Dr zakir batters an athiest on theory of evolution

[farhad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfUCJQBrwig

[arista]

[ Posted on youtube link above by "The Chidds -1 month ago"
Zakir Naik is a scientifically illiterate buffoon. A scientific theory is an explanation
of how a scientific law works. A law is not a confirmed theory.
A theory is confirmed already by scientific facts, which are observations.]


http://mattjwaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/small.DAWKINS_The-God-Delusion.jpg
Utter Bliss


Again Farhed
no proper news link
just your banal youtuber


Feel The Force

[Crimson Dynamo]

well that was awful. he could not deal with a question so he raised his voice and insulted a young medical student.

dreadful bullying

[farhad]

well that was awful. he could not deal with a question so he raised his voice and insulted a young medical student.

dreadful bullying

Dr zakir naik never fails to answer a question, he always does and and his smart reply makes his questioner look dumb.

[Nedusa]

Dr zakir naik never fails to answer a question, he always does and and his smart reply makes his questioner look dumb.

Dark Nazi Rik.... is seriously deluded and should never have been afforded the title Dr, unless it was Doctor of Imbecilology,





.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Dr zakir naik never fails to answer a question, he always does and and his smart reply makes his questioner look dumb.

"makes his questioner look dumb"

Its that respect for people that really makes his religion a real keeper


:rolleyes:

[Northern Monkey]

Zakir Naik is a moron because evolution can't be expressed in a concise mathematical equation,so it is referred to as a theory.A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances,while a theory explains how it happens.He looked like the dumbass not the kid.There is far more evidence for evolution than an imaginary man in the sky.When we look at evolution we don't just look at how humans evolved but everything from plants to reptiles and so on.This joker gets a doctorate and thinks it gives him the right spout any old nonsense as fact.

[farhad]

It has still been called theory since 160 years, if it was true it would of been formed into a law.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It has still been called theory since 160 years, if it was true it would of been formed into a law.

see the post above you that explains your error.

[Kizzy]

It has still been called theory since 160 years, if it was true it would of been formed into a law.

They are called the laws of nature, evolution is the survival of the fittest or natural selection.

[farhad]

They are called the laws of nature, evolution is the survival of the fittest or natural selection.

Islam is not against evolution as a whole but when it comes to evolution of humanity, that apes formed into human is absurd and illogical. Evolution may take place in adaption of environment, when environments atmosphere changes humans adapt in new ways, for example 1000 years ago people lived in a different environment and comparing it to today its not the same. As dr zakir naik has exposed the non-connection of 4 hominids have no interconnection. DNA can't empirically prove that we evolved from apes, its a hypothesis and propaganda used to make people doubt their faith. He also said if it was true then why it is not taught in the medical textbooks as a law?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Islam is not against evolution as a whole but when it comes to evolution of humanity, that apes formed into human is absurd and illogical. Evolution may take place in adaption of environment, when environments atmosphere changes humans adapt in new ways, for example 1000 years ago people lived in a different environment and comparing it to today its not the same. As dr zakir naik has exposed the non-connection of 4 hominids have no interconnection. DNA can't empirically prove that we evolved from apes, its a hypothesis and propaganda used to make people doubt their faith. He also said if it was true then why it is not taught in the medical textbooks as a law?

do you get the fact that he is talking bollocks and as such dont listen to him and his ramblings?

[farhad]

do you get the fact that he is talking bollocks and as such dont listen to him and his ramblings?

Watch the videos of Harun Yayha he critically exposes the deception of todays evolutionary scientist of manufactured textbooks and fossil records that many of the pro evolutionary academics left with nothing to counter back. Mr Dawkin's himself refused to debate with mr naik and mr yahya. That says a lot about their own hidden doubt but can't come out openly to admit the blunder that is evolution.

[farhad]

Guys you are being fooled by these people, and it'll be too late once you come face to face with your creator.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

how do i convert to islam farhad

[Niamh.]

You better stop being gay for a start Rose :shocked:

[Kizzy]

Guys you are being fooled by these people, and it'll be too late once you come face to face with your creator.

Ah well, he gave me free will to bumble through on my own... he'll forgive me and if not I'll come back as a bug, c'est la vie :/

[InOne]

There should be a rule against Islamaspam

[Nedusa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfUCJQBrwig


So a Theory of Evolution which has developed over decades from some of the most brilliant minds of all time coupled with increasing amounts of scientific evidence to back up large parts of the theory,

is battered by a nonsensical fairy story, a pie in the sky collection of myths, recounted by drug addled shamen and retold down a 100 generations (with nothing lost in translation). And this trumps the current theory of evolution.

Are you fcuking kidding me........???






.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

i'm converting

[arista]

You better stop being gay for a start Rose :shocked:


Yes padlock it

[farhad]

So a Theory of Evolution which has developed over decades from some of the most brilliant minds of all time coupled with increasing amounts of scientific evidence to back up large parts of the theory,

is battered by a nonsensical fairy story, a pie in the sky collection of myths, recounted by drug addled shamen and retold down a 100 generations (with nothing lost in translation). And this trumps the current theory of evolution.

Are you fcuking kidding me........???





.

The continuation of terming it as a theory trumps the fairy-tale myth of Darwin's ape-man fetish. almost 200 years gone and still no intermediate fossils have been discovered :laugh:

[InOne]

So it's evolution V humans popping out of thin air fully formed. Hmmm okay then.

[Niamh.]

So it's evolution V humans popping out of thin air fully formed. Hmmm okay then.
:hehe:

[Nedusa]

So it's evolution V humans popping out of thin air fully formed. Hmmm okay then.


Yeah..........when it's the choice between something v nothing, I will vote for something that has at least attempted to try and explain how we got here.






.

[the truth]

most of the greatest scientists were Christians. Only a total idiot thinks you cant be a scientist if youre a Christian. the 2 things are separate subjects.

[Crimson Dynamo]

most of the greatest scientists were Christians. Only a total idiot thinks you cant be a scientist if youre a Christian. the 2 things are separate subjects.

I think you are referring to a time when most people said they were christians and indeed would not get much funding if they were not but now this is very different. Which current great scientists are church going christians?

[T*]

What a scummy human being

[farhad]

Muslim, Christians and jews, all religious people paved way in the advancement in science, atheist need to go back and read history before they self-proclaim their glorious scientific development lol. The only science they can lay claim to is fairy-tale that is evolution that till today is still called a theory.

[Niamh.]

Muslim, Christians and jews, all religious people paved way in the advancement in science, atheist need to go back and read history before they self-proclaim their glorious scientific development lol. The only science they can lay claim to is fairy-tale that is evolution that till today is still called a theory.

If there is a God, why does he/she want us to follow a load of stupid rules and not just enjoy the life that he/she gave us? Why wouldn't he/she be happy that we're just good people? Would this God send a decent, charitable atheist to hell just because he was an atheist? If so then he sounds like a vain asshole tbqh

[farhad]

Yeah..........when it's the choice between something v nothing, I will vote for something that has at least attempted to try and explain how we got here.






.

The continuation of terming it as a theory trumps the fairy-tale myth of Darwin's ape-man fetish. almost 200 years gone and still no intermediate fossils have been discovered and no change in terminology, because its a myth that is being dragged for long time to keep their theory alive. Please be my guest and show me the supposed fossil records, till that is put forefront with convincing evidence and not the shambles and deception that was piltown man and 2. Archaeoraptor : “The Dinosaur-Bird Missing Link”. After several fraudulent history, how can we have trust on Darwinist credibility of any piece of evidence they have gathered???

[farhad]

If there is a God, why does he/she want us to follow a load of stupid rules and not just enjoy the life that he/she gave us? Why wouldn't he/she be happy that we're just good people? Would this God send a decent, charitable atheist to hell just because he was an atheist? If so then he sounds like a vain asshole tbqh

If god created us and he is the reason we exist then he can put out any rules he wants us to obeys. Rules are advocated for many purposes. Such as adultery, is the cause of many problems in the society that it ruins and psychologically damages anyone who are born without knowing their parent. Is that modest??? sexual promiscuity is many cause of aids and viruses as well as other sexual activities. Aids were not heard of in the ancient time and Our prophet PBUH was the first ever to talk about aids and disease that will kill people who indulge in an endemic sexual activity with many different people.

[MTVN]

Think Professor Farnsworth is able to destroy this Zakir bloke's argument

TTOla3TyfqQ

[Niamh.]

If god created us and he is the reason we exist then he can put out any rules he wants us to obeys. Rules are advocated for many purposes. Such as adultery, is the cause of many problems in the society that it ruins and psychologically damages anyone who are born without knowing their parent. Is that modest??? sexual promiscuity is many cause of aids and viruses as well as other sexual activities. Aids were not heard of in the ancient time and Our prophet PBUH was the first ever to talk about aids and disease that will kill people who indulge in an endemic sexual activity with many different people.

We are not robots though, we were "created" (if you like) with our own minds which we should be able to use. I created two children that doesn't mean that once they're adults and able to think properly for themselves I can still tell them what they can and can't do, does it? :think:

[farhad]

We are not robots though, we were "created" (if you like) with our own minds which we should be able to use. I created two children that doesn't mean that once they're adults and able to think properly for themselves I can still tell them what they can and can't do, does it? :think:

You did not create the process that requires to form a new human entity. So its because of our creator we exist and we should thank him alone and no one else. But people are very selfish to thank their existence on the super higher authority. So why should he not send you to hell for abusing the one that created you. Its like neglecting your own children, or children neglecting their parents who raised them.

[Niamh.]

You did not create the process that requires to form a new human entity. So its because of our creator we exist and we should thank him alone and no one else. But people are very selfish to thank their existence on the super higher authority. So why should he not send you to hell for abusing the one that created you. Its like neglecting your own children, or children neglecting their parents who raised them.

So he wants us to be slaves to him then? No thanks, I'll live my life how I want it, if I end up in hell for that so be it :love:

[farhad]

So he wants us to be slaves to him then? No thanks, I'll live my life how I want it, if I end up in hell for that so be it :love:

ofcourse since you exist because of him so you should return him with gratitude and obedience, obedience in morality and good deed and behaviour, that's all he expects from us. If being slave is to worship and lead a moral life with good virtue then I'm perfectly happy to be labelled as a slave in that perspective. in reality we're all slaves for other means, I work and by law obliged to pay tax, If I don't I can be fined or face imprisonment.

[farhad]

He gave you a penis and sperms so you can enjoy as well as reproduce ongoing generation, so don't try and take credit for what you have not created.

[Niamh.]

He gave you a penis and sperms so you can enjoy as well as reproduce ongoing generation, so don't try and take credit for what you have not created.

Oh no he didn't :hehe:

[Niamh.]

Think Professor Farnsworth is able to destroy this Zakir bloke's argument

TTOla3TyfqQ

:laugh:

[Northern Monkey]

Muslim, Christians and jews, all religious people paved way in the advancement in science, atheist need to go back and read history before they self-proclaim their glorious scientific development lol. The only science they can lay claim to is fairy-tale that is evolution that till today is still called a theory.
So why did god wipe the dinosaurs out then?Or did he just think feck these big reptilian bastards i'm bored.I think i'll just make some hairless apes instead.Much more fun.Or was it just a failed experiment while he was trying to make humans in his big animal making machine?Why did'nt he just make dinosaurs cleverer?

[Northern Monkey]

Oh no he didn't :hehe::joker:

[Nedusa]

ofcourse since you exist because of him so you should return him with gratitude and obedience, obedience in morality and good deed and behaviour, that's all he expects from us. If being slave is to worship and lead a moral life with good virtue then I'm perfectly to be labelled as a slave in that perspective. in reality we're all slaves for other means, I work and by law obliged to pay tax, If I don't I can be fined or face imprisonment.

Proof please..............????






.

[farhad]

Proof please..............????






.

best is to just die now and theres your proof:smug:

[Nedusa]

best is to just die now and theres your proof:smug:

So no proof in this life then ??







.

[farhad]

So why did god wipe the dinosaurs out then?Or did he just think feck these big reptilian bastards i'm bored.I think i'll just make some hairless apes instead.Much more fun.Or was it just a failed experiment while he was trying to make humans in his big animal making machine?Why did'nt he just make dinosaurs cleverer?

Perhaps he could reproduce a better creation out of it with more diversion of species that could carry more useful purpose and thanks to that we have many oil resources. Also things die out or become extinct. Would you want to live in a world full of giant beast or in a diverse environment and habitat? Or maybe you can question him why he made the things differently after you die.

[farhad]

So no proof in this life then ??







.

find proof then just put it bullet to the head unless your a coward to face your creator now:hehe:

[Niamh.]

find proof then just put it bullet to the head unless your a coward to face your creator now:hehe:

lol it'd be a pretty stupid thing to do if you don't actually believe there is a god, don't you think? :think:

[farhad]

lol it'd be a pretty stupid thing to do if you don't actually believe there is a god, don't you think? :think:

More like cowardly, afraid to find out the truth once terminated:laugh:

[Niamh.]

More like cowardly, afraid to find out the truth once terminated:laugh:

Why would anyone want to end the only life we ever had just to prove some person on the internet wrong (which incidentally is impossible anyway as you'd be dead) You're being silly now :laugh:

[farhad]

You live in immortal spiritual life in the hereafter than live for only few decades on earth, if I had to choose I would prefer an immortal life in the hereafter.

[Niamh.]

You live in immortal spiritual life in the hereafter than live for only few decades on earth, if I had to choose I would prefer an immortal life in the hereafter.

I don't believe that, I believe when we're dead, we're dead so I won't be shooting myself in the head anytime soon, sorry to disappoint you :laugh:

[farhad]

I don't have to preach them, we have strong faith in god so we don't have to end our lives to prove his existence, we have our proof, but to those who question it, perhaps that's their best piece of, because no matter what proof we give you, it wouldn't sufficient to you.

[Marsh.]

If god created us and he is the reason we exist then he can put out any rules he wants us to obeys. Rules are advocated for many purposes. Such as adultery, is the cause of many problems in the society that it ruins and psychologically damages anyone who are born without knowing their parent. Is that modest??? sexual promiscuity is many cause of aids and viruses as well as other sexual activities. Aids were not heard of in the ancient time and Our prophet PBUH was the first ever to talk about aids and disease that will kill people who indulge in an endemic sexual activity with many different people.

But wasn't infidelity or multiple partners more common back in ancient times? There wasn't the traditional "nuclear" family set ups that we see today?

I'm not a total history buff though so I don't know.

[kirklancaster]

"More like cowardly, afraid to find out the truth once terminated:laugh:"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedusa View Post
So no proof in this life then ??
.
"find proof then just put it bullet to the head unless your a coward to face your creator now"

You are not doing the 'Moderate' Islamic cause any good Farhad. Your responses are becoming increasingly more disturbing as the the thread progresses.

Words such as "Bullet to the head", "Coward" and "Terminated" are hardly evocative of a 'follower' of a 'peaceful religion' are they?

[Northern Monkey]

[/B]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedusa View Post
So no proof in this life then ??
.
"find proof then just put it bullet to the head unless your a coward to face your creator now"

You are not doing the 'Moderate' Islamic cause any good Farhad. Your responses are becoming increasingly more disturbing as the the thread progresses.

Words such as "Bullet to the head", "Coward" and "Terminated" are hardly evocative of a 'follower' of a 'peaceful religion' are they?Well he does put the ISIS in ThISISbigbrother:joker:

[farhad]

But wasn't infidelity or multiple partners more common back in ancient times? There wasn't the traditional "nuclear" family set ups that we see today?

I'm not a total history buff though so I don't know.

of course it was, in arab culture it was a hobbie to do anything they willed until Prophet Muhammad PBUH was a saviour and turned them into one of the greatest forces in medieval and post death of the prophet. They became powerful and were the forefront of material and scientific development. However the sexually transmitted disease which were unheard of in the ancient times, something the greeks and Egyptian did not mention was first mentioned by our prophet. That those who indulge in widespread multiple sexual activity will have a serious consequence and disease will spread around and death will prevail, which in modern terminology we call them AIDS.

[farhad]

[/B]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedusa View Post
So no proof in this life then ??
.
"find proof then just put it bullet to the head unless your a coward to face your creator now"

You are not doing the 'Moderate' Islamic cause any good Farhad. Your responses are becoming increasingly more disturbing as the the thread progresses.

Words such as "Bullet to the head", "Coward" and "Terminated" are hardly evocative of a 'follower' of a 'peaceful religion' are they?

I haven't asked anyone to take anyone elses life I just gave them an example if they want proof of his existence then that is perhaps the best solution to find out.

[kirklancaster]

But wasn't infidelity or multiple partners more common back in ancient times? There wasn't the traditional "nuclear" family set ups that we see today?

I'm not a total history buff though so I don't know.

What need was there for infidelity when a man could have 4 wives?

[Marsh.]

of course it was, in arab culture it was a hobbie to do anything they willed until Prophet Muhammad PBUH was a saviour and turned them into one of the greatest forces in medieval and post death of the prophet. They became powerful and were the forefront of material and scientific development. However the sexually transmitted disease which were unheard of in the ancient times, something the greeks and Egyptian did not mention was first mentioned by our prophet. That those who indulge in widespread multiple sexual activity will have a serious consequence and disease will spread around and death will prevail, which in modern terminology we call them AIDS.

So why was this disease only spread AFTER?

[Marsh.]

What need was there for infidelity when a man could have 4 wives?

You know what I meant. :fist:

[farhad]

What need was there for infidelity when a man could have 4 wives?

The difference is your not engaging in sex outside the marital bond. The benefit of that was during the ancient times, men died in far greater number than women that's why it was only allowed in such circumstances, ofcourse its different now. I think women would rather be legally married then having intercourse outside of marriage, and be guaranteed security.

[kirklancaster]

The difference is your not engaging in sex outside the marital bond. The benefit of that was during the ancient times, men died in far greater number than women that's why it was only allowed in such circumstances, ofcourse its different now. I think women would rather be legally married then having intercourse outside of marriage, and be guaranteed security.

Does that include very young girls forced to become wives Farhad? Do you think they'd rather be married and be guaranteed security than be free to select partners themselves?

[kirklancaster]

You know what I meant. :fist:

:laugh:

[farhad]

show me where anyone is forced into marriage, and I want a proper references from law of the creator and not examples from what some third world countries example.

[InOne]

show me where anyone is forced into marriage, and I want a proper references from law of the creator and not examples from what some third world countries example.

Did you not watch Panorama last night?

[Nedusa]

find proof then just put it bullet to the head unless your a coward to face your creator now:hehe:

Why not preach this message to all death worshipping Islamic extremists and with a bit of luck they may oblige.

They get to meet their glorious maker and have all their "virgins" whilst back down here on planet Earth, normal peaceful innocent people get to hang onto their heads...!!!





.

[lostalex]

You live in immortal spiritual life in the hereafter than live for only few decades on earth, if I had to choose I would prefer an immortal life in the hereafter.

no you don't. you've been brainwashed by a cult. wake up.

[Livia]

Mohammed married his wife Aisha when she was just six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. He was an old man at this time, he died nine years later. What a tremendous example of goodness and purity.

[kirklancaster]

Farhad, I am a Christian, so some of your tenets are the same as mine, but I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be issuing statements 'Robot-Fashion' as though you have been 'pre-programmed', 'pre-coached on doctrine'.

[Tom4784]

This Zakir seems like a bit of a twat.

[farhad]

Mohammed married his wife Aisha when she was just six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. He was an old man at this time, he died nine years later. What a tremendous example of goodness and purity.

Oh lets not forget his first wife was 25 years older than him:blush:

[Livia]

Oh lets not forget his first wife was 25 years older than him:blush:

And you think in some way, that cancels out having sex with a nine year old child?

[farhad]

And you think in some way, that cancels out having sex with a nine year old child?

I don't see anywhere in quran that prophet married a child:shrug:

[Benjamin]

He gave you a penis and sperms

God love the penis and the sperms :love:

[T*]

show me where anyone is forced into marriage, and I want a proper references from law of the creator and not examples from what some third world countries example.

In countries like Niger, Chad, Bangladesh, Guinea and the Central African Republic (CAR), the rate of early and forced marriage is over 60 per cent. Child brides are particularly prevalent in South Asia and in sub-Saharan Africa.

(thanks google)

[farhad]

I said show from the quran that women are forced into marriages. Customs and cultures differ from country to country, but in the theological doctrine can you point out if islam forces marriage, so far I couldn't find in statements.

[Udanax]

this tthread is so uplifting

[kirklancaster]

I don't see anywhere in quran that prophet married a child:shrug:

Are you stating that because it is not in the Quran, Muhammad did not marry a child?

I think that the facts that Muhammad secured engagement to 6 year old Aisha, the daughter of his 'adopted' brother and long-time friend Abu Bakr, and consummated that marriage when she was just 9 years old, is so well documented that it is beyond argument. This includes a wealth of Islamic scholarly sources and Aisha's own testimony:

From the hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234

"Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."

Whether it be Film, Books, Historical works, or whatever, I always believe that the - often subconsciously written - sub text or submerged meaning, imparts as much information as the superficial message. I also believe that with historical writing, when one is trying to reconstruct events to ascertain the true facts of a situation, the 'devil' is in the small details which are often overlooked.

In my opinion, in Aisha's testimony above, the cumulative effect of several of these 'small details' cannot help but confirm that not only was Aisha still a child when 'handed over' to Muhammad, but also a very frightened and anxious child - despite the apologist views of modern Muslim scholars, and what may have subsequently transpired, or indeed what Aisha herself may later have had to say because she became 'acclimatised' and 'conditioned' into accepting her fate, or even loving the grown man responsible for imposing it.

The seemingly irrelevant inclusion by Aisha of; "Then I got ill and my hair fell down." suggests to me a case of 'Alopecia Areata' - a sudden loss of large clumps of hair from the head - and the greatest known cause of such hair loss in small children is anxiety and prolonged severe mental and physical stress.

The fact that this hair loss occurred after the 6 year old Aisha had been promised to Muhammad, and during the 'waiting' period when the child knew that she could be 'claimed' by him at any moment and removed from her parents and her friends and family home, is further indication that my theory is correct.

To a child of 6 or 7 years old, no matter how much any adults try to explain such a prospect to you, and no matter how much they 'sugar coat' it, the 'wonderful reward' being 'bestowed' must surely seem more like the 'imposition' of a very 'frightening punishment', and little Aisha must surely have been constantly anxious and worried about her impending fate.

The above is further evidenced when Aisha writes: "She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it." which is indicative of a 'panic attack', and the phrase; "caught me by the hand and made me" can only suggest a reluctance by the child to leave playing with her friends, and to go to her mother when summoned because of the fear that some unpleasant ordeal was awaiting. It also implies that the mother resorted to going to the child and "caught hold" of her by her "hand" to ensure that the child complied.

There is no doubt in my mind that Aisha was indeed, still just a child of around 9 years old when she was claimed by Muhammad and taken away from her family and friends, and her statement: "while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends" supports my certainty.

I am here to debate Farhad - not to attack you, but I will say that of all the world's religions, Islam is the only one I fear, and that is not because I don't understand it, but because I probably do understand it far better than most.

[Nedusa]

Are you stating that because it is not in the Quran, Muhammad did not marry a child?

I think that the facts that Muhammad secured engagement to 6 year old Aisha, the daughter of his 'adopted' brother and long-time friend Abu Bakr, and consummated that marriage when she was just 9 years old, is so well documented that it is beyond argument. This includes a wealth of Islamic scholarly sources and Aisha's own testimony:

From the hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234

"Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."

Whether it be Film, Books, Historical works, or whatever, I always believe that the - often subconsciously written - sub text or submerged meaning, imparts as much information as the superficial message. I also believe that with historical writing, when one is trying to reconstruct events to ascertain the true facts of a situation, the 'devil' is in the small details which are often overlooked.

In my opinion, in Aisha's testimony above, the cumulative effect of several of these 'small details' cannot help but confirm that not only was Aisha still a child when 'handed over' to Muhammad, but also a very frightened and anxious child - despite the apologist views of modern Muslim scholars, and what may have subsequently transpired, or indeed what Aisha herself may later have had to say because she became 'acclimatised' and 'conditioned' into accepting her fate, or even loving the grown man responsible for imposing it.

The seemingly irrelevant inclusion by Aisha of; "Then I got ill and my hair fell down." suggests to me a case of 'Alopecia Areata' - a sudden loss of large clumps of hair from the head - and the greatest known cause of such hair loss in small children is anxiety and prolonged severe mental and physical stress.

The fact that this hair loss occurred after the 6 year old Aisha had been promised to Muhammad, and during the 'waiting' period when the child knew that she could be 'claimed' by him at any moment and removed from her parents and her friends and family home, is further indication that my theory is correct.

To a child of 6 or 7 years old, no matter how much any adults try to explain such a prospect to you, and no matter how much they 'sugar coat' it, the 'wonderful reward' being 'bestowed' must surely seem more like the 'imposition' of a very 'frightening punishment', and little Aisha must surely have been constantly anxious and worried about her impending fate.

The above is further evidenced when Aisha writes: "She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it." which is indicative of a 'panic attack', and the phrase; "caught me by the hand and made me" can only suggest a reluctance by the child to leave playing with her friends, and to go to her mother when summoned because of the fear that some unpleasant ordeal was awaiting. It also implies that the mother resorted to going to the child and "caught hold" of her by her "hand" to ensure that the child complied.

There is no doubt in my mind that Aisha was indeed, still just a child of around 9 years old when she was claimed by Muhammad and taken away from her family and friends, and her statement: "while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends" supports my certainty.

I am here to debate Farhad - not to attack you, but I will say that of all the world's religions, Islam is the only one I fear, and that is not because I don't understand it, but because I probably do understand it far better than most.

Good Post Kirk..........agree Islam is the religion I fear also. I gave a list of reasons on the other thread but the Mods removed the whole thread for whatever reason, so I will not waste my time writing the same post again.

Suffice to say people are foolish and ignorant if they think Islam is a peaceful, just and tolerant religion.





.

[farhad]

Are you stating that because it is not in the Quran, Muhammad did not marry a child?

I think that the facts that Muhammad secured engagement to 6 year old Aisha, the daughter of his 'adopted' brother and long-time friend Abu Bakr, and consummated that marriage when she was just 9 years old, is so well documented that it is beyond argument. This includes a wealth of Islamic scholarly sources and Aisha's own testimony:

From the hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234

"Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."

Whether it be Film, Books, Historical works, or whatever, I always believe that the - often subconsciously written - sub text or submerged meaning, imparts as much information as the superficial message. I also believe that with historical writing, when one is trying to reconstruct events to ascertain the true facts of a situation, the 'devil' is in the small details which are often overlooked.

In my opinion, in Aisha's testimony above, the cumulative effect of several of these 'small details' cannot help but confirm that not only was Aisha still a child when 'handed over' to Muhammad, but also a very frightened and anxious child - despite the apologist views of modern Muslim scholars, and what may have subsequently transpired, or indeed what Aisha herself may later have had to say because she became 'acclimatised' and 'conditioned' into accepting her fate, or even loving the grown man responsible for imposing it.

The seemingly irrelevant inclusion by Aisha of; "Then I got ill and my hair fell down." suggests to me a case of 'Alopecia Areata' - a sudden loss of large clumps of hair from the head - and the greatest known cause of such hair loss in small children is anxiety and prolonged severe mental and physical stress.

The fact that this hair loss occurred after the 6 year old Aisha had been promised to Muhammad, and during the 'waiting' period when the child knew that she could be 'claimed' by him at any moment and removed from her parents and her friends and family home, is further indication that my theory is correct.

To a child of 6 or 7 years old, no matter how much any adults try to explain such a prospect to you, and no matter how much they 'sugar coat' it, the 'wonderful reward' being 'bestowed' must surely seem more like the 'imposition' of a very 'frightening punishment', and little Aisha must surely have been constantly anxious and worried about her impending fate.

The above is further evidenced when Aisha writes: "She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it." which is indicative of a 'panic attack', and the phrase; "caught me by the hand and made me" can only suggest a reluctance by the child to leave playing with her friends, and to go to her mother when summoned because of the fear that some unpleasant ordeal was awaiting. It also implies that the mother resorted to going to the child and "caught hold" of her by her "hand" to ensure that the child complied.

There is no doubt in my mind that Aisha was indeed, still just a child of around 9 years old when she was claimed by Muhammad and taken away from her family and friends, and her statement: "while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends" supports my certainty.

I am here to debate Farhad - not to attack you, but I will say that of all the world's religions, Islam is the only one I fear, and that is not because I don't understand it, but because I probably do understand it far better than most.

still nothing from the quran :laugh:

[farhad]

Coming to your question, your comparing something that happened1000 of years ago to todays standard. The fact that he consummated the marriage after she passed her puberty which in ancient times was meant you were ready to an adult shows he wasn't a pedophile as such, and neither the quran says that you should marry children. if you couldn't show any reference from the quran then you failed in your accusation.

[farhad]

Even for the sake of the argument you want vilify from todays standard, then how do we know she was 6, arabs and many did not keep their birth certificate and generally did not know their birthdate.

[Livia]

I don't see anywhere in quran that prophet married a child:shrug:

Denial is not debate, Farhad.

[Livia]

Coming to your question, your comparing something that happened1000 of years ago to todays standard. The fact that he consummated the marriage after she passed her puberty which in ancient times was meant you were ready to an adult shows he wasn't a pedophile as such, and neither the quran says that you should marry children. if you couldn't show any reference from the quran then you failed in your accusation.

All the teachings of the Quran are 1000 years old. You seem to be able to equate them to today's standard.

And really, asking non-Muslims to quote from the Quran in support of their argument is rid-ic-u-lous.

[kirklancaster]

All the teachings of the Quran are 1000 years old. You seem to be able to equate them to today's standard.

And really, asking non-Muslims to quote from the Quran in support of their argument is rid-ic-u-lous.

True Liv.

I have however, actually owned a copy of the Quran for years, just as I have the Book of Mormon and the Bhagavad Gita, among other books, so I was really looking forward to a debate with Farhad, but alas, 'nos mas'.

[arista]

God love the penis and the sperms :love:

you dirty bugger

[farhad]

(24:4)And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty lashes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers -

That means even if you throw insults like you freely do here with using words such as "*****s", "sluts", then these people get 80 large spanks in public. However its perfectly ok here to do so, call thems names for insult and jokes.

[farhad]

All the teachings of the Quran are 1000 years old. You seem to be able to equate them to today's standard.

And really, asking non-Muslims to quote from the Quran in support of their argument is rid-ic-u-lous.

well teachings in the quran doesn't speak about child marriage first all, as he failed to point out if Allah ordainr child marriage or sex with a child. Marriage to Aisha had many relevance and aspects and wasn't done for sexual purpose as this poster is trying to say. You go back in history and look at the age of marriage in Ancient Rome, Ancient Greek and world over, it was the norm. Things change as time elapses, with incorporation of Schools, and medical advancement, laws has changed, people live longer now then they did previously, arab live expectancy in Arabia at that time was 35 to 40. Its absurd and ignorant from the perspective of historical standpoint to judge upon todays world.

[farhad]

All the teachings of the Quran are 1000 years old. You seem to be able to equate them to today's standard.

And really, asking non-Muslims to quote from the Quran in support of their argument is rid-ic-u-lous.

with logic like dr zakir naik provides, Quran will always be applicable in any time. Also many of the laws that came to pass in European countries, many of these laws and principal was taken from the Islamic constitution, such as abolition of racism, that principal came from islam where no black and whites or ethnicity are superior or inferior to one another, manumission of slavery, prophet practised this and preached it. Not to harm any non-combatant civilians in war, that means an elderly, women, children, men who are not part of the army, mean the oppositions side. It was Islamic philosophy that had inspired John Locke.

[Kizzy]

That kind of thing would never happen in the west...

Reforms in the 19th and 20th century[edit]
A general great shift in social and legal attitudes toward issues of sex took place in the modern era and beliefs on the appropriate age below which girls should not be permitted to engage in sexual activity drifted toward adulthood. While ages from 10 to 13 were typically regarded as acceptable ages for sexual consent in Western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] by the end of the 19th century changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulted in the raising of the age of consent.[4]


Several articles written by investigative journalist William Thomas Stead in the late 19th century on the issue of child prostitution in London led to public outrage and ultimately to the raising of the age of consent to 16.
The English common law had traditionally set the age of consent within the range of 10 to 12, but in 1875 the age was raised to 13. After intense sensational media revelations about the scourge of under-age prostitution in London in the 1880s caused respectable middle-class outrage, the age of consent was raised to 16 in 1885. Early feminists of the Social Purity movement such as Josephine Butler and others, instrumental in securing the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, began to turn towards the problem of child prostitution by the end of the 1870s.

The investigative journalist William Thomas Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette was pivotal in exposing the problem of child prostitution in the London underworld through a publicity stunt. In 1885 he "purchased" one victim, Eliza Armstrong the 13-year-old daughter of a chimney sweep, for £5 and took her to a brothel where she was drugged. He then published a series of four exposés entitled The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon, which shocked its readers with tales of child prostitution and the abduction, procurement and sale of young English virgins to Continental "pleasure palaces". The "Maiden Tribute" was an instant hit with the public. Victorian society was thrown into an uproar about prostitution. Fearing riots on a national scale, the Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt pleaded in vain with Stead to cease publication of the articles. A wide variety of reform groups held protest meetings and marched together to Hyde Park demanding that the age of consent be raised. The government was forced to pass the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 that raised the age of consent to 16 and clamped down on prostitution.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent


Yes yes I'm aware it's wiki, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long to corroborate the information.

[farhad]

Due to work in the morning I can't reply now in depth, but definitely will get back to. Also it's not good to copy paste things.

[Tom4784]

No religious scripture is truly applicable to today's world, they are a product of their time. If they were written today they would be completely different to what they are now.

[lostalex]

I said show from the quran that women are forced into marriages. Customs and cultures differ from country to country, but in the theological doctrine can you point out if islam forces marriage, so far I couldn't find in statements.

why are you more worried about the words than the actions? You should be judging muslims based on their actions, not based on the fairy tale book they use to justify their actions.

actions are always more important than words.

based on ACTIONS, there is a HUGE problem with forced marriage, and child marriage in muslims countries.

[user104658]

It was Islamic philosophy that had inspired John Locke.

...I spent an entire University semester studying Locke quite extensively, and have literally never heard this? In fact, Locke was a firm advocate of Christianity, and was well documented as being against Muslims living in the West.

I personally am unconvinced about his own level of belief... I think he considered a religious population to be "key" to the functioning of his theories on social contracts, i.e. religious adherence is what would ensure that most people would consider the contract to be "binding" (someone is always watching, you can't break the contract just because no one else is around to see it, God will always see, etc etc) and more importantly he believed that the population would be best served by being under ONE religion, truth and freedom be damned. But anyway, I've gone off on a bit of a tangent.

It's seen as a major contradiction in his liberal philosophy, because he actually seems to suggest "keeping certain faiths out".

[Islam] can have no right to be tolerated by the [government] which is constituted upon such a [foundation] that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince [i.e. a foreign ruler]… It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan [a Muslim] only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian government, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the "Mufti of Constantinople", who himself is entirely obedient to the Caliph and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. - John Locke


...not that I agree with Locke - he also wasn't a big fan of Atheists, the big ol' hypocrite, he just liked Christians and was mostly OK with Jews.

Anyway, yeah, I don't know where you've read that John Locke was inspired by Islamic philosophy... it seems very unlikely, given his stance with Christianity. That said, having just written what I have above (regarding the "key" etc.), I can see a few parallels in the philosophy. I would imagine they are more coincidental than "inspired by", though. Social control via religion is a tale as old as time, not attributable to John Locke or Islam or even the most ancient written religions. It's been going on since we were raising our hands in appreciation to the Rain Gods, wailing in despair at the sound of thunder, and howling at the moon.

[Nedusa]

why are you more worried about the words than the actions? You should be judging muslims based on their actions, not based on the fairy tale book they use to justify their actions.

actions are always more important than words.

based on ACTIONS, there is a HUGE problem with forced marriage, and child marriage in muslims countries.

Perfectly summed up Alex.........ACTIONS speak louder than words, always

There is little point in advocating your peaceful loving religion and then engaging in blood soaked terrorist savagery.

Walk the Walk dont just talk the talk.





.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Even for the sake of the argument you want vilify from todays standard, then how do we know she was 6, arabs and many did not keep their birth certificate and generally did not know their birthdate.

yes and at that time many did not know there arse from their elbow but hey lets forget that and worship some book they wrote way back then


jesus h christ




:nono:and get a better camera

[Kizzy]

Due to work in the morning I can't reply now in depth, but definitely will get back to. Also it's not good to copy paste things.

Why is it not good to copy and past things, you copy and pasted the link from you tube didn't you?
You supplied information and so did I, quid pro quo.

[Nedusa]

can't believe this wretched thread is still going

It is akin to arguing which is more relevant - The Honey Monster or the Loch Ness Monster...


In the scheme of things:-


Everyday reality, that you can touch,taste,smell,see & hear
recently proved Scientific Theories
current Scientific Theories
Ufology
Mythology
Religion






.

[kirklancaster]

Coming to your question, your comparing something that happened1000 of years ago to todays standard. The fact that he consummated the marriage after she passed her puberty which in ancient times was meant you were ready to an adult shows he wasn't a pedophile as such, and neither the quran says that you should marry children. if you couldn't show any reference from the quran then you failed in your accusation.

Farhad, it is most helpful when debating, either to identify the specific member you are referring to in your response, or to actually quote the post you are responding to.

If it is me who you are referring to, I did not accuse anyone of anything - especially not your prophet of paedophilia.

It is best not to confuse a statement as any kind of attack, when the author of that statement sincerely believes it to be the truth, and when the absence of any type of malice in the statement is so patently clear.

I deal strictly in facts, and it is an irrefutable fact that Muhammad married Aisha when she was a child and that he consummated that marriage when she was 9 years old. I have quoted my source for believing this statement to be true; none other than Aisha's own testimony in the Hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234, and as a devout Muslim, you should have no trouble accepting the testimony of your prophet's beloved, or in the collated truths of Muhammad himself - especially since the Bukhari Hadith is widely regarded by most Islamic scholars as the most reliable collection. Unless you are a Sunni Muslim of course, but even if this is the case, there is plenty of other evidence from Islamic sources that attest to the truth of my statement.

I agree with you that we should not judge ancient practices which were the accepted norm 1400 years ago by today's standards, but there does seem to be a lot of 'double standards' being applied by you in your assertions, and this issue of Muhammad and Aisha is one of them.

To illustrate just why I say the above, I will return to your claim on a recently closed thread, that Christ mentioned the word "Muslim" in Luke 6.40 of the Judeo Christian Bible:

"Jesus using the word "Muslim" in Luke 6:40:
"Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo."


And my response:

"Sorry Farhad, but your claim is highly contentious.

The actual words Christ said were: "A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained (katertismenos) will be like his teacher." Luke 6:40.

The actual Greek word used: ‘katertismenos’ is at the root of the Muslim claim because Muslim polemicists maintain that translated into Hebrew, the word becomes ‘Mushlam’ which they state equates to the Arabic word Muslim.

However, in Luke 6:40 Jesus did not use a proper noun meaning "those who submit." He used the participle ‘katertismenos’, which means "being made ready, prepared, or trained”.

In any event, whichever sense Christ used the word ‘Katertismenos’ in, it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that Jesus used the word Mushlam to actually mean ‘Muslim’ 600 years before Islam was even founded.

To claim as much is known as ‘Chronological Fallacy’ or when somebody ascribes to an historical word a later definition or meaning. It is as ridiculous as saying that Jesus referred to me as ‘blessed’ on the Sermon on The Mount, because my name is Kirk Meek and he said; “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”.

Now you cannot claim a 'truth' - as in the 'Luke 6:40' example above - by the the tactic of ascribing the current definition of a word to an ancient historical use of it, then denounce others for applying todays criterion of improper sex with a child to the historical acts of Muhammad with Aisha.

I hope to continue sensible debate with you and look forward to your response.

[kirklancaster]

can't believe this wretched thread is still going

It is akin to arguing which is more relevant - The Honey Monster or the Loch Ness Monster...

In the scheme of things:-

Everyday reality, that you can touch,taste,smell,see & hear
recently proved Scientific Theories
current Scientific Theories
Ufology
Mythology
Religion
.

I love ya Nedusa and always respect your views, but I must disagree with you here. There is a wealth of evidence to substantiate Christianity but no Christian on here dare create a thread in which to air it and explore it, because instead of sensible and civilised adult debate, all it will lead to is the usual inane ridiculing, the same ignoring of facts, and the usual violent arguments.

A shame, but not worth it.

[Nedusa]

I love ya Nedusa and always respect your views, but I must disagree with you here. There is a wealth of evidence to substantiate Christianity but no Christian on here dare create a thread in which to air it and explore it, because instead of sensible and civilised adult debate, all it will lead to is the usual inane ridiculing, the same ignoring of facts, and the usual violent arguments.

A shame, but not worth it.

I know Kirk...........I'm only messing

trying to brighten up a dull rainy day here in London.

:wavey::wavey:


.

[kirklancaster]

I know Kirk...........I'm only messing

trying to brighten up a dull rainy day here in London.

:wavey::wavey:

.

I really wondered at that coming from you Nedusa. Accept my apology. :blush:

It's snowing a blizzard here - really extreme and shagged my exterior work up.

Fancy nipping off with me on a cyber dinner date? :laugh:

[farhad]

Quran makes a archaeological historical statement on astrial diety in connection to Sumerian religion Sin in Abraham's time which was a moon god named nanna, nanna's son was the god of the sun, and the sibling Ishtar was the gddess of venus when lit into evening star. These are not mentioned in the bible, it just says they worshipped some statues but never declares which god they worshipped. This however is mentioned in quran in todays discovery we call it the astral diety sin.

And thus did We show Abraham the realm of the heavens and the earth that he would be among the certain [in faith]

So when the night covered him [with darkness], he saw a star. He said, “This is my lord.” But when it set, he said, “I like not those that disappear.”

And when he saw the moon rising, he said, “This is my lord.” But when it set, he said, “Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be among the people gone astray.”

And when he saw the sun rising, he said, “This is my lord; this is greater.” But when it set, he said, “O my people, indeed I am free from what you associate with Allah.

Indeed, I have turned my face toward He who created the heavens and the earth, inclining toward truth, and I am not of those who associate others with Allah.” [Chapter 6, verses 75-79]
These historical claims that have been mentioned in the Qur’an about the deities worshipped by Prophet Abraham’s people – the astral triad of the Sun, Moon and Venus – were unknown at the time of Qur’anic Revelation in the 7th century. Knowledge of Sumerian religion (especially the birthplace of Abraham, the city of Ur) had been lost for thousands of years until their rediscovery and excavation in the 20th century. The only realistic source of knowledge about Prophet Abraham available to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon them both, would have been the Bible based stories in circulation. As we have seen however, the story of Prophet Abraham in the Bible is silent on the details of the religious beliefs of his people. Blindly guessing this information is out of the question given the sheer number of gods and goddesses that were worshipped throughout the region, with deities numbering in their thousands. From where, then, did Prophet Muhammad obtain his information? The Qur’an answers:

“

[arista]

"the heavens"

No Such Place Farhad
when you Die
its blank

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

thats upsetting arista :sad:

will you hold me

[arista]

thats upsetting arista :sad:

will you hold me


Sure


But Farhad is stuck in fables
and youtube failed Profs.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

:lovedup:

[Kizzy]

It can't have been lost as Solomon mentions the philistines and their god dagon in Judges.

[kirklancaster]

Quran makes a archaeological historical statement on astrial diety in connection to Sumerian religion Sin in Abraham's time which was a moon god named nanna, nanna's son was the god of the sun, and the sibling Ishtar was the gddess of venus when lit into evening star. These are not mentioned in the bible, it just says they worshipped some statues but never declares which god they worshipped. This however is mentioned in quran in todays discovery we call it the astral diety sin.

And thus did We show Abraham the realm of the heavens and the earth that he would be among the certain [in faith]

So when the night covered him [with darkness], he saw a star. He said, “This is my lord.” But when it set, he said, “I like not those that disappear.”

And when he saw the moon rising, he said, “This is my lord.” But when it set, he said, “Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be among the people gone astray.”

And when he saw the sun rising, he said, “This is my lord; this is greater.” But when it set, he said, “O my people, indeed I am free from what you associate with Allah.

Indeed, I have turned my face toward He who created the heavens and the earth, inclining toward truth, and I am not of those who associate others with Allah.” [Chapter 6, verses 75-79]
These historical claims that have been mentioned in the Qur’an about the deities worshipped by Prophet Abraham’s people – the astral triad of the Sun, Moon and Venus – were unknown at the time of Qur’anic Revelation in the 7th century. Knowledge of Sumerian religion (especially the birthplace of Abraham, the city of Ur) had been lost for thousands of years until their rediscovery and excavation in the 20th century. The only realistic source of knowledge about Prophet Abraham available to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon them both, would have been the Bible based stories in circulation. As we have seen however, the story of Prophet Abraham in the Bible is silent on the details of the religious beliefs of his people. Blindly guessing this information is out of the question given the sheer number of gods and goddesses that were worshipped throughout the region, with deities numbering in their thousands. From where, then, did Prophet Muhammad obtain his information? The Qur’an answers:

“

It is now apparent that you are not here to debate or discuss Farhad - You are here to preach.

You ignore our responses to your posts or respond to them with yet more preaching without addressing or answering the points raised in our responses.

I'm sorry about this Farhad, because I personally have many problems with your religion - not least the fact that it is riddled with contradictions and historical inaccuracies which cause massive interpretive difficulties for anyone objectively analysing it, and I was hoping that through debate and discussion, that you could enlighten me.

I think that I will continue to post my questions in the hope that you will try to convert me with your answers.

[user104658]

Even for the sake of the argument you want vilify from todays standard, then how do we know she was 6, arabs and many did not keep their birth certificate and generally did not know their birthdate.

LOL I just noticed this post. "honest, officer, I didn't know she was 6, she said she was 25! I just thought she was really short."

[farhad]

The astral triniad was lost history of Sumerians, quran addressed before excavation that it was god of moon, sun and star of Venus, formed the trinity something missing from other source.

I'll get back to other responses as due to work could not read all post

[InOne]

Farhad you're just churning out typical responses that we've heard hundreds of times. It's most likely you're googling your replies and getting them off Islamic sites.

'How to reply to a Kafir if he/she starts talking sense'

[farhad]

InOne, if you don't believe me read the encyclodpedia Britannica.

Sin, (Akkadian), Sumerian Nanna, in Mesopotamian religion, the god of the moon. Sin was the father of the sun god, Shamash (Sumerian: Utu), and, in some myths, of Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna), goddess of Venu (Aso referred to star of venus)s, and with them formed an astral triad of deities. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/545523/Sin

Quran mentioned the 3 trinity of their diety, moon, sun and venus or star. It's very shocking something that as been absent or lost history for over thousands of years, quran comes up with the statement what the religion of Sumerian was during prophet Abrahams pbuh time.

[Kizzy]

The astral triniad was lost history of Sumerians, quran addressed before excavation that it was god of moon, sun and star of Venus, formed the trinity something missing from other source.

I'll get back to other responses as due to work could not read all post

This is the problem those with no 'faith' (like me) have with religion, it seems a total hotch potch of beliefs from across the ages as well as the globe.
Yes I agree that the sun moon and stars is akin to the holy trinity and Jesus is considered to be the morning star (venus).

'A year and seven months earlier, The star led the magi west by rising in the east on August 24, 2 BC the Bright Morning Star rose in the east about 4 minutes before sunrise about 12.5 degrees south of where the sun rose. It rose and was visible in the sky and throughout the day as the day star and preceded the sun until about 50 minutes before sundown, it set in the west at the horizon in the direction of kingdom of Judah (from Babylon or Persia)'

( August 24th is my birthday :D)

[arista]

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/63/6b/1363815399_5091_AtheistBarbie.jpg?itok=kxAx5hzJ
Farhad
even Barbie is with us.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

omfg :joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

InOne, if you don't believe me read the encyclodpedia Britannica.



Quran mentioned the 3 trinity of their diety, moon, sun and venus or star. It's very shocking something that as been absent or lost history for over thousands of years, quran comes up with the statement what the religion of Sumerian was during prophet Abrahams pbuh time.




Farhad -you realise that really you are just trying to persuade yourself about something that deep down you dont really believe?

Dont listen to what you have been told about, make your own mind up. Forget the Koran and expand your reading and get into this century, where you exist..now.

[Kizzy]

We all do that, it's human nature to question ... it's natural to want to know the origins of our existence.
You could view the great flood as the first example of genocide, god is vengeful and so are we.
It all makes sense to a point in as much as it was recorded world wide, and for me that is more important than the modern day interpretations that are open to manipulation.

[Shaun]

arista ily

[kirklancaster]

InOne, if you don't believe me read the encyclodpedia Britannica.

Quran mentioned the 3 trinity of their diety, moon, sun and venus or star. It's very shocking something that as been absent or lost history for over thousands of years, quran comes up with the statement what the religion of Sumerian was during prophet Abrahams pbuh time.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon religion, is built upon the solitary claims of one man, Joseph Smith Jr, who claimed that, both Jesus Christ and God himself appeared to him in 1820 in a forest while he was completely alone, followed by visits in 1823, from an angel named Moroni - who was an ancient Nephite warrior.

Islam is built upon the solitary claims of one man, Muhammad, who claimed that he was visited by the Archangel Gabriel in 610 whilst alone meditating in a cave near Mecca, followed by other visitations from Gabriel.

Two of the world's great religions - both built upon nothing but pure, blind FAITH.

In both cases, there are no other witnesses who saw or heard anything; we only have the testimony of Smith and Muhammad, but I'm not saying that either is false, so now we have a huge problem.

Both have the same degree of validity, so deciding that Muhammad's testimony is truthful and Smith's is not - or vice versa - is but personal choice, because neither has the corroboration of direct shared eyewitness evidence from others.

So what if both are correct?

Then that immediately destroys the Muslim argument that Muhammad is God's Final Prophet, because Smith received his Divine Authority 1200 years after Muhammad.

You claim the 'Astral Triad' revelation as proof that Gabriel dictated the Quran to Muhammad, and the Mormons claim Joseph Smith's 'Golden Plates as proof that the source of his authorship was Divine.

I will answer your 'Astral Trinity' point in the next post - if you respond to this and the previous post and actually address the points made in them instead of merely pasting the same quotes.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon religion, is built upon the solitary claims of one man, Joseph Smith Jr, who claimed that, both Jesus Christ and God himself appeared to him in 1820 in a forest while he was completely alone, followed by visits in 1823, from an angel named Moroni - who was an ancient Nephite warrior.

Islam is built upon the solitary claims of one man, Muhammad, who claimed that he was visited by the Archangel Gabriel in 610 whilst alone meditating in a cave near Mecca, followed by other visitations from Gabriel.

Two of the world's great religions - both built upon nothing but pure, blind FAITH.

In both cases, there are no other witnesses who saw or heard anything; we only have the testimony of Smith and Muhammad, but I'm not saying that either is false, so now we have a huge problem.

Both have the same degree of validity, so deciding that Muhammad's testimony is truthful and Smith's is not - or vice versa - is but personal choice, because neither has the corroboration of direct shared eyewitness evidence from others.

So what if both are correct?

Then that immediately destroys the Muslim argument that Muhammad is God's Final Prophet, because Smith received his Divine Authority 1200 years after Muhammad.

You claim the 'Astral Triad' revelation as proof that Gabriel dictated the Quran to Muhammad, and the Mormons claim Joseph Smith's 'Golden Plates as proof that the source of his authorship was Divine.

I will answer your 'Astral Trinity' point in the next post - if you respond to this and the previous post and actually address the points made in them instead of merely pasting the same quotes.

:clap1:

[farhad]

Kirklancaster so far you have explained the concidence of Quran's mention the interlink of the astral trinity of Sumerian god around Abraham's time on rerference to moon, sun and the night star of venus, something that was lost in history and absent from any other manuscript, bible which came over 1000 years before quran did not mention it. Its a coincidence as well the coincidence of the lost city of iram.

Regards to jesus using the word muslim, he quite clearly used it in Aramaic, he spoke Aramaic and Hebrew not greek or English.

[farhad]

This is the problem those with no 'faith' (like me) have with religion, it seems a total hotch potch of beliefs from across the ages as well as the globe.
Yes I agree that the sun moon and stars is akin to the holy trinity and Jesus is considered to be the morning star (venus).

'A year and seven months earlier, The star led the magi west by rising in the east on August 24, 2 BC the Bright Morning Star rose in the east about 4 minutes before sunrise about 12.5 degrees south of where the sun rose. It rose and was visible in the sky and throughout the day as the day star and preceded the sun until about 50 minutes before sundown, it set in the west at the horizon in the direction of kingdom of Judah (from Babylon or Persia)'

( August 24th is my birthday :D)

You still have not come up with a rational counter challenge to it and keep avoiding it.

[kirklancaster]

"Kirklancaster so far you have explained the concidence of Quran's mention the interlink of the astral trinity of Sumerian god around Abraham's time on rerference to moon, sun and the night star of venus, something that was lost in history and absent from any other manuscript, bible which came over 1000 years before quran did not mention it. Its a coincidence as well the coincidence of the lost city of iram.

Regards to jesus using the word muslim, he quite clearly used it in Aramaic, he spoke Aramaic and Hebrew not greek or English."

The problem here Farhad, is the same problem which I have personally encountered in real life whenever I have held discussions with Muslims, or tried to engage Muslims in any debate; you are deviously ignoring my responses to you, so that you can avoid having to address the questions I raise in them because you haven't any answers. Instead, as all Muslims do in trying to defend that which is indefensible and rationalise that which is illogical, you keep trotting out the same ready-prepared 'facts' in deflection, because - as a good Muslim - this is what you have been schooled to do.

The truth is that when examined, such 'facts' prove to be fallacies, or in the case of your much prized "Astral Trinity" quote, when examined and weighed against the other 'scientific facts' in the Quran do not pass scrutiny nor constitute any type of proof at all.

One of these standard 'facts' instilled into Muslims to produce as 'evidence' to justify Islam (and there aren't many) is your earlier claim of "Jesus using the word "Muslim" in Luke 6:40: "Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo" to which I gave a very valid and detailed counter response of just why this 'claim is mere fallacy conveniently dressed as fact, but to which you now counter: "Regards to jesus using the word muslim, he quite clearly used it in Aramaic, he spoke Aramaic and Hebrew not greek or English"

Yes, Jesus did speak Aramaic, but the irrefutable facts are that the writings which formed the 'New testament' were written and circulated in Greek, including the Gospels of Luke and John, the Book of Acts, the Epistles, and the Book of Revelation and the oldest known manuscripts of Matthew and Mark - from 60 A.D. - are in Greek.

Some scholars - including Islamic - have contended that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and only later translated into Greek, but this is pure speculation which flies in the face of the evidence including the very real fact that no fragments of the Aramaic text have ever been found.

So I will reiterate my perfectly valid rebuttal of your claim bearing in mind that I am referring below not to the Aramaic spoken words of Christ, but to the Greek which they were originally written down in, because - obviously - we have no tape or digital recordings of Christ's speech:

"The actual words Christ said were: "A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained (katertismenos) will be like his teacher." Luke 6:40.

The actual Greek word used: ‘katertismenos’ is at the root of the Muslim claim because Muslim polemicists maintain that translated into Hebrew, the word becomes ‘Mushlam’ which they state equates to the Arabic word Muslim.

However, in Luke 6:40 Jesus did not use a proper noun meaning "those who submit." He used the participle ‘katertismenos’, which means "being made ready, prepared, or trained”.

In any event, whichever sense Christ used the word ‘Katertismenos’ in, it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that Jesus used the word Mushlam to actually mean ‘Muslim’ 600 years before Islam was even founded.

To claim as much is known as ‘Chronological Fallacy’ or when somebody ascribes to an historical word a later definition or meaning. It is as ridiculous as saying that Jesus referred to me as ‘blessed’ on the Sermon on The Mount, because my name is Kirk Meek and he said; “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”.

Of course Farhad, I do not expect you to accept any of this, because facts, logic, and integrity, are no match for fallacy, unreasonableness, and brainwashing.

Your "Astral Triad" will be addressed in the next post.

[Kizzy]

I think it's wrong if you have faith to claim another faith is brainwashed.
As I said versions have been written and re written so key issues are lost in translation.
Whole books were left out too, and that in itself was due to those in power using the bible as a tool to influence and control.
Farhad I don't wish to counter challenge, I don't believe anyone knows enough as I believe any real knowledge has been lost.

[kirklancaster]

I think it's wrong if you have faith to claim another faith is brainwashed.
As I said versions have been written and re written so key issues are lost in translation.
Whole books were left out too, and that in itself was due to those in power using the bible as a tool to influence and control.
Farhad I don't wish to counter challenge, I don't believe anyone knows enough as I believe any real knowledge has been lost.

I am not making any personal attack, just stating categorically that your post here is irrefutably wrong. According to Muslims, nothing has been added to, or altered, or deleted, in the text of the Quran, and it is the proud boast of every Muslim that the Quran remains today the same unaltered words of Allah preserved in its exact, primary text, uncorrupted and unchanged since the moment of its revelation.

I have had my own copy of the Quran for years, along with other text books on Islam by Islamic scholars, in addition to diverse other printed materials, and access to the internet. I have, therefore, every right as an intelligent and knowledgeable person - regardless of my faith - to have an opinion that the Quran is so transparently littered with inconsistencies and fallacies, that anyone who repeatedly maintains that its infallibility is beyond question, is brainwashed - especially anyone who keep replying with the same pre-packaged stock answer no matter what the question was.

[Kizzy]

I am not making any personal attack, just stating categorically that your post here is irrefutably wrong. According to Muslims, nothing has been added to, or altered, or deleted, in the text of the Quran, and it is the proud boast of every Muslim that the Quran remains today the same unaltered words of Allah preserved in its exact, primary text, uncorrupted and unchanged since the moment of its revelation.

I have had my own copy of the Quran for years, along with other text books on Islam by Islamic scholars, in addition to diverse other printed materials, and access to the internet. I have, therefore, every right as an intelligent and knowledgeable person - regardless of my faith - to have an opinion that the Quran is so transparently littered with inconsistencies and fallacies, that anyone who repeatedly maintains that its infallibility is beyond question, is brainwashed - especially anyone who keep replying with the same pre-packaged stock answer no matter what the question was.

How can you say it was wrong, it's my opinion... And I have the right to suggest all religious texts are as littered with fallacies and inconsistencies.

[kirklancaster]

How can you say it was wrong, it's my opinion... And I have the right to suggest all religious texts are as littered with fallacies and inconsistencies.

So let me understand your contention: You can post an opinion which contradicts my view, but I then can't respond stating that my opinion is that your opinion is wrong? :spin:

You SUGGEST what you want. And I have the right to SUGGEST that you do not have a sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to know what you are talking about. I have the right to SUGGEST that like Farhad, you totally ignore facts and explanation in responses and merely post the same inaccuracies.

I have the right to SUGGEST that I have learnt to my cost of how futile it is to try to hold honest discussion with you, and I will not be baited further. Bye:wavey:

[Kizzy]

So let me understand your contention: You can post an opinion which contradicts my view, but I then can't respond stating that my opinion is that your opinion is wrong? :spin:

You SUGGEST what you want. And I have the right to SUGGEST that you do not have a sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to know what you are talking about. I have the right to SUGGEST that like Farhad, you totally ignore facts and explanation in responses and merely post the same inaccuracies.

I have the right to SUGGEST that I have learnt to my cost of how futile it is to try to hold honest discussion with you, and I will not be baited further. Bye:wavey:

You have no idea what I know on the subject though, so all you have is your assumption.
You have not posted 'accuracies' as that is an impossibility.
I entered this topic to offer another perspective, nothing to do with you or yours and I won't be drawn into any discussion that it's personal.

[farhad]

kirklancaster I'm actually going to give you applause for having the courage to buy a translation of the quran, however if you want to study the quran in-depth, best suggestion is to at least get the lexicon of dictionary in classical Arabic, sometimes translation can be human error as its a potetic in classical presentation. Theres no fallacies in Arabic written, its a powerful language and the Arabic alphabet's and literature were codified from quran. Some of the statements in quran like the city of iram was viewed as fairy-tale which later was discovered to be true.