A comprehensive rebuttal to claims about miraculous Islamic contributions to cardiology and medicine in the paper, The Heart and Cardiovascular System in the Quran and Hadeeth, published in the reputed International Journal of Cardiology.
The reputed International Journal of Cardiology, belonging to the renowned Elsevier publishing group, published an article entitled, The Heart and Cardiovascular System in the Quran and Hadeeth, on August 25, 2009 on its online edition and would soon appear in print.
The article discusses contributions of the Quran and hadeeths (i.e. Prophet Muhammad’s deeds and sayings) in medicine, particularly in understanding the heart and cardiovascular system. The crux of the article is: The Quran and the hadeeths made monumental contributions toward modern understanding of medicine in general, and of the cardiovascular system in particular, which the Western world willfully refuse to recognize, as can be gauged from concluding statement of the paper:
As new advances in technology and medicine continue to grow at an exponential rate today, there is time to reflect and appreciate the Islamic contribution to medicine. It is for this reason that the discoveries and medical revelations in Qur'an should not be ignored or forgotten.
In this article, I will address the gaping shortcomings of an otherwise reputed medical science journal for its acceptance of a trash paper, and how that reflects on the journal’s editors’ and reviewers’ intellectual and moral integrity.
Journal’s compromise on its publishing scope
The first ethical/intellectual compromise the journal made in accepting this article is a compromise of the scope of its content. According to published aims and objectives, the journal publishes latest “basic research and clinical papers”, as well as “editorials, brief reports and review articles covering recent developments”. Therefore, publishing a ‘review article’ containing ridiculous (see below) statements of an archaic seventh-century religious text, twisted inside out, to portray them as the precursor of modern medical developments, is a glaring violation of the journal’s stated scope, aims and objectives.
Outrageous interpretations and twisting of facts
This paper has used many interpretations or drawn conclusions based on Quranic verses or hadeeths that completely out of place. I will take on section by section to expose the outrageous inaccuracies in the claims and assertions made in the paper.
Cardiovascular System: First, the paper contains certain often-ridiculous statements from the Quran and hadeeth, having no scientific truth as per modern understanding of medicine, but the authors have twisted them to every extent possible to make a link with modern understanding of medicine and cardiology. The most important Quranic statement in the article is:
“We created man—We know what his soul whispers to him: We are closer to him than his jugular vein” [Quran 50:16].
Then the authors say:
“By noting the importance of the internal jugular vein and its connection with the heart, the authors of the Qur'an were well aware of the vitality of blood and the heart to the maintenance of life. It was also known that blood circulation reached all parts of the body and is an important element to life.”
This statement is completely out of place. This verse makes no mention of the ‘heart’, or the ‘vitality of blood’, or that ‘blood circulation reached all parts of the body’. It is out and out ridiculous that a peer-reviewed cutting-edge scientific journal would accept such totally out-of-place conclusions.
The fact is that humankind has observed for thousands of years before Islam that blood vessels are spread all over the human body, and this verse may mean that Allah has similar integral presence within humans, so that no thoughts or whispers in one’s heart/mind/soul can escape Allah’s notice.
That is exactly what renowned interpreter of the Quran say. Ibn Kahtir (14th century), the most respected interpreter of the Quran, explained it thus:
Allah the Exalted affirms His absolute dominance over mankind, being their Creator and the Knower of everything about them. Allah the Exalted has complete knowledge of all thoughts that cross the mind of man, be they good or evil… (And We are nearer to him than his jugular vein.) means, His angels are nearer to man than his jugular vein.
In sum, this verse simply states that Allah has a more intimate presence in the human body than the blood vessels, scattered in all parts of the body. This is simply a statement of a fact about the spread of blood vessels in the body that humankind has known for thousands of years before. There is nothing astoundingly novel or miraculous in this seventh-century Quranic, and allegedly divine, statement?
Second, this paper outlines the second major Quranic reference concerning cardiovascular system in the following passage:
Another great vessel mentioned in the Qur'an is the Al-Aatín or aorta: “We would certainly have seized his right hand and cut off his Al-Watín” [20]. Al-Watín has been translated into different, yet similar words, including “aorta” [21], “life-artery” [20] and [21], and simply “artery” [21]. This verse is taken to mean that if the Prophet Mohammed was lying about the teachings of God, then God would have grabbed the Prophet Mohammad's arm and cut a vital artery, certainly killing Mohammad. This verse confirms that 1. Blood was indeed viewed as a vehicle for life and 2. The artery directly leading from the heart is vital to survival. By analyzing the different translations and exegesis of Al-Watín, it can be safely assumed that it is the aorta that the author of the Qur'an is referring to in this verse.
It is obvious that authors of this paper are bent on, based on various translations, concluding that Allah pointed to “aorta” by al-watin in this verse. What one must take into consideration is that that division of blood vessels—namely into artery, vein and aorta etc.—was unknown to any people at that time. And the Arabs, being least developed in the world, could never have any clue to such classification of blood vessels.
The question is: How could, then, their language have such a term, al-watin, which Muhammad or Allah used, to refer to ‘aorta’ as claimed by the authors?
This means that al-watin probably meant to the then Arabs as nothing but a vital blood vessel, not a specific vessel like ‘artery’ or ‘aorta’, as deceptive modern translators have rendered it into.
And, if al-watin truly meant such a special part of the circulatory system, it would mean that the Arabs had knowledge of it before the birth of Islam and Muhammad, and had already devised a special term, al-watin, to denote it, which Allah used.
Neither way the author of the Quran made new contribution to cardiology through this verse as the paper has concluded.
Heart: Next, the paper claims that the Quran portrays the ‘heart’ as the central organ in the body, as it says: “The repetitive use of the concept of the heart illustrates its centrality to the core of every individual.”
The ‘heart’ is, indeed, the most important organ. But none of the Quranic references, which this paper has used as allegedly pointing to ‘heart’, means ‘heart’ of the cardiovascular system. Let us see what the paper says:
Firstly, the importance of the heart is demonstrated in the fact that we find different states of the heart in the three groups of people that the Qur'an describes; the mu'minun (Believers) have hearts that are alive, the kafirun (the rejecters of faith) have hearts that are dead, and the munafiqun (the hypocrites) have hearts that are diseased…
In general, religious scholars discuss two types of (spiritual) heart diseases: shubahat which relate to one's level of understanding and trust, and shahawat which are desires of the self and become diseases when they grow out of proportion. Emotions, attitudes, knowledge, diseases, desires, truthfulness, actions and intentions are all rooted in the heart.
First thing, this classification does not refer to ‘heart’ the human organ, but rather the ‘mind’, whose centre is in the ‘brain’. It is a gross error to claim that “Emotions, attitudes, knowledge, diseases, desires, truthfulness, actions and intentions are all rooted in the heart”. Except for “diseases” (predominantly related to immune system and infectious agents, not so much to ‘heart’), all these human attributes are rooted in the “brain”, not “heart”. It is ridiculous that a leading 21st-century cardiology journal would accept such trash.
Secondly, while this classification of the so-called ‘heart’ is utterly ridiculous on one hand, it is extremely hateful on the other. It is utterly hateful, racist, and grossly inaccurate on part of the International Journal of Cardiology (IJC) to disseminate the hateful idea of Islam that hearts of the world’s unbelievers (i.e. non-Muslims), some 80% of the global population, are dead. The stupor of the editors and reviewers of the journal knows no bounds, given that, on the whole, the world’s non-Muslims are healthier than Muslims. One may go to hospitals in India, Malaysia or Singapore, and notice that, proportion-wise, Muslim patients much outnumber the non-Muslim ones.
There are many such verses in the Quran, referring to ‘heart’, that are not only hateful of non-Muslims, but also demand violence against them for having a ‘dead hearts’. For example:
Allah sealed the hearts of the nonbelievers, and put veils on their eyes; there is a great penalty for the nonbelievers. (Quran 2:7).
Muslims should muster all their power and might, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles…etc.) to strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers (Quran 8:6).
One should take note that Muhammad put the unbelievers of Arabia to the sword, unless they would convert, because of this idea of Allah that they had “dead hearts”. Moreover, Abdullah ibn Obayi—a half-hearted Muslim and opponent of Muhammad, and the Quran’s hypocrite par excellence—whose ‘heart’ was “diseased” according to the Quran and the editors and reviewers of IJC, was a great humanist. He, through forceful intervention, saved the lives of the innocent Banu Qainuqa tribesmen, whom Muhammad had attacked, defeated and was about to slaughter en masse [Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p. 363-64]. A year later, the Banu Nadir tribesmen were also spared, and were exiled instead, when Abdullah sided with them (ibid, p.437-39], while the Banu Qurayza tribesmen were slaughtered en masse two years later, defying Abdullah’s condemnation of it, when he had become politically weak [ibid, p. 461-70].
It is shocking and unfortunate that a 21st-century science journal would act as a vehicle for propagating Islam’s unfettered hatred, nay barbarism, toward non-Muslims and good-hearted people, which has left a legacy of lasting horror to humanity.
The paper further states:
“Other malaise qualities contributing to a diseased heart includes blasphemy, rejection of truth, deviation, sin, corruption, aggressiveness, negligence, fear, anger, and jealousy, among others.”
Here again, none of these attributes have a primary relation with the ‘heart’, but the ‘brain’. However, would IJC explain what constitutes blasphemy and sin etc., and how they emanate from ‘diseased hearts’?
History is the proof that it is the deviators (from norms), and the so-called sinners and blasphemers, who, despite suffering persecution by the religious, have been the wheel for change and progress. IJC should not condemn them, but appreciate.
The deceptive authors pass on above references to ‘heart’ in the Quran as “spiritual heart”, although organically they related to the ‘brain’. Then the authors find mention of ‘heart’ as consisting of ‘muscles’ in the following hadeeth:
“Beware! There is a piece of flesh in the body if it remains healthy the whole body becomes healthy, and if it is diseased, the whole body becomes diseased. Beware, it is the heart” [Bukhari, Book 2, Number 49].
Before I expose deception or stupidity of the authors in interpreting this hadeeth, let me first ask: Do the authors of this paper mean to say that when other organs, say the brain, liver, lungs, or blood are diseased, the whole body does not become diseased? IJC editors and reviewers should have known that disfunctionality of any organ would affect the whole body.
Now let us see the deception of the authors by taking a look at the complete text of the hadeeth (Sahih Bukhari, volume 1, Book 2, Number 49):
Narrated An-Nu'man bin Bashir: “I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'Both legal and illegal things are evident but in between them there are doubtful (suspicious) things and most of the people have no knowledge about them. So whoever saves himself from these suspicious things saves his religion and his honor. And whoever indulges in these suspicious things is like a shepherd who grazes (his animals) near the Hima (private pasture) of someone else and at any moment he is liable to get in it. (O people!) Beware! Every king has a Hima and the Hima of Allah on the earth is His illegal (forbidden) things. Beware! There is a piece of flesh in the body if it becomes good (reformed) the whole body becomes good but if it gets spoilt the whole body gets spoilt and that is the heart.”
Would anybody tell me which organ this hadeeth is referring to by the phrase “a piece of flesh in the body”? The ‘heart’ here again stands for minds/soul/spiritual heart, whose center is the ‘brain’; it, in no way, refers to ‘heart’ the organ. I’m left to wonder how the editors and reviewers would miss this most obvious inaccuracy.
The authors further claims:
Furthermore, there is a prophetic tradition that discusses heart surgery, extraction of a blood clot, and treatment of the heart as follows:
…the Angel Gabriel came to Mohammad as a child while he was playing with playmates, “…lay him prostrate on the ground and tore open his breast and took out the heart from it and then extracted a blood-clot out of it and said, ‘That was the part of Satan in thee.’ And then he washed it with the water of Zam Zam in a golden basin and then it was joined together and restored to its place.” [Muslim 1:311].
Then they add: “Thus, although rudimentary and perhaps even metaphorical, the surgery described required knowledge of the anatomical and physiological importance of the heart to the healthy functioning of the body and the detrimental effects of a thrombus.”
One is left to wonder how heart-surgery is performed by extracting the heart from one’s body, and place it back to its place. If this is possible, it would be “super-advance”, but the authors call it “rudimentary”.
Moreover, the authors must have the weirdest of mind to connect this ridiculous hadeeth to ‘heart surgery’. First thing, how can a four-year-old child (as Muhammad was at the time) have a life-threatening blood-clot in his heart?
Muhammad’s first biographer Ibn Ishaq relates the story as thus: “…two men in white raiment came to Muhammad and threw him down and opened up his belly and searched [something] therein.” [Ishaq, 71-72]. (I’m sure the authors are unaware of this mention; else they would have claimed “white raiment” was actually “apron”, normally worn by doctors.]
Let us now see how Allah relates the so-called miraculous event, on which He revealed a complete chapter in the Quran (Chapter 94):
“Have We not expanded for you your breast, And taken off from you your burden, Which pressed heavily upon your back, And exalted for you your esteem? Surely with difficulty is ease. With difficulty is surely ease. So when you are free, nominate. And make your Lord your exclusive object.”
One must wonder: Does a so-called life-threatening “blood-clot” (although Allah calls it “burden”) in a little child’s heart press heavily upon his back? If at all, it would press upon his chest/breast, not on his back.
Traditionally, Islamic scholars have interpreted the event as consecration of Muhammad, i.e. removal of his sins, so as to make him sin-free, and therefore, suitable for the mission of prophethood. If one looks closely at how Allah relates the event, it means exactly that, not an ‘open-heart surgery’ this paper twists it to mean. Yet, one would be baffled as to how four-year-old Muhammad could commit sin? Was he the greatest sinner in history?
One, with a few stands of neurons left in his/her brain, would have rejected such gross twisting of facts, but not the reviewers and editors of IJC.
Cardiovascular disease: The paper continues:
Although not outwardly mentioned in the Qur'an and Hadeeth, the lifestyle that the authors of the Qur'an encourage drastically decreases the chances of individuals developing such cardiovascular diseases such as heart diseases, blood clots, atherosclerosis and arteriosclerosis via the following ways: engaging in spiritual activities, moderate eating, physical labor, reducing anger and jealousy, eliminating greediness, and abstention of forbidden foods and drinks.
While growing up as a Muslim, we are advised such things, and having seen and mixed with people of different culture, I have known that almost every culture recommends moderate eating, physical activity, not sleeping or sitting down immediately after eating etc. Even then, the authors claim that Islam’s prohibition of certain foods and drinks is healthier is grossly untrue. Muslims are not the healthiest people in the world; instead, the opposite is frequently true. People eating swine-meat, say in India, Malaysia or Singapore, are as healthy as Muslims, if not healthier. Similarly, alcohol-consuming non-Muslims are equally as healthy as, if not healthier than, Muslims anywhere. Of course, excessive eating of mutton and beef is as much a health-hazard as eating excessive pork. Eating beef, Muslims’ favourite meat, may cause “mad cow” disease? Why didn’t Allah prohibit it?
Moreover, pig meat was prohibited amongst Jews for almost two millennia, and Muhammad copied their tradition. Any credit for it should go the Jews and Judaism, not Islam.
Similarly, excessive consumption of alcohol could be health-hazard; drinking excessive water can also kill. Nonetheless, recent studies have shown that moderate daily drinking of wine is beneficial for the heart, not harmful, as authors of this paper erroneously suggest.
It’s baffling that such grossly-mistaken statements in this paper could escape attention of the editors and reviewers.
The authors also try to portray the five-time daily prayers in Islam as a form of physical exercise to keep one’s cardiovascular system healthy. In support, it adds from the Quran (13:28): “Truly it is in the remembrance of God that the hearts find peace.”
This verse is again not referring ‘heart’ of the cardiovascular system, but the ‘mind’, whose center is in the ‘brain’. Still, Muslims, despite the daily exercise, are not a healthier people in the world; the opposite is the reality.
Moreover, the daily five-time prayer ritual in Islam—including its reverential postures: standing with palms together, bowing down, kneeling, and sitting on the heels—were practised by Christian monks of the region during Muhammad’s time; Muhammad simply copied them [Walker Benjamin, Foundations of Islam, p. 62]. Therefore, credit for any supposed physical and cardiovascular benefit of Islamic prayer rituals, despite opposite being the fact, must go to its original Christian inventors, not to Muhammad, Allah or Islam.
The paper also mentions: “It is said that Mohammad advised people not to go to sleep immediately after meals, for that would lead to a hardening of the heart”.
Would the authors explain what they meant by ‘hardening of the heart’ here? Lack of enough exercise and sleeping immediately after meals, would likely make one’s heart fattier, and more sagging, not harder. On the contrary, one, who does sufficient exercise and avoid going to bed immediately after meals, would have less fat in the heart, and more muscles, therefore, a more toned heart. Doesn’t Muhammad’s above statement contradict well-established medical facts?
The authors then claim:
“Furthermore, Mohammad encouraged the consumption of foods such as white meat of fish that are low in fat and help decrease serum cholesterol levels. He also encouraged the consumption of whole-grain brain (sic) for higher fiber intake.”
The authors provide no reference for these claims (because there is probably none), and the reviewers of the paper seem to have no necessity of it either. Whether Muhammad made any recommendation for eating fish is doubtful (I haven’t come across any), yet he left plentiful reference of lamb and camel meats in Islamic literature, which are not quite a healthy food-choice.
Contributions to medicine: While IJC is supposed to publish contents related to cardiology, it had no problem with including content that fall outside its scope, such as embryology. However, let us see the paper says about embryology:
The Qur'an and the Hadeeth provide detailed, accurate descriptions of the major events that occur during embryological development. The terminology used by the author of the Qur'an is “…characterized by descriptiveness, accuracy, ease of comprehension, and integration between description of appearance and main internal processes” and the “timing of sexual development, fetal development and the acquisition of a human appearance” are also discussed.
Many critical authors have trashed the “voodoo” Islamic embryology as described in the Quran, which the editors and reviewers, it appears, have wilfully ignored. The paper makes the case for Quranic embryology as thus:
Although many verses in the Qur'an and prophetic traditions discuss the development of the embryo, only two will be described below. It is remarkable to note that the descriptions presented in these 7th century texts closely resemble the various stages of the embryo.
“We [God] created man from a quintessence of clay. We then placed him as a nutfah (drop) in a place of settlement, firmly fixed, then We made the drop into an ‘alaqah (leech-like structure), and then We changed the ’alaqah into a mudhah (chewed-like substance, somite stage), then We clothed the bones with lahm (muscles, flesh), then We caused him to grow and come into being and attain the definitive (human) form. So, blessed be God, the best to create”.
“When forty-two nights have passed over the conceptus, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it (into human form), makes its hearing, sight, skin, muscles and bones…”
Above Quranic mention of stages of development of the embryo is grossly unscientific in modern understanding. However, humankind, through experiences such as miscarriages over thousands of years before Muhammad (Muhammad should have known more about it given he maintained a harem of over a dozen wives and a number of sex-slaves), had made a rough understanding of how a human child gradually develops in mother’s womb. Above description reflect absolutely nothing more than that age-old knowledge. Above reference also suggests that bones are created first, then muscle and flesh to cloth it, which is thoroughly inaccurate, contrary to facts.
Interestingly, the deceptive or half-educated authors of the paper have left the Quranic embryology incomplete. Let me complete it. The Quran says, humans are created from “the earth” (11:61), from “sounding clay” (15:26,28,33), from “clay” (17:61, 32:7), from “wet earth”/“quintessence (of clay)” (23:12), “out of mire” (38:71), from “dust” (3:59, 30:20, 35:51), from “water” (25:54, 21:30, 24:45), and, finally, from “nothing” (19:67, 52:35).
This is the miraculous accuracy, as authors of the paper claim, with which the Quran describes embryology. While the Quran’s own description of embryology is utterly contradictory, it would be stupidity at its grossest to suggest, today, that humans are created in mother’s womb from “clay”, “mud”, “dust”, “water” or “nothing”.
Other mentions suggest human beings are created from a “drop of fluid” or “seed”, meaning ‘semen’. But humanity had known for tens of thousands of years before Muhammad that intercourse between man and woman, and the release of male semen, were essential for procreations. Nothing was novel or miraculous in these references.
Strikingly, what people still did not know is that procreation, more vitally, also need the egg from the mother, and the Quran or hadeeth make no mention of female contribution in procreation (except probably her role was a career of the product of male “seed”/“semen”). Allah, the Islamic God, it seems, knew no better than humans of the time.
Conclusion: In concluding section of the paper, the authors write:
Shortly after the death of Mohammad, not only did his followers vastly expand the Islamic empire, but they also became scientific and medical innovators and educators. The Islamic empire, for more than 1000 years, remained the most advanced and civilized empire in the world, and the inspiration of all the scientific and medical discoveries and practices stemmed from the teachings of the Qur'an and the Hadeeth, teachings that strongly encouraged and supported the drive to seek knowledge and to make scientific achievements and discoveries.
For instance, a few centuries after the death of Mohammad, the medical education that developed closely resembled what we have today. The curriculum consisted of training in the basic sciences, which included anatomy being taught by dissecting apes, skeletal studies, and didactics, and clinical training, where therapeutics, pathology, surgery, and orthopedics were taught.
First, it is a gross exaggeration on part of the authors to claim that “a few centuries after the death of Mohammad, the medical education that developed closely resembled what we have today”.
Second, it is true that Islamic world led the world in science, technology and medicine for a number of centuries, but it never “stemmed from the teachings of the Qur'an and the Hadeeth, teachings that strongly encouraged and supported the drive to seek knowledge and to make scientific achievements and discoveries”, as claimed by the authors.
In fact, the Quran is, and the Prophet was, patently opposed to critical and rational thinking and creative pursuits, which are the precursor of new knowledge and innovation (Khan, M. A., Islamic Jihad, p. 177-82). Prophet Muhammad was illiterate and the Islamic God glorified this quality of Muhammad (as do modern Muslims) (7:157) instead of encouraging him to learn how to read and write, which would have helped his pursuit for wisdom and knowledge.
Elsewhere, the Quran explicitly prohibit critical inquiry as thus: “O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things, which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble… Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith” (5:101–02).
Prophet Muhammad also advised his followers against asking creative questions and to follow pliantly whatever Allah revealed: ‘Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Satan comes to one of you and says, ‘Who created so-and-so? ‘till he says, ‘Who has created your Lord?’ So, when he inspires such a question, one should seek refuge with Allah and give up such thoughts’ [Buhkari 4:496; Muslim 1:242–43].
Indeed, the Quran in multiple verses (3:164, 6:38, 12:111) claims to be the depository of divinely-revealed knowledge that is all needed by humankind to live a fulfilling life. Therefore, ‘Muslims came very early to believe that, with the advent of Islam, all previous system of thoughts were abrogated. The Quran was considered to be the only true guide to humanity that promised success in this world and the next.” (Umaruddin M, Ethical Thoughts of Iman Ghazzali, p. 42]. Similarly, said Dr Ali Issa Othman that the Quran is ‘an end of knowledge’ for Muslims (quoted by Waddy C, The Islamic Mind, p. 15).
Consistent with this Islamic prohibition to creative pursuits, and with adequacy of the Quran for a fulfilling life on earth, Muhammad himself did not undertake any initiative to promote science or creative learning during his rule in Medina, neither did the Rightly Guided Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, 632-661). This is the period considered the true “Golden Age” of Islam by pious Muslims.
Instead, creative pursuits were invigorated after the Persianized Abbasids took power in 750, some 120 years after Muhammad death. The captured power after decimating the Arab Umayyads (r. 661-750), and exterminating the pro-Arab factions and pretenders to the caliphate, including the prophet’s descendants through his daughter.
The question is: why the Islamic world quickly rose to leading position in science and creative pursuits?
Firstly, it is because barbarous Jihadi Islamic warriors had conquered half the known world, including the world’s crown civilizations, namely Persia, Egypt, the Levant, and India. With Europe in backwater, thanks to Barbarian depredations and increasing puritanical hold of Christianity, it is none but the Islamic world, that devoured the world’s greatest treasures of intellectual acquisitions, could be the world’s leading civilization. It must be noted that the intellectual treasures and centers of classical Greece had been shifted, after Alexander’s conquest, to the East, mainly to Egypt and the Levant.
Secondly, the adoption of the Persian culture and civilization by the Abbasids, which the generally Arab-centric orthodox always condemned, was crucial in the Islamic world’s rise in science, knowledge and innovations. When Muhammad was founding Islam and consolidating power in Arabia, neighboring Persia had become one of the world’s leading center of intellectual pursuits. While we see no creative initiative being undertaken during the entire period of the “Islamic Golden Age” under the stewardship of Muhammad and the four Rightly Guided caliphs (instead, Islamic conquerors destroyed many libraries in Egypt, Persia, Syria, India), the Persian kings were sending envoys to far parts of the world to collect books and manuscripts for their rendering into Persian. For example, decades before Islam’s birth, Persian King Khosro I (531-79 CE) had turned the city of Jundhishpur, a great center of Nestorian learning, into the most important intellectual center in the world. There assembled scholars and sages from Greece (kicked out from Athens when Justinian closed the philosophical schools in 529 CE), Persian and Indian. Khosro I sent his personal physician to India in search of medical books, which were then translated into Persian, and many other Greek scientific works were also translated.
Had the Arabs, who invented Islam, not been dislodged from power by the pro-Persian Abbasids, the Islamic world would never have seen any excellence in science, innovations and knowledge, as it didn’t when the Arabs dominated for over a century.
Why this paper in IJC?
An individual of even mediocre understanding of modern science would be left baffled as to how the editors and reviewers of this cutting-edge journal could accept such absolute rubbish!
One astonishing feature of this paper is that it was submitted on May 7, 2009 and accepted within five days on May 12. I have known friends in the biomedical science field, some of whom have published even in Lancet, Science and Nature. According to them, acceptance of a paper in reputed biomedical science journals takes at least three months.
What then could be behind quick acceptance of this paper, as nonsensical as it is, in IJC?
Recently Elsevier has been reeling from the global recession, and is trying to sell off selected titles from its Reed Business US arm. Also Elsevier’s CEO Ian Smith is leaving after just eight months in the position.
Amidst this financial turmoil of Elsevier, publishing this trash paper is risky, as it would harm the journal’s reputation and subscription.
The Arab world is awash with petro-dollar amidst sky-rocketing fuel prices over the past decade. Could petro dollars have over-compensated the journal?
In sum, this paper is utterly rubbish, unfit for publication in any science journal, let alone in a reputed high-impact journal like IJC. This paper tarnishes the journals reputation, and exposes the intellectual incapacity or dishonesty of the authors, as well as of the editors and reviewers of journal.
Moreover, by publishing this paper, IJC has also acted as a vehicle for propagating the unrestrained hatred and barbarism of Islam, which is nothing but a politico-religious ideology of violence and terror.
In a trying time that we live in, this constitutes gross disservice not only to reason and critical inquiry, but also to the welfare of humanity.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Rationalist , February 11, 2010
I never imagined Elsevier would stoop down to such a level. Are we heading towards dark ages again?
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 11, 2010
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 11, 2010
2.Mohammed claimed that he was a prophet in the order of the Jewish prophet since he descended from Ishmael the first son of Abraham through a housemaid but it is a historical fact that Yahweh the God of the Jews never made covenant with Ishmael but Isaac and his descendants and no prophet ever came outside Israel.
3.Mohammed claimed that Abraham and all the prophets including Jesus were all Muslim who performed all the Islamic rituals of ass ups and down fashion, but we all know these to be false for no where in the Bible where there is any clue as to where Islam got it rituals obligations. Both the Jews Christians are commanded to keep God’s Commandments and not to do rituals ass ups and bowing down to a Blackstone which is against the commandment of God.
4.Mohammed also claimed that he was the promised prophet of the Jews but he was ignorant of the fact that the same prophet was also the Messiah which he agreed that Jesus was, thereby making his claim of no effect besides he did not belong to the brethren of the Jews. The proof of this can seen in the perpetual enmity and hatred for the Jews which he instituted in his religion before he died brothers are not supposed to be enemies but friends.
5.To further justify his prophet-hood Mohammed claimed that the great Jewish patriarch was not Jew or Christian but the Bible called Abraham the Hebrew Gen 14:13 the tribe of which Jews are known for in all ages not Abraham the Arab.
6.His claimed that his Quran was a book written in the memorial tablet in heaven and detected to him by Angel Gabriel cannot be proven as it lack context, chronology, intelligent transition, full of grammatical errors, contradicts science , history and common sense, without parables, proverbs and words of wisdom as exhibited in the earlier scriptures the Bible. Besides the Quran was never a book during Mohammed’s time but passed to generations as oral recitals and oral traditions for years before being put together as a book. This cast doubt for the authenticity of the Quran as the word of God. Since is easy to corrupt oral traditions than a written document as the Bible which was a written document fresh from the mouth of the Inspirer.
7. Finally, Mohammed could not perform miracle signs and wonders claiming that his miracle is the Quran recitals but this has been proven to be a fake document comprising of un-canonised fables of the Jews and Christians, and plagiarised stories of the Bible and situations revelations that were meant to solve his immediate problems with his wives, his subjects and how to take possession of people wealth, wives, weapons and power including his imaginary depiction of hell and heaven as carrot for recruiting his mercenaries for subjugation and tyrannical rule.
written by Machmoed , February 11, 2010
written by Healer_999 , February 11, 2010
Good one by you. Probably finding it to defend its faith by spirituality, now Muslim apologists are talking about science. Really a good one. Nice humor.
It is me who advised you to be a pastor.
written by medicine and infidelism=paganism , February 11, 2010
in nature based infidel religion like hindu etc,worship of some
tree and plants like enem,tulsi,basil,bilvapatra,amla,is considered
auspicious and healthful.
similarly doing some religious practice like surya namasar in front
of morning sun,etc is scientifically proven good,as it
improves physical strength,and also generates vitmanin-d.
finally the science of being vegetarian and eating in moderation
etc is also spiritual and also scientific.
written by para , February 11, 2010
Interestingly it is also well known that even with the Koran - muslims just cram it up without understanding what these lines mean.If the book is from GOD(as they claim) atleast the idiots should spend some time to understand what is GOD saying - rather than reading it like a parrot.Amusingly they have not been able to correctly interpret the KORAN till now after 1400yrs and often accuse each other of mis-interpreting the verses.Most cram it without knowing wat is in it and the rest are acussing each other of mis-interpretation.However magically all agree when "SCIENTIFIC MIRACLES" are talked about in KORAN - Talk about intellectual honesty ??? Muslims havent you embarrassed yourself enough with this "Koranic - Scientific miracle" jokery ? Or maybe there is no limit to this clownish behaviour ....
written by Ibn Kammuna , February 11, 2010
Great work brother.
Have you sent a copy to the Journal? I think that is important.
I have a couple of articles published in top tier journals. The reviewing/editing part took about a year to a year plus.(Five days is really a joke)
thank you for this great response/
written by MA Khan , February 11, 2010
written by Manfred , February 11, 2010
Refutation of 'The heart and cardiovascular system in the Qur'an and Hadeeth'
Submitted by Syed Kamran Mirza on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 03:13
Dear Sir,
I hold a Ph.D. in biological science, and worked many years in the U.S. as researcher on animals, and am quite familiar with the anatomy, physiology and pathology of humans and most research animals.
Recently I came across an amazingly controversial paper, ‘The heart and cardiovascular system in the Qur'an and Hadeeth' (Marios Loukas, Yousuf Saad, R. Shane Tubbs and Mohamadali M. Shojawhich), published in your reputed journal, International Journal of Cardiology. It is surprisingly that this fraudulently-crafted article was accepted for publication by the Editorial Board of your reputed, and claimed to be peer reviewed, journal.
Full story:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/refutation-heart-and-cardiovascular-system-quran-and-hadeeth
written by duh_swami , February 11, 2010
Mohammad spit on the wounds of his warriors...He thought that Budaam well water was just fine...He advocated drinking camel urine...One hadith has Mohammad visiting a woman who checked his head for headlice...He never once
advocated 'safe sex', because he knew nothing of germs and microbes...
If he had a doctorate in anything, he got it from a mail order catalog...
Looking to Islam for any kind of 'real science' is a joke...I'm sorry that the editors of the International Journal of Cardiology, didn't get the humor...
written by Machmoed , February 11, 2010
Your killing!!
The editors had a visit the night before from Gibriel who told thim 'READ! READ! READ GODD!&*-ed! +The article was already printed on the hearts. The next morning Gibriel came again and ordered them to PUBLISH, PUBLISH the GDDM article! the poor editors must have thought they were crazy.
written by Mumin Salih , February 11, 2010
Let us see how the journal responds.
But the fact that a scientific journal accepts such a crap article is very depressing; I never thought the westerners can bend so low!
Thanks MA Khan for being a beacon of enlightenment in an age when even a ‘scientific journal’ engaged in propagating myths and darkness.
written by Rationalist , February 11, 2010
Why I am stressing on all this is because many students may believe in what is written in JOC knowing very well that Elsevier has a high impact factor. Therefore it is important to counter this by giving a wide publicity to this rebuttal.
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 12, 2010
As for my friend Machmoed you know one thing I love him for is that we are united in the Islam project. Even though he does not belief in the truth of the Christ’s universal and everlasting gospel he does not believe in the bogus claim of Mohammed as a prophet of God either, in that we are united I love him because he is in the ream of reasoning and humanity and not a potential terrorist, you know all Muslims good or bad are potential terrorists.
For the miracle issue I will not bet my life for Mohammed even if he surpassed all the Jewish Prophets in working of miracles. Miracles may be a test of divine approval but not to be taken in Isolation of other evidences for example the Bible says prophetic office should be accepted on the ground of perfect predictions and high moral standard of obedient to God’s commandments of which Mohammed failed foe fully.
In Jesus time there were people like Machmoed who did not believe in the miracles he performed in their every eyes who said he did those miracles by the power of the prince of demons. So Jesus has to appeal to prophesies concerning himself in the Old Testament, his holy life, his wisdom and the prophetic teachings to rest his case. No true Christian that will denied the reality of miracle because Christianity started with Miracle signs and wonders grew by miracle and currently being sustained by miracle. The first miracle a Christian will experience is the miracle of conversion being born again, the transforming grace of God followed by Holy Ghost Baptism.
Presently Many Christian pastors, Apostles, prophets and Bishops preaching with Power of God with signs and wonders following including my humble self. Those are the things that distinguish true Christianity and other religious belief system. The fact that you don’t believe in miracles does not mean that it is not real; it’s only that you have not encounter one. When Thomas doubted the miraculous resurrection of Christ and he was confronted with the reality what did he do? He surrendered. One of these days you will encounter one, and you will surrender. Cheers
written by Machmoed , February 12, 2010
Thanks to you my friend. I believe God is personal and no one should get in between. I believe whenever someone trully asks him for guidance, it will happen. I always try to get my heart and conscius/brains in allignment. When thia is in allignment, you can feel it and then you know it is good. But when it is not like a great deal of dogma's in islam, then you should know this is not God, because i really believe God is also housed in humans and that's why Jesus said me and the father are the same and the father is greater than i am. According to me he ment that the source is much more but it is actually the same when you know the source. I believe if Jesus existed he was no believer but a knower. He knew things, not just believing. Don't ever think i'm against you or whatever. We all are equal to the source...remember that...even muslims. The source opened our eyes and we should help eachother, weather they are muslims or whatever.
written by The Great Buana , February 12, 2010
written by Andrew, X , February 13, 2010
Hadis was 'invented' three hundred years after advent of Islam and after demise of the messenger. All the record it presents is fake. Not reliable.
If your effort is not serious and if you are doing all this for fun, keep on doing it. However we should care for the seriousness of this site. We should keep in mind the objectives of IW
written by Reed Wilson. , February 13, 2010
written by MA Khan , February 13, 2010
This article is on based mainly on hadith, but much more on the Quran. You seem to have not read it before making your comment.
And it is not me using hadith to build my article, but the authors of the paper used them to make their case. I have only refuted them in light of the same materials, whether from the Quran or Hadith.
The Quran is also absurd like the hadith. And Muslims would not drink camel urine today, because modern health and heigene, and science etc., mostly developed by the infidels, have discredited such 7th-century remedy.
Moreover, you seem to have little knowledge of sciences and methodology used in the compilation of the Quran and the hadith. There is general lack in rigorous methodology is Islamic scholarship. And the compilation of the hadith is the only work in Islam that may pass the intellectual rigor in its methodology even in the today's standard. The compilation of the Quran was based on one man's whim, not of the hadith. If you care about scientific methodology, you will find that the hadith is more reliable than the Quran.
Please read this article to have an idea: The Quran and Hadith: Which is More Authentic?: http://www.islam-watch.org/ind...&Itemid=58
written by duh_swami , February 13, 2010
Since Al-Azhar places the hadith of Bukhari as second of importance right after the Quran, you will have great difficulty advancing logic over myth...There are lots of Muslims who would like to get out from under the yoke of hadis, but as long as they are used, and accepted as 'high authority' by Muslim scholars and lawmakers (sharia), hadis will continue...Islam is not known for its 'logic', nor does it accept it coming from a kufr...and Mr Khan above is right...'you will find that the hadith is more reliable than the Quran'. Which is exactly what causes Muslims a headache...If you read Ahadith, you know toooo much...Allah does not want average Muslims to know toooo much, he does not want kufr to know anything.
When a Muslim knows toooo much about Islam, he apostates...Which is why all Muslims should read ahadith, and destroy their own myths...
written by Reed Wilson. , February 14, 2010
Machmoud: Miracles or signs were not performed by the messengers themselves. Bible says in Acts 2:22. "Men of Israel hear these words Jesus Nazareth, a man attested by God, to you by miracles wonders and Clement: No, they would not bother for science or for Quran. They will praise Mohammad round the clock instead of praising the Lord. Others are doing everything for them. They are cramming Quran not understanding. Therefore Q is not to be blamed for their deeds. Your seven point lengthy signs which God did through him in your midst, as you also know". Quran has clarified this. No sign was given to Mohammad.
K. Mirza should get another PhD in metaphysics.
Duh-swami has no other ammunition except Hadis. Enjoy them!
MAKhan. You did your job. God will reward you. Gt.Buena, you say Islam is stupidity and Mao says all the religions were intoxicants.
Andrew,X. How MAKhan can survive without Hadith? In Hadis he is breathing. He has passed judgment that Hadis was more authentic. Follow Tantawi and MAKhan.
/
written by Healer_999 , February 14, 2010
You have no basic knowledge of Islam, I can say that very much. For a Muslim to follow his faith in detail, Koran is not sufficient, as it does not have written context along with Verses, so Verses just become some scribble with out Hadith and Sira.
Also remember Muslims also take guidance from life of Mohammad. They say he is the most important person in history. In essence the way he lived itself becomes some kind of unwritten Koranic code.
Take this.
Right after death of Mohammad first two or three Caliphs ruled the way Mohammad did, the reason they could because they were companions of Mohammad himself. So they have that knowledge which guided them. For example all of them practiced stoning for adultery, because Mohammad did it. Remember stoning was not in Koran.
But as the generations pass this kind of acquired knowledge gets lost, that is precisely they needed Hadiths and Sira. In early generations its likely that they didn't need it because of time factor.
You will not make anything out of Koran, with out Hadiths and Sira.
You should definitely read Mr MA Khan's suggestion of article. It's not like they collected them arbitrarily, they traced their ancestry of commentators. They are not like folk lore, but it is close to.
written by duh_swami , February 14, 2010
Actually I do enjoy reading hadith, they are way more entertaining than the boring Quran...
I have a good deal more ammo than that...You can test it anytime you feel brave enough...but I don't think you want to go there...Your ideas about hadis do not over rule the ideas of Al-Azhar...You are NOT the heirophant of superior knowledge and wisdom about Islam...I don't disagree with everything you say, but your display of ego ridden superiority is basically disgusting...
Reed...How MAKhan can survive without Hadith? In Hadis he is breathing. He has passed judgment that Hadis was more authentic. Follow Tantawi and MAKhan.
That is a childish remark...But typical of someone desperate to be right...
written by Reed Wilson , February 14, 2010
/
.
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 14, 2010
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 14, 2010
1.After he had derided the pagans including his tribe the Quraysh calling them names saying their forefathers are roasting in hell fire because they are polytheists after wards when he captured them by sward later approved all the pagan rituals of his fore fathers into his new religion.
2.After initially praised the Jews and Christians God and Islamised all the Jews prophets in areas and after he plagiarised their scriptures to gain legitimacy of his cult as a religion saying it was Abraham the great Jews patriarch who built the kaaba later turned against them calling them Infidels and that Allah is greater than Yahweh which became the terror verse (Alla hu akabar) He instituted an never ending enmity with the Jews and Christian that they must be wiped out to the last. That time will come that stones will shout out that there is a Jew hiding here come and kill him. What an irony.
Can somebody tell me the reasons behind such despicable acts?
written by duh_swami , February 15, 2010
If that's the case, explain this:
Reed says...Duh-swami has no other ammunition except Hadis.
If you don't care to accept challenges, then don't make them...
Your disparaging of Sultan, Spencer, Kasem, Mr Khan, and other Islamic 'Scholars'...is not friendly...and constitute an unfriendly challenge...as is your remark that my only 'ammo' is hadis...I'm glad to see you are backing down on some of your errors...That way I can spend less time explaining them to you...
Reed...My ideas can not overrule Al Azhar. So what? I am not answerable to them. I will not be taken before Azhar after my death. The trial would be individual according to all faiths.
This is a clear statement, that you have little understanding, but stick around, you may acquire some...Don't forget that the Bible says...'In all your getting, get understanding'...
written by duh_swami , February 15, 2010
Psychosis...
written by Reed Wilson , February 15, 2010
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 16, 2010
Theory 1.
He had no vision for any monotheistic religion but to take over the custodianship of kaaba because it was a money spinning ventures under the control of his uncle who refused him a share in the business simply because his father died before he was even born. If his uncle has treated him well he would not have slaughtered them and the take the kaaba by force.
Theory 2.
He actually was inspired by the monotheism of the Jews and Christians and wanted to introduce the Jews and Christian God to his people by compelling the Jewish and Christian to recognised him as a prophet too but they rejected him. Had they accepted him perhaps Allah would not have emerged as a universal God but the Lord of the Jews and Christian as he initially knew him since the Jews never called the Personal name of their God(Yahweh) so he did not know His name.
Theory 2.
He was motivated by the myth of being born with a seal of a prophet at his back a dream which he exploited to his advantage until he conquered his People to become their prophet, priest and Prince leaving their cultures and pagan rituals untouched.
Which of these theories do you think best explain the behaviour of Mohammed and his new religion of submission (Islam)?
written by duh_swami , February 16, 2010
Please cite the posts where I 'profusely' quoted ahadith...
My opinion is that ahadith is a necessary evil needed to understand Islam, Mohammad and various Islamic events...Without hadith, Mohammad is a phantom...Of course there is the idea that Mohammad never really existed, and the entire body of Islamic literature is fabricated...That has yet to be proven...For Salafists who emulate Mohammad in 'every' respect, hadith is a requirement...Without ahadith, Muslims would have no knowledge of Ad-Dajjal, who is not mentioned in the Quran, but has numerous references in ahadith...
If not for ahadith, we would not know that Mohammad married Aisha when she was six, nor would we know much about the founder of Islam at all.
If exposing the lies of Islam is a goal, the hadith is indispensable, which is why some Muslims would like to toss it...Quran 3:032 says to obey Mohammad...Yusuf Ali... Say: "Obey God and His Apostle": But if they turn back, God loveth not those who reject Faith.
Without ahadith a Muslim would have to say...'Mohammad? Who's he?
written by duh_swami , February 16, 2010
Your number 1. Idea is shared by Craig Winn, in 'The Prophet Of Doom'...Prophet/profit motivation...
'He actually was inspired by the monotheism...'
This may be the case, he was befriended in the cave on Mt Hira, and later by ...Zayd b. ‘Amr who composed the following poem:
Am I to worship one lord or a thousand?
If there are as many as you claim,
I renounce al-Lãt and al-‘Uzzã both of them
As any strong-minded person would.
I will not worship al-‘Uzzã and her two daughters,
Nor will I visit the two idols of Banû ‘Amr.
I will not worship Hubal though he was our lord
In the days when I had little sense…
You will see the pious living in gardens,
While for the infidels hell fire is burning.
Shamed in life, when they die
Their breasts will contract in anguish…
Beware of putting another beside God
For the upright way has become clear.
Can you see Mohammad in this poem? According to Kasem, some of Zayds words found their way into the Quran...
#3...Mohammad was definitely a megalomaniac...he loved himself (selfishly), more than anything, Allah included...He reminds me of Diocletian, the despotic Roman Emperor...
On 24 February AD 303 another edict was issued. This time Diocletian ordered the destruction of all churches and scriptures within the empire. More edicts followed that year, ordering all Christian clergy to be thrown in prison, to be released only after having made sacrifice to the Roman gods.
In April AD 304 Diocletian issued his final religious edict. All Christians were ordered to Roman gods. Anyone who would refuse would be executed....cont...
written by Reed Wilson , February 16, 2010
written by duh_swami , February 16, 2010
There's more of course, there's always more, but the above will do for a start...
written by duh_swami , February 16, 2010
No one can 'practice' hadith...Hadith is not a religion, a craft or even a hobby...it is a record of Mohammads words and deeds and items related to him...
In terms of stoning, Umar said that the punishment of rajam was an 'obligation' that 'Allah had revealed'...This hadith confirms Umar's statements about it...
"'Umar said, 'I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.' Sufyan added, 'I have memorized this narration in this way.' 'Umar added, 'Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.'" -- Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816
Umar said this before there were any ahadith, so he was not 'practicing' hadith...
Umar is reporting that this punishment was from Allah, and Mohammad was following Allah's rules...and so did he...None of them were 'practicing'...
And neither are the modern Islamic stoners...They don't practice hadith either, but they do believe in the ideas stated there by Mohammad, Umar and others...
You can't 'practice' hadith any more than you can 'practice' Websters Dictionary or World Book Encyclopedia...Maybe the sura about stoning was in the Quran pages eaten by a camel or goat...
written by Reed Wilson , February 16, 2010
Muhammad's existence is endorsed by Quran. Hadith Not needed.
The Message was not sent for Slafists.
Why should a muslim know Ad Dajjal?
Why a muslim MUST know the age of Aisha? Is it a requirement to know ages and names of wives of messengers of God?
Where are the lies when there is no Hadith?
If Hadith was your requirement God is not obliged to fulfill it.
Quran NEVER said obey Muhammad. It is 'obey messenger'. And where is the messenger? The message is of course there. In the absence of the messenger and in the presence of the message the message has to be followed. Following and obeying are two things. For following there is different word in Arabic and Quran.
written by duh_swami , February 16, 2010
Do you know about Ad-Dajjal?...Why should a Muslim know anything about their religion? Any kind of knowledge about Islam contaminates the submitter...They should never try to go beyond the confusing, unreliable Quran and learn anything about Mohammad other than what the Quran says about him...of course they will have to radically change Islam and sharia law in order to replace knowledge with ignorance, but I know most Muslims are up to it...it took them numerous hundreds of years to figure it all out...as soon as they find out they don't need to know anything, or much about Islam and Mohammad, they can relax, have a beer and watch football on the tv...
Reed...Where are the lies when there is no Hadith?...
If you have to ask that, you know less about Islam than I thought...
written by Kafirwala , February 16, 2010
Regarding the on-going exercise on Quran by Reed, this fellow is a highly conceited person like his mentor and spiritual leader the 7th century Arabian desert pirate Mohammed. He rejects all ahadith and tries to exonerate Mohammed of all charges of pedophilia, robbing unwary caravans of their wealth and goods, mass murders, sexual exploits and his various other unprophetlike activities and deeds. This fool thinks that he can take everybody for a ride. It seems he will go only by the divine commands(!) in Quran. Then how will he defend the various edicts in the quran against the infidels? The prime duty of a muslim is to wage war against the infidels in Allah's way. In other words what the jihadis are carrying out today. They will get great reward too- eternal stay in jannat in the company of 72 big-breasted houries and 28 prepubescent boys with lot of wine to drink. The joke is Mohammed the thug was against homosexuality and alcohol and strictly prohibited it for his followers. But in paradise it is available in plenty. Allah's paradise is really wonderful. For his defense of Mohammed and his Allah, this clown Reed can hope for his rightful place in the paradise!
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 17, 2010
-Why a muslim MUST know the age of Aisha? Is it a requirement to know ages -and names of wives of messengers of God?”
and many other thought provoking questions above what do you really imply here? Are you saying that there would be no need to worry on the absurdities of the Quran if the Hadiths had not told the lies? That Quran should be taken as the word of Allah period. There is no need to know anything about the messenger, his life, his family what he does for his living, how many wives he has? What he said that came true, the places he mentioned in history that can be verified. Are you saying that more knowledge of somebody who calls himself prophet of God was not necessary? I see, perhaps this is the clue for the Islamic mind set. The capacity to enquire is destroyed completely. The first thing the Quran does in the life of a Muslim is to destroy that part of the brain that deals with reasoning. Can you see why 1.4billion people can take the testimony of one Person (Mohammed ) as yours truly? Without corroborating evidence, no any other witness. Yahweh (the God of the Jews) demanded that for any truth to be established there must not be less than two eye witnesses. The Quran and Mohammed has no other witness to its claim, like the Bible which has more than 40 witnesses to God divine inspiration. Why should I believe somebody whose life style is the opposite of what is godly, and human simply because he calls himself a prophet of God. Can Reed Wilson tell us why he believes Mohammed was a prophet of God Almighty? And I will tell you why a Muslim should know about Ad Daijal (The Islamic AntiChrist)
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 17, 2010
2.Hate, fight and will overcome the Jews Rev 12:13-17,Dan 7;21. Mohammed overcame the Jews of his time and instituted an everlasting enmity between his followers and Jews up to present days. The Jews must not be allowed to live or have a sense of nationhood for they a cursed nation. He even cursed them and the Christians on his dying bed.
3.Regard not the desire of women Dan 11:37 Mohammed has no regards for women as he was to the Jews. He hate the woman that gave birth to the man child (Christ) symbolised as Israel. For salvation is of the Jews John 4:22 Christ the seed of the woman was prophesied as the one that will destroy Satan. Gen 3:15 In the Book of Revelation the woman who gave birth to the man child whom the Antichrist pursued to the wilderness is the nation of Israel.
He said women are like domestics animals without intelligence, their witness is half that of a man. The desire of a women is to have one man for her selves alone but he said Man can have up to 4 as wives if he can and can have as many concubines and slave women as he can but in heaven he will have up to 72 of them. He can beat them if they misbehave in addition to denying them their conjugal rights. They must cover themselves completely leaving only their eyes in the public because they are a source of temptation to men. There are more women in hell than men for disobeying their men.
4.Change times and Laws of God Dan 7:25. Mohammed change the ten commandment of God to five pillars. He changed Saturday the Sabbath of rest to Friday but not for rest but just for the afternoon ritual prayers. He change the Calendar which began with the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross of Calvary for the atonement of the sins and salvation of men( AD)with his migration to Medina when he took the sward for the conquest and destruction of men.(AH)
5.Do as he will for a period Dan 11:36 Mohammed dishe out quranic verses to meet his alter ago and desires. Especially when he wanted more women, commit incest, paedophilia, steals and rubs the merchants caravans, kill or murder for booty not to win souls of men for you cannot destroy the souls you want to win to God. He also claim that those killings are ordered by Allah whom he said had predestined everyone already whether to be in heaven or hell. Man has no control of where he wants to be. What a religion?
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 17, 2010
7.Control the kings of the earth and make all nations fear him Rev 13:4,7 Mohammed terrorised the world of his time and made people and nation to fear him by using the force of arms. The same even to day is said of his followers. The nations of Islam bread more than 95% of the world terrorism even today. The most dreaded polio-religious system of the world today is Islam. Imaging how the world today will be like if the world military power is in the hands of Islamic nations.
8.Kill the witnesses of the true God Rev 11:7-12 Mohammed killed those who Criticised him and those who witness for the True God of the Jews and Christ. Today no witnessing is allowed in Islamic environment where Mohammed is taught as the last prophet. Even though he never claims to have ability to prophesy and where he attempted to predict the future he failed woefully yet is being worshipped as a prophet.
9.He will claim to be the God of the Jews and sit in the Temple as God Mat 24:15 Mohammed was literary worship as God , his word are words of God . You can not separate his word and that of God and live and even today you can not reject Mohammed and still live you must die.Q 4:89 You cannot call or believe in Allah without his name, only his sunnah are Allah’s orders.
As Mohammed claimed to be the long awaited Messiah of the Jews when his Mentor the antichrist comes he will also claim to be the Messiah and God of the Jews.
10.He will not accept Christ as the Messiah and the saviour of the world 1John 4:3-5,15-16 Mohammed deny that Jesus die and resurrected, the main proof of his messiah ship and that the Messiah is not the Son of God even though Christ is the word of God and Spirit of God. Mohammed later claim that he was the expected messiah of the Jews himself which the real Antichrist will claim during the great tribulation.
written by duh_swami , February 17, 2010
For a while Mohammad thought that Dajjal was a local youth named Sayyed...One day Mohammad rode out with Umar and some men to confront Sayyed...Sayeed was disrespectful and insulting...Umar offered to kill him, but Mohammad not sure of Sayyed said No, if he is Dajjal you can't overpower him, and if he's not, you kill him for nothing...Mohammad was not confident enough to start a real fight with Dajjal...Another time he tried to sneak up on a dozing Sayyed who was mumbling in his sleep...Mohammad wanted to listen in to hear anything that might be incriminating...He was hiding behind a palm stump and was discovered by Sayyeds mother who woke him up...These incidents are not only comical, they show Mohammads paranoia about Dajjal, who he considered a real being...
written by James Hammond , February 17, 2010
The Mohammedans do not understand Koran. They memorize without comprehension. They do not even read Hadith. Some selected Hadith their Mullah tells them. That is all.
By portraying and criticising Koran and Hadith, this site is doing great service of cleaning the misconcepts and highlighting the absurdities.
written by Healer_999 , February 17, 2010
It is interesting the way Muslims are behaving. If a Hadith says good things they will take it but when it shows up certain incidents they are false.
That website submission.org has its own logic and reasons. Interestingly they refer to
sahih Bukhari to make some claims, but then there is no fault there.
I guess this is what Islam teaches them right from the beginning:
What is good is that advances Islam and What is evil is that hinders Islam. These new inventions I guess are a step in that process of advancing.
written by duh_swami , February 17, 2010
duh-swami. You are saying as if you are an eye-witness.
I was relaying the story as it went...If you want to know what hadith it came from...look it up...It's there, just as I stated...Bukhari and Muslim together mention Dajjal over 150 times...
written by Reed Wilson , February 17, 2010
Discuss Quran. Blow it to bits. For me knowing the family of the messenger is redundant.
If one claims to be messenger of God and you are not convinced, discard it. I am none to prove that Mohammad was messenger of God. Don’t tell me why a Muslim should know about addajjal. For me this man has no significance. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc are comfortable without knowing the names/ages of wives of messengers of God. They can also do without Addajjal.
Do not rely on Hadith about ad dajjal. You will get to nowhere!
written by duh_swami , February 17, 2010
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 18, 2010
written by Machmoed , February 18, 2010
Reed, you have to know that miracles do not exist except within the possibilities of natural laws. If you really believe humans could perform miracles weather God helped them or not, that's called a dogma. All the scientists know this is impossible because it is against the God (he manifestates in laws of nature) and that's why no one claimed in our existence to have done some miracles without being thrown in a mental institution. Muhammad didn't perform miracles because he knew it could not be done, he was an intelligent man otherwise he couldn't have manipulated this much and the followers saw only power and women when joining him. Muslims actually believe that in the time of the farao they could perform miracles and that would be the reason moses performed miracles, but this is not for taking seriously. Scholars/scientists found out that moses never was in Egypt to begin with. If farao's had any power than it was the power of being powerless. If they had any, they would have used it to cure all the diseases some kingfarao's had like toetanch-amun. Never was there a person who performed miracles and had eyewitnesses. No one ever!
written by Reed Wilson , February 18, 2010
Noted. I have no problem to accept that the so called miracles were according to physical laws made by God alone. This is what the Bible says. Why there was no miracle through Mohammad, Quran says that because miracle didn’t work before. Despite seeing the miraculous birth of Jesus the Jew religious leaders crucified him. Hadis gives a long list of miracles performed by Mohammad despite clarification in Quran. Hadis is contrary to Quran. You say eye witness was necessary. I say eye witness was necessary. Otherwise, it is up to your wisdom to believe it. Such as, chlorophyll is necessary for photosynthesis in plants.
written by Reed Wilson , February 18, 2010
written by duh_swami , February 18, 2010
Some Muslims would like to deep six ahadith because it throws a bad light on the perfect man and roll model Mohammad, who they worship, right along with Allah...In order to understand Islam, the hadith are required for any 'serious' researcher...It may be that they are all fake, but that is besides the point, Muslims believe them, and jihadists often quote them to justify their actions...
So you guys may rail against them, but your railing is futile...Hadith are 'not' going to be abandoned...
written by Healer_999 , February 18, 2010
Your behavior is very typical of Allah's message. Hadiths are not in conflict with Koran. They are mere traditions and sayings of Mohammad. If any thing contradicts Koran, it is Koran itself.
Why don't you give your Allah Ist semister exam in Mathematics in the field of inheritance.
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 18, 2010
written by Reed Wilson , February 18, 2010
duh-swami says:
Hadith was VERY IMPORTANT because Sharia laws are based on it, he can not follow the role model of Muhammad without Hadith and that Hadith was not going to be abandoned.
Healer-999 says:
Hadith was VERY IMPORTANT because it does not contradict Quran, it is Quran itself.
Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor says:
Hadith was VERY IMPORTANT because Quran becomes useless without Hadith, to know the messenger, who was not worthy of trusting and we should ignore Hadith and discard the Quran.
It is very interesting to note the concerns of all of them about Hadith, Quran, Sharia law, knowing the messenger and following the messenger of God. When this is the environment, we do not need the paradise elsewhere. CONGRATS.IW
written by Healer_999 , February 18, 2010
"Hadiths are not in conflict with Koran. They are mere traditions and sayings of Mohammad". This is what I wrote.
You replied: "Healer-999 says:
Hadith was VERY IMPORTANT because it does not contradict Quran, it is Quran itself."
English is not my natural language, so probably it is my mistake, right?
Hey you are fan of Koran. Me too because last time I checked a website there are 121 contradictions in it. Why don't you enlighten us with some verses from your holy book. You want my favorite one or two:
005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
They did this to a very old woman.
written by duh_swami , February 18, 2010
It's very interesting to note that I have not the slightest idea of what that incoherent statement means...I think you are losing it Reed...That's what happens when you try to beat a dead dog to death...Numerous posters have tried to enlighten you to your errors, but you remain steadfast in them...
Your gray matter must be getting tired...Why don't you give it a rest...
Healer...5:33 is one of my favorites also...I must confess, it is me who is spreading mischief in the land, but I don't think I will turn myself in...I might be 'duh' but I'm not that duh...
written by Kohi , February 18, 2010
written by Reed Wilson , February 18, 2010
In the quoted verse, Allah/Messenger is the message or the constitution from Allah. By waging the war it means breaking the constitution of God or mutiny. There are three options in punishment i.e. either execution or crucifixion, or cutting off the limbs diagonally opposite or exile. The Judge shall decide which punishment, viewing the gravity of the crime, on case to case basis. Exile seems to be lenient view.
This is the severest (most severe) punishment, as one may observe, in Quran. Breaking the divine constitution leads to anarchy which was very unpleasant according to God. In man made legislations also, we find severe punishments for breaking constitution.
In other scriptures we find severe punishments for heinous crimes. For example:
Death for blaspheming the name of the Lord (Leviticus 24:16).
Stoning to death for adultery (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
Stoning to death for disobedience to the laws of the Lord (Deuteronomy 17:2-5).
Death for worshipping other Gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10).
Stoning to death to disobedient childrwn (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
Stoning to death for gathering wood on the Sabbath day. (Numbers 15:32-36)
I could not pick "They did this to a very old woman" from your post
Duhswami, I will not mind loosing. You also don’t get tired.
written by Andrew,X , February 19, 2010
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:Narrated 'Amr bin maimun
uring the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them. Volume 2, Book 13, Number 60: Narrated Sahl bin Sad:There was a woman amongst us who had a farm and she used to sow Silq (a kind of vegetable) on the edges of streams in her farm. On Fridays she used to pull out the Silq from its roots and put the roots in a utensil. Then she would put a handful of powdered barley over it and cook it. The roots of the Silq were a substitute for meat. After finishing the Jumua prayer we used to greet her and she would give us that food which we would eat with our hands, and because of that meal, we used to look forward to Friday.
Now, please tell me how the above Hadiths are fulfilling your mentioned purposes.
Can you give me the exact number of Hadiths? I swear, nobody knows. These Hadiths do nothing but certify the stupidy of their believers.
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 19, 2010
One has a house in Kaaba Saudi Arabia the other has none on earth except the city of his covenant which is Jerusalem and not Mecca. Allah has three daughters Al-lat Alla uzza, and Menat, The other has a only A Son name Yahshua (Jesus), the Messiah the Saviour of the world. One made man for hell fire or for heaven the other made man in his own image and wants man to spend his eternity with him. One is worshipped by prostration facing his shrine the other is worshipped by keeping his commandment and singing praises unto him. one does not require blood for atonement for sin, the other requires it for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. One hate unbelievers and wants all of them killed by his jihadists the other loves all men regardless of their sins and unbelief. One made women stupid and sex with them makes one unclean for prayers, the other made women in his image sex in the institution of marriage is good thing it can not hinder Prayer. One has five pillars to be observed to go to heaven, the other has only three- 1.Love God 2.Love man 3. Have faith in Christ atoning Sacrifice.
One promised 72 virgins and rivers of wines in heaven other the other says no marriage in heaven but fellowship with the creator for ever. One’s message is preached by terror, and by force without choice or questioning, the other by persuasion and by choice and reasoning. I can go on an on there are so many differences that put the two deity far apart from each other. So defend your Allah without quoting Yahweh in the Bible. Ok? And if you want to Challenge Yahweh we can handle that separately but let face Allah for now.
written by Healer_999 , February 19, 2010
Why do we need Hadiths and Sira? To answer this we should ask why do we need Koran or to read Koran? Because Koran has basic guidelines for ethics and morality. Whet Muslims claim ' Islam is a way of life' it is important that Koran is read and understood. If you start reading it blindly you won't make thing out of it, because Koranic Suras are ordered according to their size (no of verses in each sura). But to understand better we need Chronological order of Suras i.e Suras ordered according to time. First revealed comes first. For this we need to know the context of verses and suras in which they were revealed.
Why do we need chronological order? Because Koran has many verses which contradict each other. So to resolve this Koran has its own rule, abrogation. If two verses contradict each other, later verse replaces the previous one. Lets take one example, prohibition of alcohol and gambling.
002.219
YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-
004.043
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity .....
005.090
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.
All above verses tell different things about alcohol. To come to know about final stand we need chronological order of Suras 2, 4 and 5. Sura 5 is the last one according to the time order, so verse 5.090 abrogates other two. This is precisely many Muslim countries prohibit alcohol and gambling.
You need Hadiths and sira to resolve these contradictions, which means you need chronological order of Suras ( you need sequence of suras in time order). By providing context Hadiths help in resolving contradictions.
Yes many Hadiths have been written, but there are about 6 which are accepted by all most all Islamic schools or Scholars. I know only two names , sahih Bukhari and sahih Muslim. These two are universally respected and agreed for their authenticity. Similarly Sira by Ibn Ishaq. Only ignorant Reed can doubt Ibn Ishaq.
Why don't you read an article on Hadiths before questioning them or putting your
thoughts here.
written by Reed Wilson , February 19, 2010
We can call the Lord with any befitting name.
written by duh_swami , February 19, 2010
Lets just throw out all Islamic literature and start over...You don't need any of that confusing, useless, literature to worship and pray to one god...
And what do you need Mohammad for? Does he send you a pay check? I thought not, throw his useless butt out with the trash also...
written by Clement- The Islam-Iwatch Pastor , February 19, 2010
written by adnagam , February 19, 2010
written by Machmoed , February 19, 2010
Like Mohammad the prophet....and stlll you are follower?
written by Andrew,x , February 20, 2010
You have quoted 2:219 which says there were more demerits in wine and gambling than merits. Verse 4:43 says one should pray when he is sober and 5:90 says intoxicants and gambling were bad. In all the verses there is suggestion and not forbidding. It is a misunderstanding that these 'verses tell different things about alcohol'. Quran discourages wine and gambling. What Muslim countries do is their own legislation.
written by Demsci , February 20, 2010
And we know a few basics of Islam, like the Shahada, with the hugely important role of Mohammed, who is considered the ideal rolemodel, and the 5 pillars of Islam. We know the extent of the Islamic holy scriptures, which are basically Quran and Hadith.
But from there the vagueness, ambiguity, countless different interpretations begin. At the same time all thinking Muslims, absolutely refuse to change, develop, augment (with new, good ideas) their guiding texts. The most some will do is discard a part of it. But improve develop, augment it, nooooo.
Like this interpreting ancient texts as being scientific, all Muslims can do is interpret or select ancient texts, embellish what they already have into the best, nicest they can interpret, bend it. All because they prefer Revelation over Reason when the 2 are in disagreement.
Their religious goal is to follow divine rules and the interpretation of them by their religious leaders, more than to be happy, loving all humans prosperous, building the best possible society. I mean, they do follow these other goals too, but they is still subservient to following their religion, when it contradicts these other goals.
And they accept it that they follow a God who if in existence as they think he is, only holds them accountable after death, whilst for almost 1400 years not giving any further guidance and clarification. Whilst it should by now be absolutely clear that his last guidance brought no substantial improvement to mankinds happiness, and did not, upon implementation, create the best possible societies, at least not in the last few centuries.
So yes, why do Muslims cling to this obsolete message and messenger? My guess is: they are still betting Pascal's Wager, are mindlessly following their loved ones and leaders or are stupidly considering it part of their culture and people, regardless of whether it is the truth or not.
written by Healer_999 , February 20, 2010
It was a wasted opportunity, the way some Islamic countries reacted like Iran, to highlight the inherent bigotry present in Islam. Again thanks to our media and politicians.
Some politicians and media are bounded by abundance of political correctness. While in some places they were dictated by ballot maths(Read India). Then of course we have left liberals who never learn any thing from history. They feel insulted that communism collapsed before liberalism and capitalism, so Islam is a way to take revenge on these societies. Even the fact that Khoemeni executed all the Communists in Iran does't open their eyes to the fact that Islam hates, more than any other religion, Godless left and Godless communism.
So they have many things going their way, at least for now.
written by Healer_999 , February 20, 2010
You do not even know the basics of Koran, so, to ask you to think rationally about certain things is futile.
You quoted suras are independent. What do you mean by it? There are no contradictions in Koran? Many issues like marriage, matters regarding women, booty from war, position on slavery and many like these do not come in one sura, but in number of Suras. Obviously it looks like you never read Koran.
For thirteen hundred years Islamic was practiced and studied using the rule of abrogation and chronological order and context behind those revealed verses. Now suddenly you intend to say some thing else, like 5:90 is a advice. I guess all the time Allah was advising Mohammad, then.
You know I can only respond if you show little rationalism. Before I go I will ask you to look at these two verses.
109.006
YUSUFALI: To you be your Way, and to me mine.
PICKTHAL: Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
SHAKIR: You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
How do you look at these two? For get about context. What is your first impression? All Muslims will say that 9:29 was there because Mohammad was defending and it is explicitly for defensive. Any violence in a verse, this is the standard trite from Muslims. But does 9:29 look like he was defending?
Now look at 109:006. The difference is he was immensely week in Mecca, so he has to produce this kind or else he and his followers get kicked. But in Medina with time he became very powerful, so he produced this kind to kick others. Hope you will understand that Koran with out hadiths is incomprehensible.
written by Andrew,W. , February 21, 2010
written by duh_swami , February 21, 2010
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 449:Bukhari
Narrated 'Aisha:
When the verses of Surat "Al-Baqara"' about the usury Riba were revealed, the Prophet went to the mosque and recited them in front of the people and then banned the trade of alcohol.
Not only that but he ordered drunkards to be beat up...
Volume 3, Book 38, Number 509:
Narrated 'Uqba bin Al-Harith:
When An-Nuaman or his son was brought in a state of drunkenness, Allah's Apostle ordered all those who were present in the house to beat him. I was one of those who beat him. We beat him with shoes and palm-leaf stalks.
written by Healer_999 , February 22, 2010
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
'Umar stood up on the pulpit and said, "Now then, prohibition of alcoholic drinks have been revealed, and these drinks are prepared from five things, i.e.. grapes, dates, honey, wheat or barley And an alcoholic drink is that, that disturbs the mind
Volume 7, Book 69, Number 486:
Narrated Anas:
"Alcoholic drinks were prohibited at the time we could rarely find wine made from grapes in Medina, for most of our liquors were made from unripe and ripe dates.
Volume 7, Book 69, Number 485:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
"Alcoholic drinks were prohibited (by Allah) when there was nothing of it (special kind of wine) in Medina.
Volume 7, Book 69, Number 492a:
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle was asked about Al-Bit a liquor prepared from honey which the Yemenites used to drink. Allah's Apostle said, "All drinks that intoxicate are unlawful (to drink)."
Volume 7, Book 69, Number 492a:
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle was asked about Al-Bit a liquor prepared from honey which the Yemenites used to drink. Allah's Apostle said, "All drinks that intoxicate are unlawful (to drink)."
Volume 7, Book 69, Number 493:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
'Umar delivered a sermon on the pulpit of Allah's Apostle, saying, "Alcoholic drinks were prohibited by Divine Order, and these drinks used to be prepared from five things, i.e., grapes, dates, wheat, barley and honey. Alcoholic drink is that, that disturbs the mind." 'Umar added, "I wish Allah's Apostle had not left us before he had given us definite verdicts concerning three matters, i.e., how much a grandfather may inherit (of his grandson), the inheritance of Al-Kalala (the deceased person among whose heirs there is no father or son), and various types of Riba(1 ) (usury) ."
written by Healer_999 , February 22, 2010
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful.
This verse is not a advice, it is a clear order or direction from Allah.
written by skipper , February 22, 2010
written by Healer_999 , February 22, 2010
written by Machmoed , February 22, 2010
I will do my best to show everybody the lies in islam and it is a thankfull job. Every muslim who converts to democracy totally and leave islam as a system revealed by Allah/God, it gives me great satisfaction and something to feel good about. Islam as it is written is false/lie/hoax...simple fact! Get over it, will you!
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 22, 2010
written by Machmoed , February 22, 2010
Don't bother...Andrew is not a muslim as muslims see muslims. He doesn't know the islamic sources and knows nothing muslims believe in. So he is not someone to fear that he is goinig to blow up himself someday. He formed an own religion that's better than islam by Mohammad. I wonder if he prays and who told him to pray like that. Andrew...you might be a convert muslim who doesn't know islam as it is written and believed. Again...how do you know how to do tayammoem (washing with a stone or sand when there is no water) and how do you know how to say some things that are not in the quran. Watch out for mohammadan moslims who believe in sunna....they might kill you for being an apostate...at least in their eyes. You have seen yourself that other muslims (Shibli Zaman) think you're an apostate because they think Allah is only for the muslims who follow sunna wich is also a lie according to latest research. If religions showed us something then it's the fact that God is different to everybody...he's personal...therefor my God is different than yours and that's why the prophet told everybody in the beginning...for you your God and for me mine. I will not believe what you believe, nor would you worship what i worship. How come he changed what he was preaching before.....i mean Allah ofcourse. Are you blind to see this! I'm talking about the almighty. When you reffering to Allah...do you also referring to the almighty? You have to know that Allah as portretted by the arabs is not the almighty. Religion is an disgusting excuse for controlling the mob.
written by Machmoed , February 22, 2010
No i don't think there will be the need of Islam watch or anything like that.
I also believe islam wouldn't be in the world without judaism and christianity. I strongly believe islam was an reaction to threats from inside and outside.
With democracy i ment....the way we live today in the west. Everyone can believe and worship whoever they want, but they have to respect the constitution law wich we all agreed to live within the boundaries of this law. Religion should not be an issue at all, because it is personal. Islam made a big deal about this worshipping deity called Allah with all it's rituals and so on. Even a child knows the concept of God in it's simple form. Clement..I think we're talking the same...where i think it's the source/God/laws of nature where he manifestate himself who made all this possible, you say it is Christ. To me Christ is a vehicle who could drive you to the source/God etc. To me it is the source itself. No-one is between me and my God as it should be..to my opinion ofcourse
written by walker , February 22, 2010
written by Demsci , February 22, 2010
Clement is right about Democracy only being about this life of course. But I trust Clement to be OK with and supportive of Democracy as almost all Christians are. And within Democracy he is free to advocate his life-conviction and his belief in the afterlife. And I know he relies solely on voluntary persuasion and also would allow people out of Christianity should they so wish. But under a Islamic theocratic regime he would not be able to freely express his views.
written by Machmoed , February 23, 2010
Clement is right about a lot of things. The above sentence implicates that there is more than this life! It might, but we are not going to know this in our lives and we sure shouldn't fight eachother about this. Everything is being about this life. Actually the purpose of religion is also this life and not as many people think about the afterlife. The afterlife with it's rewardings is only there so people would do what they are ordered to do in this life. Religion is not about God really, but it's about humanity and his fear of being alone and afraid for unknown things. That's why it is extremely important for a believer to feel right about what he believes. This is why muslims can't handle critics...especially when you say that islam is not true! they are even capable of killing you for that.
demsci, i think you're one of the intelligent and kindest person to debate with. You always sound reasonable, kind/friendly and not emotional ever. These are great characteristics of a great personality. Sometimes i have trouble to use the right words, becuz english is not my natural language. Thanx and i respect you dearly.
written by Reed Wilson , February 23, 2010
No I don't think there will be the need of Islam watch or anything like that. Jesus himself declared that he was not introducing a new religion. Quran says there is no such thing in Quran which was not disclosed to other messengers. There was no necessity of messenger after messenger if the original message was professed and followed. This is evident from Quran also.
Islam-watch may, however, stay as opposition in democracy.
written by Machmoed , February 23, 2010
How do you know Jesus said that...from the bible right? the qor'aan thinks Jesus is given the gospel when he was an infant. You perfectly know that the bible is not the litteral word of God but it is believed that it is inspired by God. Is it a fallacy in the qor'aan. The same goes for the Thora.....everybody knows the thora is not given to Moses but is written over a period of 800 tyears by more than 30/40 writers. What about Allah who telling in the Qor'aan that he sent qor'aan as a fullfillment of what has sent before. What has sent before, Reed? Did you know Moses was actually Amun'messe who was a faroa of upper egypt and who worshipped one God (sun-God= Sol Invictus) as a succeeder of Achneton. This guy fought against the faroa who didn't believe in the unity of God. Then the jews took this example as their own and their example (prophet). The stories i'm telling you are much older than religious scriptures.
written by Healer_999 , February 23, 2010
Reed you have not answered to my question on abrogation.
written by Reed Wilson. , February 23, 2010
Abrogation: Yes I have submitted on other page which I paste here:
According the dictionaries the word ayah has four different meanings meanings.
In Koran the word is used in all the four meanings such as:
1.A miracle as in 17:101
2.An example as in 25:37
3.A sign as in 19:10
4.A verse as in 38:29
Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, we can easily spot that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. Here it means a miracle. It is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it.
The stupid concept of Nasikh wal Mansookh or abrogation in Quran was originally invented during the fourth century A.H (late 10th century A.D). Among them are notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq famous as Al-Denary (died 318 A.H), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject. It was not appreciated in the beginning but later some so called scholars of Islam bought it.
Please do not over estimate me. I am not scholar. Religion is not my profession. I am not qualified to answer so many questions.
written by Healer_999 , February 23, 2010
No one replaces one miracle by another miracle, it does't make any sense or any meaning. Miracle is performed one after another.
So is the case with 'sign'. Here in Koran, sign has been used to indicate various incidents. For example drowning of Pharo's army. Or defeat of Pagan's army at battle of Bad. Mohammad refers to this as a sign to Jews of Medina that he is the Prophet. So here 'sign' is more like a warning. Proper usage is will be like 'after many signs' or ' repeated warnings'. With this back ground I do not see how your logic fits in. Replacing one warning by another does't make sense. Or even 'sign' the way it is used here, replacing one sign by another does't make any sense.
Look at verse 002:106:
002.106
YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
PICKTHAL: Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?
SHAKIR: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
Do you think you logic fits in above?
written by Clement- The Islam-watch Pastor , February 24, 2010
written by Machmoed , February 24, 2010
written by Healer_999 , February 26, 2010
Did you finally agree that your version of meaning for ayah is incompatible in that verse of abrogation (2:106) ?
written by SUCCESSFUL INTELLECTUAL , January 27, 2011
written by Editor, M. A. Khan , January 27, 2011
written by human , March 10, 2011
Why should discriminate ideas or reviews, and put bad wordings to a journal article? We all have right to make an article and published in journal. Why don't you submit your opinion on the article to the journal?
Quran and hadits are moslem's guide to a better and meaningful life, as some of you may have different guides. Stick to your guide/s and lets living peacefully as human being.
Faith in God is not to hate, killing others, destroy environment, but to have a useful and meaningful temporary life.
Peace and lets find our own truth.
