man is given a permanent inferiority complex through this dogma.
Claimed No Divinity
If this is the statement of truth from the All-Knowing, that "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'", then how do the Christians justify worshipping Jesus?
There is not a single unequivocal statement throughout the Bible, in all its 66 volumes of the Protestant versions, or in the 73 volumes of the Roman Catholic versions, where Jesus claims to be God or where he says "worship me". Nowhere does he say that he and God Almighty "are one" and "the same person."
The last phrase above "one and the same person" tickles many a "hot-gospeller" and "Bible-thumper," not excluding the Doctor of Divinity and the Professor of Theology. Even the new converts to Christianity have memorized these verses. They are programmed to rattle off verses out of context, upon which they can hang their faith. The words "are one" activates the mind by association of memories. "Yes", say the Trinitarians, the worshippers of three gods in one God, and one God in three gods, "Jesus did claim to be God!" Where?
Reverend at the Table
I had taken Rev. Morris D.D. and his wife, to lunch at the "Golden Peacock." While at the table, during the course of our mutual sharing of knowledge, the opportunity arose to ask, "Where?" And without a murmur he quoted, "I and my father are one" to imply that God and Jesus were one and the same person. That Jesus here claims to be God. The verse quoted was well known to me, but it was being quoted out of context. It did not carry the meaning that the Doctor was imagining, so I asked him, "What is the context?"
Choked on "Context"
The Reverend stopped eating and began staring at me. I said, "Why? Don't you know the context?", "You see, what you have quoted is the text, I want to know the context, the text that goes with it, before or after." Here was an Englishman (Canadian), a paid servant of the Presbyterian Church, a Doctor of Divinity, and it appeared that I was trying to teach him English. Of course he knew what "context" meant. But like the rest of his compatriots, he had not studied the sense in which Jesus had uttered the words.
In my forty years of experience, this text had been thrown at me hundreds of times, but not a single learned Christian had ever attempted to hazard a guess as to its real meaning. They always start fumbling for their Bibles. The Doctor did not have one with him. When they do start going for their Bibles, I stop them in their stride: "Surely, you know what you are quoting?", "Surely, you know your Bible?" After reading this, I hope some "born-again" Christians will rectify this deficiency. But I doubt that my Muslim readers will ever come across one in their lifetime who could give them the context.
What is the Context?
It is unfair on the part of the Reverend, having failed to provide the context, then to ask me, "Do you know the context?" "Of course," I said. "Then, what is it?" asked my learned friend. I said, "That which you have quoted is the text of John chapter 10, verse 30. To get at the context, we have to begin from verse 23 which reads:
23. "and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade." (John 10:23).
John, or whoever he was, who wrote this story, does not tell us the reason for Jesus tempting the Devil by walking alone in the lion's den. For we do not expect the Jews to miss a golden opportunity to get even with Jesus. Perhaps, he was emboldened by the manner in which he had literally whipped the Jews single-handed in the Temple, and upset the tables of the money changers at the beginning of his ministry (John 2:15).
24. "The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." (John 10:24).
They surrounded him. Brandishing their fingers in his face, they began accusing him and provoking him; saying that he had not put forth his claim plainly enough, clearly enough. That he was talking ambiguously. They were trying to work themselves into a frenzy to assault him. In fact, their real complaint was that they did not like his method of preaching, his invectives, the manner in which he condemned them for their formalism, their ceremonialism, their going for the letter of the law and forgetting the spirit. But Jesus could not afford to provoke them any further there were too many and they were itching for a fight.
Discretion is the better part of valor. In a conciliatory spirit, befitting the occasion:
25. "Jesus answered, I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,"
26. "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." (John 10:25-26).
Jesus rebuts the false charge of his enemies that he was ambiguous in his claims to being the Messiah that they were waiting for. He says that he did tell them clearly enough, yet they would not listen to him, but:
27. "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."
28. "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand."
29. "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.." (John 10:29).
How can anyone be so blind as not to see the exactness of the ending of the last two verses. But spiritual blinkers are more impervious than physical defects. He is telling the Jews and recording for posterity, the real unity or relationship between the Father and the son. The most crucial verse:
30. "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30).
One in what? In their Omniscience? In their Nature? In their Omnipotence? No! One in purpose! That once a believer has accepted faith, the Messenger sees to it that he remains in faith, and God Almighty also sees to it that he remains in faith. This is the purpose of the "Father" and the "son" and the "Holy Ghost" and of every man and every woman of faith. Let the same John explain his Gnostic mystic verbiage.
"That they all may be one as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..."
"I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one..."(John 17:20-22)
If Jesus is "one" with God, and if that "oneness" makes him God, then the traitor Judas, and the doubting Thomas, and the satanic Peter, plus the other nine who deserted him when he was most in need are God(s), because the same "oneness" which he claimed with God in John 10:30, now he claims for all "who forsook him and fled" (Mark 14:50). All "ye of little faith" (Matthew 8:26). All "O faithless and perverse generation" (Luke 9:41). Where and when will the Christian blasphemy end? The expression "I and my Father are one," was very innocent, meaning nothing more than a common purpose with God. But the Jews were looking for trouble and any excuse will not do, therefore,
31. "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,"
32. "but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33. "The Jews answered him, saying : 'For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself a God.'" (John 10:31-33).
In verse 24 above the Jews falsely alleged that Jesus was talking ambiguously. When that charge was ably refuted, they then accused him of blasphemy which is like treason in the spiritual realm. So they say that Jesus is claiming to be God "I and the Father are one". The Christians agree with the Jews in this that Jesus did make such a claim; but differ in that it was not blasphemy because the Christians say that he was God and was entitled to own up to his Divinity.
The Christians and the Jews are both agreed that the utterance is serious. To one as an excuse for good "redemption", and to the other as an excuse for good "riddance". Between the two, let the poor Jesus die. But Jesus refuses to co-operate in this game, so:
34. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods'?"
35. "If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came --and the Scripture cannot be broken--,"
36. "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?" (John 10:34-36).
Why "Your Law"?
He is a bit sarcastic in verse 34, but in any event, why does he say: "Your Law"? Is it not also his Law? Didn't he say: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law of the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill (the Law). For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one Jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:1718).
"You are Gods"
"You are gods:" He is obviously quoting from the 82nd Psalm , verse 6, "I have said, ye are gods: and all of you are the children of the most High."
Jesus, continues: "If he (i.e. God Almighty) called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (meaning that the prophets of God were called 'gods') and the scripture cannot be broken..." (John 10:35), in other words he is saying: "you can't contradict me!" Jesus knows his Scripture; he speaks with authority; and he reasons with his enemies that: "If good men, holy men, prophets of God are being addressed as 'gods' in our Books of Authority, with which you find no fault, then why do you take exception to me? When the only claim I make for myself is far inferior in our language, viz. 'A son of God' as against others being called 'gods' by God Himself. Even if I (Jesus) described myself as 'god' in our language, according to Hebrew usage, you could find no fault with me." This is the plain reading of Christian Scripture. I am giving no interpretations of my own or some esoteric meaning to words!
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Tman, Karen Armstrong is a natural PR machine for Islam and Wahabbi and she has committed intellectual dishonesty.
Now how about this? Is it possible, in a literary way to publish, "Original Quran: By Karen Armstrong" and where the God in Quran says, "Kill the infidels" and change it to "Kiss the infidel", and where it says, "don't make friends with Christians and Jews" change it to "make good friends with Christians and Jews and all non-believers" and make Karen Armstrong "right" and make it to suggested reading in all madrassas? Then Karen Armstrong's Quran would be the authoritative version of Quran. After all the Islamists keep praising Karen Armstrong. Let us see how they can actually eat the new version.
Wouldn't that be poetic justice to Karen Armstrong and all Islamists? What can they do? If they yell and scream it will demonstrate their true colors. If they accept, then perhaps, we may see a transformation or a new 'version/vision' of Islam?
For a start, it would be nice if someone gets a complete version of Wahabbi version of Quran in English, cut and paste it in word, then replace all "kill" with "kiss", replace all "infidels" with "friends" and convert it back to Arabic, publish it and call it Karen Armstrong's version of Islam and sell it in the Islamic world. Let us see if they accept it.
Either way, it is a win-win situation for the civilized world.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
I want some of what you are smoking because you are not making any sense at all. There is already an "original" Qur'an and the meaning has not changed in 1400 years, unlike your book which you don't have the original, only mis-translations and different "versions". See my challenge on other thread, Mr Slippery.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
I want some of what you are smoking because you are not making any sense at all. There is already an "original" Qur'an and the meaning has not changed in 1400 years, unlike your book which you don't have the original, only mis-translations and different "versions". See my challenge on other thread, Mr Slippery.
Tman, you have to be born again to get what I have Mr. Ducky.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
"Tman, Karen Armstrong is a natural PR machine for Islam and Wahabbi and she has committed intellectual dishonesty." You're always making charges without any evidence. When and where has she committed this offense? If you don't like her read Martin Lings then. Don't rely on obviously biased sources for your information, or only what they teach you in Sunday school. "What we know is not what they teach us" – Bob
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Tman, I cannot help that. I am bound by The Lord Jesus Christ and the truth to deal with the whole life of Muhammed. Jesus said in the Bible, John 8:32, And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. As you, my Muslim friend, read these facts about Muhammed from his mouth, perhaps it will help you to leave him and turn to Christ. Here is what Muhammed said:
Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 359, Ayesha reported that Haresah-b-Hisham asked the Apostle of Allah and said, "O Apostle, how does revelation come to you?" The Apostle of Allah responded, "Sometimes it comes to me like the ringing of a bell..." The bells of hell? The association with devils is more clear in the following:
Al Hadis, Vol 4, p. 360, Obadah-b-Swamet reported that when a revelation came to the Prophet, he used to become greatly disturbed, and his face became changed. And in a narration, he would nod his head, and his companions nodded theirs..." Attested by Muslim. This has all the marks of a trance or demon possession complete with facial distortion.
Al Hadis, Vol 4, p. 414, Ayesha reported that the Apostle of Allah was once enchanted. He called to Allah who sent angels. They sat by his legs and discussed his problem, and one angel said, "who enchanted him?" The other said, "Labeed-b-A'sam, a Jew, who used a comb to comb Muhammed's hair and the grape cover of a male person" He asked, "Where is it?" The other said, "In the well at Zerwan." The Apostle went to the well. The well was the color of Henna and the date palms were the heads of devils. He took out the comb, and the enchantment went away." Agreed. This sub-christian enchantment is nothing but demon possession.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
If we were to print all the stories and allegations against the Apostle of Allah, Muhammad (PBUH) this little web site could not hold all the lies told about him for 1400 years trying to discredit his Revalation. Why don't you go to authentic Islamic source for once instead of repeating the stories of the Crusaders.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
If we were to print all the stories and allegations against the Apostle of Allah, Muhammad (PBUH) this little web site could not hold all the lies told about him for 1400 years trying to discredit his Revalation. Why don't you go to authentic Islamic source for once instead of repeating the stories of the Crusaders.
Tman, the quran is demonic, the Bible truly is the final authority in all matters of faith and morals.
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” John 10:27.
The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Scripture states this concept repeatedly and emphatically. The very phrase “It is written” means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.
In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” —Revelation 22:18-19
His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160).
The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional form, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.
Thus, there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.
Affirmed by Jesus Christ The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.
In the New Testament, it is the written word of God, and that alone, to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18:
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”
Other sources of authority condemned People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.
The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5-6:
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.
Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.
How is Scripture to be accurately interpreted? The principle of “sola Scriptura” is basic to accurate interpretation of Scripture. Psalm 36:9 explains, “For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light.” God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth. The Apostle Paul said the same thing, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (Cp. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7).
The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.
Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth “it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (I John 5:6).
If you want to be true to God in this important matter, follow His instruction, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you” (Proverbs 1:23). If you are yearning for truth in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 “with a broken and a contrite heart”, the Lord God will not despise you. He will reveal to the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles. Is Scripture alone adequate, or do we need more? The total sufficiency of Scripture is declared by the Apostle Paul,
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” —2 Timothy 3:16-17
For final truth and authority, all that we need is the Scripture.
What about the claim that sola Scriptura is not possible?
In an attempt to justify traditions as being of equal or higher authority than Scripture, an appeal is often made to the very last verse in John’s gospel,
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” —John 21:25
Of course, there were many deeds and sayings of the Lord not recorded in Scripture. Nonetheless, Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority, when Holy God did not give it, is futile. The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true.
Another attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states,
“…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” —2 Peter 3:15-16
Peter also declares that he was writing so that the believers could remember what he said. So he wrote, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:12).
From the earliest days of Christianity, a substantial part of the New Testament was available. Under the inspiration of the Lord, the Apostle Paul commands his letters to be read in other churches besides those to which they were sent. This clearly shows that the written word of God was being circulated even as the Apostles lived. The Lord’s command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written. “…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Truth, God’s Word, and our love for Him The Lord brings the topic of truth to bear on our love for Him. This again underscores its importance. “Jesus answered and said to him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent Me” (John 14:23-24). And then again “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).
The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. “The law of the LORD is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
There are in the Bible, prophecies of the conflict with islam.
Evil men shall turn on those that are good, being convicted of their own conscience." (1Tim.4:2, 2Tim.3:1-4)
.....that man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition. (2Thes.2:3),
The man of sin is revealed by the first lines of the chapter in the koran called surah 36, Ya sin. Some Moslems say this is an address to man but it is clearly an epithet, the title given to their most unholy prophet as is obvious by reading the first three verses. It is praising the prophet whose only prophecies were false.
The Bible gives the test of prophets in Deuteronomy 18:22
The false prophet's followers asked him why there were no portents or prophecies from him via God. The Koran alludes to this in several places such as 29:50, but he never made a true prophecy. Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
The false prophet prophesized that he would win the battle of Uhud, but didn't and had to flee for his life.
And eventually this false prophet and the Beast (Baal) will be finished. Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
More biblical references to today are here, below..
Then He, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sits in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God. (2Thes.2.4)
This refers to the dome of the rock and the mosque that sits in God's holy place upon temple mount. People bow towards the black cube that sits in Mecca from there and worship Baal by his new name of Allah.
But another verse promises the ouster of them. Zec 14:21 and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
And just to reinforce that these are the times we live in, there is another prophecy of these times that is unrelated to islam but clearly grounds it in the here and now. People shall forbid the act of marriage and complain about eating meat, which has been created by God to be received with thanksgiving by those who know the truth." (1Tim.4.1-3)
And here is another one that identifies the seed of beast as muslims living amongst Israelis. Jer 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
SATANIC DECEPTION
Now the new testament warned that even if an angel of light tells you different, as the unholy prophet claimed that an angel dictated the koran to him. But the Bible says NOT to do this. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
The reason for this is that even Lucifer (Baal) can become an angel. 2Cr 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
THE ANTICHRIST
The Bible spelled out what the antichrist is...
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Clearly islam is THE antichrist as these blasphemous passages from the koran show.....
Gods of all other religions shall be the fuel of Hell (21:98-100)
All Gods except Allah are created, dead and false, they all lead to hell (16:20-21, 25:17-19, 29:41-42,37:22-25)
Jesus was a Muslim and a slave/servant of Allah, and not his son (3:52, 4:171-172,4:172, 5:115-117, 5:111-112)
Crucification of Jesus is a lie (4:157)
Doctrine of trinity is infidelity and disbelief, a painful doom awaits for those disbelievers who believe in trinity (5:73)
Christians corrupted the true message (5:14, 15)
People of the book (Jews and Christians) are evil doers, some of whom were converted into apes and swines for their disbelief (5:59-60)
Jews say Ezra is son of God and Christians say Jesus is son of God, they are liars and perverts, May Allah destroy them (9:30)
Mohammed was sent by Allah as a gift to Christians to correct their corruption and misunderstanding of true religion Islam (57:28,4:47)
Islam is worse, much worse than blasphemous words. It encourages followers to kill and lie (known as taqqiya) for islam. Any system of morality that allows the means to justify the ends is clearly evil.
as a side note, modern science can be found in the bible: one of the leading design engineers for the Mars lander designed the landing gear off of a design he found in the Bible
I am not sure where you'd find this online aside from youtube since it was on tv recently on the History Channel... the show I think was called ancient aliens
_________________________
Vegas will always be Vegas. That won’t change. Las Vegas will be the market of markets for MLS.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Nothing ne3w here: the Islaelites were ordered tokill all the people before entering the promised land; Jesus (PBUH) said he came with a sword Paul is the one who lied.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
