Rebutal to -Ali Sina's rebutal- on Naik/Campbell debate

[yasu]

I don't understand when English is a weak language why are you blaming Quran of Arabic origin.
And expansion of universe is not a theory its a fact.

[hatsofftoalisina]

How does it help the mankind in the modern world? Human kind today face deadly and uncurable diseases like Cancer, AIDS etc. Can Quran being a book of science help us in finding the cures. Human kind does not have a way to predict earth quackes - that kill hundreds of people every decade - Can Quran help us here? Or are we dependent on western researchers for that? once western researchers find a solution for these problems - do we agains start claiming that it was all in quran - we just could not uderstand it - does than mean that we can not benefit from it because it is not elaborate?

When you say that expanding universe is a fact - I presume that you believe in logic and reasoning that is used by westerners to prove such theories (facts) - does quran have room for logic and reasoning - I mean Dr. Zakir always use reasoning to support that Quran is a brilliant book - but it so contradictory because - quran gives little room for reasoning, logic, judgement and independent thinking - because if u start using reasoning - quran will not pass the test - prove me by reasoning that it is ok to kill who do not believe in allah - prove me by logic that it is ok to treat the non-belivers as second-class citizens - prove me by facts that quran is for all times - dr zakir takes the shelter of logic and reasoning taught by westerners - whenever he needs and rest of the time he says that it is all divine - its faith - its submission to the will of god - Dr Zakir says that more than one god is bad - prove to me by logic how is that bad - he says that worshipping idols is bad - prove to me by reasoning how is that bad - he says that drawing pictures of Mo (PBUH) is bad - prove me by reasoning - how - wives upto 4 is OK - what is the rational of number four why not 5 or why not 3 - what is the rational behind praying 5 times a day -list is endless - possibily there are scientific explanations for all these - although i have doubts regarding that - but can muslims ever discover those explanations - no they can't - thats the problem - you'll have to take help of westerners to do anything scientific cos - you can not do it -

I find Dr Zakir very stupid and funny - trying to prove that Quran is a book of science - and using reasoning to support his claims

i wish instead of quran - muslim kids are taught some science books - that will be more benefitial

[yasu]

It seems you are very annoyed by zakir naik. I haven't seen any of his articles yet . If you have any link plz provide it.
Regarding your questions as i said Quran is not a science book. We muslims are not dependent on Quranic science to enhance our faith. As Quran says some verse are clear others unclear and people with faith have faith in the entire book. This is what i believe. Whether Quran talks about science or not iam not concerned at all.
Muslims are not dependent on westeners to prove Quran. As i told you we take it all.
Regards
yasu.

[hatsofftoalisina]

OK then convince me that I should convert to Islam for my good and for the good of mankind and for the good of my next generations. i assume that spreading the word of allah is one of the duties of muslims an assuming that you are a muslim - if u are not - u may well ignore my request

[yasu]

Convincing anybody is a very difficult job especially to one who is already convinced.My knowledge about Quran is not complete as i have just started reading it.But by putting that question you have put me into a responsibility.So you ask questions about Quran i will search and try to answer.But no one else should interfere.
Regards
yasu.

[Ashitaka]

[yasu]

I am saying it all over again that i am not a mohammaden. I am not lying at all. And i left it to you to ponder over it.
Regards
yasu.

[STEAM]

[crazy canuck]

[rudrasharman]

[Zulqarnain]

Ali sina on “Do mountains stabilize the Earth?”

I could not paste all of the material because it consisted of diagrams and it’s explanation. You can refer to them by reading his “fabulous article”.

What happens if you spread a fabric on a table and then push it from one edge? It wrinkles. That is more or less how mountains are formed. They are wrinkles caused in the crust of the earth. Mountains do not have roots and they do not look or work like pegs.
Ironically without these devastating earthquakes life on Earth could not have evolved. The movement of continents allows carbon dioxide to be released to the atmosphere. This is essential for the photosynthesis of plants and it also keeps the temperature of the Earth constant which is necessary for life to evolve [1].
I hope by now it has become clear that mountains do not have roots and they can't have roots. Anything going into the magma will be melted. This should suffice as proof that the Quran is wrong. Remember that Dr. Naik repeated several times, "All we need is one error to prove it is not from God". Later I will explain where the idea of mountains being like pegs and holding the earth beneath us from shaking with us has come from.

Whether mountains have root or not, let us see what the Quran has to say about it: “We have made the Earth as an expanse…. (Arabic). …And the mountains as stakes. 78:6-7”. Then Dr. Zakir Naik said,” The Qur’an does not say, mountains were thrown up as stakes… mountain as stakes. Arabic word ‘Autaad’ means ‘stakes’… meaning ‘tent peg’. And today we have come to know in the study of modern Geology, that mountain has got deep roots. This was known in the second half of the 19th century. And the superficial part that we see of the mountain is a very small percentage. The deeper part is within - Exactly like a stake how it is driven in the ground. You can only see a small part on top - the majority is down in the ground - or like a tip of the ice berg…you can see the tip on the top and about 90% is beneath water.

Mountains as tent pegs. Mountains to stabilize the Earth. Now let us see a practical example. Imagine the Earth to be a tent, and the mountains as tent pegs. Let us assume earthquakes as severe winds blowing the tent. It will now depend on the strength of the pegs---how deep have they been planted. If their “roots” are weak, the tent can be blown away. If the pegs have been planted firmly, the tent will shake, but it will not be blown away. The place where the tent is firmly fixed can be assumed as an Earth’s orbit, it’s proper place. Now, mountains which are firmly placed on the Earth DO stabiles the Earth. HOW? The Earth is not hindered away from its orbital path. The firm mountains stabilize the earth from hindering away from its orbital path, if any earthquake activity is occurring. And these examples can be the huge mountain ranges—The Himalayas, the Andes, The Swiss Alps, The Rocky Mountain etc. So, the Noble Quran proves itself. Of course, if an unbeliever deliberately refuses to understand it properly, it’s his fault, although he knows that it’s the truth.

I tried to contact Dr. Frank Press and wrote to two sites that had written about him asking to please put me in touch with him. Neither of them responded. I am not willing to buy his book Earth that costs $95.95 dollars just to verify this claim. However I doubt Dr. Press could have said such an absurd thing. Muslims are good in twisting things to make them look something else. I believe Dr. Naik has got this false information form Another Islamic site islam-guide.com that says:
"A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world. One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press. He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots. [Earth, Press and Siever, p. 435. Also see Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 157.] These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg


Now if Dr. Frank’s book “Earth” is widely taught in many universities, regarding the field of Geology, people will have confidence in it’s authenticity. That book carries more importance than your theory. Why don’t you ask the pupils who have read his book, as contacting him will be more difficult. Or go to a library to check it out. And that’s not hard is it? I don’t think you’re disabled to walk around. Of course you’ll not tell us if you found his claim right. But if you do, I will appreciate your courage.

See the pictures on : http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-b.htm

These pictures have nothing to do with science. They are just more Islamic lies. These are taken from The Geological Concept of Mountains in the Quran a book written by a Muslims El-Naggar and falsely attributed to Dr. Press.

If these pictures are not scientific, what are they, ISLAMIC LIES? LOL. ISLAMIC lies?
(Dr.Naik) The function of the mountain in the Qur’an, is given to prevent the Earth from shaking. Nowhere does the Qur’an say that the mountain prevents the earthquake.

(Ali Sina) What could possibly preventing earth from shaking mean except earthquake?


The Planet Earth, Sina.

(Dr. Naik) And Dr. William Campbell said - He writes in his book, and even the talk, that… ‘You find in the mountains regions, there are various earthquakes, and mountains cause earthquake.’ Point to be noted - Nowhere does the Qur’an say that mountains prevent earthquake. The Arabic word for ‘earthquake’ as Dr. William Campbell knows Arabic, is ‘zilzaal’ or ‘zalzala’- But the words used in these three Verses I quoted, it is ‘Tamida.’ ‘Tamida’ means ‘to shake’, ‘to ‘sway’, ‘to swing.’ And Qur’an says in Surah Luqman, Ch. 31, Verse No. 10, as well as Surah Nahl, Ch. No. 16 Verse No. 15…‘We have put on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it would shake with you. It is ‘tamide bikum’…‘Shake with you’, Indicating, if the mountains were not there, if you would have walked, if you would have moved, even the earth would have moved with you - If you would have swayed, even the earth would have swayed with you. And we know normally when we walk on the Earth, the Earth does not shake, and the reason for this is, according to Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Najjat who is from Saudi Arabia, and he wrote a full book on the Geological concepts in the Qur’an, answering almost every thing what Dr. William Campbell has said - in detail.


(Ali Sina) High mountains are formed through collision of tectonic plates. In planets where tectonic plates do not exist or do not migrate, there are no continental collisions, earthquakes do not take place and mountains do not form. As the result life does not evolve. [2] There are nearly 70 planets and moons in our solar system. None has mountain ranges like those on Earth, suggesting tectonic plates are not moving. Yet it is absurd to say that one cannot walk on the surface of these planets and moons without making the ground beneath them shake. Can anyone say anything stupider than this? In fact the reverse is true. In planets where high mountains don't exist, the ground is very stable.


You truly ARE a scholar, BEHAVING like a scholar. Yet it is absurd for a Scholar, not to take gravity into account. The Gravity on all those planets which have a solid earth like the planet Earth, is less than Earth. E.g. the surface gravity on Mars and Mercury is 38% of the Earth, the surface gravity on Pluto is 7% of the Earth, the gravity of Venus is 91%. These planets including the Earth are called “rocky planets”. Pluto is not one of the rocky planets but has a solid earth. And moons, of course have a very insignificant gravity. Dr. Naik said, “if the mountains were not there, if you would have walked, if you would have moved, even the earth would have moved with you - If you would have swayed, even the earth would have swayed with you.” Referring to the Earth. Now the Gravity of the Earth is hundred percent. If there were no mountains, the Earth would’ve been unstable. Tons of things are moving on the Earth. Now you said: ] There are nearly 70 planets and moons in our solar system. None has mountain ranges like those on Earth, suggesting tectonic plates are not moving. Yet it is absurd to say that one cannot walk on the surface of these planets and moons without making the ground beneath them shake.
Five planets have solid earth below it’s atmosphere; Mars, Pluto, Earth, Venus and Mercury. Others are gaseous planets, nothing to walk on! The gravity is the pulling force. When these two planets have gravity measuring less than half of the Earth, how can you say this? There is not enough gravity on these planets, that it affects them when we would walk on them. Your argument refuted.


Note that this shaking, according to Dr. Naik is not caused by the volcanic eruptions or tectonic movement. It is not the kind of earthquake we know. It is something else. This shaking is the result of people waking. But as everyone knows, the earth does not shake when we walk on it. The reason? It's thanks to the mountains that prevent this shaking. How can even one suggest that tiny beings like humans can make a continent shake by simply walking on it? This goes beyond absurdity. It's outright asininity.

THIS goes beyond absurdity: It is not the kind of earthquake we know. It is something else. This shaking is the result of people waking. Sina totally misunderstood Surah Zilzal. Anyway, to make your life easier, just ask any Arab what the word “zilzaal” means.


(Dr. Naik) And in reply to the statement…‘That if mountains prevent earthquakes, how come you find earthquakes in mountainous regions?’ The reply is, that - If I say that medical doctors, they prevent the sickness and disease in a human being, and if someone argues…‘If doctors prevent the sickness and diseases in a human being, how come you find more sick people in the hospitals, where there are more doctors than at home - where there are no doctors.’


(Ali Sina) What a ridiculous analogy! Patients go to hospitals AFTER they get sick because they are living and thinking beings and that is where they can get medical attention and get better. They do not become sick in hospitals (unless the hospital is in an Islamic country with Islamic hygiene). Is Dr. Naik trying to compare earthquake, a natural phenomenon, to humans? Do the earthquakes happen first elsewhere and then decide to conglomerate in mountains? This analogy is utterly ridiculous; yet Dr. Naik’s Muslim audience became so elated that they spontaneously cheered and applauded. One black guy was almost falling off his chair of excessive laughing. What these people were laughing at? At their own stupidity? Now the world can see them and laugh at them. It’s as if the more stupid is a statement, the more Muslims enjoy it. This reveals the deplorable intellectual bankruptcy of the wretched Umma.

Mountainous regions cause earthquakes, as they are fault lines connected with each other, spread across the continent. So, it’s a logical answer to a stupid question: “Why would you think there are earthquakes near mountainous regions. And at the same time, why are mountains attending the earthquakes in a mountainous region, when they are not attending earthquakes in a non-mountainous region. I’m surprised at your understanding, seriously surprised.
Nice attitude. “Islamic hygeiene”, tell me what the hadeeth say about hygiene. In fact, practicing Muslims perform ablution five times a day. The way we slaughter animals for food, is the most hygienic way of doing so. It drains off all the blood from an animal, and we know that blood is a good medium through which germs are transmitted. Much much better than electrocuting animals, as they feel the pain, as well as the blood becomes a part of meat. If you think our way of slaughtering causes pain to the animal, tell me so. I’ll give you an excellent answer by the same Dr.Naik.

Is Dr. Naik trying to compare earthquake, a natural phenomenon, to humans?

Humans are artificial beings they are not a part of Nature.

One black guy was almost falling off his chair of excessive laughing. A sign of a racist and over-exaggeration.


Sina’s next paragraph displays his intelligent analysis about Muslim behaviour. It’ll be a waste of time to mention that here.
Sina in his next paragraph said:

Here Dr. Naik is trying to explain with this harebrained example why most of the earthquakes happen in mountainous regions. But didn't he say that the Quran is not speaking of earthquake and that tamida is not zilzala? If the Quran is not talking about earthquake at all, why he tries to justify this verse with this silly example? If he is satisfied with his answer that tamida is the result people walking on earth, why talk about earthquake? Why cause more confusion? It's because the more confused is your audience the better you can fool them. Dr. Naik is smart enough to know that ‘tamida bikum’ or ‘to prevent the earth from shaking with you’, is a bit too stupid to be swallowed even by Muslims who would generally gobble any nonsense eagerly, so he amuses his audience by telling them that it is okay that earthquakes mostly happen in mountainous regions, despite the fact that the Quran says mountains are like pegs that prevent earth from shaking with a ridiculous example of patients and doctors.

Let me make it easier for the audience to understand. Campbell objected that the mountains do not prevent earthquakes. I agree. Then Dr. Naik clarifies; he says that the mountains are to stabilize the Earth, (from it’s orbital path). Campbell’s objection was, that at one place the Quraan is tells us that mountains stabilize the Earth, as they are placed firmly as ‘pegs’, on the other hand Surah Zilzal talks about a great earthquake that is going to happen when this world’s destruction is going to begin. Campbell misunderstood this. Mountains are to stabilize the Earth from it’s orbital path. Campbell referred the word “tamida-bikum” (The [planet] Earth from shaking with you) to the word Zilzal(Earthquake). “The whole planet Earth shaking with you” and “Earthquake” carries different meaning. Campbell made it confusing.

(Dr. Naik) In the field of Oceanology, the Glorious Qur’an says, in Surah Furqan, Ch. No. 25, Verse No. 53, that…‘It is Allah who has let free two bodies of following water - One sweet and palatable, the other salt and bitter. Though they meet, they do not mix. Between them there is a barrier which is forbidden to be trespassed. Qur’an says in Surah Rahman, Ch. 55 Verse No. 19 and 20……. (Arabic) ……‘It is Allah who has let free two bodies of flowing water. Though they meet, they do not mix. Between them there is barrier, which is forbidden to be trespassed.’ Previously the commentators of the Qur’an wondered…‘What does the Qur’an mean? We know about sweet and salt water - But between them there is a barrier - though they meet do not mix. Today after advancement of Oceanology, we have come to know, that whenever one type of water flows into the other type of water, it looses its constituents, and gets homogenized into the water it flows. There is a slanting homogenizing area, which the Qur’an refers to as ‘Barzak’ ‘unseen barrier’ And this has been agreed upon by several Scientists, even of America , by the name of Dr. Hay - he is an Oceanologist.
And Dr. William Campbell writes in his book that…‘It is an observable phenomena. The fisherman of that time knew there were two types of water… salt and sweet So Prophet Mohammed during an expedition to Syria , he may have gone in the sea, or he might have spoken to these fishermen.’
Sweet and salt water is an observable phenomenon, I agree - But people did not know that there was an unseen barrier, until recently. The Scientific point to be noted here is the ‘Barzak’ - not the sweet and the salt water.


(Ali Sina) If the separation of sweet and salt waters is an observable phenomenon, as it seems that everyone agrees, then how could no one know about it until "the advancement of oceanology" made its knowledge possible? What Muhammad is referring to is precisely that and nothing more. There is no “invisible barrier” between two waters, which is “forbidden to be trespassed”. There is no barrier of any kind - no barzakh at all between waters. Waters don’t mix immediately because of different temperature and density but they eventually do, just like when you pour cream in a cup of coffee. It takes time to mix; that is why you stir it. Those who saw this phenomenon must have relayed their observation to others using figurative speech saying waters don’t mix AS IF there is an invisible barrier between them. Our ignorant Muhammad took this literally and claimed there is an “invisible barrier” between them, which is “forbidden to be trespassed”. Nothing can be further from the truth. All waters mix and there is no barrier, invisible or otherwise between them. When two rivers, carrying sediments of different colors meet, or when sweet water coming from rivers flows into the blue salty water of the sea, one can see the line of demarcation sometimes stretching for miles until they gradually blend. Where the waters merge, i.e. what Dr. Naik refers to as the “slanting homogenizing area”, is not a “barrier”. It is the opposite of it. There the waters are not forbidden to trespass but actually merge.
It is amazing that Muslims emphasize on the flagrant errors of the Quran as its miracles. Who would buy this nonsense except a totally ignorant person?

(Ali Sina) If the separation of sweet and salt waters is an observable phenomenon, as it seems that everyone agrees, then how could no one know about it until "the advancement of oceanology" made its knowledge possible?

The thing that is known now is that there is a slanting homogenizing area, which is unseen. The area in which the water gets homogenized. THIS unseen barrier we have discovered now .THIS thing is known now by ”the advancement of oceanology”. Not the salt and bitter water that do not mix. You’re twisting Dr. Naik’s statement by your mature interpretation.


There is no “invisible barrier” between two waters, which is “forbidden to be trespassed”. There is no barrier of any kind - no barzakh at all between waters. Waters don’t mix immediately because of different temperature and density but they eventually do, just like when you pour cream in a cup of coffee. It takes time to mix; that is why you stir it.

Sina, Dr. Naik said: “The Scientific point to be noted here is the ‘Barzak’ - not the sweet and the salt water”. Now, has anyone been on the beach and been into to the water until it is high up to the chest? Now, I will assure you that you will notice, that the top layer of the water is cold and the bottom layer of the water, which is salty, is warm. In fact Campbell himself gave this example, but refused to believe in a barrier, separating these waters. He thought that the river alone is responsible for this phenomenon, but it is everywhere in the ocean. Sina is saying: Waters don’t mix immediately because of different temperature and density but they eventually do. The unseen barrier in the ocean separates the cold water and the warm water from mixing with each other although they meet. See how the Noble Quraan gives us a perfect description: ‘’ ‘It is Allah who has let free two bodies of flowing water. Though they meet, they do not mix. Between them there is barrier, which is forbidden to be trespassed.’


All waters mix and there is no barrier, invisible or otherwise between them. When two rivers, carrying sediments of different colors meet, or when sweet water coming from rivers flows into the blue salty water of the sea, one can see the line of demarcation sometimes stretching for miles until they gradually blend. Where the waters merge, i.e. what Dr. Naik refers to as the “slanting homogenizing area”, is not a “barrier”. It is the opposite of it. There the waters are not forbidden to trespass but actually merge.

I would prefer Dr. Hay’s research than yours. Why? A simple reason. He is a well-known marine scientist and Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, U.S.A. And you are a fraudulent, a hypocrite, an expert in twisting an interpretation.

Is Islam for All Mankind?
(Dr. Naik) As far as this statement of his is concerned, regarding the Bible, I do agree with it totally - Because the Bible was only meant for the children of Israel , for that time. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mathew, Ch. No. 10, Verse No. 5 and 6, Jesus Christ peace be upon him tells his disciples… ‘Go ye not in the way of the Gentiles.’ Who are the Gentiles? The Non-Jews, the Hindus, the Muslims. ‘But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel .’ Jesus Christ peace be upon him said in the Gospel of Mathew, Ch. No. 15, Verse No. 24… ‘I am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel .’ So Jesus Christ and the Bible were only meant for the children of Isreal. Since it was meant for them, to analyze the Bible, you have to use the meaning of the word, which was utilized at that time. But the Qur’an was not meant only for the Arabs of that time. Qur’an is not meant only for the Muslims. The Qur’an is meant for the whole of humanity, and it is meant to be for eternity.


(Ali Sina) Here again the Muslim audience broke in applause and the sign of joy was visible from their countenance. To them it was victory after victory. However, had Dr. Naik told them that the Quran says that Muhammad has come only for the Meccans alone and the people around it they would not have rejoiced that much.

006.092 And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings, and confirming (the revelations) which came before it: that thou mayest warn the mother of cities and all around her.


The mother of cities, nice Qura, is Mecca.

Now I have to admit that I was surprised by Sina’s stunt over here. HIS INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT OVER HERE. Ummul Qurah is Mecca. Yusuf Ali also says this. Sina must have taken it from him. Now, what Yusuf Ali adds is that Makkah is the center of the World. So “all around her” will mean all around Makkah. Take a map of the world, and keep on circling around Makkah, like an earthquake aftershock. Remember, it says “All around Makkah” , the circumference of each circles will get bigger unless the whole world is covered. LOGIC.


In other places Allah says to Muhammad that he has come for the people who did not receive guidance yet. Wow!! For the second time a correct interpretation. I’m intimidated…
032.003 “Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance.”
036.006 In order that thou mayest admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless (of the Signs of Allah).


The people of the Book, i.e. the Jews, the Christians and perhaps the Zoroastrians had their own messengers and their guidance. The only people who had not received guidance were the Arabs, specifically the Arabs of Mecca and its surrounding. So, it is clear that Muhammad claimed that he had come only for the Quraish and not for the people of the Book and the rest of mankind.

This interpretation has offset 2 degrees of respect you were gaining from me, by your two previous interpretations. Muhammad (SAWW) was sent to the whole of humanity of course. He was sent for many reasons:
1. To CONFIRM the message of Allah to the People of the Book( The Jews and Christians).
2. To the people “whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless”. To Atheists, who had no idea of any kind of One Unique Power controlling the Universe-- Allah.
3. He was a seal of the Prophethood. There would be no more prophet after him. Allah has promised security of the Quran from being corrupted, it will remain in it’s pure Arabic form till the Doomsday. In other words, to give a COMPLETE guidance to humanity, so that they can follow/know Allah’s commands. As He is the Creator of the Universes, He has created human beings, knowing human nature, is the best Judge. Whatever He has prescribed (things allowed and prohibited to do) is the best for us humans.

Of course, as he became powerful, his ambitions grew and he changed his mind later.


The newly established Muslim Community DID gathered strength, no doubt. As for changes in his “Ambitions”, this is a totally biased word only used by you. We always refer to Muhammad (SAWW) as the “MESSENGER” of Allah. He did not act upon his own ambitions.

Few Muslims know about these verses.

Those Muslims will know who have read the Quran and remember it. “Few” is an inaccurate word to use.
What do they say about them? If they truly believe that the Quran is the word of God, they should stop their da'wa and Jihad.
It is a duty of a Muslim to invite other people to Islam, at least the people they know closely. On the Day of Accountability (Day of Judgment) Muslims would be asked regarding their efforts to spread Allah’s message. Because Quran is Allah’s word, the way the people are ignorant about it, it is our duty to do da’wa and Jihad. “Jihad” is often mistranslated as “holy war”. It is not. Jihad means to Struggle in the Way of Allah, for the Truth. If my Muslims brothers/sisters get up for Fajr early in the morning, defying Satan’s comfortable whisper to remain in your soft beds, that is also considered as a Jihad, as they are struggling in the way of Allah, for the accomplishment of the Truth( Salaah).


The people of Mecca and its surrounding have already converted to Islam. If Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God, how do they dare to disobey Him and make da'wa elsewhere. Even if Muhammad said they should attack other countries and convert others into Islam, they should not listen to him but do what the Quran says. Whose word is more important? That of Allah or that of Muhammad?

Sina, I wonder if you ever knew Islam properly in your childhood/teenage/maturity. (Before your apostasy). Muhammad (SAWW) have recorded and memorized Allah’s teachings, he did not modify or acted against it. Except when Muhammad(SAWW) did not knew that it was wrong to take ransom for releasing captives after Badr. Only that was a mistake which was clearly not deliberate, he did not knew Allah’s command about it. Allah told him later on, right after this incident. He was forgiven of course.


These verses should also convince the non-Arab Muslims, including the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Iraqis and all others now known as Arabs that Islam is not for them. Islam is only for the Meccans and its surrounding. They must leave Islam, if they truly believe that the Quran is the word of God.

Already refuted—Islam for the whole of humanity.

(Ali Sina) Verse 14:52 says “Hatha balaghun lilnnasi”. Nas is people – any number of people. It could be people gathered in a room. It could refer to the inhabitants of a village, a town, a country and not necessarily ALL Mankind. For example nas is used in verse 7.116 when talking about the magic performed by the magicians of Pharaoh who bewitched the eyes of the people ‘nas’. Are we supposed to understand that all mankind were bewitched? The same word is used in 2:185, 39:4 and 21:107. In all these verses Nas means "people" and not all mankind. If we assume that the word 'nas' used in these verses means all mankind then we have to admit that there is flagrant contradiction in the Quran for the verses 6:92, 42:7, 32:3 and 36:6 clearly state that the Quran is for the people of Mecca and its surrounding.

The word “Nas” has been mentioned in the Quran, no doubt but as you mentioned it can mean differently, BUT ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT. You missed out something, maybe deliberately….. The last Surah of the Quran, is called “Mankind”. The word “Nas” has been repeated at the end of each verse throughout the Surah, referring to the word “mankind”. So, you have to analyze what the word means in context. Dr Naik emphasized on this too, it’s just that the Sina does not want to mention it. This destroys your argument.


However, Muhammad also claimed to have been sent to "creatures of both worlds" lilAAalameen. means everything in both worlds. (That includes dogs and pigs.) That is because he was a megalomaniac narcissist and narcissists talk big. He even claimed to have come as guidance for Jinns, which are mythical beings.

Sina is inserting his own translation-- creatures of both worlds. His translation of course, I’ll not consider. I’ll consider these famous translators:
YUSUFALI: We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures.
PICKTHAL: We sent thee not save as a mercy for the peoples.
SHAKIR: And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds
Sina, if you don’t know Arabic, don’t interpret Quranic Verses yourself. The phrase used is “Rehmat-tal-lil-Aalameen”. “Rehmat means mercy. Aalameen can be correctly translated to “Worlds”. If you think I’m making this up, ask any Arab….he/she does not have to be a Muslim…can be a Coptic Christian, or people like Dr. Campbell. The word “Aalameen” can be correctly translated as “The Worlds”. This is more appropriate than “Creatures” or “People”. Even according to the context this can be the most accurate translation possible.
SHAKIR: And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.
The audience may say, that I chose his translation because it suits my purpose. The answer: If you think I am wrong, ask any Arab, to tell you the possible accurate meanings of the word “Aalameen”. Then refer it to the context. In this case Shakir has translated it more accurately than the rest of the two. There is no doubt, that the work of these prominent scholars is highly appreciated in the Muslim World, but as I said before no one can translate the pure Arabic words of the Quraan 100% accurate throughout. If anyone would have done it easily, it would have aroused suspicions that there is human intervention in it. Interpreting God’s word 100% accurately throughout is the most difficult job in the world. The word “Rabb-il-Aalameen” is mentioned in the Quran, 1st chapter, 1st verse, meaning “Lord of the Worlds”. Let us see again what you said:


However, Muhammad also claimed to have been sent to "creatures of both worlds" lilAAalameen. means everything in both worlds. (That includes dogs and pigs.) That is because he was a megalomaniac narcissist and narcissists talk big. He even claimed to have come as guidance for Jinns, which are mythical beings.

Muhammad (SAWW) was sent to the Worlds as a Mercy. Meaning that he bought with him a message, which could convert common people into people to whom Allah’s Mercy was granted to save them from the torment of Hell-Fire. Muhammad (SAWW) came to give them the keys to Allah’s mercy. I know you would not understand the spiritual touch in the verse, as you have no religion. Only people who have a religion can understand spiritual matters.


Narcissists have grandiose ideas about themselves. In a Hadith Muhammad makes his Allah say to him: “Were it not for you, I would not have created the universe.” [3]

Your own interpretation about this inauthentic Hadeeth carries no significance. Even if Allah did say this; Our Holy Prophet did not/cannot make Allah say it. This can be an expression of love of Muhammad (SAWW) from Allah Almighty.

Muhammad ibn Ali has narrated that Muhammad said: "Among all the people of the world God chose the Arabs; from among the Arabs he chose the Kinana; from Kinana he chose the Quraish; from the Quraish he chose Bani Hashim; from Bani Hashim he chose Me. [Tabaqat V. 1 p. 2] This man was full of himself - a true narcissist. So much for the alleged equality in Islam. Arabs are the chosen race. Arabs have known that always and they treat non Arab Muslims with disdain. If you are a non-Arab Muslim, you are accepting to be inferior.

All lies. I won’t be surprised if you are a Jew behind the name of Ali Sina, they are a cunning race from the beginning, since Moses saved them from Pharaoh. No reference of this Hadeeth..Sahih Muslim or Bukhari? There is no 95-100% authenticity of this Hadeeth if it is not from Muslim or Bukhari.


Arabs are the chosen race. Arabs have known that always and they treat non Arab Muslims with disdain. If you are a non-Arab Muslim, you are accepting to be inferior.

Did you forget the Holy Prophet’s (SAWW) Last Sermon during the pilgrimage. “No none- Arab is superior over an Arab. And no Arab is superior over a non-Arab.

Embryology continuation
(Dr. Naik) So as far as the Qur’an is concerned, you cannot limit the meaning only for that time, because it is meant for eternity. So one of the meaning of ‘Alaqa’… is ‘leech like substance’ or ‘something which clings.’ So Professor Keith Moore said… ‘I did not know whether the early stage of the embryo looks like a leech’ And he went into his laboratory and he analyzed the early stage of an embryo under a microscope and compared it with the photograph of a leech, and he was astonished at the striking resemblance. This is a photograph of a leech, and human embryo.


(Ali Sina) Are we supposed to believe that Dr. Keith Moore, who was the chairman and the head of the department of Anatomy, of a major university did not know how human embryo looks?

Professor Keith Moore said… ‘I did not know whether the early stage of the embryo looks like a leech’.
You are ignoring this Sina. He did know how Human embryo looked, but was not certain about it’s appearance being similar to a leech. Deliberate misrepresentation.


The truth is that Dr. Moore and Dr. Bucaille fooled Muslims by telling them what they wanted to hear and in this way they ingratiated the Saudi King who in turn lavished them with a lot of petrodollars. For a detailed story of the deception of these two charlatans see Abul Kasem’s article. “How the Westerners Found $cience in the Quran.)

Abul Kasem can be anyone; he can be jew, fashioning himself a name. He can be a kennel keeper. He can be a cook, in some Fish ‘n’ Chips restaurant. His article is not proven fact. If this article, was published in Times or Newsweek, I would have had no questions about it’s authenticity. It was published in The News From Bangladesh April 18, 2001. The News, That’s a Pakistani Newspaper having coverage abroad. There is no “The News” in Bangladesh. Some amateur tabloid reporter wrote this. There is no official-looking tone in this article anyway.
This coward is living in Sydney, because he’s safe over there while he incites hatred within this religion. I won’t publish my e-mail I am going to send him. Because it’s not relevant here.


The truth about embryology is already explained by Dr. Campbell. He demonstrated the pictures showing that scientifically speaking, there is no resemblance between the human embryo and leech. Furthermore he explained in detail where Muhammad got his erroneous idea about embryo being a congealed clot of blood, like leech and chewed meat. He got it from ancient Greek philosophers. These ideas were popular among the ordinary Arabs at the time of Muhammad. They were wrong and so was Muhammad.

Already answered by Dr. Naik. If suppose Muhammad (SAWW) copies it form these Greek scholars, why did not he copies the unscientific things, unless he was a scientist himself, which he was not. See the video. Sina does not want to mention that part. Campbell is ignorant about the fact there is no hand of our Holy Prophet (SAWW) involved in the creation of the Quranic Verses. Dr. Naik explained in detail about this during the debate. The Quran is giving the Embryological stages according to the appearance of the Embryo no the FUNCTIONALITY. Dr. Naik refuted this, and of course, Sina’s heart was punctured, when he heard this rebuttal.


As for Alaqa, Dr. Campbell also proved that in Arabic, it means clot and not something that clings as Dr. Bucaille has suggested.

Dr. Naik knows Arabic more than Campbell for sure. See the video. Sina’s not going to mention it Dr. Naik’s second


Dr. Campbell also showed that all stages of the growth of the embryo described in the Quran are wrong. He demonstrated this with pictures. No one can prove something different than what the X rays reveal.

Same old recycled interpretation. Just see the video.
(

Dr. Naik) What Dr. William Campbell showed you is the other perspective of it. If I show this book - it looks like a rectangle - If I show you like that, it is a different perspective. That diagram is given in the book - The diagram which you saw on the slide is even there - And I’ll deal with it InshaAllah.


(Ali Sina) Here again the gullible audience became euphoric and clapped without realizing that Dr. Naik is engaging in the fallacy of suppressing the evidence. Dr. Campbell showed the picture of the embryo from the front and from the side. Dr. Naik wants to convince his audience that they should look at it from one angle only – the angle that it most resembles a leech. Of course one who is determined to be fooled would be willing to look at things by standing on his head, if that helps him to see them from the exact angle that would reconfirm his unreasoned faith. That is why Muslims are unable to see the truth. Their tunnel vision does not allow them to see things from all angles. If only they changed their perspective a little, they would see that Islam is nothing but a big lie.

The leech-like appearance is perfect, Sina. The human embryo, even if you look at it from the side, as mostly viewed, it is all the time curved like a leech. The same leech shown in Dr. Naik’s perspective, can be viewed sideways. The embryo will still look like a leech curled in the similar position. There is nothing much to lie about over, Sina.


Dr. Naik wants to convince his audience that they should look at it from one angle only – the angle that it most resembles a leech. Of course one who is determined to be fooled would be willing to look at things by standing on his head, if that helps him to see them from the exact angle that would reconfirm his unreasoned faith. That is why Muslims are unable to see the truth. Their tunnel vision does not allow them to see things from all angles. If only they changed their perspective a little, they would see that Islam is nothing but a big lie.

Is it a big lie? Tell me something I don’t know! I’m not surprised why Dr. Naik refused to debate with you and Sam Shamoun. As for you, your arguments are too weak for him to counterattack. Half of them are your own interpretations. As for Sam Shamoun. He has little to discuss with him. He is not going to come to the States just to discuss 4 points. Working on page 4

[peaceforever]

[crazy canuck]

[quote]Ali sina: on “Do mountains stabilize the Earth?”

I could not paste all of the material because it consisted of diagrams and it’s explanation. You can refer to them by reading his “fabulous article”.

What happens if you spread a fabric on a table and then push it from one edge? It wrinkles. That is more or less how mountains are formed. They are wrinkles caused in the crust of the earth. Mountains do not have roots and they do not look or work like pegs.
Ironically without these devastating earthquakes life on Earth could not have evolved. The movement of continents allows carbon dioxide to be released to the atmosphere. This is essential for the photosynthesis of plants and it also keeps the temperature of the Earth constant which is necessary for life to evolve [1].
I hope by now it has become clear that mountains do not have roots and they can't have roots. Anything going into the magma will be melted. This should suffice as proof that the Quran is wrong. Remember that Dr. Naik repeated several times, "All we need is one error to prove it is not from God". Later I will explain where the idea of mountains being like pegs and holding the earth beneath us from shaking with us has come from.

[DaSerpent]

Just one question.

If the Quran has so much science oozing out of it how come the Muslim world is so ass backward when it comes to science? Is it because they are all illiterate and cannot read the science contained therein?

Even Pakistan and Iran have to build their "Islamic bombs" using the technology of the infidel, godless, pork eating Chinese.

Maybe Dr.Naik can point out the relevant portions in the Quran on nuclear engineering. I am sure it would be greeted as a great "miracle" in the Muslim world.

P.S. Can anyone tell me what the hell does Naik have his doctorate on?

[crazy canuck]