Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM

German nationalist party ...
February 13, 2025, 01:15 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 PM

Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM

Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Hey New Member

 (Read 23749 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #90 - June 06, 2011, 05:02 PM

    Ya qurrata 3ayni, here's an excerpt from Galen's De Semine (Galen lived half a millennium before Muhammad was even born):

    But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...

    ... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow.*

    * Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10 pp. 92-95, 101

    Now, you might ask how Muhammad would have come to know about this. Remember, Muhammad would travel with his rich merchant wife's caravans all over the Arabian peninsula and the Levant. That's one way he could have met someone who told him these things.

    Another is to keep in mind that Mecca was a buzzing trade center at the time, with visitors from the most distant of places. Surely it's not impossible that Muhammad should've had a conversation about this with one of them.

    The most probable way he found out about it, though, was through Nafi ibn al-Harith, who was his companion (sa7aabi) and a physician and teacher at the Academy of Gundishapur in Persia, *where the works of Hippocrates and Galen were translated*.

    What's also striking is that the *same mistakes the Greeks made appear in the Quran*, like the notion that semen comes from between the spine and the ribs (as-sulbi wa 't-taraa2ibi). Or that a fetus's gender is determined by whether the man's maniyy (semen) "overpowers" the woman's maniyy (vaginal fluids). Though this appears in a hadeeth sa7ee7, not the Quran.

    قل للمليحة في الخمار الأسود
    مـاذا فـعــلت بــناسـك مـتـعـبد

    قـد كـان شـمّر لــلـصلاة ثـيابه
    حتى خـطرت له بباب المسجد

    ردي عليـه صـلاتـه وصيـامــه
    لا تـقــتـلــيه بـحـق ديــن محمد
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #91 - June 06, 2011, 05:11 PM

    Human Embryology was said in the Quran and later proven.

    You don't understand.

    What I am asking for is if you can name a single scientific theory that was derived form Quran in the past with all of its concepts and abstractions described in detail without the proof of actual observations.

    Not just some extremely vague stuff based on knowledge that was there before Quran was written - Quranic embryology is clearly based on ancient Greek understanding of it together with all of its errors and discrepancies.

    What always happens is that science develops a certain theory based on observable data and experiments and only then do various charlatans come forward with their claims that something written in their respective 'holy' books can be interpreted and stretched to describe a certain scientific theory. It's never ever the other way around.

    Watch this @6:46

    http://www.youtube.com/user/CEMBadmins#p/u/6/2CHm2xigkBc
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #92 - June 06, 2011, 05:14 PM

    1) The embryology in the qur'an was taken from the greeks.

    2) The embryology in the qur'an is wrong.


    Read this

    http://www.quranicstudies.com/articles/medical-miracles/does-the-quran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology.html



  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #93 - June 06, 2011, 05:20 PM


    Started from the bottom, now I'm here
    Started from the bottom, now my whole extended family's here

    JOIN THE CHAT
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #94 - June 06, 2011, 05:24 PM



    You want me to read 20,000 words...? Um, I'll take your word for it.

    Let's ignore scientific 'miracles' in the qur'an just for the moment. What other reasons do you have for believing in allah? I just want to know your logical reasoning... start with the strongest, please Smiley
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #95 - June 06, 2011, 05:26 PM

    Habibi, what that 20,612-word paper amounts to is a proof from verbosity. Go through the verses yourself. Go through that extract from Galen's work. Tell me what's NOT plagiarized. Go ahead and do it, please.

    EDIT: Haha, Prince, I love how your first instinct, like mine, was to perform a word count on it Tongue

    Also, yes, what Prince said. Before this "new" knowledge of embryology was apparently "discovered" in the "20th century", you still had to prove the Quran to skeptical people, but you couldn't use the "scientific miracles" thing because the knowledge wasn't there yet. What would you do then?

    قل للمليحة في الخمار الأسود
    مـاذا فـعــلت بــناسـك مـتـعـبد

    قـد كـان شـمّر لــلـصلاة ثـيابه
    حتى خـطرت له بباب المسجد

    ردي عليـه صـلاتـه وصيـامــه
    لا تـقــتـلــيه بـحـق ديــن محمد
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #96 - June 06, 2011, 05:30 PM

    lol xxrb43..
    Great questions prince..
    Thread sneaker

    Admin of following facebook pages and groups:
    Islam's Last Stand (page)
    Islam's Last Stand (group)
    and many others...
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #97 - June 06, 2011, 05:33 PM

    @Eternity

    The biggest problem (from Islamic POV) with the position of proving the veracity of Quran by referencing the supposed scientific theories in it are not just scientific mistakes in the text but the fact that such approach is completely un-Islamic.


    But, speaking as a Muslim and a scientist, I am concerned with an orthogonal issue: in deferring to these dubious authors and apologists, the Muslims believe themselves to be deferring to science, but are in fact utilizing pure pseudoscience. They are deferring to cranks. They are basing their “proof” of the Qur’an’s Truth upon pure inauthenticity: there is nothing more inauthentic than claiming to think scientifically when there is no science thought. Inauthenticity is the nature of hypocrisy. And basing the proof of your religion on hypocrisy can’t be good for anyone.

    The most damning aspect of Bucaille is not so much the scientific facts he is reading into the Qur’an, but his process of reading them into the Qu’ran. It is this process that is unscientific. Contrary to popular opinion, the scientist’s certainty in the success of his/her theory comes from the ever present threat of its failure, its possible falsity, of its future implosion. This is called the falsifiability of the theory’s claims.

    Bucaille, in contrast, uses an accepted scientific theory — like the fact that the Solar System is orbiting around the centre of the Galaxy — and reads it into the Qur’anic verse:

        (God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion. (21:33)

    The Muslim accepts that the Qur’an is Absolute Truth as part of his/her faith. It is therefore not open to falsification. It will pass any tests of its Truth that we throw at it. This means that there is no test in that will render her false: that’s simply not how the Qur’an works — because by her nature, there is not even the possibility of her being false. That’s the nature of her Strength. In contrast, a scientific theory’s (lesser) strength lies in the fact that there is always the possibility of it being proved false (and the longer we can’t achieve that, the stronger the theory becomes, but the threat should always be present).

    By making (21:33) into a scientific statement, the apologist is essentially saying that this part of the Qur’an is also open to falsification.
    There is the possibility that the sun does not orbit the centre of the Galaxy: this is a scientific claim that we can test over and over, seems to be right — but if we realise that we got this fact wrong, then the scientist would have no problem simply ditching the current theory about our galaxy.



    From A Tailor's Doctrine: Science & Islam
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #98 - June 06, 2011, 05:37 PM

    EDIT: Haha, Prince, I love how your first instinct, like mine, was to perform a word count on it


     Cheesy

    @ Eternity - Long story short, you are using an imperfect methodology to try to prove the perfection of the qur'an.
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #99 - June 06, 2011, 05:38 PM

    I can't read all of it but the refutations take on the same premises as the original arguments.  take Generic and metaphorical verse in the quran. Make various assumptions based off of contemporary knowledge and translate specific biological processes into metaphorical analogies that match the generic and metaphorical verses in the quran.  Then claim the quran spoke of these things.  

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #100 - June 06, 2011, 05:39 PM

    You want me to read 20,000 words...? Um, I'll take your word for it.

    Let's ignore scientific 'miracles' in the qur'an just for the moment. What other reasons do you have for believing in allah? I just want to know your logical reasoning... start with the strongest, please Smiley


    Well you could have just skimmed the most important parts. Strongest logical reason? I'm not sure I'd have to think about it. Most how it agrees with other Abraham religions.
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #101 - June 06, 2011, 05:40 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By9BWaSKoKI

    Admin of following facebook pages and groups:
    Islam's Last Stand (page)
    Islam's Last Stand (group)
    and many others...
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #102 - June 06, 2011, 05:41 PM

    Well you could have just skimmed the most important parts. Strongest logical reason? I'm not sure I'd have to think about it. Most how it agrees with other Abraham religions.


    But they could be just as wrong?

    Come on, try a little harder, why do you believe Allah exists?
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #103 - June 06, 2011, 05:42 PM

    I can't read all of it but the refutations take on the same premises as the original arguments.  take Generic and metaphorical verse in the quran. Make various assumptions based off of contemporary knowledge and translate specific biological processes into metaphorical analogies that match the generic and metaphorical verses in the quran.  Then claim the quran spoke of these things.

    Exactly.

    What they should be doing instead is 'translate' a section of Quran directly into a workable scientific theory before the said theory was actually developed by science.

    But that never, ever happens:

  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #104 - June 06, 2011, 05:46 PM

    By that token, Baha'ism is even MORE belief-worthy than Islam.

    قل للمليحة في الخمار الأسود
    مـاذا فـعــلت بــناسـك مـتـعـبد

    قـد كـان شـمّر لــلـصلاة ثـيابه
    حتى خـطرت له بباب المسجد

    ردي عليـه صـلاتـه وصيـامــه
    لا تـقــتـلــيه بـحـق ديــن محمد
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #105 - June 06, 2011, 05:54 PM

    But they could be just as wrong?

    Come on, try a little harder, why do you believe Allah exists?



    I guess it's where the sense of faith ravels in the questions of the unseen. Obviously with the surrounding facts of course.
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #106 - June 06, 2011, 05:55 PM

    @ateapotist:
    Although I can't be absolutely sure, I think Eternity is an Ahmadi-Muslim, - which would directly explain his "soft" attitude and his acceptance of evolution. His style of speaking looks remarkably similar to other Ahmadis we've seen here.

    I have no idea if Eternity is an Ahmadiyya Muslim or not.  I don't know much about them, to be honest, except that they are a persecuted minority, like us apostates.
    I think the discussion with Eternity is polite and civil.  Muslims are welcome to discuss Islam with us if they are not here to troll.
     
    I am also pretty sure Eternity has serious doubts about Islam, as he honestly said "I don't know." when faced with some of the fundamental illogical dogmas of Islam, like eternal punishment for a finite crime.

    Someone once said that any Muslim who joins this forum consciously or subconsciously harbours doubts about the truth of Islam.  I think there is some truth in that saying.

    "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." -- Bertrand Russell

    Baloney Detection Kit
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #107 - June 06, 2011, 05:57 PM


    I guess it's where the sense of faith ravels in the questions of the unseen. Obviously with the surrounding facts of course.


    ... what?

    قل للمليحة في الخمار الأسود
    مـاذا فـعــلت بــناسـك مـتـعـبد

    قـد كـان شـمّر لــلـصلاة ثـيابه
    حتى خـطرت له بباب المسجد

    ردي عليـه صـلاتـه وصيـامــه
    لا تـقــتـلــيه بـحـق ديــن محمد
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #108 - June 06, 2011, 05:58 PM


    I guess it's where the sense of faith ravels in the questions of the unseen. Obviously with the surrounding facts of course.


    What facts would these be, then?
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #109 - June 06, 2011, 06:40 PM

    Eternity, you should have a read through this thread here...

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=5708.0

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #110 - June 06, 2011, 07:14 PM

    Human Embryology was said in the Quran and later proven.

    As Prince already said the embryology as described in Quran is full of mistakes.

    For example:

    Surah al-Mu'minun (23:14) -- Pickthall

    Then fashioned We the drop a clot,
    then fashioned We the clot a little lump,
    then fashioned We the little lump bones,
    then clothed the bones with flesh,

    and then produced it as another creation.
    So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!

    Here Quran states that human bones are formed first and then 'clothed' with flesh which is wrong.

    From modern embryology we know that the muscles are fully functional before the skeleton is even complete and that muscles start forming before bones do.

    Interestingly Roman physician Galen (AD 129 – 199/217) the most important medical researcher in antiquity made the exact same mistake in his works.
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #111 - June 06, 2011, 07:57 PM

    Eternity, you should have a read through this thread here...

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=5708.0


    Okay, I'll read this.

    Quote
    As Prince already said the embryology as described in Quran is full of mistakes.

    For example:

    Surah al-Mu'minun (23:14) -- Pickthall

    Then fashioned We the drop a clot,
    then fashioned We the clot a little lump,
    then fashioned We the little lump bones,
    then clothed the bones with flesh,
    and then produced it as another creation.
    So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!

    Here Quran states that human bones are formed first and then 'clothed' with flesh which is wrong.

    From modern embryology we know that the muscles are fully functional before the skeleton is even complete and that muscles start forming before bones do.

    Interestingly Roman physician Galen (AD 129 – 199/217) the most important medical researcher in antiquity made the exact same mistake in his works.


    Hmm interesting I hadn't noticed that though I've seen that verse numerous times before. I'll get back to you on that one.
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #112 - June 06, 2011, 08:08 PM

    We would be anxiously waiting for you to get back on that one. Don't run away.

    Admin of following facebook pages and groups:
    Islam's Last Stand (page)
    Islam's Last Stand (group)
    and many others...
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #113 - June 06, 2011, 10:55 PM

    Are there any other questions?
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #114 - June 06, 2011, 10:55 PM

    I asked you one if you scroll up a little, Eternity ^
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #115 - June 06, 2011, 11:06 PM


    Great stuff muddy. Cheesy

    "Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well."
    - Robert Louis Stevenson
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #116 - June 06, 2011, 11:22 PM

    Oh sorry didn't see that.

    Quote
    What facts would these be, then?


    Without going back to the Scientific Miracles discussion I'll share some.

    Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) being foretold in the Bible or more so the New Testament.

    Here is the verse in the Quran telling that he was foretold in the books of the Christians and jews.

    "Those who follow the apostle the unlettered prophet (prophet Muhammad - p.b.u.h) whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures); in the law (Torah) and the Gospel"  - 7:157

    In the "Song of Solomon" with the Hebrew scripture the name "Muhammed" is mentioned.


    "Hikow mamtaqiym wkulow mahamadiym zeh dowdiy wzeh ree`iy bnowt yruushaalaaim."  Song of Solomon 5:16


    A prophet is also foretold here as well.

    "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him." - Deuteronomy 18:18

    I'm sure you can shrug this off by saying Christianity and Judaism is false. But why would past religions tell of Prophet Muhammed(PBUH)? The claim being he copied bible and the torah is it not? Why then is HE mentioned in texts that he copied? This is the same text before he even existed in case you think put himself in there.
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #117 - June 06, 2011, 11:30 PM


    Thats just made up shit. Zakir Naik says Mohammad is predicted in Hindu scriptures too. That good old retrospective theology so that Islam can gobble up everything from the past to try and desperately get validated.


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #118 - June 06, 2011, 11:33 PM

    Quote
    Thats just made up shit. Zakir Naik says Mohammad is predicted in Hindu scriptures too. That good old retrospective theology so that Islam can gobble up everything from the past to try and desperately get validated.


    How so? Care show how and where it's made up? Really like to hear your response.
  • Re: Hey New Member
     Reply #119 - June 06, 2011, 11:34 PM

    Umm, that verse in Deuteronmonomonnythingy does not say "Hey there's gonna be this bloke named Mohammed and he'll be teh mostest awesomesauce prophet ever kthnxbai".

    Attempting to use that verse as "proof" that Mohammed was foretold in the Bible is really clutching at straws. Are you aware that there were other Christian prophets who lived after that verse was written? It could be referring to any of them or none of them.

    Regarding the Song of Solomon: I am not qualified to translate ancient Hebrew from 3,000 odd years ago. Until I hear from someone who is, I'd be very wary of assuming that mahamadiym "obviously" means Mohammed.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »