Ibn Abbas was a break dancer, a heavy drinker and a drug addict, and the only thing that saved him from a life of clutches, was Islam.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Islamophobes and Jizyah: The Truth
Being misinformed over the Jizya The fact remains, there is nothing wrong with the Jizya and it has been explained many times over. This post will bring you a presentation from Imam Shabir Ally (Let the Quran speak)on the Jizya. I have also presented the basics which EVERY Muslim and Non-Muslim should be aware of in order NOT to be misdirected by the “Christian” Islamophobes at ABN and other organisations who make it their business to politically scaremonger against Islam and Muslims
Researching Jizya and the Bible's support of such?
For those willing to further their research, I will furnish you a link to Jonathon’s site which covers the Jizya and features links to more extensive coverage from Bassam Zawadi. See below the video.
Bullied by the Islamophobe’s negative spin?
The Jizya is NOTHING to worry over despite all the theatrics from the Islamophobes. The Islamophobes try to bully and manipulate audiences via spin and preying on gaps in the audience’s knowledge – effectively capitalising on the vulnerable as opportunists.
Firstly, before playing Imam Shabir Ally’s presentation on the Jizya (with regards to S9:29) we should realise the Jizya is not discriminatory and is simply a poll tax which non-Muslims pay in the stead of the religious tax which is imposed upon Muslims (zakat).
Imam Shabir Ally explains Surah 9:29 – Jizya
Is the Jizya so scary? No.
The Jizya is an extremely agreeable poll tax. The Jizya is ALWAYS whatever amount both parties agree upon if the amount ever exceeds the set minimum. Now is that so scary? No.
The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A:per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.
It is collected with leniency and politeness as are all debts and is not levied on women, children, or the insane. [o11.4 Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994]
Christians should NEVER argue against the Jizya: Mark 12:17
“Christian” Islamophobes are throwing their Bible under the bus in order to jump on the anti-Muslim bandwagon. The fact remains NO true Christian would be opposed to the Jizya.
Christians are instructed to give unto Caesar what belongs to him (see Mark 12:17), thus paying the Jizya is hardly an issue for a Bible-believing Christian. If an Islamic government taxes a Christian the Christian should not grumble. Quite why the Christians at ABN are jumping up and down is beyond me as they pay GREATER taxes to the US government which spends its tax revenues on illicit (ANTI CHRISTIAN) actions.
I guess the stench of Islamophobia is blinding too.
More information on why true Christians should not be arguing against the Jizya
Jonathon has a whole post regarding the Bible’s instructions towards Jizya (the post contains further details on Jizya and features links to more extensive information vis-à-vis the Jizya):
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/11/bible-commands-christians-to-pay-jizyah.html
Don’t be fooled or bullied by detractors who work assiduously to demonize Muslims.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Islamdunk_First show.mov
Alhamdulilah the first show is out. Islamdunktv has published their fist show. We ask you to forgive us for any mistakes, as it was the first show, so we hope to hear your feedback.
Please make duaa for us to improve and serve better.
Please make duaa for us to improve and serve better.
Deaf man regains hearing during pilgrimage target=
Deaf man regains hearing during pilgrimage target=
A Somali man Identified as Shareef had lost his ability to hear and speak after a bomb explosion in his conflict-battered African country, he regained his hearing sense while on Hajj (Muslim annual pilgrimage).
He was hit by a bomb during internal clashes in Somalia over 20 years ago and decided later to immigrate to Britain after he could no longer hear or speak.
Doctors in Britain examined him but found that his condition is incurable, prompting authorities to let him stay as a “deaf-mute” refugee. Shareef, in his 40s, has been living in Britain with his wife and four children ever since, adding that he came to Saudi Arabia along with the Somali-British Hajj mission to perform Hajj.
After going around the Ka'aba in the grand mosque at Makkah along with the other pilgrims, he drank Zamzam (sacred) water and went to the bathroom, when he got out of the bathroom, he heard the call for Fajr (morning) prayers. “He could hardly believe what he heard…he rushed to his friends and told them what happened…they were shocked when they heard him talking.”
The head of the Somali-British Haj (pilgrimage) mission, Abdul Samad Mohammed said he was stunned when he heard him speak. “Shareef had been deaf mute for a long time…during our flight to Saudi Arabia, he was writing what he wanted from the cabin crew,” Mohammed said. “At first we could not believe it….so we asked him to speak again and he did… we took him to the hospital here for examination and doctors said there is nothing wrong with him.”
Apart from many Arabic newspapers, this story was reported on the front page of Gulf News and on the following sites:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010111787515
http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/deaf-man-regains-hearing-during-pilgrimage-2010-11-16-1.318039
A Somali man Identified as Shareef had lost his ability to hear and speak after a bomb explosion in his conflict-battered African country, he regained his hearing sense while on Hajj (Muslim annual pilgrimage).
He was hit by a bomb during internal clashes in Somalia over 20 years ago and decided later to immigrate to Britain after he could no longer hear or speak.
Doctors in Britain examined him but found that his condition is incurable, prompting authorities to let him stay as a “deaf-mute” refugee. Shareef, in his 40s, has been living in Britain with his wife and four children ever since, adding that he came to Saudi Arabia along with the Somali-British Hajj mission to perform Hajj.
After going around the Ka'aba in the grand mosque at Makkah along with the other pilgrims, he drank Zamzam (sacred) water and went to the bathroom, when he got out of the bathroom, he heard the call for Fajr (morning) prayers. “He could hardly believe what he heard…he rushed to his friends and told them what happened…they were shocked when they heard him talking.”
The head of the Somali-British Haj (pilgrimage) mission, Abdul Samad Mohammed said he was stunned when he heard him speak. “Shareef had been deaf mute for a long time…during our flight to Saudi Arabia, he was writing what he wanted from the cabin crew,” Mohammed said. “At first we could not believe it….so we asked him to speak again and he did… we took him to the hospital here for examination and doctors said there is nothing wrong with him.”
Apart from many Arabic newspapers, this story was reported on the front page of Gulf News and on the following sites:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010111787515
http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/deaf-man-regains-hearing-during-pilgrimage-2010-11-16-1.318039
Friday, November 19, 2010
A road to Hajj - China - 24 Nov 09 - Pt 1
This is a must see.... Make sure you also check out the other parts once you view this video on youtube. There are Road to Hajj Panama, Azerbaijan, and many other countries. I have really enjoyed seeing this series.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Amazing Bible Facts by Dr Jerald Dirks
Biblical Insight From Dr Jerad Dirks
Muslims believe in the ORIGINAL Scriptures but the ORIGNIAL scriptures (in their entirety) have been lost, hence the need for the Quran (God’s final Revelation to mankind)
NOTES from Dr Jerald Dirks’ lecture (plus additions from Dennis Bratcher, ChristianAnswers, Bruce Metzger, BibleResearcher)
We are not speaking about translations (ie KJV, NRSV etc). Christianity has never agreed upon what constitutes the Bible.
Are Christians agreed on what constitutes the Old Testament? No!
OT Protestant Bible is 39 books whilst the Roman Catholics add a number of books to this as well as additions to the book of Daniel and the book of Esther. Greek Orthodox add EVEN MORE than the Roman Catholics; they have a 151st Psalm rather than ending with 150. They have additions to the book of Jeremiah and add 3rd and 4th Maccabees amongst others.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a canon of 46 books in their Old Testament. Thus Christianity has NEVER agreed upon what makes up the OT
Have Christians agreed upon what constitutes the New Testament?
No, never!
Protestant and Roman Catholics agree upon 27 books but the Coptic Orthodox have 29 books (adding 1st and 2nd Clement) in their New Testament! The Nestorian Church omits 5 books (including Revelation) which are found in the Catholic and Protestant 27 book NT. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 35 books in their New Testament (including the Shepherd of Hermes).
Did Moses author the first 5 Books of the Old Testament? (plus history of the Old Testament compilation)
We know Moses did not write all of it though this is the traditional belief of the Christians. It is a cut and paste compilation from earlier source material:
J – 950 BCE
E- 750 BCE
D- 600s BCE
P- 400-500 BCE
And they were finally put together around the year 400.
Moses (p) lived is thought to have lived within the 1600-1200 BCE range. Amazingly that is at least 250 years before the first source (J) material of the Old Testament.
The letters JEDP are a designation used by scholars to identify the component parts or sources that they understand were used to compile the first five books of the Old Testament. There have been various opinions as to whether these sources were written or oral traditions, and whether each source represents an independent strand or a stage in the development of an older source. [Dennis Bratcher: JEDP: Sources in the Pentateuch]
The Torah
Most modern Biblical scholars believe the Torah (as we have it today) to be a cut and paste compilation in Babylon. The law (Torah) was actually believed to be lost in Palestine and Ezra brought the law back to Palestine from Babylonian (around year 400 BCE).
Three parts to the OT
1. Torah (first 5 books of the OT)
2. Prophets (Nabiyim),
3. The Writings (Kethubim), Christians call this the Hagiographa (the holy writings)
The Roman Catholic Church, in order to construct their OT went to the Septuagint – thus automatically accepted EVERYTHING that was in there.
Protestants used the Hebrew text rather than the Greek Septuagint and thus ended up with a shorter OT (as the Jews at the time of writing the Septuagint had not decided what constitutes the OT)
In many cases we don’t know who authored parts of the OT (e.g. Deuteronomy, 1Kings, 2Kings). We DON’T know who authored all the books of the Old Testament. Can the OT be considered reliable based on this information? No!
New Testament Reliability and Authorship
None of the disciples wrote the Gospel accounts, sadly, many Christian wrongly believe this despite being untrue.
Gospel of Matthew – (80-85 CE) we don’t know who wrote it and it is a compilation of earlier material (proto-Mark and the theoretical Sayings Gospel (Q) and M?). First mention of Matthew writing a Gospel comes around 120 CE despite the Matthew we have being in Greek rather than Hebrew and a non-sayings Gospel
Hebrews was NOT written by Paul despite legend associating it with him.
A problem with the Bible is that it is difficult to ascertain what Jesus said and we did not; the same applies to his actions. There are NO chains of transmission either which further compounds the issue of unreliability as it is second, third hand, fourth hand information.
Does the New Testament contain forgeries (unauthorised insertions)?
The last part of the Gospel Mark (Mark 16:9-20)
Earlier manuscripts show chapter 16 to end at verse 8 but in later manuscripts there is a whole chunk (12 verses) which is added after this. We KNOW this is a later (unauthorised) insertion!
Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. [ BibleResearcher]
Even the internal evidence militates against this addition:
The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel. [Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.]
More info:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
The story of the adulteress in John (John 1:53 – 8:11)
It does NOT exist in the earliest manuscripts we have; (the ENTIRE section does not exist). Further explanation: Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel. [BibleResearcher.com]
American Standard Version (1901). Marginal note: "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other."
If the story of the adulteress was an ancient story about Jesus, why did it not immediately become part of the accepted Gospels? Riesenfeld has given the most plausible explanation of the delay in the acceptance of this story. The ease with which Jesus forgave the adulteress was hard to reconcile with the stern penitential discipline in vogue in the early Church. It was only when a more liberal penitential practice was firmly established that this story received wide acceptance. (Riesenfeld traces its liturgical acceptance to the fifth century as a reading for the feast of St. Pelagia.) [Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), in the Anchor Bible series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), pages 335-6.]
This clearly shows there was a CULTURE of scribal addition which imputes tangible suspicion upon the whole of the New Testament.
More info on this scribal addition:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html
Dr Jerald Dirks has presented sufficient material to do away with the doctrinal view of Biblical inerrancy.
Christians; become familiar with your own scripture. Study carefully.
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV Jeremiah 8:8)
God willing your studies will lead you to Islam
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (NIV, John 8:32)
Are they then unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim? (77) Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. (78) Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. (79) [Pikthal translation of the Holy Quran, 2:77-79]
Muslims believe in the ORIGINAL Scriptures but the ORIGNIAL scriptures (in their entirety) have been lost, hence the need for the Quran (God’s final Revelation to mankind)
NOTES from Dr Jerald Dirks’ lecture (plus additions from Dennis Bratcher, ChristianAnswers, Bruce Metzger, BibleResearcher)
We are not speaking about translations (ie KJV, NRSV etc). Christianity has never agreed upon what constitutes the Bible.
Are Christians agreed on what constitutes the Old Testament? No!
OT Protestant Bible is 39 books whilst the Roman Catholics add a number of books to this as well as additions to the book of Daniel and the book of Esther. Greek Orthodox add EVEN MORE than the Roman Catholics; they have a 151st Psalm rather than ending with 150. They have additions to the book of Jeremiah and add 3rd and 4th Maccabees amongst others.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a canon of 46 books in their Old Testament. Thus Christianity has NEVER agreed upon what makes up the OT
Have Christians agreed upon what constitutes the New Testament?
No, never!
Protestant and Roman Catholics agree upon 27 books but the Coptic Orthodox have 29 books (adding 1st and 2nd Clement) in their New Testament! The Nestorian Church omits 5 books (including Revelation) which are found in the Catholic and Protestant 27 book NT. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 35 books in their New Testament (including the Shepherd of Hermes).
Did Moses author the first 5 Books of the Old Testament? (plus history of the Old Testament compilation)
We know Moses did not write all of it though this is the traditional belief of the Christians. It is a cut and paste compilation from earlier source material:
J – 950 BCE
E- 750 BCE
D- 600s BCE
P- 400-500 BCE
And they were finally put together around the year 400.
Moses (p) lived is thought to have lived within the 1600-1200 BCE range. Amazingly that is at least 250 years before the first source (J) material of the Old Testament.
The letters JEDP are a designation used by scholars to identify the component parts or sources that they understand were used to compile the first five books of the Old Testament. There have been various opinions as to whether these sources were written or oral traditions, and whether each source represents an independent strand or a stage in the development of an older source. [Dennis Bratcher: JEDP: Sources in the Pentateuch]
The Torah
Most modern Biblical scholars believe the Torah (as we have it today) to be a cut and paste compilation in Babylon. The law (Torah) was actually believed to be lost in Palestine and Ezra brought the law back to Palestine from Babylonian (around year 400 BCE).
Three parts to the OT
1. Torah (first 5 books of the OT)
2. Prophets (Nabiyim),
3. The Writings (Kethubim), Christians call this the Hagiographa (the holy writings)
The Roman Catholic Church, in order to construct their OT went to the Septuagint – thus automatically accepted EVERYTHING that was in there.
Protestants used the Hebrew text rather than the Greek Septuagint and thus ended up with a shorter OT (as the Jews at the time of writing the Septuagint had not decided what constitutes the OT)
In many cases we don’t know who authored parts of the OT (e.g. Deuteronomy, 1Kings, 2Kings). We DON’T know who authored all the books of the Old Testament. Can the OT be considered reliable based on this information? No!
New Testament Reliability and Authorship
None of the disciples wrote the Gospel accounts, sadly, many Christian wrongly believe this despite being untrue.
Gospel of Matthew – (80-85 CE) we don’t know who wrote it and it is a compilation of earlier material (proto-Mark and the theoretical Sayings Gospel (Q) and M?). First mention of Matthew writing a Gospel comes around 120 CE despite the Matthew we have being in Greek rather than Hebrew and a non-sayings Gospel
Hebrews was NOT written by Paul despite legend associating it with him.
A problem with the Bible is that it is difficult to ascertain what Jesus said and we did not; the same applies to his actions. There are NO chains of transmission either which further compounds the issue of unreliability as it is second, third hand, fourth hand information.
Does the New Testament contain forgeries (unauthorised insertions)?
The last part of the Gospel Mark (Mark 16:9-20)
Earlier manuscripts show chapter 16 to end at verse 8 but in later manuscripts there is a whole chunk (12 verses) which is added after this. We KNOW this is a later (unauthorised) insertion!
Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. [ BibleResearcher]
Even the internal evidence militates against this addition:
The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel. [Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.]
More info:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
The story of the adulteress in John (John 1:53 – 8:11)
It does NOT exist in the earliest manuscripts we have; (the ENTIRE section does not exist). Further explanation: Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel. [BibleResearcher.com]
American Standard Version (1901). Marginal note: "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other."
If the story of the adulteress was an ancient story about Jesus, why did it not immediately become part of the accepted Gospels? Riesenfeld has given the most plausible explanation of the delay in the acceptance of this story. The ease with which Jesus forgave the adulteress was hard to reconcile with the stern penitential discipline in vogue in the early Church. It was only when a more liberal penitential practice was firmly established that this story received wide acceptance. (Riesenfeld traces its liturgical acceptance to the fifth century as a reading for the feast of St. Pelagia.) [Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), in the Anchor Bible series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), pages 335-6.]
This clearly shows there was a CULTURE of scribal addition which imputes tangible suspicion upon the whole of the New Testament.
More info on this scribal addition:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html
Dr Jerald Dirks has presented sufficient material to do away with the doctrinal view of Biblical inerrancy.
Christians; become familiar with your own scripture. Study carefully.
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV Jeremiah 8:8)
God willing your studies will lead you to Islam
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (NIV, John 8:32)
Are they then unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim? (77) Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. (78) Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. (79) [Pikthal translation of the Holy Quran, 2:77-79]
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Kenyan Flight Attendant found Islam
Be advised that there is music in the background.
An amazing story of how Islam found a Christian woman who thought she had it all.
Why would women run towards Islam, if Islam is oppressing? Why would women run towards Islam is Islam does not give them hope, love, life? Why would someone give up being uncovered, being so called free, go where ever they want, do whatever they want, eat what ever they want, sleep when they want, not wake up early and pray, not fast not do anything that is structured? WHY WHY WHY?
You need to find out why? You owe it to yourself as a Christian or any other faith to find out why.
An amazing story of how Islam found a Christian woman who thought she had it all.
Why would women run towards Islam, if Islam is oppressing? Why would women run towards Islam is Islam does not give them hope, love, life? Why would someone give up being uncovered, being so called free, go where ever they want, do whatever they want, eat what ever they want, sleep when they want, not wake up early and pray, not fast not do anything that is structured? WHY WHY WHY?
You need to find out why? You owe it to yourself as a Christian or any other faith to find out why.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Muslims Warned Against Acts 17 Apologetics' David Wood (on ABN sat)
I live in the UK and I can assure you most Christians I have met have been sincere. However, the ineternet is awash with fundamentalist "Christians" who very much appear to be unchristian.
Many, if not all, of these fundamentalist internet "Christians" bash Islam on a regular basis; using varied methodologies.
David Wood, on ABN, uses the methodology of passing off fabrications, hoaxes and lies as fact. Here David Wood is caught presenting a googled hoax to demonise Muslims. Sad but true.
Muslims, be alert to this tactic and ask your local scholars with regards to anything you are unsure about. Don't be fooled.
Spot the spelling mistake
If you are struggling to read the text in time, please pause and read the text before moving on. Did David Wood really expect us to believe he was keeping this a secret because he "does not like talking about it"?
May Allah protect us from deception. Ameen.
Many, if not all, of these fundamentalist internet "Christians" bash Islam on a regular basis; using varied methodologies.
David Wood, on ABN, uses the methodology of passing off fabrications, hoaxes and lies as fact. Here David Wood is caught presenting a googled hoax to demonise Muslims. Sad but true.
Muslims, be alert to this tactic and ask your local scholars with regards to anything you are unsure about. Don't be fooled.
Spot the spelling mistake
If you are struggling to read the text in time, please pause and read the text before moving on. Did David Wood really expect us to believe he was keeping this a secret because he "does not like talking about it"?
May Allah protect us from deception. Ameen.
Is Shamoun that brave?
Sam Shamoun is not unknown to the debate community on the net, especially when his ways of dealing with his opponents are not very clean. Recently he has been outdoing himself by insulting Yahya, myself and others such as Shabir Ali and Sami.
Sam claims that we are scared to debate him, but he fails to mention that we are debating him, however not in the way he wants. So since he does not get his way, he will not miss any opportunity to insult us and to challenge us thinking that we might give in.
For those who might wonder why do we refuse to debate him on a face to face or live basis, as debates usually are that way, let me tell you that you might want to realize that the topics that we are discussing are very sensitive and cannot sometimes be given justice in a debate face to face. Why?
Well first and foremost debates are not always based on truth but rather the debate skills of the ones presenting. I have admitted many times that Shamoun is a very good debater however that does not mean he is speaking the truth or that the truth is on his side. That has to be taken into consideration by a good debater before he engages his opponent. That is exactly what I have done. I did not refuse to debate him, as I will always do that, insh Allah till the day I die I will keep refuting the lies and misconceptions that people such as Sam keep propagating in the world, however to each person I might take a different approach based on calculated and educated choices.
What am I scared of? I can tell you that it's not Sam or any person in this world, it is God that I am scared of. So did I run, did I ever run, did I ever act cowardly? No NO NO NO NO NO. Sam would like you to think that and he keeps saying that about Yahya as well, but that is only because we are killing him softly with our words, our refutations and our arguments which are researched well, which have a time factor that could not be possible in a face to face debate, and which allow our audience to realize the tricks that Shamoun would be able to pull in a face to face debate, but cannot in a debate where the opponent has time to research and investigate all the allegations put forth.
Given the above Sam is boiling inside and the only thing he can do is try his hardest to upset us, to insult us, in order to get us to finally break and say FINE WE'LL DO IT FACE TO FACE. I want to make a note here. This does not mean we or I will never debate Shamoun under a different format but for now this format is the best, as it allows the MUSLIM side to show the audience the flaws of the arguments, replay the information given by Shamoun and expose the flaws one by one, while correcting them and giving people the proper information. At the same time the inconsistency and double standards of Shamoun are shown. There might be a time when I will debate Sam in a different format, maybe one day when he can control his emotions, his hatred and his mouth. We might feel that in the future an intellectual debate is possible, however since intellectual debates entitle clean speech we might have to wait a bit for Sam to mature.
Till then we are and we will keep debating him, but in the format of YOU MAKE A VIDEO I RESPOND, THEN YOU RESPOND, THEN I RESPOND allowing our audiences to be able to go beyond just witnessing a spectacle of words, and debate skills to a state where they can actually digest the information, check the claims and confirm the truth themselves as GOD GAVE THEM A MIND ALSO AND NOT ONLY TO SAM.
In conclusion, when Shamoun keeps complaining and accusing us of not wanting to debate him, that is not true. We are debating him, and everyone on youtube can see it, as they have, it's only that we are not doing it the way he wants which causes a big problem for him and his folk, who are being exposed for the lies they are spreading about ISLAM, loosing audiences every day, and actually allowing Muslims and non Muslims to see the truth of the argument and choose ISLAM as their way of life, as it was the way of life of Jesus and all the prophets from before.
Sam claims that we are scared to debate him, but he fails to mention that we are debating him, however not in the way he wants. So since he does not get his way, he will not miss any opportunity to insult us and to challenge us thinking that we might give in.
For those who might wonder why do we refuse to debate him on a face to face or live basis, as debates usually are that way, let me tell you that you might want to realize that the topics that we are discussing are very sensitive and cannot sometimes be given justice in a debate face to face. Why?
Well first and foremost debates are not always based on truth but rather the debate skills of the ones presenting. I have admitted many times that Shamoun is a very good debater however that does not mean he is speaking the truth or that the truth is on his side. That has to be taken into consideration by a good debater before he engages his opponent. That is exactly what I have done. I did not refuse to debate him, as I will always do that, insh Allah till the day I die I will keep refuting the lies and misconceptions that people such as Sam keep propagating in the world, however to each person I might take a different approach based on calculated and educated choices.
What am I scared of? I can tell you that it's not Sam or any person in this world, it is God that I am scared of. So did I run, did I ever run, did I ever act cowardly? No NO NO NO NO NO. Sam would like you to think that and he keeps saying that about Yahya as well, but that is only because we are killing him softly with our words, our refutations and our arguments which are researched well, which have a time factor that could not be possible in a face to face debate, and which allow our audience to realize the tricks that Shamoun would be able to pull in a face to face debate, but cannot in a debate where the opponent has time to research and investigate all the allegations put forth.
Given the above Sam is boiling inside and the only thing he can do is try his hardest to upset us, to insult us, in order to get us to finally break and say FINE WE'LL DO IT FACE TO FACE. I want to make a note here. This does not mean we or I will never debate Shamoun under a different format but for now this format is the best, as it allows the MUSLIM side to show the audience the flaws of the arguments, replay the information given by Shamoun and expose the flaws one by one, while correcting them and giving people the proper information. At the same time the inconsistency and double standards of Shamoun are shown. There might be a time when I will debate Sam in a different format, maybe one day when he can control his emotions, his hatred and his mouth. We might feel that in the future an intellectual debate is possible, however since intellectual debates entitle clean speech we might have to wait a bit for Sam to mature.
Till then we are and we will keep debating him, but in the format of YOU MAKE A VIDEO I RESPOND, THEN YOU RESPOND, THEN I RESPOND allowing our audiences to be able to go beyond just witnessing a spectacle of words, and debate skills to a state where they can actually digest the information, check the claims and confirm the truth themselves as GOD GAVE THEM A MIND ALSO AND NOT ONLY TO SAM.
In conclusion, when Shamoun keeps complaining and accusing us of not wanting to debate him, that is not true. We are debating him, and everyone on youtube can see it, as they have, it's only that we are not doing it the way he wants which causes a big problem for him and his folk, who are being exposed for the lies they are spreading about ISLAM, loosing audiences every day, and actually allowing Muslims and non Muslims to see the truth of the argument and choose ISLAM as their way of life, as it was the way of life of Jesus and all the prophets from before.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Jesus on The Life of this World
One of the most amazing stories about the deception of the life of this world, told to us by Jesus peace be upon him.
Jesus is one of the most beloved prophets in Islam, a figure to imitate and follow, a man who was one of the best worshipers, who divorced this world and followed God, preaching to people that they should repent as the Kingdom of God is near.
Jesus is one of the most beloved prophets in Islam, a figure to imitate and follow, a man who was one of the best worshipers, who divorced this world and followed God, preaching to people that they should repent as the Kingdom of God is near.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
So who is debating me?
For those following up with my discussion with Shamoun, and are confused as to why I am debating Keith Truth, let me tell you: you are not the only one who is confused. I mean I let it go for some time but now it's getting ridiculous and I want an answer from Shamoun's mouth as to why it's not him debating but Keith. Of course I received all the so called explanations that Sam is actually providing the material and Keith is just putting it together, but if you have followed up with the exchange you will realize that it does not seem as such as Keith seems to have much of the debate filled with his own ideas and understanding.
The excuse that I have been given is that Sam is not that technologically apt and therefore Keith is the one who posts the videos to help Sam. But that is very hard to believe, as Shamoun is a MAC operator as you can see him on his Jesus or Muhammad Show, as well as very familiar with Paltalk and other programs. Earlier this year I have even uploaded a program helping him post his own videos of a Mac computer which we both own, which is very easy to be done. However nothing happened. Fine, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he does not know how to make videos. Can he at least record his voice and send it to Keith and let him do the editing from there? I think that's not much to ask.
So what is the real deal, and why has he been debating through a proxy? One can only conclude, that it is due to the fact that he knows that he is getting involved in a debate that gives his opponent the ability to avoid his face to face debate tactics and tricks, the audience can investigate the proofs and take enough time to look at both sides, and not only be impressed by debate skills. So his usual tricks don't work, and he knows that he can play it safe by outsourcing where he can always say WELL IT WAS NOT ME DEBATING REALLY, IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE. I DID NOT THINK YOU ARE WORTH IT.
Let your minds wonder as mine is still wondering as to why Shamoun is not man enough to learn how to put a youtube video together and come forth so we can hear his voice and arguments.
We'll leave the lights on for him.
The excuse that I have been given is that Sam is not that technologically apt and therefore Keith is the one who posts the videos to help Sam. But that is very hard to believe, as Shamoun is a MAC operator as you can see him on his Jesus or Muhammad Show, as well as very familiar with Paltalk and other programs. Earlier this year I have even uploaded a program helping him post his own videos of a Mac computer which we both own, which is very easy to be done. However nothing happened. Fine, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he does not know how to make videos. Can he at least record his voice and send it to Keith and let him do the editing from there? I think that's not much to ask.
So what is the real deal, and why has he been debating through a proxy? One can only conclude, that it is due to the fact that he knows that he is getting involved in a debate that gives his opponent the ability to avoid his face to face debate tactics and tricks, the audience can investigate the proofs and take enough time to look at both sides, and not only be impressed by debate skills. So his usual tricks don't work, and he knows that he can play it safe by outsourcing where he can always say WELL IT WAS NOT ME DEBATING REALLY, IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE. I DID NOT THINK YOU ARE WORTH IT.
Let your minds wonder as mine is still wondering as to why Shamoun is not man enough to learn how to put a youtube video together and come forth so we can hear his voice and arguments.
We'll leave the lights on for him.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Muslims Helped Jews Against Nazis
Muslims Saved Jews From NazisSome Islamophobes try to portray Muslims as Nazis; this is far from the case. In fact there are a number of heart-warming stories of Muslims coming to the aid of Jews during Nazi occupations. Sadly, these stories are buried under right-wing (anti-Muslim) propaganda.
Recently I received a link to a CNN report of Albanian Muslims supporting the Jews against the Nazis; I was unaware of such Muslim heroism in Albania, I was aware of Muslims in North Africa coming to the aid of Jews during the second World War – hence I did some digging around and came across Robert Saltoff’s work. He describes the story of a mayor in Tunisia giving refuge to sixty (60) Jewish escapees (from slave labour camps) and thus saving them from Nazi design. Saltoff also tells the story of Khaled Abdul-Wahhaab, who saved a Jewish girl from Nazi rape.
New exhibition tells of how Albanian Muslims risked their lives to save Jewish people – the rabbi states the Albanian Muslims did this out of religious obligation – food for thought for the Islamophobes who want to demonise Muslims
With rising anti-Muslim sentiment across the country, an untold story is raising greater awareness about the Muslim faith and the teachings of the Quran. That awareness comes from an unlikely source: a small Jewish congregation in Creve Coeur. (From CNN's blog)
A clip of Robert Saltoff telling the story of Muslim heroes helping Jews during Nazi occupation
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2006/11/19/Among_the_R...
Author and Middle East policy expert Robert Satloff duscusses several stories of assistance North African Arabs offered to Jews during the Holocaust.
Robert Satloff talks about "Among the Righteous."
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Yahya Snow takes a look at Sam vs Jibreelk
Sam Shamoun's Demons Vs Jibreelk (Debate)
Recently we brought you insight into Sam Shamoun’s racist past – Shamoun was a black supremacist who hated white people. It was suggested Shamoun’s disaffected youth has shaped his actions on the internet and lead him to transfer his hatred away from a particular race of people and redirect such venom at a religious group (Muslims). Sad, but true...Shamoun has never removed his shackles of hate nor has he managed to beat the demons which blighted his youth.
Sam Shamoun has unleashed another bout of his nastiness and rebelliion, which permeates deep within his being, at a Muslim named Jibreelk. Jibreelk is a kind hearted and well-reputed individual who certainly does not warrant Shamoun’s venom. All I can say is, I’m glad I reside in the UK as I would not feel secure knowing Sam Shamoun was in the same country. Shamoun lives in America, I have no idea if he has transferred his cyber-venom to real life. I personally hope he never visits the UK as there is a growing Muslim population here; a population which is already suffering from discrimination. Sahmoun's comments will be in red.
Here is Shamoun’s latest demonic out-pouring:
ATTENTION JIBREELK THE LIAR. KEITHTRUTH'S LATEST REFUTATIONS OF YOUR IGNORANCE, LIES, AND DECEPTIONS HAS BEEN POSTED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¬=i_EDYTTR3gQ
AND DON'T THINK I FORGOT YOU. MY CHALLENGE TO YOU CALLING YOU OUT TO BE MAN ENOUGH TO DO A LIVE DEBATE WITH ME WILL BE COMING OUT. I HAVEN'T RUSHED TO IT BECAUSE YOU ARE REALLY NOTHING. THE ONLY REASON WHY I AM EVEN BOTHERING WITH YOU IS BECAUSE OF YOUR FAT MOUTH WHICH HAS NOW BEEN SHUT TIGHT, THANKS TO KEITH. SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU
For the unaware, Shamoun regularly calls people “liars”; it is his modus operandi. I have been following the exchange between the two and have not noticed any lie on the part of Jibreelk – Shamoun is being more than disingenuous here. Shamoun’s misdirection is his “live debate challenge” – he has been absolutely outflanked in the YouTube debate, thus far. Why he is angling for a live debate is beyond me. In any case, I have recently received another disgusting comment from Shamoun which further excludes him from the validation of a live debate, God willing I will discuss his comment at a later date.
What’s up with the capitals? Shamoun is shouting.
Shamoun accusing people of being mouthy; pot, kettle and black spring to mind. Sam is a guranteed laugh, it really does appear as though Shamoun watches different motion pictures than the rest of us and he winds up with a conclusion which is er,…let’s be kind and just say it is incongruous with reality.
Here he is again working himself up in a frenzy…Sam, calm down…you will do yourself a hernia.
THE DOGS ARE OUT BARKING AGAIN. After having been humiliated and exposed for his intellectual ineptness by both myself and Keith Truth, JibreelK has mustered some courage again after finishing a month of observing a pagan fast in worship of a false god and in celebration of a false prophet who would kiss and smother a lifeless black stone and is wondering when I will respond to his garbage. It seems that illiteracy has become a part of the Sunna that dawagandists like JibreelK have embraced in order to honor their false prophet since JibreelK has been exposed to public shame by Keith Truth in the following videos
Crikey, Sam Shamoun does have a habit of concluding in a fashion which is detached from reality. Again, the dialogue so far has not resulted in any humiliation for Jibreel…all he did was refute Shamoun’s far feteched claims. See here.
The fast is not pagan, it is prescribe by God. Quite how that makes something pagan is beyond me – welcome to the mind of Sam Shamoun. Regarding the black stone, see here.
What in the world is a dawagandist? Sam Shamoun, care to explain?
Again, Shamoun has a habit of trying to convince himself Muhammad (p) is a false prophet. Shamoun has never been able to prove it despite trying for decades! Sam, proof is currency which you lack.
Sam, referring to people as dogs is not going to score you debate points
Sam Shamoun’s “Challenges” are free flowing:
In the meantime, I am going to reissue my challenge to this coward to debate me live on the satelite show I do on www.abnsat.com. I am calling this coward out to defend his "replies" to our arguments and defend the honor of his false prophet, that is if he truly believes that he has really refuted anything we have said and has actually provided a meaningful rebuttal. It is time for this repulsive lying dawagandist to back up his barking with some bite. Please inform him of this post and my challenge.
I guess the fact he is already locked in a YouTube debate with Jibreelk has escaped his mind! Like I say, Sam is a guaranteed laugh. Just in case you are wondering about his “satellite show”, here is the main presenter and his pal claiming Islam “condones” and “encourages” homosexuality. Hardly the most erudite and sophisticated of shows!
Message to Christians and others on the internet
Please, people stop supporting charlatans such as Sam Shamoun, financially and in any other capacity. Shamoun uses his "Christian" faith as a vehicle for hate, he uses it as a false guise to bash Muslims. Previously he was racist against white people; now he is targeting Muslims with his hatred. This man is clearly anti-Jesus (p), whilst the Muslim gentleman is pro-Jesus (p).
Here we have a classic case of good Vs bad. I think we can see which side each individual belongs on.
I invite all to research Islam, go to your local Islamic centre, read a translation of the Quran, befriend pious Muslims and ask questions whilst praying to God to guide you to the Truth.
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.comSam Shamoun's Demons Vs Jibreelk (Debate)
Recently we brought you insight into Sam Shamoun’s racist past – Shamoun was a black supremacist who hated white people. It was suggested Shamoun’s disaffected youth has shaped his actions on the internet and lead him to transfer his hatred away from a particular race of people and redirect such venom at a religious group (Muslims). Sad, but true...Shamoun has never removed his shackles of hate nor has he managed to beat the demons which blighted his youth.
Sam Shamoun has unleashed another bout of his nastiness and rebelliion, which permeates deep within his being, at a Muslim named Jibreelk. Jibreelk is a kind hearted and well-reputed individual who certainly does not warrant Shamoun’s venom. All I can say is, I’m glad I reside in the UK as I would not feel secure knowing Sam Shamoun was in the same country. Shamoun lives in America, I have no idea if he has transferred his cyber-venom to real life. I personally hope he never visits the UK as there is a growing Muslim population here; a population which is already suffering from discrimination. Sahmoun's comments will be in red.
Here is Shamoun’s latest demonic out-pouring:
ATTENTION JIBREELK THE LIAR. KEITHTRUTH'S LATEST REFUTATIONS OF YOUR IGNORANCE, LIES, AND DECEPTIONS HAS BEEN POSTED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¬=i_EDYTTR3gQ
AND DON'T THINK I FORGOT YOU. MY CHALLENGE TO YOU CALLING YOU OUT TO BE MAN ENOUGH TO DO A LIVE DEBATE WITH ME WILL BE COMING OUT. I HAVEN'T RUSHED TO IT BECAUSE YOU ARE REALLY NOTHING. THE ONLY REASON WHY I AM EVEN BOTHERING WITH YOU IS BECAUSE OF YOUR FAT MOUTH WHICH HAS NOW BEEN SHUT TIGHT, THANKS TO KEITH. SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU
For the unaware, Shamoun regularly calls people “liars”; it is his modus operandi. I have been following the exchange between the two and have not noticed any lie on the part of Jibreelk – Shamoun is being more than disingenuous here. Shamoun’s misdirection is his “live debate challenge” – he has been absolutely outflanked in the YouTube debate, thus far. Why he is angling for a live debate is beyond me. In any case, I have recently received another disgusting comment from Shamoun which further excludes him from the validation of a live debate, God willing I will discuss his comment at a later date.
What’s up with the capitals? Shamoun is shouting.
Shamoun accusing people of being mouthy; pot, kettle and black spring to mind. Sam is a guranteed laugh, it really does appear as though Shamoun watches different motion pictures than the rest of us and he winds up with a conclusion which is er,…let’s be kind and just say it is incongruous with reality.
Here he is again working himself up in a frenzy…Sam, calm down…you will do yourself a hernia.
THE DOGS ARE OUT BARKING AGAIN. After having been humiliated and exposed for his intellectual ineptness by both myself and Keith Truth, JibreelK has mustered some courage again after finishing a month of observing a pagan fast in worship of a false god and in celebration of a false prophet who would kiss and smother a lifeless black stone and is wondering when I will respond to his garbage. It seems that illiteracy has become a part of the Sunna that dawagandists like JibreelK have embraced in order to honor their false prophet since JibreelK has been exposed to public shame by Keith Truth in the following videos
Crikey, Sam Shamoun does have a habit of concluding in a fashion which is detached from reality. Again, the dialogue so far has not resulted in any humiliation for Jibreel…all he did was refute Shamoun’s far feteched claims. See here.
The fast is not pagan, it is prescribe by God. Quite how that makes something pagan is beyond me – welcome to the mind of Sam Shamoun. Regarding the black stone, see here.
What in the world is a dawagandist? Sam Shamoun, care to explain?
Again, Shamoun has a habit of trying to convince himself Muhammad (p) is a false prophet. Shamoun has never been able to prove it despite trying for decades! Sam, proof is currency which you lack.
Sam, referring to people as dogs is not going to score you debate points
Sam Shamoun’s “Challenges” are free flowing:
In the meantime, I am going to reissue my challenge to this coward to debate me live on the satelite show I do on www.abnsat.com. I am calling this coward out to defend his "replies" to our arguments and defend the honor of his false prophet, that is if he truly believes that he has really refuted anything we have said and has actually provided a meaningful rebuttal. It is time for this repulsive lying dawagandist to back up his barking with some bite. Please inform him of this post and my challenge.
I guess the fact he is already locked in a YouTube debate with Jibreelk has escaped his mind! Like I say, Sam is a guaranteed laugh. Just in case you are wondering about his “satellite show”, here is the main presenter and his pal claiming Islam “condones” and “encourages” homosexuality. Hardly the most erudite and sophisticated of shows!
Message to Christians and others on the internet
Please, people stop supporting charlatans such as Sam Shamoun, financially and in any other capacity. Shamoun uses his "Christian" faith as a vehicle for hate, he uses it as a false guise to bash Muslims. Previously he was racist against white people; now he is targeting Muslims with his hatred. This man is clearly anti-Jesus (p), whilst the Muslim gentleman is pro-Jesus (p).
Here we have a classic case of good Vs bad. I think we can see which side each individual belongs on.
I invite all to research Islam, go to your local Islamic centre, read a translation of the Quran, befriend pious Muslims and ask questions whilst praying to God to guide you to the Truth.
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Recently we brought you insight into Sam Shamoun’s racist past – Shamoun was a black supremacist who hated white people. It was suggested Shamoun’s disaffected youth has shaped his actions on the internet and lead him to transfer his hatred away from a particular race of people and redirect such venom at a religious group (Muslims). Sad, but true...Shamoun has never removed his shackles of hate nor has he managed to beat the demons which blighted his youth.
Sam Shamoun has unleashed another bout of his nastiness and rebelliion, which permeates deep within his being, at a Muslim named Jibreelk. Jibreelk is a kind hearted and well-reputed individual who certainly does not warrant Shamoun’s venom. All I can say is, I’m glad I reside in the UK as I would not feel secure knowing Sam Shamoun was in the same country. Shamoun lives in America, I have no idea if he has transferred his cyber-venom to real life. I personally hope he never visits the UK as there is a growing Muslim population here; a population which is already suffering from discrimination. Sahmoun's comments will be in red.
Here is Shamoun’s latest demonic out-pouring:
ATTENTION JIBREELK THE LIAR. KEITHTRUTH'S LATEST REFUTATIONS OF YOUR IGNORANCE, LIES, AND DECEPTIONS HAS BEEN POSTED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¬=i_EDYTTR3gQ
AND DON'T THINK I FORGOT YOU. MY CHALLENGE TO YOU CALLING YOU OUT TO BE MAN ENOUGH TO DO A LIVE DEBATE WITH ME WILL BE COMING OUT. I HAVEN'T RUSHED TO IT BECAUSE YOU ARE REALLY NOTHING. THE ONLY REASON WHY I AM EVEN BOTHERING WITH YOU IS BECAUSE OF YOUR FAT MOUTH WHICH HAS NOW BEEN SHUT TIGHT, THANKS TO KEITH. SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU
For the unaware, Shamoun regularly calls people “liars”; it is his modus operandi. I have been following the exchange between the two and have not noticed any lie on the part of Jibreelk – Shamoun is being more than disingenuous here. Shamoun’s misdirection is his “live debate challenge” – he has been absolutely outflanked in the YouTube debate, thus far. Why he is angling for a live debate is beyond me. In any case, I have recently received another disgusting comment from Shamoun which further excludes him from the validation of a live debate, God willing I will discuss his comment at a later date.
What’s up with the capitals? Shamoun is shouting.
Shamoun accusing people of being mouthy; pot, kettle and black spring to mind. Sam is a guranteed laugh, it really does appear as though Shamoun watches different motion pictures than the rest of us and he winds up with a conclusion which is er,…let’s be kind and just say it is incongruous with reality.
Here he is again working himself up in a frenzy…Sam, calm down…you will do yourself a hernia.
THE DOGS ARE OUT BARKING AGAIN. After having been humiliated and exposed for his intellectual ineptness by both myself and Keith Truth, JibreelK has mustered some courage again after finishing a month of observing a pagan fast in worship of a false god and in celebration of a false prophet who would kiss and smother a lifeless black stone and is wondering when I will respond to his garbage. It seems that illiteracy has become a part of the Sunna that dawagandists like JibreelK have embraced in order to honor their false prophet since JibreelK has been exposed to public shame by Keith Truth in the following videos
Crikey, Sam Shamoun does have a habit of concluding in a fashion which is detached from reality. Again, the dialogue so far has not resulted in any humiliation for Jibreel…all he did was refute Shamoun’s far feteched claims. See here.
The fast is not pagan, it is prescribe by God. Quite how that makes something pagan is beyond me – welcome to the mind of Sam Shamoun. Regarding the black stone, see here.
What in the world is a dawagandist? Sam Shamoun, care to explain?
Again, Shamoun has a habit of trying to convince himself Muhammad (p) is a false prophet. Shamoun has never been able to prove it despite trying for decades! Sam, proof is currency which you lack.
Sam, referring to people as dogs is not going to score you debate points
Sam Shamoun’s “Challenges” are free flowing:
In the meantime, I am going to reissue my challenge to this coward to debate me live on the satelite show I do on www.abnsat.com. I am calling this coward out to defend his "replies" to our arguments and defend the honor of his false prophet, that is if he truly believes that he has really refuted anything we have said and has actually provided a meaningful rebuttal. It is time for this repulsive lying dawagandist to back up his barking with some bite. Please inform him of this post and my challenge.
I guess the fact he is already locked in a YouTube debate with Jibreelk has escaped his mind! Like I say, Sam is a guaranteed laugh. Just in case you are wondering about his “satellite show”, here is the main presenter and his pal claiming Islam “condones” and “encourages” homosexuality. Hardly the most erudite and sophisticated of shows!
Message to Christians and others on the internet
Please, people stop supporting charlatans such as Sam Shamoun, financially and in any other capacity. Shamoun uses his "Christian" faith as a vehicle for hate, he uses it as a false guise to bash Muslims. Previously he was racist against white people; now he is targeting Muslims with his hatred. This man is clearly anti-Jesus (p), whilst the Muslim gentleman is pro-Jesus (p).
Here we have a classic case of good Vs bad. I think we can see which side each individual belongs on.
I invite all to research Islam, go to your local Islamic centre, read a translation of the Quran, befriend pious Muslims and ask questions whilst praying to God to guide you to the Truth.
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.comSam Shamoun's Demons Vs Jibreelk (Debate)
Recently we brought you insight into Sam Shamoun’s racist past – Shamoun was a black supremacist who hated white people. It was suggested Shamoun’s disaffected youth has shaped his actions on the internet and lead him to transfer his hatred away from a particular race of people and redirect such venom at a religious group (Muslims). Sad, but true...Shamoun has never removed his shackles of hate nor has he managed to beat the demons which blighted his youth.
Sam Shamoun has unleashed another bout of his nastiness and rebelliion, which permeates deep within his being, at a Muslim named Jibreelk. Jibreelk is a kind hearted and well-reputed individual who certainly does not warrant Shamoun’s venom. All I can say is, I’m glad I reside in the UK as I would not feel secure knowing Sam Shamoun was in the same country. Shamoun lives in America, I have no idea if he has transferred his cyber-venom to real life. I personally hope he never visits the UK as there is a growing Muslim population here; a population which is already suffering from discrimination. Sahmoun's comments will be in red.
Here is Shamoun’s latest demonic out-pouring:
ATTENTION JIBREELK THE LIAR. KEITHTRUTH'S LATEST REFUTATIONS OF YOUR IGNORANCE, LIES, AND DECEPTIONS HAS BEEN POSTED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¬=i_EDYTTR3gQ
AND DON'T THINK I FORGOT YOU. MY CHALLENGE TO YOU CALLING YOU OUT TO BE MAN ENOUGH TO DO A LIVE DEBATE WITH ME WILL BE COMING OUT. I HAVEN'T RUSHED TO IT BECAUSE YOU ARE REALLY NOTHING. THE ONLY REASON WHY I AM EVEN BOTHERING WITH YOU IS BECAUSE OF YOUR FAT MOUTH WHICH HAS NOW BEEN SHUT TIGHT, THANKS TO KEITH. SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU
For the unaware, Shamoun regularly calls people “liars”; it is his modus operandi. I have been following the exchange between the two and have not noticed any lie on the part of Jibreelk – Shamoun is being more than disingenuous here. Shamoun’s misdirection is his “live debate challenge” – he has been absolutely outflanked in the YouTube debate, thus far. Why he is angling for a live debate is beyond me. In any case, I have recently received another disgusting comment from Shamoun which further excludes him from the validation of a live debate, God willing I will discuss his comment at a later date.
What’s up with the capitals? Shamoun is shouting.
Shamoun accusing people of being mouthy; pot, kettle and black spring to mind. Sam is a guranteed laugh, it really does appear as though Shamoun watches different motion pictures than the rest of us and he winds up with a conclusion which is er,…let’s be kind and just say it is incongruous with reality.
Here he is again working himself up in a frenzy…Sam, calm down…you will do yourself a hernia.
THE DOGS ARE OUT BARKING AGAIN. After having been humiliated and exposed for his intellectual ineptness by both myself and Keith Truth, JibreelK has mustered some courage again after finishing a month of observing a pagan fast in worship of a false god and in celebration of a false prophet who would kiss and smother a lifeless black stone and is wondering when I will respond to his garbage. It seems that illiteracy has become a part of the Sunna that dawagandists like JibreelK have embraced in order to honor their false prophet since JibreelK has been exposed to public shame by Keith Truth in the following videos
Crikey, Sam Shamoun does have a habit of concluding in a fashion which is detached from reality. Again, the dialogue so far has not resulted in any humiliation for Jibreel…all he did was refute Shamoun’s far feteched claims. See here.
The fast is not pagan, it is prescribe by God. Quite how that makes something pagan is beyond me – welcome to the mind of Sam Shamoun. Regarding the black stone, see here.
What in the world is a dawagandist? Sam Shamoun, care to explain?
Again, Shamoun has a habit of trying to convince himself Muhammad (p) is a false prophet. Shamoun has never been able to prove it despite trying for decades! Sam, proof is currency which you lack.
Sam, referring to people as dogs is not going to score you debate points
Sam Shamoun’s “Challenges” are free flowing:
In the meantime, I am going to reissue my challenge to this coward to debate me live on the satelite show I do on www.abnsat.com. I am calling this coward out to defend his "replies" to our arguments and defend the honor of his false prophet, that is if he truly believes that he has really refuted anything we have said and has actually provided a meaningful rebuttal. It is time for this repulsive lying dawagandist to back up his barking with some bite. Please inform him of this post and my challenge.
I guess the fact he is already locked in a YouTube debate with Jibreelk has escaped his mind! Like I say, Sam is a guaranteed laugh. Just in case you are wondering about his “satellite show”, here is the main presenter and his pal claiming Islam “condones” and “encourages” homosexuality. Hardly the most erudite and sophisticated of shows!
Message to Christians and others on the internet
Please, people stop supporting charlatans such as Sam Shamoun, financially and in any other capacity. Shamoun uses his "Christian" faith as a vehicle for hate, he uses it as a false guise to bash Muslims. Previously he was racist against white people; now he is targeting Muslims with his hatred. This man is clearly anti-Jesus (p), whilst the Muslim gentleman is pro-Jesus (p).
Here we have a classic case of good Vs bad. I think we can see which side each individual belongs on.
I invite all to research Islam, go to your local Islamic centre, read a translation of the Quran, befriend pious Muslims and ask questions whilst praying to God to guide you to the Truth.
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Monday, October 11, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Does Walid Shoebat's Eschatological Claim Make Sense?
Sadly some fundamentalist Christians really really want Islam and Muslims to be the "mark of the beast".
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Misconceptions about Quran
Is lack of understanding of Arabic Language contributing to various misunderstandings about the Quran?
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Lies about Muhammad
Assalamo Aleikum wrb
It is a pleasure to announce that Shaikh Mustapha Zayed has finished his book entitled "Lies about Muhammad", responding to the infamous Robert Spencer the author of "The Truth About Muhammad".
In the following clip he is being interviewed by Eddie from the Deen Show on the content of his new book, and why he decided to write it.
To purchase a copy of the book, please visit
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lies-about-Muhammad-Moustafa-Zayed/dp/1453618155
It is a pleasure to announce that Shaikh Mustapha Zayed has finished his book entitled "Lies about Muhammad", responding to the infamous Robert Spencer the author of "The Truth About Muhammad".
In the following clip he is being interviewed by Eddie from the Deen Show on the content of his new book, and why he decided to write it.
To purchase a copy of the book, please visit
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lies-about-Muhammad-Moustafa-Zayed/dp/1453618155
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Forgiveness: Muslim + Christian Views
Effectively, Christians believe God transferred the sin of mankind upon (a person of) Himself and had Himself killed at the hands of a bunch of Jews and Romans in order to forgive sin. On the other hand Muslims believe God simply forgives sin out of His Mercy without a need to kill Himself.
The Muslim view does in fact make more sense once an individual considers the Attributes of God and the history of sin.
The History of Sin
Does sin have a point of inception? It does. The concept of sin only came into existence due to God. Think about it; an individual down the road who happens to have sexual intercourse is commiting sin because he is doing this act in an unmarried state whilst the individual next door is doing the SAME act but not committing a sin as his actions are under the umbrella of marriage. Who set the criteria of what constitutes sin and what does not? God.
So Who brought the concept of sin into existence? God.
Did God kill Himself in order to bring the idea of sin into existence? No.
Think about it, if God can introduce the idea of sin without a need to kill Himself then surely you can believe God can forgive people without sacrificing Himself.
NOTE: For intellectual honesty purposes it must be stated there is a distinction between the idea of sin and the act of sin.
Attributes of God
The relevant attributes of God for the purposes of this article are:
*God being the Ever Living
*God being the Forgiver
We realise God does not die and is the Forgiver of sin; therefore the Christian belief of God dying for the sin of people is problematic but the Islamic belief of God forgiving without dying is in line with a consistent and correct view of God
So, do we need God to sacrifice Himself in order to forgive sinners? No. The Islamic view of God simply forgiving out of His Mercy is sufficient.
All this philosophising does throw further refutation upon the neo-Christian idea of atonement
The Muslim view does in fact make more sense once an individual considers the Attributes of God and the history of sin.
The History of Sin
Does sin have a point of inception? It does. The concept of sin only came into existence due to God. Think about it; an individual down the road who happens to have sexual intercourse is commiting sin because he is doing this act in an unmarried state whilst the individual next door is doing the SAME act but not committing a sin as his actions are under the umbrella of marriage. Who set the criteria of what constitutes sin and what does not? God.
So Who brought the concept of sin into existence? God.
Did God kill Himself in order to bring the idea of sin into existence? No.
Think about it, if God can introduce the idea of sin without a need to kill Himself then surely you can believe God can forgive people without sacrificing Himself.
NOTE: For intellectual honesty purposes it must be stated there is a distinction between the idea of sin and the act of sin.
Attributes of God
The relevant attributes of God for the purposes of this article are:
*God being the Ever Living
*God being the Forgiver
We realise God does not die and is the Forgiver of sin; therefore the Christian belief of God dying for the sin of people is problematic but the Islamic belief of God forgiving without dying is in line with a consistent and correct view of God
So, do we need God to sacrifice Himself in order to forgive sinners? No. The Islamic view of God simply forgiving out of His Mercy is sufficient.
All this philosophising does throw further refutation upon the neo-Christian idea of atonement
New Low: "Christian" Islamophobes Make Homosexuality Claim Against Islam
Here we have it folks. Pastor Joseph and Brother Hamoudy claiming Islam allows and even encourages homosexuality!
This, of course, is blatantly untrue; these two Christians on the 'News and Views' show (via the Aramaic Broadcasting Network)) were obviously wrong; everybody and their dog KNOWS Islam does NOT allow homosexuality and is in fact very striclty against the homosexual act.
I guess the axiomatic truth is no obstacle for Pastor Joseph and Brother Hamoudy - these two Christians make it quite apparent they have no regard for accuracy and truth. They are shown to be the charlatans they clearly are in this embarrassing and spectacular video.
The scholars at Islamonline discuss homosexuality:
The Qur’an tells us the story of the people of Lut (Lot), who deviated from the natural way and got involved in this abnormality, refusing every word of advice from their Prophet Lut. Thus, their destiny was destruction and punishment. Almighty Allah says: “And Lo! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk. And the answer of his people was only that they said (one to another): Turn them out of your township. They are folk, forsooth, who keep pure. And We rescued him and his household, save his wife, who was of those who stayed behind. And We rained a rain upon them. See now the nature of the consequence for evil doers!” (Al-A`raf: 80-84)
The eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:
“Almighty Allah has prohibited illegal sexual intercourse and homosexuality and all means that lead to either of them. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man’s sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females.
This, of course, is blatantly untrue; these two Christians on the 'News and Views' show (via the Aramaic Broadcasting Network)) were obviously wrong; everybody and their dog KNOWS Islam does NOT allow homosexuality and is in fact very striclty against the homosexual act.
I guess the axiomatic truth is no obstacle for Pastor Joseph and Brother Hamoudy - these two Christians make it quite apparent they have no regard for accuracy and truth. They are shown to be the charlatans they clearly are in this embarrassing and spectacular video.
The scholars at Islamonline discuss homosexuality:
The Qur’an tells us the story of the people of Lut (Lot), who deviated from the natural way and got involved in this abnormality, refusing every word of advice from their Prophet Lut. Thus, their destiny was destruction and punishment. Almighty Allah says: “And Lo! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk. And the answer of his people was only that they said (one to another): Turn them out of your township. They are folk, forsooth, who keep pure. And We rescued him and his household, save his wife, who was of those who stayed behind. And We rained a rain upon them. See now the nature of the consequence for evil doers!” (Al-A`raf: 80-84)
The eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:
“Almighty Allah has prohibited illegal sexual intercourse and homosexuality and all means that lead to either of them. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man’s sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Sam Shamoun, from Christianity to the Nation of Islam (NOI) !!
I must say that this blew me off my feet. What can I make out of it, except to say that things are making sense now. Sam Shamoun's deep hatred for Islam, his foul languages when engaged in discussions with Muslims, his psychological imbalances that he presents in his debates. As a major of psychology, being fascinated with human thought, feelings/emotions, personality and what influences I must say that things are making sense. I no longer look at Sam Shamoun in a puzzled way for his hatred, his deliberate manipulations and distortions (and more important the fact that he himself believes he is truthful) of Islam.
Sam Shamoun was Nation of Islam for aprox. 4 years and then he reverted back to Christianity. I never knew that and this was never mentioned by him, or by anyone else in any of his introductions or biographies on any of his work. I wonder why? Does he hate Islam so much that he cannot even mention that at one point he was part of at least some kind of offshoot of it?
I do have to be fair and say that I appreciate the fact that at least he does not pull the so often common trick of I WAS A MUSLIM I KNOW ISLAM, I AM AN APOSTATE NOW, I AM A SCHOLAR OF ISLAM. At least he says that Nation of Islam are not considered Muslims, over which there is no disagreement amongst the Ahlul Sunnah wa Jamah, those who follow the prophet Muhammad pbuh.
May Allah guide Sam Shamoun. I am calling for a world wide duaa/prayer for Sam Shamoun from all the Muslims, to ask Alalh the Most High to guide Sam Shamoun, to open his heart and to remove the hatred and replace it with love as it was done before to many people who hated Islam, hated the prophet pbuh, yet they became the ones who loved them the most.
Watch the following video in which Sam admits he was part of Nation of Islam.
Monday, September 20, 2010
AL ARABIYA: While NY debates its ‘Ground Zero’ mosque, Saudi builds mosque near the North Pole
AL ARABIYA: While NY debates its ‘Ground Zero’ mosque, Saudi builds mosque near the North Pole
A Saudi journalist decided to build a mosque in the extreme north of Canada for Muslims who have for long has a small wooden hut for a place of worship. Its name will be The Mosque at the End of the World.
In 10 days’ time, a mosque will be erected in the Canadian town of Inuvik, 200 kilometers from the North Pole. The northwestern town, with a population of 3,700, is home to 75-80 Muslims, mostly Arabs, who have no place to pray except a mobile hut that can only take half of them.
The town, whose name means ‘place of man’ in Eskimo language, is known for its soaring prices due to its remote location and the time it takes for goods to reach it especially during its freezing winter where the temperatures reaches 40 degrees below zero.
Building a mosque in Inuvik required a minimum of $750,000 as well as a team of experts, which was not available in the town. This is when Saudi journalist Dr. Hussein Saud Qasti came in.
Qasti, who runs a charity organization with his wife in the province of Manitoba, got wind of the frustration of Inuvik’s Muslims and decided to build them a mosque.
He collected donations from several Arabs in different parts of Canada and Iraqi engineer Ahmed al-Khalaf who lives in Inuvik. A Saudi woman, who asked for her name to be withheld, donated $190,000.
The total cost of the mosque is estimated at half a million dollars, that is $250,000 less than the cost estimated by the residents of Inuvik.
Al Arabiya contributed to the details that added to the mosque’s uniqueness when it suggested the name ‘The Mosque at the End of the World’.
Friday, September 17, 2010
FACEBOOK CHALLENGE
An explanation of the history behind our name is posted above the followers box on the right side. We are asking all the visitors to take our FACEBOOK CHALLENGE and get some blessings from Allah swt. Let's see who can recommend our site to the most people and FACEBOOK and get the most I LIKE signs on their post. Just imagine what a contribution you would make to the dawa if you would guide someone through Islam by our work. You would not have to do the work, all you would have to do is point them to our work and you would get the same reward. Amazing. May Allah bless you all for your help.
Just go to face book post a link of www.islamdunktv.com with an attractive comment or maybe one of our posts and send it to all your contacts and friends and get them to press the I LIKE BUTTON, and have them do the same thing, post it on their page and keep the ball rolling.
Jizak Allah.
Just go to face book post a link of www.islamdunktv.com with an attractive comment or maybe one of our posts and send it to all your contacts and friends and get them to press the I LIKE BUTTON, and have them do the same thing, post it on their page and keep the ball rolling.
Jizak Allah.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Eid Mubarak
Takabal Allah minna wa minkum. Kul amal wa antum bil khair. Eid Mubarak.
May Allah accept from us and you. May all things be good and may you be good. Happy Eid from ISLAMDUNK MEDIA PRODUCTIONS.
May Allah bless you with a loving year, a year spend in His obedience and service, in peace, joy and love.
May Allah accept from us and you. May all things be good and may you be good. Happy Eid from ISLAMDUNK MEDIA PRODUCTIONS.
May Allah bless you with a loving year, a year spend in His obedience and service, in peace, joy and love.
Monday, September 6, 2010
New deadline for competition
IslamDumk has extended the deadline submission for the competition till September 20 th.
Please spread the word and visit www.islamdunktv.com
Please spread the word and visit www.islamdunktv.com
Sunday, September 5, 2010
James White Rebuked by Muslims
Right, for those who want a quick backdrop as to why Muslims are rebuking James White I will inform you White, in his debate with Sheikh Awal, claimed Allah repents in Surah 2:37 and he (White) was later taken to task on this issue and his odd claim was styled a “lie” as NO translation of the Quran agreed with James White’s assertion. Sheikh Awal was stunned and confused over White’s bizarre proclamation too.
Subsequently James White was harshly rebuked (see here) and criticised for being inconsistent and inaccurate. White responded by claiming he was RIGHT (even though ALL the expert translators of the Verse disagreed with him). White cited a bloke from a missionary website as proof he was RIGHT and thus all the EXPERTS WERE WRONG!!! See Appendix 1 for the article in which James White is adamant he is right (and thus EVERY expert translator is incorrect), evocatively titled as “Facts for the Honest (To Be Ignored by the Dishonest)”
Muslim Apologist, 1MoreMuslim, Gives James White a lesson in Arabic grammar and a Stern Ticking Off
The latest (and final) chapter was an Arabic speaker giving James White a lesson in Arabic grammar and REBUKING James White and confirming what we all KNEW – that James White is in the wrong. It's time for White to come clean and up his level of scholarship. Here is 1MoreMuslim’s rebuke and lesson directed at James White:
Conclusion – White involved himself in inaccurate and inconsistent scholarship
James White shunned ALL expert translations and translators in favour of a bloke on the internet who is NOT qualified in Arabic. Once James White was found out he adamantly insisted he was RIGHT and started accusing those who found him out of dishonesty. James White was left with no hiding place after 1MoreMuslim exposed his dodgy internet translation to be grammatically incorrect.
White KNOWS he cannot just go around eschewing (shunning) expert scholarship and translations in favour of a dodgy missionary translation on the internet as this is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest. White KNOWS this but his pride fails to allow him to admit to his error.
James White is being inconsistent. To paraphrase James White; inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument and a failed faith too.
If White deceived you with his helping of inaccuracy please contact him and let him know of your disapproval.
May God guide us all and may God bless those who took part in bringing James White’s misinformation, inconsistency and unreliability to the fore. Ameen.
Contact the author of this piece: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Appendix 1
James White’s fallacious article in its entirety (increase screen size to read it comfortably):
Facts for the Honest (To Be Ignored by the Dishonest)
06/25/2010 - James White
For the few who are interested in the brief statement I made (styled a "lie" by the PPO&D, the "promoters of perpetual outrage and dishonesty"---a new term I have quoted for a certain very small, very irrelevant, but very vocal group of Muslim trouble-makers) at one point in the debate with Sheikh Awal, pointing out the contradiction between his asserting the Bible cannot be the Word of God because God "repents" (the Hebrew is nacham) and the fact that Allah is described as "oft-repenting." I made reference to Surah 2:37 simply because it was the first in a long list of substantiating texts. It says: "Then Adam received commandments from his Lord, and his Lord repented (fataba) towards him; for He is Oft-Repenting (huwa al-tawwabu), Most Merciful." He is oft-repenting. What's so difficult to understand? Well, it's simple: Muslims, as I demonstrated over and over again a few days ago, have one standard for the Bible, another standard for the Qur'an. "Oh, well, in the Qur'an, that means..." and off they go. But, if you attempt to explain that nacham likewise has a contextual meaning in the Bible, they ignore your explanation. So, the Qur'an can be explained, the Bible cannot. Double standards. Inconsistency. Sign of a failed argument, and in this case, a failed religion.
Want to read more? The Assyrian Encyclopedia (I evidently am in the name-creating mood this evening), Sam Shamoun, has laid it out clearly here. Read. Learn.
Find 1MoreMuslim here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/1MoreMuslim
Subsequently James White was harshly rebuked (see here) and criticised for being inconsistent and inaccurate. White responded by claiming he was RIGHT (even though ALL the expert translators of the Verse disagreed with him). White cited a bloke from a missionary website as proof he was RIGHT and thus all the EXPERTS WERE WRONG!!! See Appendix 1 for the article in which James White is adamant he is right (and thus EVERY expert translator is incorrect), evocatively titled as “Facts for the Honest (To Be Ignored by the Dishonest)”
Muslim Apologist, 1MoreMuslim, Gives James White a lesson in Arabic grammar and a Stern Ticking Off
The latest (and final) chapter was an Arabic speaker giving James White a lesson in Arabic grammar and REBUKING James White and confirming what we all KNEW – that James White is in the wrong. It's time for White to come clean and up his level of scholarship. Here is 1MoreMuslim’s rebuke and lesson directed at James White:
Conclusion – White involved himself in inaccurate and inconsistent scholarship
James White shunned ALL expert translations and translators in favour of a bloke on the internet who is NOT qualified in Arabic. Once James White was found out he adamantly insisted he was RIGHT and started accusing those who found him out of dishonesty. James White was left with no hiding place after 1MoreMuslim exposed his dodgy internet translation to be grammatically incorrect.
White KNOWS he cannot just go around eschewing (shunning) expert scholarship and translations in favour of a dodgy missionary translation on the internet as this is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest. White KNOWS this but his pride fails to allow him to admit to his error.
James White is being inconsistent. To paraphrase James White; inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument and a failed faith too.
If White deceived you with his helping of inaccuracy please contact him and let him know of your disapproval.
May God guide us all and may God bless those who took part in bringing James White’s misinformation, inconsistency and unreliability to the fore. Ameen.
Contact the author of this piece: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Appendix 1
James White’s fallacious article in its entirety (increase screen size to read it comfortably):
Facts for the Honest (To Be Ignored by the Dishonest)
06/25/2010 - James White
For the few who are interested in the brief statement I made (styled a "lie" by the PPO&D, the "promoters of perpetual outrage and dishonesty"---a new term I have quoted for a certain very small, very irrelevant, but very vocal group of Muslim trouble-makers) at one point in the debate with Sheikh Awal, pointing out the contradiction between his asserting the Bible cannot be the Word of God because God "repents" (the Hebrew is nacham) and the fact that Allah is described as "oft-repenting." I made reference to Surah 2:37 simply because it was the first in a long list of substantiating texts. It says: "Then Adam received commandments from his Lord, and his Lord repented (fataba) towards him; for He is Oft-Repenting (huwa al-tawwabu), Most Merciful." He is oft-repenting. What's so difficult to understand? Well, it's simple: Muslims, as I demonstrated over and over again a few days ago, have one standard for the Bible, another standard for the Qur'an. "Oh, well, in the Qur'an, that means..." and off they go. But, if you attempt to explain that nacham likewise has a contextual meaning in the Bible, they ignore your explanation. So, the Qur'an can be explained, the Bible cannot. Double standards. Inconsistency. Sign of a failed argument, and in this case, a failed religion.
Want to read more? The Assyrian Encyclopedia (I evidently am in the name-creating mood this evening), Sam Shamoun, has laid it out clearly here. Read. Learn.
Find 1MoreMuslim here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/1MoreMuslim
Friday, September 3, 2010
3 days left to enter the Islamdunk competition
Assalamo Aleikum
To all the islamdunkers out there who are entering the competition:
Please make sure that you submit your youtube link before or on September the 5th
As our website is dynamic, you can look at recent posts in the left hand side of the home page and you will find the rules and descriptions or just PRESS HERE
To all the islamdunkers out there who are entering the competition:
Please make sure that you submit your youtube link before or on September the 5th
As our website is dynamic, you can look at recent posts in the left hand side of the home page and you will find the rules and descriptions or just PRESS HERE
Amazing dawa campaign
Sept 3rd 2010
An Amazing Dawa campaign was launched in the UK. I must say that this is very creative and very deep. It really gets you thinking, and it is specifically catered for non Muslims.
Use this to invite your friends and non muslim co workers to Islam.
http://www.letsloveit.com/
An Amazing Dawa campaign was launched in the UK. I must say that this is very creative and very deep. It really gets you thinking, and it is specifically catered for non Muslims.
Use this to invite your friends and non muslim co workers to Islam.
http://www.letsloveit.com/
CAIR '9/11 Happened to Us All' PSA, Firefighter (30-Second)
CAIR National PSA Campaign Challenges Growing Islamophobia
Public service announcements feature Muslim 9/11 first responders, interfaith leaders
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 9/1/2010) -- A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today launched a national public service announcement (PSA) campaign featuring Muslim 9/11 first responders and designed to challenge the growing anti-Muslim bigotry in American society.
Public service announcements feature Muslim 9/11 first responders, interfaith leaders
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 9/1/2010) -- A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today launched a national public service announcement (PSA) campaign featuring Muslim 9/11 first responders and designed to challenge the growing anti-Muslim bigotry in American society.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Pod cast is down till September 15th
Assalamo Aleikum wrb
Due to some technical problems our podcasts will not be updated till September 15th.
We apologize for any inconvenience.
Don't forget to download and listen to the existing shows on itunes.
Assalamo Aleikum wrb
Due to some technical problems our podcasts will not be updated till September 15th.
We apologize for any inconvenience.
Don't forget to download and listen to the existing shows on itunes.
Assalamo Aleikum wrb
3 days left to enter the Islamdunk competition
Assalamo Aleikum wrb
There are only 3 days left to enter the islamdunk competition and become part of the next amazing phenomena of islamic television shows.
Don't loose this opportunity.
There are only 3 days left to enter the islamdunk competition and become part of the next amazing phenomena of islamic television shows.
Don't loose this opportunity.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
125 people embrace Islam in one day
Dubai, August 29: The Ninth Ramadan Forum on Friday witnessed 125 Filipinos —122 women and 3 men — embracing Islam after an impressive lecture delivered in Tagalog by prominent Filipino scholar Omar Penalbar. With this, the number of conversions at the forum has increased to 159, including 151 during the seven non-Arabic lecture series.
The lecture titled “The Message of Islam” was the last in a seven-lecture series targeting non-Arab Muslim and non-Muslim communities as part of the forum activities being held at Al Twar-2 area, opposite Dubai Airport, Terminal-2.
Of the new Muslims converted on Friday was Emmanuel, known as Manu, who came to the forum out of curiosity but amazingly did not stop crying all along the lecture.
“When I heard about the lecture, I was very keen to come and listen, but I did not know how to go as I am staying in Jumeirah. Unexpectedly, Allah sent me an Arab friend who offered me a lift to and from the forum,” he said. Manu, who has been working in a TV channel since 2006, felt blessed to have this chance. “I feel different. All my sins are washed up and all my ‘black points (bad deeds) have become green (good deeds). I am born anew,” he told Khaleej Times. “I am no longer alone. My new brothers in Islam are all around me. I am very happy to know the true religion. This adds more responsibility on me to tell my family and friends about this merciful and tolerant religion. There is still hope; we can start a new chapter of our life again,” he said.
In his lecture, Sheikh Omar talked about the message of Islam, its tolerance and lenience. “Islam is the last divine message and its followers must believe in all messengers and apostles.”
Sheikh Omar said about 99 people embraced Islam in one night after he gave a lecture in Philippines. “But tonight is the biggest for me. The 125 new Muslims broke my old record,” he said, adding for further information, people may contact the Kalemah Islamic Centre at 04-2644115, or at www.kalemah.org.
Administrator of Ramadan Forum, Mohammed Al Hashemi, said Filipino people are very kind-hearted. “Knowing about Islam, they convert individually and in groups. Valuable gifts and books on Islam are then given to all new Muslims to know more about the teachings of their religion.” The Ninth Ramadan Forum concluded on Saturday night with an Arabic lecture titled ‘Sulaiman Hoopoe’ by popular Saudi scholar Dr Sheikh Mohammad Al Uraifi.
The lecture titled “The Message of Islam” was the last in a seven-lecture series targeting non-Arab Muslim and non-Muslim communities as part of the forum activities being held at Al Twar-2 area, opposite Dubai Airport, Terminal-2.
Of the new Muslims converted on Friday was Emmanuel, known as Manu, who came to the forum out of curiosity but amazingly did not stop crying all along the lecture.
“When I heard about the lecture, I was very keen to come and listen, but I did not know how to go as I am staying in Jumeirah. Unexpectedly, Allah sent me an Arab friend who offered me a lift to and from the forum,” he said. Manu, who has been working in a TV channel since 2006, felt blessed to have this chance. “I feel different. All my sins are washed up and all my ‘black points (bad deeds) have become green (good deeds). I am born anew,” he told Khaleej Times. “I am no longer alone. My new brothers in Islam are all around me. I am very happy to know the true religion. This adds more responsibility on me to tell my family and friends about this merciful and tolerant religion. There is still hope; we can start a new chapter of our life again,” he said.
In his lecture, Sheikh Omar talked about the message of Islam, its tolerance and lenience. “Islam is the last divine message and its followers must believe in all messengers and apostles.”
Sheikh Omar said about 99 people embraced Islam in one night after he gave a lecture in Philippines. “But tonight is the biggest for me. The 125 new Muslims broke my old record,” he said, adding for further information, people may contact the Kalemah Islamic Centre at 04-2644115, or at www.kalemah.org.
Administrator of Ramadan Forum, Mohammed Al Hashemi, said Filipino people are very kind-hearted. “Knowing about Islam, they convert individually and in groups. Valuable gifts and books on Islam are then given to all new Muslims to know more about the teachings of their religion.” The Ninth Ramadan Forum concluded on Saturday night with an Arabic lecture titled ‘Sulaiman Hoopoe’ by popular Saudi scholar Dr Sheikh Mohammad Al Uraifi.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
9 days left to become THE NEXT ISLAMDUNK TEAM MEMBER
Assalamo Aleikum wrb
That's right, there are 9 days left in our competition, and I must say that we are very excited. Some amazing things have been happening this week by the blessings of Allah. Our studio is up an running, and the competition seems to be moving great. I have been approached by many brothers and sisters asking questions and showing interest.
Remember that submission dead lines are September 5th. Make sure you scroll down to the next post for the video tutorial and instructions on how to submit your videos.
May ALlah bless you.
Do not forget that the last 10 days or Ramadan are upon us soon. Make the best out of it, and please make duaa for us and this project.
Salamo Aleikum
That's right, there are 9 days left in our competition, and I must say that we are very excited. Some amazing things have been happening this week by the blessings of Allah. Our studio is up an running, and the competition seems to be moving great. I have been approached by many brothers and sisters asking questions and showing interest.
Remember that submission dead lines are September 5th. Make sure you scroll down to the next post for the video tutorial and instructions on how to submit your videos.
May ALlah bless you.
Do not forget that the last 10 days or Ramadan are upon us soon. Make the best out of it, and please make duaa for us and this project.
Salamo Aleikum
Monday, August 16, 2010
JOIN THE ISLAMDUNK TEAM
It is with great pleasure that we are announcing that we are expanding the Islam Dunk team. We are recruiting a team of 6 dedicated programers who will produce and host a weekly Islam Dunk Show.
The vision of Islam Dunk Media productions is to educate others about Islam, to invite people to Islam, to clear misconceptions about Islam, to provide Muslims with an easy access to Islamic knowledge and to have Halal entertainment for Muslims.
The Rules for the Contest:
- You have to submit an Islamic video
Here are a few ideas :
1. Cooking from around the World- Recipe Show
2. News Cast , what are the Muslims in Ontario facing?
3. Interviews with Muslims.
4. Skits/Short movies about Muslims in the West.
5. Hadith Reminders, Quran Reflections.
6. Quran memorization show with Islam Dunk.
- The Video must be within 5 to 10 minutes.
-The Video can be individual or in a group.
- Open to All Ages.
-Only for Windsor, Ontario residents.
Submissions:
-Deadline for Submissions is September 5th.
-Please reply to this post with your Name and Email Address if you would like to participate.
-The videos must be uploaded to www.youtube.com with an unlisted (anyone with a link can view) setting.
-Once the videos are uploaded paste the links on www.islamdunktv.com under the " Join the Islam Dunk Team " tab, with the matching name and e mail that you used for showing interest in participating.
- After reviewing the submissions we will chose 6 team members -One team of brothers and one team of sisters.
The following is a video tutorial on how to upload your video on youtube and how to apply for the competition. Also in the comments of this post you will find an example.
As a team member you will be able to gain media skills that will help you in any future career. You will learn valuable public speaking skills, you will access modern audio-video equipment and work on high end programs to produce an original television show which insh Allah we hope in the future to air on satellite channels like IQRAN AND PEACE TV.
Please contact Jibreelk at gibreelk@gmail.com for more information.
Salamo Aleikum
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
We wish you a blessed and beautiful Ramadan
Assalamo Aleikum wa rahmatu Allahi wa barakatuhu. The islamdunk team would like to wish you a blessed and beautiful Ramadan. May Allah the Most High and the Most Loving and the Most Forgiving give you all the good things that you desire, and forgive your sins and ours and bless all the Muslims around the world, especially the ones who are suffering in places such as Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, Iraq, Chechnya and all over the world. Please pray for all of them, and pray that the world becomes a better place. Please pray for the islamdunk team that Allah swt, will help us to keep on the right path and continue our work in educating and helping Muslims all over the world.
Ramadan is a month in which we realize the blessings of Allah as well as our mistakes and faults that often times we attributed to outside influences.
We pray that we finish this Ramadan in a good state, and that Allah will forgive us and make us clean, just as a white sheet is clean after being washed. Amen.
Salamo Aleikum wa rahamatu Allahi wa barakatuhu.
Ramadan is a month in which we realize the blessings of Allah as well as our mistakes and faults that often times we attributed to outside influences.
We pray that we finish this Ramadan in a good state, and that Allah will forgive us and make us clean, just as a white sheet is clean after being washed. Amen.
Salamo Aleikum wa rahamatu Allahi wa barakatuhu.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Debunking Shamoun's last attack condensed version
Click on the link provided on the video for the whole play list of refutations.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Quran is Perfect: Be Alert to Attacks by Secularists
Refuting the Skeptics Annotated Quran team (Skeptics Annotated Bible)
So the SkepticsAnnotatedBible group have produced a piece on the Quran (SkepticsAnnotatedQuran).
They put forward 45 scientific/historical issues they have with the Quran. They are very brief so this article will answer their issues as briefly as possible.
Generally much of their material is repetitive and the themes of their material are ignorance and ridicule. These answers show the sceptics were being unreasonable and even ignorant in bringing these forty five points up.
1. And He taught Adam all the names."
Allah taught Adam all the names of the plants and animals, which must have taken a while since there are 1.7 million species that are known today, with probably another 10 million or so that are yet to be discovered. And this only includes those that are alive today. If extinct species are included (~99%), then Allah must have taught Adam a billion or so names. 2:31
The sceptics are being flippant and using manipulative exaggeration.
They say it must have taken a long time; not so, if they read Tafsir Al-Jalalayn they would note that the belief is that Allah taught Adam the names by “placing knowledge of them into his heart”.
So if the sceptics thought a little laterally (or just read the Tafsir) they would not have made the claim of taking a lot of time.
2. Humans created from a single man. 4: 1
Well, if this sceptical team had read the verse in full they will note the Quran elaborates on this point in the same verse.
It teaches that Adam was created first and from him Eve was created and then the rest of humanity come through the procreation of Adam and Eve. Thus it is reasonable to say that humans were created from a single man as Adam was the first and then Eve was created from Adam and then through procreation the rest of humanity came. So Adam was a starting point and the Quran is completely correct.
If they had read the verse in its entirety they would have understood the point about the “single person”. Sure, the sceptics may not agree with creationism but this does not make it incorrect. The question is why did they not bother to read the whole verse for a fuller explanation?
3. The Quran repeats the silly story about Cain and Abel (though they are unnamed in the Quran). 5:27-31
The sceptics attack the story via ridicule but they do not even attempt to disprove it. I’m not sure why they included this reference in their list as they don’t even try to disprove it.
As for story of the first murder; of course during the history of humanization there will be a human who was the first to commit the crime of murder and you would not be surprised if God told people through His Book about this story. If you read the passage all the way to verse 32 you realise that the story is told and man is taught that murder is a huge crime.
The sceptics show their anti-religion bigotry here. They ridicule this story as “silly” yet they cannot disprove it. The only reason they ridicule it is because they are naturalists. Naturalists are people who do not believe in the supernatural. Again, despite their ridicule, they cannot disprove this story. For clarification and thoroughness their reference to the story being repeated is due to the fact it is also in the Bible. It is still wise to point out the childish nature in which they dismiss a story they cannot disprove.
4. Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) But, in fact, such acts are common in many other species. 7:80-81
The sceptics clearly misrepresent the verses. The verses dos not teach homosexuality to be “unnatural”. Please go back and read the verses again rather than misrepresenting them.
From these verses we learn that the people of Lot are the first ones from humanity to commit such deeds, we learn it is seen as a sin. This is confirmed by the Quranic experts as “the commentators say that first they started this evil act” [1]
The sceptics should be a little more scholarly rather than jumping in and making incorrect attributions to the Quran.
In any case, even if a book did claim homosexuality to be unnatural, there is no firm proof to disprove this “unnatural” claim; if the sceptics were intellectually honest they would have noted this. However, it is wise to reiterate the fact that these Quranic verses (7:80-81) do not claim homosexuality to be unnatural but do we do learn from these verses that it is a sin. The Quran is completely correct, it is the sceptics who are mistaken.
[1] Islam on Homosexuality, Mufti Muhammad Zafeeruddin, Darul Ishaat, 1996
5. Crucifixion is a Roman punishment, unknown in Egypt at the time this story supposedly occurred. 7:124
Crucifixion was a simple method and hardly required rocket science for a society to come up with crucifixion. Have the sceptics got any evidence to show that it was impossible for Egyptians to crucify individuals? No, of course they have not. They simply made this claim up with no supporting evidence. Hardly scholarly!
To correct the sceptics; crucifixion is thought to have originated from Persia and it was also used in Egyptian, Carthaginian, Seleucid, Assyrian and other civilisations.
Smith’s Bible Dictionary confirms that the Egyptians did use crucifixion [1]. Thus the Quran is completely correct but the sceptics clearly did not research the history of crucifixion, they simply made a caim up without any supporting knowledge.
See:
[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html
6. When Allah revealed himself to Moses, the mountain (Mt. Sinai?) came crashing down. 7:143
Actually the sceptics lack comprehension skills here, Allah revealed Him to a mountain which Moses was looking upon, this mountain collapsed to dust. There is no information given concerning the name of the mountain. I’m not too sure why they included this point in their list, it certainly does not disprove anything concerning the Quran.
Perhaps they included it because it seems implausible to the sceptics due to the fact that they disbelieve in supernatural occurrences. Again, why include this in your list when you do not even attempt to disprove it? Is it because you want your list to look lengthy?
7. Humans created from a single man. 7:189
Previously discussed in point 2 concerning 4:1. (Please view)
8. "They fold up their breasts that they may hide (their thoughts) from Him."
Allah thinks (in his heart) that humans have their brains in their breasts. 11:5
It is obviously a figure of speech which we still use today. Have you not heard somebody ask “tell me what is in your heart”. It is not taken literally, it simply represents the innermost feelings/thoughts/secrets.
The commentary on this verse also shows the reference to “the breasts” is concerning the “innermost secrets”. The Quran is not saying people have brains in their hearts. The sceptics must take us for fools if they think people cannot see it is a figure of speech. The Quran is not in error but the sceptics are being unreasonable.
9. Joseph saw in a dream eleven planets. Does this mean that according to the Quran there are eleven planets in our solar system? 12:4
No, seeing eleven planets in a dream does not mean there are eleven planets in our solar system. If an individual sees five suns in his dream does this mean he is claiming there to be five suns in our solar system? Of course not. The sceptics lose all sense of logic here.
The Quran simply relays Joseph telling his father about his dream. The Quran is not making a claim of eleven planets in our solar system. The sceptics seem to have lost there ability to reason.
It is also worth noting that the word used represents stars (it is translated as stars rather than planets in the Hilali/Khan translation). Either way; the Quran is not claiming there are eleven planets or stars in our solar system. It simply tells you of what Joseph told his father. Nobody, intellectually honest, would believe the sceptics once they read the verse for themselves.
To be fair to the sceptics, they too do not claim this, they just ask the question. Well they got the answer here, the answer is no. Now they can remove this point from their list too.
10. "The sun ... runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun (according to the Quran) orbits the earth. 13:2
The Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view)
It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in their when they claim “it orbits the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception.
Nowhere does it say the sun runs its course around the earth. The sceptics dishonestly made this up!
Now the question is does the sun run a course (i.e. does it have an orbit)?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate. [1]
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
11. "He ... spread out the earth."
Sounds like a flat earth to me. 13:3
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
12 "And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 15:19
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread out over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth and the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
13 And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying ... eat of all fruits."
Allah told bees to eat from all fruits, but decided to eat nectar and pollen instead. 16:68-68
The sceptics must take us for fools if they want us to believe Arabs at the time of the Prophet (and even after) thought bees ate all fruit such as apples, bananas, oranges etc.
Regarding the “eat of all fruits”, Zawadi says “The better translation is "eat from the fruits" and not "eat of all the fruits". Surprisingly, only Palmer and Khalifa (the deviant) got it correct. In Arabic the word min means from” [1]. Thus we realise if the Quran is translated this way (two translated did translate it this way) it makes more sense to the English speaking audience. The sceptics did not view all the translations they ran with what suited their agenda.
However, even if we use the sceptic’s translation it still does not disprove the Quran:
It must be said that we humans even use figures of speech such as the one used in this verse (eat of all fruit). If I tell a child to “eat from everything in this restaurant” and place him in a restaurant he will eat from the variety of food at his disposal, he will not eat the furniture, people or decorations (i.e. he will only eat from what is edible by human beings and will decide what to eat for him/herself). Likewise the bee will only choose from what is edible for a bee from “all fruit” (i.e. it will only eat from fruit/produce which contains nectar and/or pollen.
It is also useful to note that the Arabic word used (thamarat) does not refer to fruits such as apples, pears bananas etc. This type of fruit has a separate word (fakiha).The context also confirms this.
The sceptics did not realise this. Thus in this context the word (thamarat) refers to the fruit/produce from flowers rather than regular fruit (fakiha) that humans eat. Most flowers have nectar (grasses do not). So through the context we realise that “eat of all fruits” refers to eat from all plants containing nectar and/or pollen (i.e. any plant that contains bee food the bee can eat from it).
Nectar and pollen are “fruits”/produces from flowers/plants, thus the Quran is 100% accurate and the sceptics are being unreasonable again.
The verse (16:69) is not ordering the bees to eat all fruit, the understanding gained from the verse is quite simple; God simply inspires the bees to eat from a variety of flowers which contain fruit (nectar) which the bee can derive nutrition from (eat of all fruits, thamarat).
This is actually scientifically accurate because bees do travel to a variety of flowers for food, in doing so the bees partake in cross pollination. Through this cross pollination, by the bees, we get crops, nuts, fruit and vegetables which are for human consumption.
Therefore due to God inspiring bees to eat from a variety of flowers/plants we (humans) get a benefit. Perhaps, before God’s inspiration, bees only ate from one or two plants and now due to the inspiration from God humans are benefiting. This is a sign for those who think deeply.
[1] http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/surah_16_error_regarding_the_bees_
14The sun rises and sets at particular places on a flat earth. At the westernmost point on earth, the sun sets in a muddy spring. 18:86, 90
No, the Quran does not claim the sun sets in a muddy spring. The sceptics clearly have not read the verse in question. To a man mentioned in the Quran (Dhul-Qarneyn) the sun appears to be setting in a pool of water as “he found it set in a spring of murky water”.
Even the early commentator, Ibn Kathir, confirms this. Thus the early Arabs did not even think this meant the sun enters a pool of water. If the sceptics had read the verse they would have noticed “he found” it, thus this is a clear reference to whether was seeing and when you are looking into a pool of water it appears as though the sun is setting in the water. Ibn Kathir confirms this too.
The Quran is not wrong but the sceptics are wrong for misreading the verse.
15Most scholars consider Dhu'l-Qarneyn ("The Two-Horned Lord") to be Alexander the Great, who is here presented as a devout Muslim. 18:83-98
“Most scholars”, which scholars? The first person (to my knowledge) to suggest Dhul-Qarneyn was Alexander the Great was Abdullah Yusuf Ali. This was his opinion.
In fact there is a stronger opinion that Dhul-Qarneyn is Cyrus the Great. Sceptics should note the opinion of a translator is hardly an accurate representation of the Quran.
The Quran does not even state the identity of Dhul Qarnayn. So how can the Quran be wrong here? It can’t!
If Yusuf Ali thinks it is Alexander the Great it does not mean the Quran is saying this. DhulQarnayn simply means “one with two horns”; The Quran does not confirm who this man is. The sceptics lost their sense of logic once again.
16 he Pharaoh threatens to crucify Hebrews on palm tress. (But crucifixion was a Roman form of punishment that was unknown at the time.) 20:71
Again, this is a fanciful claim by the sceptics backed with no proof whatsoever (it has already been discussed in point 5).
We already know that crucifixion did occur in Egypt. Somebody needs to tell the sceptics; they are looking even sillier now.
17 he sun "floats" in an orbit around the earth. 21:33
No, the Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view)
Nowhere does it say the sun runs its course around the earth. The sceptics dishonestly made this up! It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in there when they claim it orbits “around the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception
The verse simply tells us that the sun and moon have an orbit. It does not say it orbits the earth. Read the verse!
We know the moon has an orbit but the question is does the sun have an orbit?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate [1].
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
18 The heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them."
The sun, stars, and earth were joined together until Allah separated them (about six thousand years ago). 21:30
The sceptics add their own addition here, the Quran does not teach this to have occurred 6000 years ago. The sceptics are confusing the Quran for the Bible. The Bible teaches the 6000 year claim whilst the Quran does not mention any time period. I would ask the sceptics to be more scholarly and accurate here.
As for the heavens and the earth being one piece, yes, the Quran is correct on this. It agrees with the Big Bang theory where the cosmos began from a single point, thus the earth and the heavens must have been a mono-block (joined together as taught in the Quran) during the early stage of the big bang. Thus the Quran is in agreement with science, in fact this appears to be a scientific miracle in the Quran!
I also ask the sceptics to brush up on their science as well, it would save us all some time!
Also, it is interesting to note that they do not mention the rest of the verse because the rest of the verse contains another scientific accuracy(miracle) because Allah teaches that all living things were made from water and we know all living things are comprised of water!
Hail comes from mountains. 24:43
The sceptics have got it wrong again! The Quran is not claiming hail comes from mountains. Once again the sceptics are taking us for fools if they believe people in 7th century Arabia thought hail came from mountains, surely Arabians who did not live next to mountains could tell this by simple observation. Well, according to the sceptics, they could not. The sceptics are being foolish and amateur.
Actually the verse confirms that hail comes from the sky as it states “ He sends down FROM THE SKY hail” [Hilali/Kahn]. This scuppers and disproves the sceptics claim. Were they unable to comprehend a simple English translation of the Quran.
As for the “mountains” reference, it is explained through the commentary that this refers to the initial clouds holding the hail. Hail is a result of suspended ice in the air and hail forms in cumulonimbus clouds (which are like mountains). So the Quran is super accurate and seems to bring forward something people could view as a scientific miracle!
21 The earth is fixed and does not move. 27:61
The sceptics misrepresent the verse. The verse does not teach us that the Earth is fixed on a whole, in fact the verse mentions “fixed abode”, this is referring to the Earth being a fixed place to live in.
Some planets are gaseous so they are not fixed (or firm) abodes to live in, whilst the Earth is not gaseous (the Earth is solid and firm), therefore is a fixed/firm abode to live in. Remember the key word here is “abode”, the sceptics missed this. The Hilali/Kahn translation clearly mentions this word. It is also worth noting that the word for “fixed” represents “firm” too. Is the Earth firm? Yes because it is solid not gaseous.
If they read various translations of the Quran they would have realised that the Quran is not talking about the Earth’s rotation.
Yusuf Ali’s translation reads “ made the Earth firm”. Therefore it is clear that this is not referring to the rotation of the Earth but the Earth geographically. Is the Earth firm and a fixed abode? Yes! It is not gaseous (like some other planets) therefore is firm. Thus the Quran is correct and the sceptics were wrong again.
Shakir’s translation reads “made the Earth a resting place”, yes the Earth is a resting place for humans and other creatures. The reason why I bring this translation up is to further show that the verse is not denying the rotation of the Earth; it is clearly not even referring to the rotation of the Earth, thus the sceptics are wrong again.
22 "He hath subdued the sun and moon to service. Each runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun orbits the earth. 35:13
No, the Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view) It simply tells us that the sun and the moon “each runs its course for a term appointed” (i.e. both have an orbit)
It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in their when they claim “it orbits the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception
We know the moon has an orbit but the question is does the sun run a course (i.e. does it have an orbit)?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate [1]. How did the Author of the Quran know this?
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
23 "The sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him." 36:38
Actually the Hilali/Khan translation states “And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed)”. This translation does not mention a “resting place”
So the sun has a fixed course? Yes it does, it has an orbit; it orbits around the centre of the Galaxy.
So we realise that the sun moves and is on a fixed course. How did the Author of the Quran know this?
As for “for a term (appointed)” well, we all believe that the sun will die one day. Even the sceptics believe this, so this is the appointed term. In simple words, Allah allows the sun to move on its course for a term ( a set time period) and Allah will make it end one day.
I’m not sure why the sceptics brought this up, did they not know that the sun does move on a course [1]?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
24 It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit."
The sun and the moon orbit the earth. (Well at least Allah and Mo are half right here!) 36:40
No, the Quran is not claiming the Sun and moon orbit the Earth. The sceptics make this claim. Did they read the verse? The verse does not claim anything such. This has been discussed many times now and the sceptics are looking more and more embarrassed each time.
Nowhere does it say the sun and moon orbit the Earth. It does state “…They all float in an orbit” (“they” refers both the moon and the sun). the sceptics are adding their own bits to the translation, how dishonest!
So you can see that the Quran does not claim the sun and the moon are orbiting the Earth. The sceptics wrongly added this in there!
However one may ask, do the moon and sun float in an orbit?
Yes they do. They both have orbits. We all know that the moon orbits around the Earth but many people do not know that the sun has an orbit too. The sun orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy [1].
So the Quran is correct in mentioning the fact that they both have an orbit. The question is; how did the Author of the Quran know that the sun had an orbit?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
25 Jonah was swallowed by a fish. 37:142
The “fish” refers to the whale. A whale is certainly big enough and able to swallow a human. It is a story which is also mentioned in the Bible. Again, we are not sure why the sceptics include this in their list.
26 "We decked the nether heaven with lamps."
Allah put "lamps" in the lower heaven to serve as lights. These are the stars that we see in the sky at night. 41:12
I’m not sure what the problem is here. The sceptics are being myopic. Stars emit their own light so describing them as “lamps” is fair as lamps emit their own light too. The Quran is perfectly accurate again. How did the Author of the Quran know that stars emit their own light?
27 "And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 50:7
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
28 "And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!"
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 51:48
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
The earth (ground) being spread/laid out over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
29 All things We have created by pairs." This is not true. Many bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants reproduce asexually. 51:49
Actually this verse is completely correct if you studied science and the verse you would not make the same mistake as the sceptics.
The verse mentions “of everything” so it is not simply referring to living beings therefore the verse is not concerning male-female pairs as “everything” includes stone, oxygen, water, metal etc., obviously the aforementioned (oxygen, water etc) do not come in male-female pairs. Thus the Quran is not speaking of biological pairs (male-female).
So the question is asked, does everything created (i.e. all matter) come in pairs? Yes it does, matter and anti-matter.
So the Quran is completely correct to state this. The sceptics need to be more careful when reading verses as they completely misunderstood the verse, hence their mistake
More info:
http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/male_and_female_(P1233).html
30 "The moon was rent in twain."
Muhammad split the moon into two pieces. Beat that one, Jesus! 54:1-2
Yes the Quran confirms this. In fact ahadith sources do state Muhammed (pbuh) split the moon into two and this event was witnessed by a number of people [1]. Ridiculing it is easy, proving it wrong is another thing, which the sceptics cannot do. The ahadith sources saying this are strong and reliable and eye witnesses saw this event occur!
[1] Sahih al Bukhari 6/4867
31 "Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof."
The "seven heavens" refer to the sun, moon, and five planets that were known at the time of Muhammad (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). The earth was flat and the "seven "heavens" revolved around it. 65:12
This is utter speculation from the sceptics. They have no proof for this claim whatsoever.
If you consult the Arabic, the word for heavens is the plural for skies/heavens (samawat),it is not a word used for planets, stars or moons. This word for heavens points to something above like the sky/atmosphere not planets or moons. So the sceptics claim is scuppered by the Arabic. The Arabic shows their claim to be false, it is not referring to planets, moons or suns but is referring to seven heavens. That is all.
In fact if the sceptics had bothered to cross reference this with another verse in the Quran (71:15-16) which elaborates on the seven heavens they would not be looking so silly. This verse tells us that the seven heavens are in layers “one above another”, so clearly the seven heavens do not refer to planets etc. Thus the sceptics are completely wrong.
32 "Who hath created seven heavens ... Canst thou see any rifts?"
Allah asks Muhammed to examine the sky to see if it has any cracks. 67:3
This is pure ridicule on the part of the sceptics. It is superficial nonsense from the sceptics.
Allah is putting forward a verse which people of deep thought (not of ridicule) can contemplate upon. Nobody is expecting to find any rifts when they look into the heavens but when they do look up they realise the beauty and precision of what Allah created, the one who thinks deeper will ponder upon how beautiful the Creator of such splendour and beauty must be.
So the SkepticsAnnotatedBible group have produced a piece on the Quran (SkepticsAnnotatedQuran).
They put forward 45 scientific/historical issues they have with the Quran. They are very brief so this article will answer their issues as briefly as possible.
Generally much of their material is repetitive and the themes of their material are ignorance and ridicule. These answers show the sceptics were being unreasonable and even ignorant in bringing these forty five points up.
1. And He taught Adam all the names."
Allah taught Adam all the names of the plants and animals, which must have taken a while since there are 1.7 million species that are known today, with probably another 10 million or so that are yet to be discovered. And this only includes those that are alive today. If extinct species are included (~99%), then Allah must have taught Adam a billion or so names. 2:31
The sceptics are being flippant and using manipulative exaggeration.
They say it must have taken a long time; not so, if they read Tafsir Al-Jalalayn they would note that the belief is that Allah taught Adam the names by “placing knowledge of them into his heart”.
So if the sceptics thought a little laterally (or just read the Tafsir) they would not have made the claim of taking a lot of time.
2. Humans created from a single man. 4: 1
Well, if this sceptical team had read the verse in full they will note the Quran elaborates on this point in the same verse.
It teaches that Adam was created first and from him Eve was created and then the rest of humanity come through the procreation of Adam and Eve. Thus it is reasonable to say that humans were created from a single man as Adam was the first and then Eve was created from Adam and then through procreation the rest of humanity came. So Adam was a starting point and the Quran is completely correct.
If they had read the verse in its entirety they would have understood the point about the “single person”. Sure, the sceptics may not agree with creationism but this does not make it incorrect. The question is why did they not bother to read the whole verse for a fuller explanation?
3. The Quran repeats the silly story about Cain and Abel (though they are unnamed in the Quran). 5:27-31
The sceptics attack the story via ridicule but they do not even attempt to disprove it. I’m not sure why they included this reference in their list as they don’t even try to disprove it.
As for story of the first murder; of course during the history of humanization there will be a human who was the first to commit the crime of murder and you would not be surprised if God told people through His Book about this story. If you read the passage all the way to verse 32 you realise that the story is told and man is taught that murder is a huge crime.
The sceptics show their anti-religion bigotry here. They ridicule this story as “silly” yet they cannot disprove it. The only reason they ridicule it is because they are naturalists. Naturalists are people who do not believe in the supernatural. Again, despite their ridicule, they cannot disprove this story. For clarification and thoroughness their reference to the story being repeated is due to the fact it is also in the Bible. It is still wise to point out the childish nature in which they dismiss a story they cannot disprove.
4. Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) But, in fact, such acts are common in many other species. 7:80-81
The sceptics clearly misrepresent the verses. The verses dos not teach homosexuality to be “unnatural”. Please go back and read the verses again rather than misrepresenting them.
From these verses we learn that the people of Lot are the first ones from humanity to commit such deeds, we learn it is seen as a sin. This is confirmed by the Quranic experts as “the commentators say that first they started this evil act” [1]
The sceptics should be a little more scholarly rather than jumping in and making incorrect attributions to the Quran.
In any case, even if a book did claim homosexuality to be unnatural, there is no firm proof to disprove this “unnatural” claim; if the sceptics were intellectually honest they would have noted this. However, it is wise to reiterate the fact that these Quranic verses (7:80-81) do not claim homosexuality to be unnatural but do we do learn from these verses that it is a sin. The Quran is completely correct, it is the sceptics who are mistaken.
[1] Islam on Homosexuality, Mufti Muhammad Zafeeruddin, Darul Ishaat, 1996
5. Crucifixion is a Roman punishment, unknown in Egypt at the time this story supposedly occurred. 7:124
Crucifixion was a simple method and hardly required rocket science for a society to come up with crucifixion. Have the sceptics got any evidence to show that it was impossible for Egyptians to crucify individuals? No, of course they have not. They simply made this claim up with no supporting evidence. Hardly scholarly!
To correct the sceptics; crucifixion is thought to have originated from Persia and it was also used in Egyptian, Carthaginian, Seleucid, Assyrian and other civilisations.
Smith’s Bible Dictionary confirms that the Egyptians did use crucifixion [1]. Thus the Quran is completely correct but the sceptics clearly did not research the history of crucifixion, they simply made a caim up without any supporting knowledge.
See:
[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html
6. When Allah revealed himself to Moses, the mountain (Mt. Sinai?) came crashing down. 7:143
Actually the sceptics lack comprehension skills here, Allah revealed Him to a mountain which Moses was looking upon, this mountain collapsed to dust. There is no information given concerning the name of the mountain. I’m not too sure why they included this point in their list, it certainly does not disprove anything concerning the Quran.
Perhaps they included it because it seems implausible to the sceptics due to the fact that they disbelieve in supernatural occurrences. Again, why include this in your list when you do not even attempt to disprove it? Is it because you want your list to look lengthy?
7. Humans created from a single man. 7:189
Previously discussed in point 2 concerning 4:1. (Please view)
8. "They fold up their breasts that they may hide (their thoughts) from Him."
Allah thinks (in his heart) that humans have their brains in their breasts. 11:5
It is obviously a figure of speech which we still use today. Have you not heard somebody ask “tell me what is in your heart”. It is not taken literally, it simply represents the innermost feelings/thoughts/secrets.
The commentary on this verse also shows the reference to “the breasts” is concerning the “innermost secrets”. The Quran is not saying people have brains in their hearts. The sceptics must take us for fools if they think people cannot see it is a figure of speech. The Quran is not in error but the sceptics are being unreasonable.
9. Joseph saw in a dream eleven planets. Does this mean that according to the Quran there are eleven planets in our solar system? 12:4
No, seeing eleven planets in a dream does not mean there are eleven planets in our solar system. If an individual sees five suns in his dream does this mean he is claiming there to be five suns in our solar system? Of course not. The sceptics lose all sense of logic here.
The Quran simply relays Joseph telling his father about his dream. The Quran is not making a claim of eleven planets in our solar system. The sceptics seem to have lost there ability to reason.
It is also worth noting that the word used represents stars (it is translated as stars rather than planets in the Hilali/Khan translation). Either way; the Quran is not claiming there are eleven planets or stars in our solar system. It simply tells you of what Joseph told his father. Nobody, intellectually honest, would believe the sceptics once they read the verse for themselves.
To be fair to the sceptics, they too do not claim this, they just ask the question. Well they got the answer here, the answer is no. Now they can remove this point from their list too.
10. "The sun ... runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun (according to the Quran) orbits the earth. 13:2
The Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view)
It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in their when they claim “it orbits the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception.
Nowhere does it say the sun runs its course around the earth. The sceptics dishonestly made this up!
Now the question is does the sun run a course (i.e. does it have an orbit)?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate. [1]
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
11. "He ... spread out the earth."
Sounds like a flat earth to me. 13:3
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
12 "And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 15:19
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread out over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth and the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
13 And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying ... eat of all fruits."
Allah told bees to eat from all fruits, but decided to eat nectar and pollen instead. 16:68-68
The sceptics must take us for fools if they want us to believe Arabs at the time of the Prophet (and even after) thought bees ate all fruit such as apples, bananas, oranges etc.
Regarding the “eat of all fruits”, Zawadi says “The better translation is "eat from the fruits" and not "eat of all the fruits". Surprisingly, only Palmer and Khalifa (the deviant) got it correct. In Arabic the word min means from” [1]. Thus we realise if the Quran is translated this way (two translated did translate it this way) it makes more sense to the English speaking audience. The sceptics did not view all the translations they ran with what suited their agenda.
However, even if we use the sceptic’s translation it still does not disprove the Quran:
It must be said that we humans even use figures of speech such as the one used in this verse (eat of all fruit). If I tell a child to “eat from everything in this restaurant” and place him in a restaurant he will eat from the variety of food at his disposal, he will not eat the furniture, people or decorations (i.e. he will only eat from what is edible by human beings and will decide what to eat for him/herself). Likewise the bee will only choose from what is edible for a bee from “all fruit” (i.e. it will only eat from fruit/produce which contains nectar and/or pollen.
It is also useful to note that the Arabic word used (thamarat) does not refer to fruits such as apples, pears bananas etc. This type of fruit has a separate word (fakiha).The context also confirms this.
The sceptics did not realise this. Thus in this context the word (thamarat) refers to the fruit/produce from flowers rather than regular fruit (fakiha) that humans eat. Most flowers have nectar (grasses do not). So through the context we realise that “eat of all fruits” refers to eat from all plants containing nectar and/or pollen (i.e. any plant that contains bee food the bee can eat from it).
Nectar and pollen are “fruits”/produces from flowers/plants, thus the Quran is 100% accurate and the sceptics are being unreasonable again.
The verse (16:69) is not ordering the bees to eat all fruit, the understanding gained from the verse is quite simple; God simply inspires the bees to eat from a variety of flowers which contain fruit (nectar) which the bee can derive nutrition from (eat of all fruits, thamarat).
This is actually scientifically accurate because bees do travel to a variety of flowers for food, in doing so the bees partake in cross pollination. Through this cross pollination, by the bees, we get crops, nuts, fruit and vegetables which are for human consumption.
Therefore due to God inspiring bees to eat from a variety of flowers/plants we (humans) get a benefit. Perhaps, before God’s inspiration, bees only ate from one or two plants and now due to the inspiration from God humans are benefiting. This is a sign for those who think deeply.
[1] http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/surah_16_error_regarding_the_bees_
14The sun rises and sets at particular places on a flat earth. At the westernmost point on earth, the sun sets in a muddy spring. 18:86, 90
No, the Quran does not claim the sun sets in a muddy spring. The sceptics clearly have not read the verse in question. To a man mentioned in the Quran (Dhul-Qarneyn) the sun appears to be setting in a pool of water as “he found it set in a spring of murky water”.
Even the early commentator, Ibn Kathir, confirms this. Thus the early Arabs did not even think this meant the sun enters a pool of water. If the sceptics had read the verse they would have noticed “he found” it, thus this is a clear reference to whether was seeing and when you are looking into a pool of water it appears as though the sun is setting in the water. Ibn Kathir confirms this too.
The Quran is not wrong but the sceptics are wrong for misreading the verse.
15Most scholars consider Dhu'l-Qarneyn ("The Two-Horned Lord") to be Alexander the Great, who is here presented as a devout Muslim. 18:83-98
“Most scholars”, which scholars? The first person (to my knowledge) to suggest Dhul-Qarneyn was Alexander the Great was Abdullah Yusuf Ali. This was his opinion.
In fact there is a stronger opinion that Dhul-Qarneyn is Cyrus the Great. Sceptics should note the opinion of a translator is hardly an accurate representation of the Quran.
The Quran does not even state the identity of Dhul Qarnayn. So how can the Quran be wrong here? It can’t!
If Yusuf Ali thinks it is Alexander the Great it does not mean the Quran is saying this. DhulQarnayn simply means “one with two horns”; The Quran does not confirm who this man is. The sceptics lost their sense of logic once again.
16 he Pharaoh threatens to crucify Hebrews on palm tress. (But crucifixion was a Roman form of punishment that was unknown at the time.) 20:71
Again, this is a fanciful claim by the sceptics backed with no proof whatsoever (it has already been discussed in point 5).
We already know that crucifixion did occur in Egypt. Somebody needs to tell the sceptics; they are looking even sillier now.
17 he sun "floats" in an orbit around the earth. 21:33
No, the Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view)
Nowhere does it say the sun runs its course around the earth. The sceptics dishonestly made this up! It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in there when they claim it orbits “around the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception
The verse simply tells us that the sun and moon have an orbit. It does not say it orbits the earth. Read the verse!
We know the moon has an orbit but the question is does the sun have an orbit?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate [1].
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
18 The heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them."
The sun, stars, and earth were joined together until Allah separated them (about six thousand years ago). 21:30
The sceptics add their own addition here, the Quran does not teach this to have occurred 6000 years ago. The sceptics are confusing the Quran for the Bible. The Bible teaches the 6000 year claim whilst the Quran does not mention any time period. I would ask the sceptics to be more scholarly and accurate here.
As for the heavens and the earth being one piece, yes, the Quran is correct on this. It agrees with the Big Bang theory where the cosmos began from a single point, thus the earth and the heavens must have been a mono-block (joined together as taught in the Quran) during the early stage of the big bang. Thus the Quran is in agreement with science, in fact this appears to be a scientific miracle in the Quran!
I also ask the sceptics to brush up on their science as well, it would save us all some time!
Also, it is interesting to note that they do not mention the rest of the verse because the rest of the verse contains another scientific accuracy(miracle) because Allah teaches that all living things were made from water and we know all living things are comprised of water!
19 Allah created all animals. Some with no legs, some with two, and some with four. (Most animals have six legs. Did Allah forget about the insects?) 24:45
Again, the sceptics must be taking us for fools if they expect us to believe that the early Arabs did not know how many legs insects had. The sceptics are being condescending here. In any case let us look at their claim.
The Quran (24:45) is simply telling us that Allah “created every moving creature from water” and “of them there are some that creep on their bellies, and some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four”. [Hilali/khan]
Note the Quran does not put a limit on this, it uses the word “some”. It simply tells you some animals have no legs, whilst some have two or four. It does not claim that all living beings fit into these three categories (no legs, two or four), the word “some” is used, thus it does not close the door on beings with six legs or any different number of legs. The Quran is not denying insects or any creatures with a different number of legs, only the most unreasonable individual would make the claim of the sceptics based on that verse (24:45)
An analogy; if I say “some people in London are from France, whilst some are from England and some are from America”, does this mean I am claiming that there are no Chinese, Polish etc in London? Of course not, I simply mentioned three different nationalities living in London, I did not close the lid on other nationalities. The same logic applies to the Quran, the sceptics should be more logical even when dealing with a thing which they hate (religion).
The sceptic’s lack of insight or bias is also highlighted by them skipping over the amazingly accurate scientific point in the same verse! The verse teaches us that Allah created every moving creature from water. This is absolutely correct, why did the sceptics fail to bring this to our attention?
Hail comes from mountains. 24:43
The sceptics have got it wrong again! The Quran is not claiming hail comes from mountains. Once again the sceptics are taking us for fools if they believe people in 7th century Arabia thought hail came from mountains, surely Arabians who did not live next to mountains could tell this by simple observation. Well, according to the sceptics, they could not. The sceptics are being foolish and amateur.
Actually the verse confirms that hail comes from the sky as it states “ He sends down FROM THE SKY hail” [Hilali/Kahn]. This scuppers and disproves the sceptics claim. Were they unable to comprehend a simple English translation of the Quran.
As for the “mountains” reference, it is explained through the commentary that this refers to the initial clouds holding the hail. Hail is a result of suspended ice in the air and hail forms in cumulonimbus clouds (which are like mountains). So the Quran is super accurate and seems to bring forward something people could view as a scientific miracle!
21 The earth is fixed and does not move. 27:61
The sceptics misrepresent the verse. The verse does not teach us that the Earth is fixed on a whole, in fact the verse mentions “fixed abode”, this is referring to the Earth being a fixed place to live in.
Some planets are gaseous so they are not fixed (or firm) abodes to live in, whilst the Earth is not gaseous (the Earth is solid and firm), therefore is a fixed/firm abode to live in. Remember the key word here is “abode”, the sceptics missed this. The Hilali/Kahn translation clearly mentions this word. It is also worth noting that the word for “fixed” represents “firm” too. Is the Earth firm? Yes because it is solid not gaseous.
If they read various translations of the Quran they would have realised that the Quran is not talking about the Earth’s rotation.
Yusuf Ali’s translation reads “ made the Earth firm”. Therefore it is clear that this is not referring to the rotation of the Earth but the Earth geographically. Is the Earth firm and a fixed abode? Yes! It is not gaseous (like some other planets) therefore is firm. Thus the Quran is correct and the sceptics were wrong again.
Shakir’s translation reads “made the Earth a resting place”, yes the Earth is a resting place for humans and other creatures. The reason why I bring this translation up is to further show that the verse is not denying the rotation of the Earth; it is clearly not even referring to the rotation of the Earth, thus the sceptics are wrong again.
22 "He hath subdued the sun and moon to service. Each runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun orbits the earth. 35:13
No, the Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view) It simply tells us that the sun and the moon “each runs its course for a term appointed” (i.e. both have an orbit)
It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in their when they claim “it orbits the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception
We know the moon has an orbit but the question is does the sun run a course (i.e. does it have an orbit)?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate [1]. How did the Author of the Quran know this?
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
23 "The sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him." 36:38
Actually the Hilali/Khan translation states “And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed)”. This translation does not mention a “resting place”
So the sun has a fixed course? Yes it does, it has an orbit; it orbits around the centre of the Galaxy.
So we realise that the sun moves and is on a fixed course. How did the Author of the Quran know this?
As for “for a term (appointed)” well, we all believe that the sun will die one day. Even the sceptics believe this, so this is the appointed term. In simple words, Allah allows the sun to move on its course for a term ( a set time period) and Allah will make it end one day.
I’m not sure why the sceptics brought this up, did they not know that the sun does move on a course [1]?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
24 It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit."
The sun and the moon orbit the earth. (Well at least Allah and Mo are half right here!) 36:40
No, the Quran is not claiming the Sun and moon orbit the Earth. The sceptics make this claim. Did they read the verse? The verse does not claim anything such. This has been discussed many times now and the sceptics are looking more and more embarrassed each time.
Nowhere does it say the sun and moon orbit the Earth. It does state “…They all float in an orbit” (“they” refers both the moon and the sun). the sceptics are adding their own bits to the translation, how dishonest!
So you can see that the Quran does not claim the sun and the moon are orbiting the Earth. The sceptics wrongly added this in there!
However one may ask, do the moon and sun float in an orbit?
Yes they do. They both have orbits. We all know that the moon orbits around the Earth but many people do not know that the sun has an orbit too. The sun orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy [1].
So the Quran is correct in mentioning the fact that they both have an orbit. The question is; how did the Author of the Quran know that the sun had an orbit?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
25 Jonah was swallowed by a fish. 37:142
The “fish” refers to the whale. A whale is certainly big enough and able to swallow a human. It is a story which is also mentioned in the Bible. Again, we are not sure why the sceptics include this in their list.
26 "We decked the nether heaven with lamps."
Allah put "lamps" in the lower heaven to serve as lights. These are the stars that we see in the sky at night. 41:12
I’m not sure what the problem is here. The sceptics are being myopic. Stars emit their own light so describing them as “lamps” is fair as lamps emit their own light too. The Quran is perfectly accurate again. How did the Author of the Quran know that stars emit their own light?
27 "And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 50:7
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
28 "And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!"
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 51:48
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
The earth (ground) being spread/laid out over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
29 All things We have created by pairs." This is not true. Many bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants reproduce asexually. 51:49
Actually this verse is completely correct if you studied science and the verse you would not make the same mistake as the sceptics.
The verse mentions “of everything” so it is not simply referring to living beings therefore the verse is not concerning male-female pairs as “everything” includes stone, oxygen, water, metal etc., obviously the aforementioned (oxygen, water etc) do not come in male-female pairs. Thus the Quran is not speaking of biological pairs (male-female).
So the question is asked, does everything created (i.e. all matter) come in pairs? Yes it does, matter and anti-matter.
So the Quran is completely correct to state this. The sceptics need to be more careful when reading verses as they completely misunderstood the verse, hence their mistake
More info:
http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/male_and_female_(P1233).html
30 "The moon was rent in twain."
Muhammad split the moon into two pieces. Beat that one, Jesus! 54:1-2
Yes the Quran confirms this. In fact ahadith sources do state Muhammed (pbuh) split the moon into two and this event was witnessed by a number of people [1]. Ridiculing it is easy, proving it wrong is another thing, which the sceptics cannot do. The ahadith sources saying this are strong and reliable and eye witnesses saw this event occur!
[1] Sahih al Bukhari 6/4867
31 "Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof."
The "seven heavens" refer to the sun, moon, and five planets that were known at the time of Muhammad (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). The earth was flat and the "seven "heavens" revolved around it. 65:12
This is utter speculation from the sceptics. They have no proof for this claim whatsoever.
If you consult the Arabic, the word for heavens is the plural for skies/heavens (samawat),it is not a word used for planets, stars or moons. This word for heavens points to something above like the sky/atmosphere not planets or moons. So the sceptics claim is scuppered by the Arabic. The Arabic shows their claim to be false, it is not referring to planets, moons or suns but is referring to seven heavens. That is all.
In fact if the sceptics had bothered to cross reference this with another verse in the Quran (71:15-16) which elaborates on the seven heavens they would not be looking so silly. This verse tells us that the seven heavens are in layers “one above another”, so clearly the seven heavens do not refer to planets etc. Thus the sceptics are completely wrong.
32 "Who hath created seven heavens ... Canst thou see any rifts?"
Allah asks Muhammed to examine the sky to see if it has any cracks. 67:3
This is pure ridicule on the part of the sceptics. It is superficial nonsense from the sceptics.
Allah is putting forward a verse which people of deep thought (not of ridicule) can contemplate upon. Nobody is expecting to find any rifts when they look into the heavens but when they do look up they realise the beauty and precision of what Allah created, the one who thinks deeper will ponder upon how beautiful the Creator of such splendour and beauty must be.
33 Allah made the stars as missiles to throw at devils. 67:5
Again, can the sceptics disprove this? No they cannot, they have not even Shayateen (devils) so how can they claim stars are not used to drive away devils?
Scientifically this actually makes sense as stars do MOVE and some even move as fast as 500 kilometres per second [1].
Now that is certainly quick enough to drive away devils.
The sceptics need to think deeper and brush up on their science, stars are not fixed structures, they do actually move and they move very rapidly therefore they can function as objects/missiles to drive away devils to protect God’s creatures!
[1] http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q181.html
34 At the end of the world the earth with the mountains will be lifted up and crushed with one crash. 69:14
I’m not sure why the sceptics include this verse either. It seems like they have a desire to make fun and ridicule without thinking things through rationally.
Even according to science our earth will have an end, thus the mountains and the earth will be destroyed one day. So how can a sceptic disagree with the Quran?
Can the sceptics disprove the verse? No, of course not, the sceptic simply wants to make fun because he/she does not believe in religion and is anti-religion. This position of theirs takes them to the path of the unreasonable. Whilst the Quran remains completely accurate.
35 "And hath made the moon a light"
This verse implies that the moon produces its own light, rather than reflecting light from the sun. 71:16
The sceptics are wrong again, spectacularly wrong!
Actually, the Arabic word used does show that the moon has reflected light rather than its own source of light. The sceptics expose their ignorance here, the Quran is completely correct and the question must be asked; how did the Author of the Quran know that the moon was reflected light?
This is confirmed by Dr Zakir Naik here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/light_of_moon.htm
36 "Have We not made the earth an expanse, And the high hills bulwarks?"
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 78:6-7
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
No, the Quran is not claiming the Earth to be flat. “An expanse” does not mean flat. Do the sceptics not know this?
Expanse means “A wide and open extent, as of surface, land, or sky.”
The Earth is wide and open. Even fields or open land masses are described as expanses, Thus it is reasonable to describe the earth as an expanse and it does not mean flat!
The sceptics need to brush up on their English.
However, Hilali/Khan translate the Arabic word(mihada) as “a bed”. This further shows the Arabic word used does not mean flat, therefore we can safely say Allah was not claiming the earth to be flat.
Note: the word used does not represent a conventional bed which we sleep on today, that is a different word (sareer). So do not think Allah is describing the Earth to be similar to what you sleep on in your bedrooms. It is a reference to the ground in all likelihood and the comfort of the earth.
To summarize, the Arabic word used does not mean flat. “Expanse” does not mean flat either. It is obvious that it does not refer to a flat earth. The Arabic word for flat was not used, so why did the sceptics even make such a claim?
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
37 "He spread the earth."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 79:30
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [2]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
In fact, the early scholar (Ibn Taymiyah) believed the earth to be spherical and not flat thus confirming this expert in the Quran never believed the Quran claimed a flat earth in ANY verse. Ibn Taymiyah’s authority and knowledge concerning the Quran is sufficient to show the sceptics to be incorrect.
The Quran (55:17) seems to indicate the earth is round by referring to two easts and two wests. The critics fail to mention this, I guess the truth and scholarly etiquette is of little concern [1]
[1] http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
[2] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
38 Someday the stars will fall. 81:2
The sceptics seem to be scientifically illiterate here; astro-physics teaches us that ALL stars “die” eventually. None live for ever.
In any case, the Quran in this passage is talking about the Day of Judgement. Creation will be destroyed prior to this Day, so stars will also be affected; this is according to the Muslim and Christian belief.
The sceptics disagree because they are against supernatural occurrences, my question to them is do you think all this (the Earth, the Solar System etc) will last forever? There was a point when it did not exist, what has a beginning must have an end…think about it.
39 "He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs."
Semen, according to the Quran, is formed not in the testicles, but somewhere "between the loins and ribs." 86:5-7
Between the loins and ribs roughly includes the testes too. So the sceptics are wrong from the word go.
However, the male ejaculate does not gush forth from the testes, in fact the testes only produces sperm, the rest of the ejaculate is semen which is produced via the seminal vesicles (amongst other organs), the sperm is carried to the seminal vesicles and it is ejaculated from this point in the body. This point fits between the loins and the ribs. So the Quran is correct again whilst the sceptics are shown to be ignorant of human biology.
A more detailed article is here:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/quran-got-it-right-about-semen-production/
40 "He is created from a gushing fluid."
Humans are not created from semen, but from fertilized eggs. 86:6
This is a flippant point which is reckless in nature. The sceptics seem to have lost all comprehension of science here. “Fertilized eggs”, what does the egg require for it to get to a fertilized stage. Yes, you guessed it semen (sperm to be more precise). This semen is a gushing fluid and is required for the creation of a new baby, thus we realise the Quran is correct…humans are created from a gushing fluid (male ejaculate). This gushing fluid is one of the components required for procreation – the Quran is correct
41 "And the earth, how it is spread?"
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 88:20
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
The earth (ground) being outspread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth, in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
42 The sun ... and the moon when she followeth him."
The moon orbits the earth; it doesn't "follow the sun." 91:1-2
The sceptics are being absolutely ridiculous here. This is a clear reference to day and night.
The moon does follow the sun! During the day the sun is out and when the day passes the night follows, what comes out at night? Yes, the moon. So the moon does follow the sun!
It is so obvious that it refers to day and night. Even the NEXT two verses continue the theme on day/night! Thus proving it is referring to day and night!
43 "The earth and Him Who spread it."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 91:6
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
The earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth, in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
44 Thy Lord ... createth man from a clot."
Humans were created from a clot? 96:1-2
Yes humans are created from a leach like clot (alaq). This leach like clot (alaq) is an early stage of the embryo. What does the embryo turn into eventually? Yes a human. Therefore it is accurate to say that humans were once an alaq (leach like clot) so the Quran is correct in teaching humans were created from an alaq (leach like clot).
This is all confirmed in detail by Dr. Sharif Kaf Al-Ghazal. It looks like the skeptics need to brush up on embryology before they start making claims against the Quran of this nature!
More info:
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm
45 Allah dealt with the owners of the elephant by sending swarms of "flying creatures". 105:1-3
The flying creatures are small birds. It is clear from the Arabic. Again, they cannot disprove this event; the only reason why they disagree with it so vehemently is because it is against their naturalistic beliefs. It is not a historic or a scientific error yet the sceptics include it in their list, I’d imagine it is included for ridicule purposes.
As you can see the Skeptics have no reasonable case for their allegation of "scientific and historical errors"
Overall, the sceptics seem to rely on ridicule rather than logic and fair reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)