Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Sama

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 ... 35
301
Sorry, but all these answers do not answer my question, my question is:
Since that Evolution and Natural selection both are based on coincidence, then how come there's a something called "Theistic Evolution" Does that mean Theistic Evolution rejects a part of Evolution and accepts a part? Also we are in the 21st century, and Scientists have  found many evidence supporting Evolution, even theists Scientists accepted Evolution. I'm pretty confused, please help me. Oh also another thing, please do not post links, post only arguments. I'm looking forward  to seeing your answers.

The scientific evolution:
'change over time',  'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'.

This is well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.

Neo-Darwinism  ( commonly called 'Evolution theory')
In order to find a solution to the failed darwin theory, the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or , Neo-Darwinism, was suggested at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural selection.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are mostly harmful.

"Evolution" according to neo-darwinian scenario:

 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'.

This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

Fallacy of equivocation:

Atheists & Darwinists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.

Evolution theory says that a single cell evolved, by 4 mechanisms, to all other creations. They didn't tell us how this supposed single cell created itself in the first place  ;)

302
 Could it not have been that Muhammad(pbuh) suffered from Schizophrenia and that the feeling of revelations was but a symptom of that disorder? In fact, was he not called a madman by his contemporaries?

It has been the most important allegation of the rationalists that prophet Muhammad(pbuh) suffered from Schizophrenia. For, as far as those who will not recognize the existence of God are concerned, no matter how often the truth of revelation is reiterated to them, they will never ever appreciate it. It is for this reason that any discussion with the atheist must, necessarily, begin with the issue of the existence of God. How, indeed, can a people, who reject the very existence of the Lord Creator himself, be made to accept the truthfulness of a revelation that proceeds from Him ?

With regard to the question posed here, however, it is its second part that must actually be dealt with first. Was Muhammad(pbuh) called a madman by his contemporaries? If so, then what were the symptoms of madness, which he exhibited, on the basis of which they had made this allegation?

Upto the age of forty, Muhammad(pbuh) had been the owner of a personality that was truthful in its disposition and accepted by all in society. In this long period of time none had ever, in any way, attributed to him the state of lunacy. It is, however, true that after prophethood he had been subject to the allegation of being a madman. But significantly enough, it was not just a madman that Muhammad(pbuh) was called. Indeed, he had been abused with the allegations of being a sorcerer, a magician, one affected by witchcraft, a poet and the like. Was it because of a marked and obvious difference in his personality, or mental disposition, that they abused him as being such ? That this was, indeed, the case, was never advocated by any of them. Their problem had been the Qur'an and the ideas which it contained. Muhammad(pbuh) had spoken out against their traditional beliefs. Moreover, because he had called it Divine, people were fast being attracted to the Qur'an which he now recited to them.All these allegations against him were but the deliberate fabrications of the guardians of the traditional religion who now realized that they had to resort to his character assasination if they were to isolate him from the people.

The time when Muhammad(pbuh) had publicly declared his prophethood; the time of the Hajj was at hand. The leaders of Mecca greatly feared that Muhammad(pbuh) would propagate his religion among the people who would come from all the different parts of Arabia and that they would be attracted by the Qur'an. Forthwith did they convene a meeting. It was then decided that they would first meet with those who arrived for the Hajj and unleash a propaganda against Muhammad(pbuh). The next discussion centered on the question as to how Muhammad(pbuh) was to be described. That each should give a different description would be an affront to their own credibility. What, then, would be the allegation that may be made in common between them? Some said, "Let us say that Muhammad(pbuh) is a soothsayer." To this, Waleed bin Mugheera, a prominent tribal chief retorted, "That can never be. For, by Allah, he is not a soothsayer and we have seen soothsayers. Muhammad’s words are not the prophecies of soothsayers." Yet others said, "We shall say that he is a madman." Then said Waleed, "He is not a madman. We have seen madmen and he has nothing either of their mad talk or of their antics and devilish tendencies." At this, they said, "Then, in that case, let us say that he is a poet." But Waleed countered, "He is no poet. For we are aware of all the types of poetry and, for a surety, it is not poetry that he uttereth." The people then said, " Let us say, then, that he is a sorcerer." But Waleed retorted once again, "He is no sorcerer and he uses neither their knots nor their lutes."

"Then what is it that you propose?" they demanded. He then declared, "Verily, there is a particular sweetness in his words. Its value is expansive, even as fruit-laden are its branches. For a certainty, all that you may utter against him will, in time, prove to be meaningless and futile. It is, therefore, suitable that he be described as a magician who is out to disrupt the ties between father and children, husband and wife as well as between the older and the younger brother!" Accept this the people did. They started, also, the propagation likewise.

What is it that this incident gives us to understand? The allegation that he was a madman was but one among the other false propaganda fabricated by his enemies to alienate the people from the guidance of the prophet. In fact, the very people who spread this misconception themselves never believed in it. It is for this same reason, therefore, that to accept as evidence their allegation will be to do that which will amount to rank foolishness.

The prophet had lived fourteen centuries ago. As such, to examine whether he did actually suffer from schizophrenia is, as of today, beyond us. It is, however, the revelation and dreams which he experienced that are now upheld as evidences by those who allege that Muhammad(pbuh) had, indeed, been a schizophrenic patient. Moreover, this claim has been put forward by the critics on the basis of the ahadith which describes the nature of the revelation as told by the prophet and the external and physical changes to which the prophet was subjected while in receipt of the divine revelation. However, an impartial enquiry into the subject as to whether the symptoms of a schizophrenic disorder were, indeed, present in the prophet will make it amply clear that this allegation is without any substance, whatsoever.

One : The behavioural patterns of a schizophrenic patient is constantly in a flux. This inconsistency manifests itself in the behaviour displayed while dealing with other people and in one’s conversation as well.

Examine the life and speech of Muhammad(pbuh). We are unable to trace out any contradiction, whatsoever, in his approach or character. If prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was, indeed, the owner of a code of behaviour that constantly shifted as well as of a manner of talking in which there was no relation between his present and past utterances, how was it possible that he did have so many trustworthy and devoted companions?

The companions of Muhammad(pbuh) were never like the followers of the ordinary divines whom we have come to know of today. They were ever engaged in carrying out into practice all that he recommended them to accomplish. Is it believable that a great multitude of people would go on to carry out the bidding of a schizophrenic patient?

Two : The responses of the schizophrenic patient, will also be contradictory. Indeed, such people might burst out crying in times of joy and burst out laughing in times of grief. It is also seen that they cry and laugh for no particular reason.
The responses exhibited by Muhammad (pbuh) were, however, well-balanced. Consider just an incident in this regard. The prophet was once resting himself in the shade of a tree. Suddenly he is confronted by an attacker with a drawn-out sword who asks, "Who will now save thee from myself ?" With firmness came the prophet’s reply, "Allah!" Upon hearing this reply, behind which stood a great, and manifest, conviction, the sword slipped down from the hand of the would-be attacker.

Is it possible to expect such strength of conviction from a schizophrenic patient?

Three : Schizophrenic people are usually introverts. They never take the slightest interest in the happenings of the outside world.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had never been an introvert. Indeed, he was a man who not only viewed with the greatest interest the developments in the world around him, but he also played out his own role were the circumstances prevailing ever to call forth such a necessity. He was, furthermore, a person who had striven not only to provide a moral code to the people, but also to live out a life that would stand as an exemplary model for them to follow.

Lamartine wrote: "Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, the conqueror of ideas, the restorer of the faith, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and one spiritual empire - that was Muhammad. As regards all the standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask the question: ‘Is there any man greater that he?" (Historie De la Turquie, vol. 2, page 277)
Is this the evaluative account about an introvert who was also a schizophrenic?

Four : Those who suffer from Schizophrenia can hardly work systematically towards the attainment of any slated objective. Such people, who are unable to accomplish anything of significance, will necessarily be a mentally and physically exhausted lot.
Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) had been the last of the messengers of God who had been sent for the guidance of humanity. He was eminently successful in that he accomplished the very purpose of his mission in a span of time which stretched roughly over two decades. Indeed, Muhammad(pbuh) managed to attract scores of people to the religion of truth by way of a disciplined method of propagation. It had been just all of twenty three years that was required to transform a people who had been nowhere in civilization and culture into a race that became the highest exemplars for the whole world. All those who have analysed history with impartiality have opined that Muhammad(pbuh) was indeed, the person who has most influenced the world.

Will those, who know even a little about the said disorder, ever accept that all this was possible by a schizophrenic patient?

Five : The Schizophrenic patient suffers from delusions as well as hallucinations. These delusion and hallucinations have no semblance or relation with reality.

The critics have attributed Schizophrenia to him by classifyng the revelations and visions which the prophet Muhammad(pbuh) received into this category. We have, however, seen that none of the other symptoms of Schizophrenia were present in the prophet. Then how will it be possible to attribute a schizophrenic disorder to him in the light these revelations alone? The ‘revelations’ to which the schizophrenic patient is subject are but a symptom of the disease. Such revelations will be related and confined only to his own personal domains. But what of the revelations which Muhammad(pbuh) had experienced? Those revelations had served to carve out an ideal community in a step by step fashion. Firstly, it inculcated, in the people, the consciousness about God and of the Hereafter. Through stage after stage, it struck at the very root of the evils that had afflicted the society. In such manner was it, therefore, that the revelations experienced by Muhammad(pbuh) were able to become the very cause behind the creation of an exemplary society. Indeed, the revolution that was wrought stands at the pinnacle of greatness. In the broad sweep of history there has not been another revolution to rival it in any way.

Is it ever possible that the delusions of a schizophrenic patient can serve as the cause of the creation of an exemplary society and of a faultless and incomparable revolution?

It is clear from all this that the allegations that Muhammad(pbuh) was a schizophrenic patient and that it is the delusions which he had heard that form the contents of the Qur'an are merely allegations that do not deserve to be considered in their own right.
http://www.nicheoftruth.org/pages/composition_of_the_quran.htm#Could%20it%20not%20have%20been%20that%20Muhammad(pbuh)%20suffered%20from%20Schizophrenia%20and%20that%20the%C2%A0feeling%20of%20revelations%20was%20but%20a%20symptom%20of%20that%20disorder?%20In%20fact,%20was%20he%20not%20called%C2%A0a%20madman%20by%20his%20contemporaries?

303
Salam alaikum
One cause of visual,auditory or command hallucinations is Schizophrenia but logically the man of a balanced ,leading and victorious personality could not be a schizophrenic.
Diagnostic Criteria of schizophrenia:
https://rebuttaltounderstandingmuhammad.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/refuting-hallucinations-and-seizures/

305
So you are saying that Evolution and natural selection are based on coincidence? But if that's the case, then how come that there are about 99% scientists who believe in Evolution? Also there's a something called "Theistic Evolution" I'm looking forward to seeing your answer.
Assalam alaikum

You can revise this topic on scientific evolution vs neo-darwinism.
http://quranscientificerror.blogspot.com/2013/08/re-quran-scientific-errors-on-evolution.html

I suppose you mean by evolution; evolution theory or neo-darwinism;
The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion.

Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat, a logical fallacies known as Argumentum ad Populum—appeal to the majority. The variation of this fallacy known as “Bandwagon,” is the idea in which someone attempts to “prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true”. In other words, just because a lot of people believe in something (like neodarwinism), that does not make it true—and the number of people who believe in it should not be cited as evidence in support of the proposition.

Allah knows best

308
wa alaikum assalam

Is this a "multiple choices question" or a statement ?

 :)

309
Salam alaikum

 Perhaps it could have been that the slave girl would have found it harder to find means of living and that the uncle of Maimuna bint al Harith may have been a pious man who took good care of his slaves. He may also have been old/disabled man who needs care.

Allah knows best.

And, brother: It's Islamophobes who need to be reftuted not the hadeeth.

That's an excellent video on islam and slavery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSYraWg8ceM

310

Salam alaikum
brother

Please delete the anti-islamic link of this clown

Thank you.

Female genital cutting is “term used to refer to any practice which includes the removal or the alteration of the female genitalia.”:

Type I: This is the mildest form of FGC, which includes removing or splitting the prepuce (foreskin or ‘hood’) which covers the clitoris of females, thus exposing the glans. This may be couple with partial or total excision of the clitoris. This is known as clitoridotomy (slang: hoodectomy). According to the United Nations Population Fund, this form is comparable to male circumcision.[7] This is sometimes also called “sunna circumcision” due to the fact that it is this type which is performed commonly by those Muslims who believe it to be legislated in Islam.

Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only; WHO refers to this type as "female circumcision".
s20.postimg . org/9dkass4fx/Sunnah . png
Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce.


Type II: In this type, known as clitoridectomy, the clitoris and labia minora is partially or totally removed.

Type III: This is one of the most extreme forms of FGC, involving the total excision of the clitoris, both the labia minora and majora, and the joining of the two sides of the vulva across the vagina, sewn with thread or secured with other items, until it heals joining together. Only a small, pencil-size hole is left to allow passage of menstrual blood and urine. This is known as infibulation or Pharaonic Circumcision, in reference to its origins.
s20.postimg . org/jdf78ofp9/Types . png
Type IV: This type is inclusive of all other forms of genital cutting, such as: pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue; introcision, scraping (angurya cuts) or cutting (gishri cuts) of the vagina or surrounding tissue; and introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina.



It is key to note, however, that it is only this first type which some of the scholars regarded as commendable

Islamically

This practice was accepted by some of the classical schools of law and is practiced today by some Muslims.

The basis in Islamic law is that it is not permissible to cause bodily harm and any such practice of female circumcision proven to be harmful would be unlawful.

Ubaida ibn As-Samit reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

لاَ ضَرَرَ وَلاَ ضِرَارَ

Do not cause harm or return harm.​

Source: Sunan ibn Majah 2340, Grade: Hasan

There are a few weak traditions used to sanction the practice, but upon scrutiny we find that none of them are authentic.

Usama ibn Umair reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

الْخِتَانُ سُنَّةٌ لِلرِّجَالِ مَكْرُمَةٌ لِلنِّسَاءِ

Circumcision is a sunnah for men and honorable for women.​

Source: Musnad Ahmad 20195, Grade: Da’eef (weak)

Umm Atiyyah reported: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

لَا تُنْهِكِي فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَحْظَى لِلْمَرْأَةِ وَأَحَبُّ إِلَى الْبَعْلِ

Do not cut severely, as it is better for the woman and more desirable for the husband.​

Source: Sunan Abu Dawud 5271, Grade: Da’eef (weak)

Famous scholars of Islam based their fiqh on quran and "authentic" hadith.

Imam Abu Hanifah: “If a hadith is found to be authentic, then it is my madhab.”
’When I say something contradicting the Book of Allah the Exalted or what is narrated from the Messenger [​IMG], then ignore my saying.’’

Imam Malik: “Everyone after the Prophet will have their statements accepted or rejected except the Prophet.”

Imam Shafi: “Every hadith of the Prophet is my position even if you did not hear it from me.”

Imam Ahmad: “If one rejects a hadith of the Messenger of Allah, they will be at the brink of destruction.”

However, if a scholar thinks of an evidence as true, and later the evidence was proved to be Daiif, then that's no longer his position as they explicitly stressed.

And Allah knows best.

311
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Thighing
« on: May 03, 2017, 02:14:08 PM »
Need rebuttal on the allegation of thighing on prophet
Can you tell us what is the allegation exactly.

313
Alhamdulillah, their work was in vain  :)

314
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Mercy to mankind
« on: April 15, 2017, 02:43:34 PM »
Allah orders the Prophet to apply His laws.

Allah forgives sins.

The story of Jesus' refusal to stone the woman is a fabrication.

 The Woman Taken in Adultery

The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is arguably the best known story about Jesus in the Bible; it certainly has always been a favorite in Hollywood versions of his life. It even makes it into Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, although that movie focuses only on Jesus's last hours (the story is treated in one of the rare flashbacks). Despite its popularity, the account is found in only one passage of the New Testament, in John 7:53-8:12, and it appears not to have been original even there.

The story line is familiar. Jesus is teaching in the temple, and a group of scribes and Pharisees, his sworn enemies, approach him, bringing with them a woman "who had been caught in the very act of adultery." They bring her before Jesus because they want to put him to the test. The Law of Moses, as they tell him, demands that such a one be stoned to death; but they want to know what he has to say about the matter. Should they stone her or show her mercy? It is a trap, of course. If Jesus tells them to let the woman go, he will be accused of violating the Law of God; if he tells them to stone her, he will be accused of dismissing his own teachings of love, mercy, and forgiveness.

Jesus does not immediately reply; instead he stoops to write on the ground. When they continue to question him, he says to them, "Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her." He then returns to his writing on the ground, while those who have brought the woman start to leave the scene—evidently feeling convicted of their own wrongdoing—until no one is left but the woman. Looking up, Jesus says, "Woman, where are they? Is there no one who condemns you?" To which she replies, "No one, Lord." He then responds, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

It is a brilliant story, filled with pathos and a clever twist in which Jesus uses his wits to get himself—not to mention the poor woman— off the hook. Of course, to a careful reader, the story raises numerous questions. If this woman was caught in the act of adultery, for example, where is the man she was caught with? Both of them are to be stoned, according to the Law of Moses (see Lev. 20:10). Moreover, when Jesus wrote on the ground, what exactly was he writing? (According to one ancient tradition, he was writing the sins of the accusers, who seeing that their own transgressions were known, left in embarrassment!) And even if Jesus did teach a message of love, did he really think that the Law of God given by Moses was no longer in force and should not be obeyed? Did he think sins should not be punished at all?

Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses. As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes.

How do we know this? In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case. Later in this book we will be examining in greater depth the kinds of evidence that scholars adduce for making judgments of this sort. Here I can simply point out a few basic facts that have proved convincing to nearly all scholars of every persuasion: the story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John; its writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John (including the stories immediately before and after); and it includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the Gospel.

How then did it come to be added? There are numerous theories about that. Most scholars think that it was probably a well known story circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added in the margin of a manuscript. From there some scribe or other thought that the marginal note was meant to be part of the text and so inserted it immediately after the account that ends in John 7:52. It is noteworthy that other scribes inserted the account in different locations in the New Testament—some of them after John 21:25, for example, and others, interestingly enough, after Luke 21:38. In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John.

That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most textual critics, the answer is no.

http://darkness2noor.blogspot.com.eg/2014/08/bart-ehrman-misquoting-jesus-fabricated.html

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 ... 35

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube