The Essentials of Islam

[danross]

The Essentials of Islam today, and the essentials of Islam during the time of Mohammed are worlds apart. The post from Nature is, unfortunately, the typical response from Muslims. The Qur’an says at the Chapter “Family of Imran” verses 52-53, around that area, that “Jesus asked who would help him, and his apostles said they would help for they believed in God, and were those who submit.” In many chapters in the Koran it says the Bible is a book divinely inspired, one instance “Family of Imran” verse 1, where it says that those who follow the Bible are blessed. The Qur’an even says that “Muslims believe in the Bible, all of it, and the Christians say “We believe too” but when the Christians are alone they bite their fingers in rage.“ That was in the early years of Islam, but today Muslims don’t believe in the Bible any more. As already pointed out by Nature: Islam means to submit. Jesus submitted, and so did the apostles, and Jesus said he would build his church on Peter, but never once does any Muslim mention Peter is one of the believers of the Quran when it finally came, like they say of Jesus. After all Peter submitted too, so then he is a Muslim, and yet he is a Christian too. We saw in Family of Imran verses 52-53 that Peter, in fact all the apostles are implied, but Muslims ignore their own Holy Book once again. It is a sad state of affairs that I have never found one scholar of Islam has ever applied the principles of the Qur’an into their investigations, and I have talked to hundreds of them. Shouldn’t we conclude that there are no scholars of Islam out there, even though thousands of them claim to be Islamic scholars? Jesus said by their fruit you will know them. Excuse my repeating myself, but I think it should be well noted that today Muslim scholars say the Bible is false, and they come up with dozens of excuses to say so, but the Qur’an time, and again says those so called Islamic scholars are wrong. The prophet Mohammed said that a day would come when the Devil took over Islam. Doesn’t it look like that day has finally come?

 

[spidergoat]

Great scientists have been affected by the Qura’n and this religion. The Qur’an draws attention to a wide range of physical phenomena in order to teach moral lessons. ...

I've heard that before, but there is no evidence of it.

 

[GeoffP]

Great scientists have been affected by the Qura’n and this religion. The Qur’an draws attention to a wide range of physical phenomena in order to teach moral lessons. The statements were not meant to teach science. Yet modern scientists are amazed at the accuracy of these statements. For example, the Qur’an said things about the growth and development of the human embryo which could not be studied without the use of a microscope. Dr. Keith Moore was professor and chairman of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Toronto. After reviewing the Qur’anic statements he said: "I am amazed at the accuracy of these statements which were already made in the 7th century AD." Such knowledge in the Qur’an points to God as its source.

First off, I've met Keith Moore and he's a git. Total plank.

Secondly, I've reviewed all this "Quranic science" nonsense and that's what it is: nonsense. The claims add up to simple observation and a slippery interpretation of the text. One person told me that one "miraculous observation in the Quran" was the fact that wood burned, which I hasten to point out was known for some time prior to Mohammed's life. If you have specific examples, please present them; otherwise I shall have to ask you why Mohammed thought it was medically sound to dip flies into his food, which I believe is a hadith.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Thanks bro nature for your insight.

The Essentials of Islam today, and the essentials of Islam during the time of Mohammed are worlds apart. The post from Nature is, unfortunately, the typical response from Muslims.

Islam is based on the life of the Prophet (peace be to him) and cannot be separated from his life. Most of the people on this forum who argue about Islam have elementary level knowledge at best. There cannot be a proper debate until people actually learn about Islam.

The Qur’an says at the Chapter “Family of Imran” verses 52-53, around that area, that “Jesus asked who would help him, and his apostles said they would help for they believed in God, and were those who submit.”

3:49. "And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah.s leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah.s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;

50. "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

51. "'It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"

52. When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah." Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

53. "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger. then write us down among those who bear witness."

In many chapters in the Koran it says the Bible is a book divinely inspired, one instance “Family of Imran” verse 1, where it says that those who follow the Bible are blessed.

Actually the verse is Surat Ali Imran 3: ayat 3

3:3. It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

This is referring to the uncorrupted Torat and Injeel, the earlier books. Muslims believe these two books were changed and this is why a new message and book were necessary, the Quran. This book confirms the original message.

The Qur’an even says that “Muslims believe in the Bible, all of it, and the Christians say “We believe too” but when the Christians are alone they bite their fingers in rage.“

This is completely fabricated.

That was in the early years of Islam, but today Muslims don’t believe in the Bible any more.

The original Injeel (Gospel) was changed and translated from its original language. The original Aramaic book is lost. Islam was the religion of all the Prophets including Jesus (peace be to him)

As already pointed out by Nature: Islam means to submit. Jesus submitted, and so did the apostles, and Jesus said he would build his church on Peter, but never once does any Muslim mention Peter is one of the believers of the Quran when it finally came, like they say of Jesus. After all Peter submitted too, so then he is a Muslim, and yet he is a Christian too. We saw in Family of Imran verses 52-53 that Peter, in fact all the apostles are implied, but Muslims ignore their own Holy Book once again.

You are correct in that Islam means to submit to God and Prophet Jesus (peace be to him) and his disciples (may they rest in peace) were practitioners of Islam.

Here you are trying to imply a contradiction, I don't see your reasoning.

It is a sad state of affairs that I have never found one scholar of Islam has ever applied the principles of the Qur’an into their investigations, and I have talked to hundreds of them. Shouldn’t we conclude that there are no scholars of Islam out there, even though thousands of them claim to be Islamic scholars?

This is purely a matter of personal view.

Jesus said by their fruit you will know them. Excuse my repeating myself, but I think it should be well noted that today Muslim scholars say the Bible is false, and they come up with dozens of excuses to say so, but the Qur’an time, and again says those so called Islamic scholars are wrong.

The current Bible is wrongly attributed to the Messiah Jesus (peace be to him). This is a corrupted book with numerous additions and omissions written by many different authors.

The prophet Mohammed said that a day would come when the Devil took over Islam. Doesn’t it look like that day has finally come?

Completely fabricated. The noble Prophet (peace be to him) never said that.

I've heard that before, but there is no evidence of it.

Fetal development http://www.imanway.com/en/archive/index.php/t-931.html

The benefits of Olive Oil http://www.imanway.com/en/archive/index.php/t-1579.html

Muslim belief in the Big Bang Theory http://www.imanway.com/en/archive/index.php/t-3168.html

More Proofs http://www.islam-guide.com/

One person told me that one "miraculous observation in the Quran" was the fact that wood burned, which I hasten to point out was known for some time prior to Mohammed's life.

Another fabrication.

Much of the misinformation about Islam is attributable to these fabrications.

If you have specific examples, please present them; otherwise I shall have to ask you why Mohammed thought it was medically sound to dip flies into his food, which I believe is a hadith.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/HadithAndItsSciences/HadithAndScience/2005/03/03.shtml

 

[spidergoat]

There cannot be a proper debate until people actually learn about Islam.

I disagree. While learning something about the origins of Islam is important, knowing everything about it is unnecessary. Indeed, Muslims deliberately make that difficult by saying that only the original Arabic can express it's true meaning. BS is BS. Larger volumes of BS are still BS. Knowing Islam from a Muslim point of view is just accepting the intricate apologetics of Muslim scholars, not really learning more about Islam.

 

[GeoffP]

There cannot be a proper debate until people actually learn about Islam.

Interesting position. Can you personally then not debate other religions, or science, or Westernism until you learn something about it? Can you take the shahada in all confidence without knowing anything about Christianity, which it is meant to refute? Can you as a muslim denounce secularism without knowing anything about atheism or agnosticism?

This is referring to the uncorrupted Torat and Injeel, the earlier books. Muslims believe these two books were changed and this is why a new message and book were necessary, the Quran. This book confirms the original message.

But, of course, there is no evidence that either were in fact corrupted by anything. In fact, translations of the Greek seem to bear out the originals. I appreciate that this is more an act of faith than fact for you, but I think it should be expressly stated that this is your opinion.

The original Injeel (Gospel) was changed and translated from its original language. The original Aramaic book is lost. Islam was the religion of all the Prophets including Jesus (peace be to him)

In your opinion; reliquary fragments appear quite close to the present Biblical text. Surprisingly, however, there is some evidence to suggest that the Quran may have been changed, probably during the caliphate of Umar. (Maybe that's why no one liked him? No idea.)

You are correct in that Islam means to submit to God and Prophet Jesus (peace be to him) and his disciples (may they rest in peace) were practitioners of Islam.

Yet the Quran mentions nothing of Peter, who was obviously instrumental in the faith of this God fellow. Surely you don't imply that Peter isn't present in the Greek translation? DH, I can honestly say that I'd have more faith in an actually written down translation than in something preserved as spoken memory and in bits and scraps here and there.

The current Bible is wrongly attributed to the Messiah Jesus (peace be to him). This is a corrupted book with numerous additions and omissions written by many different authors.

Again, your position appears to be a matter of opinion. Do you have evidence of this? I've seen the present versions and the translations from Greek and they seem quite close to me. Do you have evidence of the actual message being corrupted somehow?

Fetal development http://www.imanway.com/en/archive/index.php/t-931.html

The benefits of Olive Oil http://www.imanway.com/en/archive/index.php/t-1579.html

Muslim belief in the Big Bang Theory http://www.imanway.com/en/archive/index.php/t-3168.html

More Proofs http://www.islam-guide.com/

"Proofs" would be an inaccurate statement here, I'm afraid. What you are referring to is called "evidence", rather. I will review it - with a critical eye, I'm afraid.

Another fabrication.

Well, you'd have to tell the coreligionist of yours I heard from. I think it's a bit harsh to say that he fabricated it per se, but as you like. I was similarly doubtful about it, as you might guess.

Much of the misinformation about Islam is attributable to these fabrications.

It sort of depends on what you mean by "misinformation". Most people are not critical of islam for the above reasons, but rather for its treatment of religious minorities, apostates and homosexuals - treatment which, in the case of apostates, I understand you agree most wholeheartedly. You can see why people are, therefore, critical.

 

[GeoffP]

All right, so let's start with the "Human Development" issue:

First off, the area where the quote is cited is very general, and incorrect in several areas. Firstly, the sun is not a "lamp" (Q 71:16), but rather a glowing ball of burning gas, and there are no "seven heavens" (Q 71: 15).

[35:11] And Allah created you from dust, then from a drop, and then he made you pairs (male and female).

This is actually also incorrect. Male and female both originate from more ancestral primates, but here Mohammed is seemingly saying that humans originated via special creation which, as we know, is false.

"[75:37] Was he (man) not a drop of semen emitted?"

Actually, my translation (Pickthall) says:

75: 37 Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth?

It doesn't refer to semen, and given the usage in Sura 74 suggests water. This also is incorrect. In this then, it matches precisely with Q 86: 6, and with Q 76: 2, although the latter refers to a "thickened" fluid. Yet, it does not say "sperm"; neither does it say "fertilization of sperm and egg".

"[32:8] Then He (Allah) made his (Adam's) progeny from a quintessence of a despised liquid."

Actually my copy says:

Q 32: 8 Then He made his seed from a draught of despised liquid.

Now this is in fact quite striking. It refers to the notion that humans are in fact Allah's seed, which is to say - if we take your site's version - his offspring. I assume that islam, which refutes the placing of gods aside Allah, does not really entail such a belief? Yet it's the literal reading, which does raise some questions. Too the idea that the liquid is "despised" - the site says it's presumed to come from the urethra, which is the same place as urine. Yet is the text then implying that Allah has a penis? Surely not.

[75:37-38] Was he (man) not a drop of semen emitted? Then he did become something leech-like which clings...

My copy says of 75: 37-39:

Q 75: 37 Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth?
Q 75: 38 Then he became a clot; then (Allah) shaped and fashioned
Q 75: 39 And made of him a pair, male and female.

Yet, an embryo is not a clot. Nor are individual humans split into male and female. The passage, therefore, is clearly metaphorical in nature and derived from a somewhat deviant reading of a book of the Pentateuch - for individual human embryos do not themselves split into male and female beings in any way. The "leech" comment, thus, is out of place: yet it would be abundantly clear to anyone having done an autopsy of a dead animal or seen or heard of the birth of a child that a prepartum mammal "clings", leechlike to the uterine wall of its mother. This, I would think, would be abundant knowledge in the period - Mohammed, as - I believe - a camel merchant would almost certainly have had first hand knowledge of this, as any dairy farmer might. No one really needed to be told the reason for spontaneous bovine abortion even in the Dark Ages; it was simply that the fetus failed to "cling", "leechlike", to its mother. Old hat, not revelation.

[23:14] ...We made the drop into an ALAQAH (leech-like structure), and then We changed the ALAQAH into a MUDGHAH (chewed-like substance), then We changed the MUDGHAH into IDHAAM (bones, skeleton), then We clothed the IDHAAM with LAHM (flesh, muscles), then We caused him to grow and come into being as another creation.
[22:5] ...We created you out of dust, then out of a drop, then out of a MUDGHAH, partly formed and partly unformed...

The second stage describes the embryo as evolving into a MUDGHAH which means something which has been chewed (especially a piece of meat), or which has the appearance of having been chewed. This seemingly crude description is in fact quite accurate: after the fertilized egg lodges itself in the uterus, it begins to receive its first nutrients and energy from its mother. Consequently, it begins to grow especially rapidly, and after a week or two it looks like a ragged piece of meat to the naked eye. This effect is enhanced by the development of small buds and protrusions which will eventually grow into complete organs and limbs.

This is ridiculous. Limb buds and eye buds would not in any way "enhance" the supposed appearance of an early development fetus to a piece of "chewed meat", which it very frankly does not look like in any way. It would be an extraordinarily dull mind which took such a comparison as literally correct. The fetus, if it appears as anything, appears fishlike or batrachian, which is what sponsored the entire debate about ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.

The next two stages described in verse [23:14] tell of bones being made from the MUDGHAH, followed by the "clothing" of the bones with flesh or muscles.

I regret to say that this association is merely fortuitous. Naturally, the skeleton would be expected to develop first since it is in the corpus interior, and since it supports the rest of the body. This would have also been quite apparent even in Mohammed's period.

I think that essentially wraps up the "Development" argument. I'll deal with the others sequentially starting tomorrow.

 

[danross]

Since the Quran says the Bible was valid when Mohammed was dictated the verses by the angel Gabriel, and there are copies today of the same Bible when those Qur’anic verses were given, then one only needs to take those copies of the Bible, and reprint them. In fact that has been done. Not only that, but recent archeological discoveries have given us a New Testament (NT) that is as good as the original found in Greek. The original NT was in Greek, not Aramaic. Jesus, and the disciples spoke Aramaic, but the original NT was written in Greek because the Bible was to be given to the gentiles, and back then Greek was the predominate language in the gentile world when Jesus ascended to heaven. Even the Aramaic OT was translated into Greek, and that all happened before the Qur’an.

All over the Internet can be found the saying of Mohammed that a time will come when Muslims are taken over by the Devil. That does not mean all Muslims, but most will be taken by the Devil. Even the Qur’an says the same for not only Muslims, but a day will come for most of the entire world where the Devil controls them. Shouldn’t Muslims believe in the Qur’an, and not deny it? If they would accept the Qur’an they might have a chance to stand against the Devil.

Jesus came to give the Jews a chance to come to the truth by appearing among them as one of their own. Like blacks want to only follow a black leader, and women want a woman leader, and Arabs want an Arab leader, and so on, then Jesus came appearing as a Jew, but beyond that limited show of love for one race, Peter proves that the real intent of Jesus was to give the NT to the world, or gentiles whether the Jews ever accepted Jesus, or not. That is why the Church, and even the Mosque are to be built upon Peter, for Peter submits to God. Christianity is universal therefore it must include the Qur’an, and it does. The Greek NT only needs to be accurately translated into English. If the Qur’an, and the discoveries about the pure NT are accepted, then Muslims will have to accept the NT is accurate, and then study the NT, and learn how to verify what the Qur’an says about the NT, which means applying the scientific method. By not applying scientific methods we have the mess found today in the Islamic world where the Qur’an says one thing, but Muslims go against it. Isn’t that what the devil would like to see?

Peter says to desire what turns out to be the Qur’an at 1 Peter 2:2 "As newborn babes, desire the milk of the word without guile, (Greek "Adolon" means without guile), that you may grow thereby." The NT was already with the early Christians, so it was nothing to desire, instead Peter is talking about the future. There are other verses spoken by Peter, Acts 3:18-26, that proves the Qur’an will come, and in the Gospel of John, there is told of the Spirit of Truth to yet come, which is Mohammed, which all together proves the NT is full of trickery, but the Qur‘an is not. Because the NT is full of trickery, that leads to a quick belief by Muslims that the NT is corrupted, which then leads Muslims to do what should make one shudder: They deny the Qur’an by saying the NT, Injeel, was lost, or is very impure. However, the Qur’an says the NT is fine, and will bring Christians to God, if followed properly. One trick of the NT is to make Jesus look like God, when he is not, and another is to make Jesus look crucified, when he was not, which easily explains why Muslims think the NT is false. This is the age of science, and the age of reason, shouldn’t the age of denial be put to an end? When I have more than 20 posts I will give the web site where the deeper truths on the NT, OT, and Qur’an are shown to logically be working together to support one another, which can bring world peace. Wouldn’t we say that is what the Devil would hate to be found out?

 

[ylooshi]

Greetings SkinWalker,

The only reason for deleting my post is because it shows the truth of Islam from authentic sources.

Or... he might have deleted your post because it was copy/pasted from other sites and is, thus, considered propaganda by the forum rules.

I was a bit pissed he deleted it myself since I was just about to point out your theft of another site's work. The page you stole the post from was here: http://www.fatwa-online.com/aboutislaam/0020224_07.htm

Post #81 was stolen from here: http://www.muslim-answers.org/Introducing-Islam/7answers.htm

Post #86 was stolen from here: http://www.islamhouse.com/en/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=131

Post #94 was also stolen from the same site as #81: http://www.muslim-answers.org/Introducing-Islam/7answers.htm

Believe me you can delete posts but you can’t delete this religion because it is the plan of Allah that Islam will prevail over all religions and Islam will be the “Religion of Future” because it is the “Religion of Allah” and “Religion of Nature”.

This is the same line of reasoning that is driving Islamist terrorists to kill others, because they think their god wants it done. Let me ask you: what is to happen to those of us that are simply too reasoned and unencumbered by superstitious and magical thought to accept your religious cult? Do you accept us for who we are and live in peace with the atheists that view your cult as a superstition?

Comment:
The title of the thread was “Questions and answers about Islam” but you deleted. You have to know that the questions and answers I have posted are the essentials of Islam.

Skin let most of your preaching stay. He should have deleted it all. Each of your posts is preaching, propaganda and copy/pasting all of which are violations of the posted rules.

Great scientists have been affected by the Qura’n and this religion. The Qur’an draws attention to a wide range of physical phenomena in order to teach moral lessons. The statements were not meant to teach science. Yet modern scientists are amazed at the accuracy of these statements. For example, the Qur’an said things about the growth and development of the human embryo which could not be studied without the use of a microscope. Dr. Keith Moore was professor and chairman of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Toronto. After reviewing the Qur’anic statements he said: "I am amazed at the accuracy of these statements which were already made in the 7th century AD." Such knowledge in the Qur’an points to God as its source.

A quote which you completely and utterly stole from: http://www.islaminfo.com/new/detail.asp?ID=1 (point #6).

What are we, then, to make of you, Nature? A thief? What does your silly book of mythology say about thieves?

May Allah guide you to the right path.

You would have to demonstrate your silly god to actually exist first before it would be capable of guiding anyone more capably than Obi Wan Kenobi.

 

[nature]

Greetings ylooshi,

I really feel pity for you. Your problem (most of you) is that you don’t read. If you read, you don’t understand. If you understand, you don’t apply what you have understood.

Read the beginning of my post. I wrote:

The aim of this thread is to write the answers of the scholars about Islam. There must be threads which people can get benefit of. We have to tell each other about the information and the sites we have got benefit of.
So, if you concentrate well in reading, you will know that I am writing the answers of the scholars not my answers. If you know the rules of this forum, you will realize that I can’t write the links until I have more than 20 posts.

I also feel pity for you because you don’t concentrate on the core of the subject. When you can’t respond to the answers of the scholars, your only response that you can write is that you say don’t cut and paste. So, this is the response of the one who can’t refute the answers of the scholars.

May Allah guide you to the right path.

 

[Sock puppet path]

I really feel pity for you nature when presented with counter arguments you can only regurgitate what someone else has spoonfed you.

May FSM guide you to the right path.

 

[nature]

I really feel pity for you nature when presented with counter arguments you can only regurgitate what someone else has spoonfed you.

May FSM guide you to the right path.

Again Sock puppet path, this is the response of the one who can't refute the answers of the scholars. I hope you concentrate on the core of the subject and write something beneficial.

 

[nature]

Greetings all,

One of the essentials of Islam is that the creator in Islam is neither a man, nor an animal or a plant or also an idol or statue of any kind, because none of these mentioned can create itself or causes anything. Certainly, He must be different from His creation. Reason tells us that the maker must be greater than the things which he makes. Hence, enlightened men recognize the Creator and call Him Allah.

Allah says:
"Say (O Muhammad): He is Allah, (the) One. Allah-us-Samad (the Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drink. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none coequal or comparable unto Him." [112:1-4]

 

[Oli]

I really feel pity for you. Your problem (most of you) is that you don’t read.

And your problem is that you don't READ THE RULES!
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34473
Especially no. 11.

The aim of this thread is to write the answers of the scholars about Islam.

No it isn't:

So for this thread I'm hoping someone will offer to add some summaries and some reference links covering the facts of Islam. No preaching or debate just the facts please.

straight from the first post.

There must be threads which people can get benefit of. We have to tell each other about the information and the sites we have got benefit of.

So just post the links instead of parroting someone else's words. Those interested will go look.

So, if you concentrate well in reading, you will know that I am writing the answers of the scholars not my answers.

Summaries and references were asked for - not cut-and-pasted chunks wholesale.

I also feel pity for you because you don’t concentrate on the core of the subject.

The CORE of the subject is that you offer nothing other a regurgitation of someone else's work.

When you can’t respond to the answers of the scholars, your only response that you can write is that you say don’t cut and paste. So, this is the response of the one who can’t refute the answers of the scholars.

It's not a question of responding to and/or refuting the answers: read the rules. Sock is just pointing out that you're ignoring the rules.

 

[SkinWalker]

Or... he might have deleted your post because it was copy/pasted from other sites and is, thus, considered propaganda by the forum rules.

I was a bit pissed he deleted it myself since I was just about to point out your theft of another site's work. The page you stole the post from was here: http://www.fatwa-online.com/aboutislaam/0020224_07.htm

Post #81 was stolen from here: http://www.muslim-answers.org/Introducing-Islam/7answers.htm

Actually, Nature did include some links, but, as he pointed out, he doesn't/didn't have 20 min posts to leave them. So in most cases the posts weren't theft. Though they were in some since he didn't leave a source.

Either way, they violate copy/paste & propaganda rules, so I deleted the text & left links for readers.

@ Nature, Please take the time to read the forum rules & adhere to them. We don't do large copy/pastes from other sites. I accept some of the responsibility since I moved your initial OP to this thread. But lets try to keep your work original all the same. Anyone can copy/paste from another site.

 

[danross]

Danross, who is myself, has talked to hundreds of scholars of Islam, including those who speak many languages, but they will never enter into a dialogue with him that extends more than five minutes, or two emails at most. danross has read probably more than Nature has on Islam, therefore he is more qualified to discuss the subject. The quote of Nature “If you read, you don’t understand. If you understand, you don’t apply what you have understood.” has a similarity found in the Qur’an, chapter 7, verse 179, which is a repeat of what Jesus said , who quoted Isaiah: Matthew 13:14-15 "And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: `Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them.' “

However, Jesus said this to his close disciples, those who submit: Matthew 13:16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;” Jesus also taught reincarnation, and logically since he did so, then reincarnation must also be found in the Qur’an, where it can be found in several places, but then one can not be unperceiving. That lengthy subject must be delayed until a link can be shown. I will post this comment here, and then come back an hour, or two, or more from now, and post how to find in the NT the simple fact that Jesus was not crucified. We must be scientific, using methods like a CSI team applies in a twisted, and macabre crime scene in order to find the truth. How to do so will be shown to you.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Again Sock puppet path, this is the response of the one who can't refute the answers of the scholars. I hope you concentrate on the core of the subject and write something beneficial.

No this is the response of one who has seen this before. Every so often a new poster shows up who is ignorant of the threads we have had about and debunking the "scientific miracles of the quran" and they proceed to post the same stuff anew with the same old claims, weblinks and all. I have used time answering these claims before as have many others and I feel no need to go through it again just because some new spambot shows up.

 

[Oli]

Danross, who is myself

Why do you feel the need to refer to yourself in the third person?

 

[GeoffP]

One of the essentials of Islam is that the creator in Islam is neither a man, nor an animal or a plant or also an idol or statue of any kind, because none of these mentioned can create itself or causes anything. Certainly, He must be different from His creation. Reason tells us that the maker must be greater than the things which he makes.

Who says anything was created by any maker? Why not thousands of makers? Or two: Ahriman and Angra Mainyu, for example. Or Myuu, even.

 

[danross]

Oli, to answer your question. Due to reincarnation, we have been called so many different names over our many different lives, some of success, and others average or failures, that I wish to simply make a note that due to being still considered a nobody in this life, when I was a somebody many times before, where in some of the past lives I was not questioned, and what I said simply was accepted as the truth, even if it was a lie, that I must in a way apologize to the reader for not having yet been able to prove my worth so far today. So I say, DanRoss, who is myself. What if I could prove to you I was the apostle Peter in one life, and the Hidden Imam in the next, and so forth, where 95% of Sciforums accepted it as true? I could then speak in the first person all of the time. I offer this as no proof to his worth, only that this is his answer to your question.