Allah, Gabriel & Muhammad are one?

[Burninglight]

Why do Muslims attack the Christian trinity? They have there own in many ways. There are the three daughters of Allah also known as "the flying cranes whose intercession is hoped for." This is a verse that Uthman abrogated from the Quran. It was a hard thing for Uthman to leave in the Quran after Muhammad's death. Allah had to cancel out Muhammad's Satanic verse. No prophet ever made a mistake like this before Muhammad's time. How could he get away with it? These videos make an argument that the unholy trinity of Islam is Allah, Gabriel and Muhammad. It states they are one and the same. If this is so, do Muslims attack the Christianity trinity only to turn a blind eye to their own unholy trinity?

[Peace]

@Burninglight: Hey man! I cannot wait to start debating with you, I am really appreciating your patient tone as well as respectful attitude.

Not only that Muhammad/Allah (I run the names together because Muhammad is his slave associate/messenger) taught in the Quran that the sky is held up with pillars that cannot be seen and the stars hang from it as lamps. Muhammad was obviously influenced by Roman belief. Too bad the Romans had it all wrong.

Ok, if you would like we can debate the Qur'an and its accuracy. I do not mind, as long as eventually you can address the points I made above.

Well, it could be that issues with the Quran can show how Allah, Muhammad and Gabriel are possible one and the same or a man influenced by Satan who is the father of lies. I understand that Muslims believe the Quran dates back to the time of Muhammad.

You are right, thus it would be useful for the thread to debate the accuracy and history of the Qur'anic text.

As far back as we can go show the completed Quran manuscript we have in existence in museums today are hundreds of years after Muhammad died, but Muslims claim this:
"...two of the copies of the Qur’an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph `Uthman, are still available to us today and their texts and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to, with any other copy of the Qur’an, be it in print or handwriting, from any place or period of time. They will be found to be identical." (Von Denffer, Ulum al-Qur’an, p 64)
If this were true why would Uthman burn the originals?

Muslims say they have a Quran that dates to the time of Muhammad,the truth is different.

"Two ancient partial copies of Koran that are in existence are the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. What many Muslim's do not know, is that because these two manuscripts were written in a script style called "Kufic", practicing Muslim scholars generally date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. Had these two manuscripts been compiled any earlier, they would have been written in either the Ma'il or Mashq script style. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-Qur'an" came to this same conclusion. (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989)"

Even the fragmentary manuscripts of the Quran are all dated no earlier than 100 years after Muhammad died; moreover, there is no archeological evidence dated at the time when Muhammad was alive, by way of artifact, manuscript or inscription has ever been found were Muhammad is actually referred to as "a prophet".

I believe the Torah that states that Ishmael was no prophet hence Muslims' claim that Muhammad descended from him means he is still waiting for his prophet passport, but don't hold you breath.

If you really want God's word the closet thing we have is the Bible. It goes back way before Muhammad

I will read your points, go back to my book, and reply with what I have understood on the matter. I just don't want to start mentioning dates and scripts without being totally sure. I will address each point you made here soon God willing.

Have a great day!

[A Troubled Man]

I'm sorry, I know that Mountains have roots as proven scientifically and just because cliff notes doesn't have anything about 'mountain roots' doesn't mean they don't exist.

That isn't the point at all, none of what you've claimed from the Quran has anything to do with geology.

Now that you have realised the fact that some Mountains have roots, we can discuss the verses in question.

The "roots" of mountains are nothing as you've described.

A mountain is described as a peg.

Here we go again. You just don't want to learn anything.

In Arabic we can draw is it pointing out that the Mountains resemble pegs. When we look at a mountain in light of its roots, we can find the resemblance with 'pegs'.

We can find mountains that resemble any number of shapes, and we find mountains with a very wide variety of shapes. So what?

Is this a proven fact that mountains don't stop earthquakes? Where did you learn about such a teaching? The fact is it has not been disproven or proven yet so we can't say it is wrong.

LOL! This is getting downright silly.

Maybe mountains prevent severe earthquakes elsewhere, maybe they relieve crust stresses or maybe they stabilize the rotation of the Earth the same way ball bearings stabilize the rotation of a wheel. The fact is, it hasn't been disproven.

Your Quranic based fantasies have nothing to do with geology.

So, somebody way back then looked at a particular mountain, decided it was shaped like a peg and wrote it in a book, and that is miraculous.

Yes! The point is, 1400 years ago you could not see that a Mountain had roots without scientific equipment. You would have to dig all around the mountain all the way to the tip of the root (physically impossible), test the densities of the materials under the mountain and conclude that mountains had roots so they resemble pegs. The miracle is, they didn't have scientific equipment so how did the Prophet (pbuh) find out?

LOL! No, someone "looked" at a mountain and determined it looked like a peg and assumed that half of the mountain was above and the rest below. That is not miraculous at all. That person did NOT know anything about what lay underneath the mountain, hence they used guesswork, which has been shown to be false by modern geology.

Hope this was helpful!

Yes, you continue to show Islamic propaganda in light of reality.

[Burninglight]

Mountains are not pegs that hold the earth still and there are not invisible pillars that hold up the sky and stars don't hand as lamps. The Quran is wrong. In fact, earth quakes are the shifting of tectonic plates that involves magma underneath. If they are server enough they can produce mountains when they buckle upward if they buckle downward it forms ocean trenches.
The bottom line is Muslim have to defend the Qur'an with rhetoric and its not work' Again Islam best friend is ignorance and deception propaganda; its worse enemy is truth and knowledge.

[Peace]

@Burninglight: Hey man, sorry for the late reply, hope I cover all that you mentioned in this lenghtly reply...

Well, it could be that issues with the Quran can show how Allah, Muhammad and Gabriel are possible one and the same or a man influenced by Satan who is the father of lies. I understand that Muslims believe the Quran dates back to the time of Muhammad.

I agree, if you would like to show me your concern about the ‘trinity’ of Islam, interpreting the Qur’an would be most essential. I would be happy to refute the Youtube video you showed a while back that supposedly contains evidence on such a issue (trinity). Just let me know if you would like me to do so.

As far back as we can go show the completed Quran manuscript we have in existence in museums today are hundreds of years after Muhammad died, but Muslims claim this:

Im sorry this is incorrect, if you did not know, Caliph Uthman started his rule in 24 A.H and Prophet Muhammad died in 10 A.H. So he started ruling 14 years after the Prophets death and he is the third Caliph of Islam. There are several Mushaf’s that we currently have that are popularly attributed to the Caliph Uthman:

1) At the Topkapi Sarayi Museum (In Istanbul)
2) At Turk ve Islam Eserli Muzesi Museum (In Istanbul)
3) At Tashkent, Uzbekistan
4) At al-Mashhad al-Husaini Mosque in Cairo
5) At the institute of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg.


If these are Uthman ‘Mushafs’ (Qur’ans) then they are from the copies that he made and distributed around the Islamic empire.

We also have two copies dated to the first century in:

1) Bibliotheque Nationale de France (BNF), Paris
2) And at The British Library (BL), London.

Both are written in Hejazi script and Y. Dutton suggests re-dating the manuscripts to just prior to the Umayyad caliph Walid (i.e. prior to 85 A.H.)

“"...two of the copies of the Qur’an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph `Uthman, are still available to us today and their texts and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to, with any other copy of the Qur’an, be it in print or handwriting, from any place or period of time. They will be found to be identical." (Von Denffer, Ulum al-Qur’an, p 64)
If this were true why would Uthman burn the originals?�

What does Uthman burning the manuscripts have to do with the fact that the text can be compared with anyone’s copy of the Qur’an and find no discrepancy?

I will shed some light on some brief Qur’anic history, just so you know exactly what is going on:

The first compilation of the Qur’an occurred during Abu Bakr’s (the first caliph, after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)) rule, as we know from Abu Bakr commanding Zaid Bin Thabit to its compilation (Al-Bukhari, sahih, Jam’I al-Qur’an hadith no. 4986 – Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Masahif pp. 6-9)

According to Ibn Hajar, we know that “Zaid was unwilling to accept any written material for consideration unless two companions bore witness that the man received his dictation from the Prophet himself� i.e. in his very presence.

Once complete, the compiled Qur’an was placed in the ‘state archives’ under the custodianship of Abu Bakr. – (Al Bukhari, sahih, Fada’il al Qur’an: 3; Abu Ubaid, Fada’il p. 281 – at Tirmidhi, sunan, hadith no. 3102) and it was known as the ‘suhuf’.

When Uthman was ruling the ‘suhuf’ were with Hafsa (The Prophets widow).

“So Uthman sent Hafsa a message stating ‘Send us the suhuf so that we may make perfect copies and then return the suhuf back to you.’ Hafsa sent it to Uthman,….� –Ibn Hajar, Fathul Bari, ix:11, hadith no. 4987; Ibn Abi Dawud, al Masahif, pp. 19-20; Abu Ubaid, Fada’il, p. 282

As well as making the copies of the suhuf – which was a compiled Qur’an consisting of Surahs that were written down and dictated in the Prophets very presence – Uthman also made an independent copy of the Mushaf to check against these copies.

“Uthman assembled a committee of twelve from both the Quraish and the Ansar, among them Ubayy bin Ka’b and Zaid bin Thabit, to collect the Qur’an� This group was then subdivided into more than one group each engaged in dictation and working independently – collecting and tabulating all the Qur’anic parchments written in the Prophet’s Presence.

As well as this, according to Ibn Shabba, Tarikh al-Madina, pg 997:

Uthman wanted to make an official copy, he asked Aisha [the Prophets wife] to send him those parchments which were dictated by the Prophet and which she kept in her house. He then ordered Zaid Bin Thabit to correct accordingly, as he himself was not free since he wanted to devote his time to governing the people and judging among them

At the very end of the process of preparing the independent copy, he then received the ‘suhuf’ from Hafsa for verification:

Ibn Shabba reports,
“Zaid Bin Thabit says, “While revising Uthman’s Mushaf I discovered that it lacked the ayah (من المؤمنين رجال…) so I searched among the Muhajirin and the Ansar [for someone who had written it in the Prophet’s presence], till I found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit al-Ansari. So I wrote it down… Then I revised once more, and did not find anything [missing]. Uthman then sent to Hafsa and asked to borrow the Suhuf which had been entrusted to her; she gave it to him only after he vowed to return it. In comparing these two I found no discrepancies. So I gave it back to ‘Uthman and he, with an elated spirit, ordered the people to make duplicate copies of the Mushaf�.

As we can see, the Qur’anic text was thoroughly stable from the earliest days and the methods involved in compilation during both reigns were meticulous and accurate.

As for the Burning, The History of the Qur’anic text, 2nd edition by M.M. AL-AZAMI says:

With the task complete, the ink on the final copy dry, and duplicate copies dispatched, there was no need for thenumerous fragments of the Qur’an circulating in people’s hands. So all such fragments were burned. Mus’ab bi Sa’d asserts that the people were pleased with Uthman’s decision; at the very least no one voiced aby objections.– Abu Ubaid, Fada’il, p284

Other reports confirm this unanimous approval, including Ali bin Abi Talib who says:

“By Allah, he only did what he did with these fragments in clear view of us all [i.e. and with our consent.]�

As you can see, the Suhuf (original compilation of Abu-Bakr’s reign) was not burned neither were any of the Mushafs compiled during Uthman’s reign. The only thing burnt were lose fragments of the Qur’an that people wrote down and kept in their homes, and everyone agreed with this. The reason being to preserve the authenticity of the text.

Two ancient partial copies of Koran that are in existence are the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. What many Muslim's do not know, is that because these two manuscripts were written in a script style called "Kufic", practicing Muslim scholars generally date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. Had these two manuscripts been compiled any earlier, they would have been written in either the Ma'il or Mashq script style. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-Qur'an" came to this same conclusion. (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989)

This is not true, Kufic existed well in the first century, I can list many instances where the script was being used in the first century. The earliest dated Kufic inscription, from Qa’ al Mu’tadil near al-Hijr (Mada’in Saleh) is dated 24 A.H. We have a tombstone from Aswan with an inscription dated 31 A.H.

I can list many more. In fact Caliph ‘Abdul Malik unified the coinage through the Islamic world in the year 77 A.H. where they bore mottos from the Qur’an, the year, and the name of the mint all in Kufic script. This practice continued even after the fall of the Ummayad caliphate in 132 A.H.– [Islamic Coins – The Turath Collection Part 1, Spink, London, 25 May 1999, Sale No. 133]

So we cannot say that Qur’anic texts were not written in Kufic until after the second century.

Compare this to the Bible where:

“If it has been found difficult, in spite of a certain amount of evidence , to give names to the authors of the synoptic gospels, it is much more difficult to assign their writings to definite dates. Here there is no clear evidence at all; and accurate dating is simply impossible. The terminus ad quem must be somewhere about A.D. 100� – Sir E. Hoskyns and N.Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament, Faber & Faber, London, pg 196

We also have Father Kannengiesser’s comment, who is a Professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris:

Warns that ‘one should not take literally facts reported about Jesus by the Gospels, because they are 'writings suited to an occasion’ or ‘to combat,’ whose authors ‘are writing down the traditions of their own community about Jesus.’ Concerning the Resurrection… he stresses that none of the authors of the Gospels can claim to have been an eye-witness. He intimates that, as far as the rest of Jesus’s public life is concerned, the same must be true because, according to the Gospels, none of the Apostles – apart from Judas Iscariot –left Jesus from the moment he first followed Him until His last earthly manifestations. - Quoted from Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Qur’an and Science pp 47-48

We also know that not a single book from the NT has survived in the original author’s handwriting, the closest thing being a fragment dated 100-115 and contaning six verses of Jogn 18. We may argue that these dates are also unaccurate since the Anno Domini (Year of the Lord) calendar system had yet to be invented – (we can see pg 275-76, of the Leningrad Codex which mentions a slew of dates, non of them Christian) this reaffirms that until at least the 11th century c.e., no Christian Calendar system existed or at least was not in use.

Copies of the NT were made extensively throughout the first several centuries by non-professionals who rarely checked for errors – there was no incentive to do so as nearly all Christians from the first century expected the return of Christ, and thus probably did not grasp the idea that they were preserving the text for a distant future.

We then have the creation of different text types – the Alexandrian, the Western, the Caesarean and the Byzantine which were all divergent texts and unique to its locality.

We could also look to the Greek of the NT which can be split into the uncial script and the minuscule, as there are 2800 fragmentary pieces of the NT written in miniscule if we limit ourselves to manuscripts that contain the entire NT the numbers drop to about 58 in minuscule and 1 in uncial.

What is astonishing is that these texts cover the period between the 9th and 15th centuries! So 58 complete copies in a span of six centuries, and covering the entire Christian world – this makes us wonder, how man priests in that era had a complete copy of the text that they were preaching? And what’s even more outstanding is that these texts were not in vernacular so even the fortunate layman who did come across a copy wouldn’t have benefited from it.

When it comes to the Bible, we could go on for days.

Muslims say they have a Quran that dates to the time of Muhammad,the truth is different.

As I showed you, we don’t. We only have the oral tradition from the Prophet, which came out to be the most important asset for verifying verses and confirming the Qur'an. In fact, there are tribes in Western Africa that have been found that have never laid eyes on a Qur'an however they know the book off by heart as it was passed down in an intricate science that only allows qualified people to teach it and its proper pronunciation - don't be surprised, memorizing the Qur'an is not as hard as you think, we even have 3 year old kids nowadays that have committed the whole book to memory! This is one of the unique features of the language and the book, it is very easily internalized.

Even the fragmentary manuscripts of the Quran are all dated no earlier than 100 years after Muhammad died; moreover, there is no archeological evidence dated at the time when Muhammad was alive, by way of artifact, manuscript or inscription has ever been found were Muhammad is actually referred to as "a prophet".

Not correct as I showed you above. Also what about the Bible and Jesus, do we have any evidence dated at the time of Jesus referring to him as a ‘God’ or ‘Son of God’ or ‘Part of God’?

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2 ... 97060.html

I believe the Torah that states that Ishmael was no prophet hence Muslims' claim that Muhammad descended from him means he is still waiting for his prophet passport, but don't hold you breath.

Sorry so just because Ishmael (pbuh) was not a Prophet then Muhammad (pbuh) cannot be one too?

I disagree, as your Bible shows:

In Genesis 21, Isaac is blessed but Ishmael is specifically blessed and is promised by God to become a "great nation" - look at Genesis 21:13-18

It does not make sense as well that the privileges of the first-born are to be affected by the social status of the mother (in this case Hagar, mother of Ishmael). Read Deuteronomy 21:15-17 to see what I'm talking about.

Ishmael is further proven legitimate of Abraham's (peace be upon all of them) son and 'seed' as his mother was fully legitimate as Abraham's wife - look at Genesis 21:13 and 16:3.

Quoting http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Muhammad_Bible.HTM

After Jesus, the last Israelite messenger and prophet, it was time that God's promise to bless Ishmael and his descendants be fulfilled. Less than 600years after Jesus, came the last messenger of God, Muhammad, from the progeny of Abraham through Ishmael. God's blessing of both of the main branches of Abraham's family tree was now fullfilled.

We have now dived into studying the Bible, and I will show you how the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) easily fits the description of a Prophet “from among their brethren� and show you otherwise.

As we know in Deuteronomy 18:18 (King James Version):

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Christians believe this refers to Jesus (peace be upon him) as he was a Jew and a Prophet, similar to Moses (like unto thee). However, if these are the only criteria then we know that the Prophets of the Bible that came after Moses : Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc… (peace be upon them), are also Jews and Prophets.

However we believe it is the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is like Moses (pbuh):

1) Both were married and had children – Jesus according to the Bible did not have a wife or children
2) Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously
3) Both died natural deaths, Jesus (pbuh) was raised up alive, according to the Bible.

Arabs are the brethren of Jews. Arabs are descendants of Ishamael and and the Jews of Isaac (peace be upon them).

As well as this:

4) Both besides being Prophets were also kings (they could inflict capital punishment etc…) – According to (John 18:36) Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world.�
5) Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime But according to John (1:11) he states, "He came unto his own, but his own received him not."
6) Both brought news laws. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not bring any new laws (Mathew 5:17-18)

Also in the book of Isaiah (29:12):

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

We believe when Archangel Gabriel commanded The Prophet (peace be upon him) to “read� – he replied – “I am not learned�

And my personal favourite, in the Song of Solomon (5:16):

“חכו ממתקי� וכלו מחמדי� זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושל��

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters
of Jerusalem."

Why don’t you throw that bold Hebrew word into Google Translate and see what you end up with. In Hebrew the ‘im’ at the end of a name is added for respect. So as you can see, in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) name is prevalent.

I can also cite the New Testament for prophecies about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but since you were interested in the Old Testament that’s what I used.

NOW I WILL ADDRESS YOUR NEXT POST:

Mountains are not pegs that hold the earth still

You seem to believe that the Qur’an says that ‘Mountains are pegs’ and thus hold the Earth still as known by the function of a peg to hold a tent still. The resemblance drawn between a Mountain and a peg is only in appearance, not function.

and there are not invisible pillars that hold up the sky and stars don't hand as lamps. The Quran is wrong.

You seem to have misunderstood any verses that describe the sun as a lamp, and I am not aware of any verses that directly say the sky is held up by invisible pillars.

Infact we realize something remarkable when we look at the verses talking about the Sun resembling a lamp.

And made the moon therein a [reflected] light and made the sun a burning lamp?� Qur’an (71:16) – Sahih International

The moon is being described as a reflected light, and the sun is described as the ‘lamp’ or ‘source of light’. Something not known at the time.

Compare this to the Bible:

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." - Genesis 1:16

According to this, the moon is a light source just like the sun. We can see the problem here. There are many more verses that show the inconsistency with Biblical entries and modern knowledge to do with the sun.

In fact, earth quakes are the shifting of tectonic plates that involves magma underneath. If they are server enough they can produce mountains when they buckle upward if they buckle downward it forms ocean trenches.

Read about the phenomenon of folding in mountains.

Hope this has helped!

[Peace]

@A Troubled Man: Whatsup?

That isn't the point at all, none of what you've claimed from the Quran has anything to do with geology.

The "roots" of mountains are nothing as you've described.

LOL! No, someone "looked" at a mountain and determined it looked like a peg and assumed that half of the mountain was above and the rest below. That is not miraculous at all. That person did NOT know anything about what lay underneath the mountain, hence they used guesswork, which has been shown to be false by modern geology.

You seem to be stuck between two viewpoints and your arguments are not centralized around a specific ‘point’ that you are trying to make. You seem to have a problem with my conclusion that Mountains and their roots resemble pegs, or that they do resemble pegs but that isn’t a miraculous claim.

I will address both points anyways:

1) Mountains in light of their roots resemble pegs in appearance.

Now I could change the topic and debate the many other instances the Qur’an presents its scientific understanding, but I still believe this particular example is very clear and will stick to trying to find out exactly what it is you don’t agree with.

We can split the first group into:

i) Some mountains contain roots, and these roots are described as being part of the mountain (Wiki says: Thus the continental crust is normally much thicker under mountains ( sometimes called "mountain roots"))

ii) What a mountain is shaped like when it has roots
http://www.cas.umt.edu/geosciences//fac ... ryRoot.gif
http://islamzpeace.files.wordpress.com/ ... -roots.jpg
iii) What a peg looks like
iv) The similarity in appearance of a peg in the ground and a mountain with roots

Now tell me which group you have a problem with and why.


As for the second category:

2) That a mountain with roots does represent a peg, but that isn’t miraculous.

When we take into account that the Arabs at the time believed that the mountains held up the sky we see the impact of such a statement. When we take into account all the other miraculous claims in the Qur’an about the universe we understand that in every choice of word and structure of sentence there is a reason, and we discover that all claims are accurate. We then have no choice but to conclude that whoever wrote the Qur’an possessed knowledge about the universe that was definitely not found at the time and location it was revealed.

“And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)�

Hope this has helped!

[A Troubled Man]

You seem to have a problem with my conclusion that Mountains and their roots resemble pegs, or that they do resemble pegs but that isn’t a miraculous claim.

It's complete nonsense, but if you wish to add the term 'miraculous' then it is completely miraculous nonsense. Is that better?

Mountains in light of their roots resemble pegs in appearance.

Mountains come in a large variety of shapes due their formation. How many time this must be explained to you is the real question here.

Now I could change the topic and debate the many other instances the Qur’an presents its scientific understanding, but I still believe this particular example is very clear and will stick to trying to find out exactly what it is you don’t agree with.

Debate all you want, there isn't a single thing in the Quran that presents scientific understanding, that is absurd.

Hope this has helped!

Sorry, but trying to equate the Quran to science isn't going to work, dude. You are doing nothing but spreading Islamic propaganda and aren't convincing anyone of it. Give it up.

[Peace]

@A Troubled Man: Hey!

You seem to have a problem with my conclusion that Mountains and their roots resemble pegs, or that they do resemble pegs but that isn’t a miraculous claim.

It's complete nonsense, but if you wish to add the term 'miraculous' then it is completely miraculous nonsense. Is that better?

Why didn't you show me which one of the points you have a problem with, I want to see exactly what your problem is please.

Mountains come in a large variety of shapes due their formation. How many time this must be explained to you is the real question here.

Again, why have you not addressed my list? You seem to be jumping from point to point and are not persistent on a centralized 'theme'. This is why I made the list so I can understand exactly what you don't agree with.

As for this point, yes Mountains come in a large amount of shapes, but the concept and phenomenon of 'folding' creates mountains that are, in light of their roots, embedded in the ground much like pegs.

Debate all you want, there isn't a single thing in the Quran that presents scientific understanding, that is absurd.

I have constantly shown you examples, including space expansion, geology etc... Your lack of understanding on the subject of how to read and interpret the Qur'an as well as your complete misunderstanding on the principles of Islam makes me wonder whether I should be teaching you or debating you.

Sorry, but trying to equate the Quran to science isn't going to work, dude. You are doing nothing but spreading Islamic propaganda and aren't convincing anyone of it. Give it up.

Without citing any of your claims with evidence (no a magazine article doesn't count in this case), jumping to radical conclusions without backing your views with an iota of evidence, showing desperation by misquoting me, discouraging me from continuing and demonstrating the inability to identify simple shapes shows me that we haven't been debating at all.

I really hope you address my list, I would love to debate the points above and am convinced that the Qur'an is in clear agreement with modern established science and am waiting for someone to refute me properly.

[A Troubled Man]

As for this point, yes Mountains come in a large amount of shapes, but the concept and phenomenon of 'folding' creates mountains that are, in light of their roots, embedded in the ground much like pegs.

Mountains can look like any number of shapes one wishes to conceptualize in their minds. So what?

I have constantly shown you examples, including space expansion, geology etc...

LOL! No, you haven't.

Your lack of understanding on the subject of how to read and interpret the Qur'an as well as your complete misunderstanding on the principles of Islam makes me wonder whether I should be teaching you or debating you.

The plot thickens. We are basically talking about YOUR interpretation of the Quran and how we are misunderstanding YOUR interpretation.

That is known as "selective" interpretation in which one can prove anything they want.

Without citing any of your claims with evidence (no a magazine article doesn't count in this case), jumping to radical conclusions without backing your views with an iota of evidence, showing desperation by misquoting me, discouraging me from continuing and demonstrating the inability to identify simple shapes shows me that we haven't been debating at all.

What this boils down to is your lack of honesty in not looking at geology to understand mountains but instead "selectively" interpreting something from your holy book that is superfluous to the geology of mountains.

I really hope you address my list, I would love to debate the points above and am convinced that the Qur'an is in clear agreement with modern established science and am waiting for someone to refute me properly.

LOL! Yes, we know you're convinced of your selective interpretations.

[Burninglight]

@Burninglight: Hey man, sorry for the late reply, hope I cover all that you mentioned in this lenghtly reply...

I'll have to look over all you wrote. I'm surprised You didn't know about the pillars that cannot be seen that hold up the sky in the Quran. As much as I hate to agree with Troubled man you really do have physco selective memory. You also do that with you belief system.

To you the Quran cannot be wrong even if someone can prove it to you. So what is the point? Deut 18 has nothing to do with Muhammad. Those similarties could be said about many prophets, but not is not the case with Jesus and Moses: the sea obeyed them both; they were both saved from infanticide; both were called out of Egypt: the sea obeyed them both; both were saviors; both were made God. Moses was made god to pharoah and Jesus is God the son to the the world!

[Peace]

@A Troubled Man:

I have a problem figuring out why you do not address my list, we can debate this point all you want, but we will not actually move forward unless you address the many points I keep raising and you wish to ignore.

Mountains can look like any number of shapes one wishes to conceptualize in their minds. So what?

I'm sorry, we're going to have to be accurate here, mountains come in all shapes and sizes however when 'folding' occurs a very specific phenomenon occurs where the mountain ends up with 'roots' and appears 'embedded' in the ground much like a peg.

We would be close-minded if we believe that a mountain has to be a diamond shape to look like a peg, it merely, needs to resemble it in appearance when we look at their 'embedding' nature.

LOL! No, you haven't.

Besides the mountain example, I constantly quote:

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

Something you haven't addressed yet.

The plot thickens. We are basically talking about YOUR interpretation of the Quran and how we are misunderstanding YOUR interpretation.

That is known as "selective" interpretation in which one can prove anything they want.

I feel like I should be saying that to you! You seem to jump to interpretations of the Qur'an that you have decided are correct without referring to any authority, and that I have never heard of. Your latest evidence of an 'interpreter' was a journalist. I cannot possibly accept your 'interpretations'.

I, however, am giving you the interpretation 90% of Muslims give. I refer to the books of Ibn Kathir on Tafsir (a reliable work) and simple Arabic to translate the Qur'an. Some of the interpretations I give are somewhat debatable, yet, you have not even attempted as you present an obvious ignorance when it comes to the Qur'an.

Please, if you wish to debate me, acquire some knowledge on the subject by either asking me (I would love to answer your questions) or read about the subject online and come back with a basic understanding.

What this boils down to is your lack of honesty in not looking at geology to understand mountains but instead "selectively" interpreting something from your holy book that is superfluous to the geology of mountains.

LOL! Yes, we know you're convinced of your selective interpretations.

I look forward to either:
1) Questions from you
2) Evidence to back your 'interpretations'
3) A proper response to the list I provided above

and of course there is the fourth option you have constantly chosen:

4) Reply with absolutely no evidence for any claims I make, attempt a rebuttal in such a nature that the debate doesn't go anywhere while simultaneously presenting my lack of 'skills' at debating and absence of basic religious (Islamic) knowledge.

I really hope you stick with any reply besides '4'. Please and Thank You