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?

[Burninglight]

Peace:

Here is a comment & question I got from online: "Muslims claim, that a proof the Koran was from God, is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology before man discovered it for himself. However, all the information in the Koran regarding Embryology is copied from three sources, 1. A Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. 2. A Jewish doctor named Samuel ha-Yehudi who lived 150 AD. 3. the Greek father of medicine Hippocrates who lived 400 BC. My question is: in light of the fact that all the information contained in the Koran was already in print by these three doctors, will you retract the argument on Embryology? If not, will you supply one detail revealed in the Koran about Embryology, that was not already revealed or that was new?
Muslims claim, that a proof that the Koran was from God is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology, yet in 86:6-7 the Koran says, "man was created from ejected liquid- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believed semen originates, from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally out of the body. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317) My question is: do you reject modern science and believe the Koran when it says sperm originates from the mid-gut section of a man's body."

[Peace]

@A Troubled Man:

Their interpretations are all identical when it comes to the verses in question about the 'beating' and about the mountains.

Then, we can discard their interpretations as being biased and ignorant.

Huuhh?? lol, no we can't. It just goes to show how accurate and reliable our preservation techniques are. We don't allow any room for human intervention, as with other religious texts, but this doesn't stop scholars to give their opinions about verses.

As the Qur'an is a book for all times and is now recently being recognized for its scientific values. When it comes to important verses that aren't going to change (i.e. gender equality and kindness to your spouses) we refer to the common interpretations. When we look at verses that are unclear and debatable we look at the interpretation that makes most sense - thank God the important verses have all been interpreted by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and there are no discrepancies.

Again, yes you may read it, but to pull meaning from it you must look to its context. Each verse was revealed for a specific location and time, it wasn't revealed as one book all at once.

I see no relevancy in that at all.

The relevancy is that you cannot say 'I will read the book in english, and then fully understand its meanings'. You must look to its context when available. This is something that radicals don't do and thus decide to kill everyone who is not a Muslim because they read a verse giving permission to the believers at the time to defend themselves, when we look to the context we understand that it was only for that specific time and place but was also a defensive command. This is just one example of its importance.

As for the mountains resembling 'pegs' the only 'context' we can probably look at is the environment in which this verse was revealed. We look at the fact that the Arab Bedouins at the time believed that mountains held up the sky! We then understand the impact of such a verse that goes out of its way to avoid such beliefs.

Again, this is our religion, when we interpret our Qur'an you must understand the language and look to the historical context.

Again, irrelevant.

Incorrect, it is very much relevant indeed. The language is just as important as the context as only someone who can read and understand Arabic will understand the impact of such a language being used for the 'word of God'. He/she will also see the depth of the grammar, words and symbolism used that isn't common in any other language. I will give an example below when I address the accuracy of translation.

Then, if I understand the Quran based on the words written there, my understanding is wrong?

The thing I am trying to show you, is that there are no words written there that you believe are demeaning to women or scientifically inaccurate. I also want to make it clear that the English is an attempt at understanding the Qur'an and is not the 'word of God'.

Baloney. Preservation techniques? Like making jams and jellies?

Lol, ofcourse not! I mean when it comes to keeping the text accurately preserved over 1400 years in that it hasn't changed one bit. The words are the same, the order of the surahs are the same, even the pronunciation is the same (and there are 10 different dialects of 'pronunciation').

Everything has been preserved, contrast this with other religious texts that it is lucky that we figure out the author and date the book was written. The Qur'an has been and always will be an effectively solid work, free from the errors and interference of man-made interpolations.

Baloney, Arabic is just another language. There is nothing in one language you can't accurately describe with another.

Ah, I see now, you're confusion lies in the fact that you believe translation means word for word. That's not how it works. It doesn't matter how many words in one language it takes to describe a word in another language. The only important aspect of translating is to make sure the meaning and intent get across accurately.

Incorrect, I do not mean word-for-word, I mean the actual meaning! I will elaborate on a simple example below:

I will use one example of the word 'except' in Arabic and show how the english restricts us from understanding the full meaning of the sentence.

If I use the word (إلا) translated 'except','only','however','unless', by Google translate in the sentence below:

"You will not be able to open the chest (إلا-except) with a key"

When we translate this into English we would get: "You will not be able to open the chest except with a key". However, it does not give us any indication of whether we will actually open the chest or not, it just says you will not open it except with a key.

Now the problem is that in Arabic (إلا) means 'except' but a special type of 'except'. It's an 'except' that is used when we want to mean that eventually you will open the chest, as in, you need a key to open the chest but you will eventually do so. When we translate it into English the subtle nature of the word in context is not reflected in meaning into the English. You may argue then why doesn't the translation say:

"You will not open the chest except with a key, but you will eventually do so"

It is because we would be inaccurate in translating the 'إلا' into 6 or 7 words. The word is not translated as 'except, but eventually you will' but instead as 'except'. The use of the word in Arabic is known only to be in situations where the condition will be met eventually, the actual translation of the word is not that however.

Now 'except' in English (one word) can be translated into 4 in Arabic:

1) ما عدا
2) إلا
3) باستثناء
4) �يما عدا

Each one being translated simple as 'except' however each one holding more meaning than simply just the translation. As english is limited in its variants of 'except' we are hidden from these extra 'meanings'.

The same is with the various 'if's' that I gave before. As you can see, Arabic in its subtle nature, contains depth of meaning when it comes to its conjugations and descriptive words that its not reflected in the English translations as English is limited in its expression of Arabic. You may also argue that the same is the other way around.

As for your reply to http://www.theinimitablequran.com/:

Yeah thanks, more Islamic propaganda about the miraculous Quran.

This quote here had me stitches, it's as if the author had never read a book in his entire life other than the Quran...

"The development of an entirely unique expression is beyond the scope of the productive nature of any author, hence a supernatural entity, God, is the only sufficient comprehensive explanation."

Please don't tell me you only read the brief introduction of the 'idea' on the sites homepage - as this is where your quote is from. Of course you will not understand his conclusion unless you actually read the detail of his investigation.

Go to 'Five major arguments' on top of the page:
http://www.theinimitablequran.com/fivem ... ments.html
Also very interesting are:
http://www.theinimitablequran.com/suppo ... ments.html
http://www.theinimitablequran.com/miracle.html
http://www.theinimitablequran.com/addit ... icles.html

If you want to be critical of a hypothesis you read the whole experimental procedure not criticize the actual hypothesis, in this way you would be honest in your argument.

I never called myself an interpreter. Where do you get these ridiculous notions?

Well you seem to be interpreting the Qur'an as you wish without referring to any authority or even debating with me the language used and why you believe your particular interpretation is correct. So since you are attempting to interpret it, I believe you think you are worthy of being an interpreter, because I have never heard of your interpretations before from reliable sources.

Because he is a reliable source of interpretation then we can accept his interpretation of unknown verses happily.

No, we can't because that is an appeal to popularity fallacy. You don't accept something because someone says so, you accept it on it's own merit and validity.

When I said popular, I meant that his work is accepted in all sects, not that we actually believe him cause everyone else believes him. We trust him and all the other thoroughly studied scholars because of their reliability.

So, we see that you're dishonestly aligning scientific fact with your holy book and that makes us radical and baseless?

Firstly, you have not dis proven any of my notions thus far about the science and the Qur'an, you simply gave your opinion without evidence.

Secondly, you interpretations that you seem to believe in about the women beating and apostasy killing are very radical and baseless claims about Islam, that you have yet to provide evidence for, again, a magazine article does not count.

Don't you mean the radical interpretation where it actually states in the Quran a husband should beat his wife?

As I've shown in my reply to 'Goat', in another thread that you partook in, that's not what it means in Arabic.

Baseless, no evidence, unsupported, please reference your claims with evidence and proof - I believe it is against the rules to give one-liners with no evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_formation

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk ... ntains.htm

This really doesn't show me anything, yes they are very interesting and useful articles, but it doesn't address my point or list in any way whatsoever.

I have constantly quoted wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain
where under the heading 'fold mountains' it says:

Thus the continental crust is normally much thicker under mountains ( sometimes called "mountain roots")

The book it cites for such words is " Press, Frank and Siever, Raymond, Earth, W. H. Freeman, 4th ed", a book popularly used in universities.

If you don't address my list I will take it that you are trying to avoid debate and will not reply to anything you say about mountains until you address my list properly.

No problem, we can look at Erosional, Folded and Fault Block mountains and find they don't resemble pegs or stop earthquakes.

Again, Fold mountains do have roots. Look above at the link.

[Peace]

@Burninglight:

Peace:

Here is a comment & question I got from online: "Muslims claim, that a proof the Koran was from God, is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology before man discovered it for himself. However, all the information in the Koran regarding Embryology is copied from three sources, 1. A Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. 2. A Jewish doctor named Samuel ha-Yehudi who lived 150 AD. 3. the Greek father of medicine Hippocrates who lived 400 BC. My question is: in light of the fact that all the information contained in the Koran was already in print by these three doctors, will you retract the argument on Embryology? If not, will you supply one detail revealed in the Koran about Embryology, that was not already revealed or that was new?
Muslims claim, that a proof that the Koran was from God is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology, yet in 86:6-7 the Koran says, "man was created from ejected liquid- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believed semen originates, from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally out of the body. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317) My question is: do you reject modern science and believe the Koran when it says sperm originates from the mid-gut section of a man's body."

I will happily address your above post if you can promise me that you will address my previous post about the historical accuracy of the Qur'anic preservation compared to the Biblical preservation.

I do not want to jump into a whole other topic unless it is clear that you wish not to/or later will address my lengthily response.

Thanks!

[A Troubled Man]

It just goes to show how accurate and reliable our preservation techniques are. We don't allow any room for human intervention, as with other religious texts, but this doesn't stop scholars to give their opinions about verses.

Yes, but their opinions may very well be invalid.

As the Qur'an is a book for all times and is now recently being recognized for its scientific values.

We already know that is entirely false.

...thank God the important verses have all been interpreted by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and there are no discrepancies.

Yes, no discrepancies other than with reality.

The relevancy is that you cannot say 'I will read the book in english, and then fully understand its meanings'.

Yes, I will understand an English translation, or a French translation, or a Russian translation or any other translation if I understand that language.

You must look to its context when available.

Irrelevant.

This is something that radicals don't do and thus decide to kill everyone who is not a Muslim because they read a verse giving permission to the believers at the time to defend themselves, when we look to the context we understand that it was only for that specific time and place but was also a defensive command. This is just one example of its importance.

If the verse says to kill unbelievers, who are you to argue? The issue on being defensive is highly debatable considering the Islamic Conquests.

As for the mountains resembling 'pegs' the only 'context' we can probably look at is the environment in which this verse was revealed.

The environment then was one of ignorance, myth and superstition.

Incorrect, it is very much relevant indeed. The language is just as important as the context as only someone who can read and understand Arabic will understand the impact of such a language being used for the 'word of God'. He/she will also see the depth of the grammar, words and symbolism used that isn't common in any other language. I will give an example below when I address the accuracy of translation.

Completely false.

The thing I am trying to show you, is that there are no words written there that you believe are demeaning to women or scientifically inaccurate.

LOL! What a whopper!

I also want to make it clear that the English is an attempt at understanding the Qur'an and is not the 'word of God'.

LOL! The Quran is the word of Muhammad, not God, and it doesn't matter what language it's in. Irrelevant.

Lol, ofcourse not! I mean when it comes to keeping the text accurately preserved over 1400 years in that it hasn't changed one bit. The words are the same, the order of the surahs are the same, even the pronunciation is the same (and there are 10 different dialects of 'pronunciation').

Everything has been preserved, contrast this with other religious texts that it is lucky that we figure out the author and date the book was written. The Qur'an has been and always will be an effectively solid work, free from the errors and interference of man-made interpolations.

No, there are many errors in the Quran because it was written by men who lived their lives under myths and superstitions.

Each one being translated simple as 'except' however each one holding more meaning than simply just the translation. As english is limited in its variants of 'except' we are hidden from these extra 'meanings'.

You are confused that translations are word for word or that one word in one language cannot be explained by other words in other languages. They can.

In other words, YOU are actually making a claim that states there are things that exist in the universe ONLY in the Arabic language. That is childish nonsense.

Please don't tell me you only read the brief introduction of the 'idea' on the sites homepage - as this is where your quote is from. Of course you will not understand his conclusion unless you actually read the detail of his investigation.

I read it, it was pure garbage.

Well you seem to be interpreting the Qur'an as you wish without referring to any authority or even debating with me the language used and why you believe your particular interpretation is correct.

Wow, you just don't get it. I can read the Quran without having someone else give me their interpretations of it. Muslims don't even agree with their own various interpretations and kill each other over them.

So since you are attempting to interpret it, I believe you think you are worthy of being an interpreter, because I have never heard of your interpretations before from reliable sources.

Hence, your belief about me being a worthy interpreter is utterly meaningless.

When I said popular, I meant that his work is accepted in all sects, not that we actually believe him cause everyone else believes him. We trust him and all the other thoroughly studied scholars because of their reliability.

They may be reliable in your mind, but not in others, including other Muslims.

As I've shown in my reply to 'Goat', in another thread that you partook in, that's not what it means in Arabic.

You did nothing of the sort. Beat means beat.

This really doesn't show me anything, yes they are very interesting and useful articles, but it doesn't address my point or list in any way whatsoever.

*sigh* In other words, you are refusing to learn anything about geology and mountains and will embrace your holy book for those answers. Okee dokee.

[Peace]

@ A Troubled Man: Whattup!

It just goes to show how accurate and reliable our preservation techniques are. We don't allow any room for human intervention, as with other religious texts, but this doesn't stop scholars to give their opinions about verses.

Yes, but their opinions may very well be invalid.

Yes you are right, opinions are always open to debate and criticism. Thank God none of our major beliefs (gender equality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc...) are not opinions and were accurately preserved interpretations.

As the Qur'an is a book for all times and is now recently being recognized for its scientific values.

We already know that is entirely false.

I will keep making it clear that you haven't put up a solid argument otherwise, with claims lacking evidence and reason. On the other hand, I have talked about the sun, mountains, universe etc...

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)

...thank God the important verses have all been interpreted by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and there are no discrepancies.

Yes, no discrepancies other than with reality.

So you agree that the interpretations have no discrepancies with themselves, i.e. all of the interpretations from the Prophet's (peace be upon him) time do not contradict each other!

The relevancy is that you cannot say 'I will read the book in english, and then fully understand its meanings'.

Yes, I will understand an English translation, or a French translation, or a Russian translation or any other translation if I understand that language.

Yes, but you will not grasp the full meaning of the book if you aren't aware of translation's barriers and errors. I provided a good example with 'except' above.

You must look to its context when available.

Irrelevant.

Sorry dude, very relevant when it comes to Islam. Maybe not when your reading little red riding hood, but for the Qur'an, you must look to its historical context to understand its historical commandments. Much like the Old Testament, many would argue, the commandments within it about armies killing women and children are only suited for a specific time and place, even though we do not know that specific time and place. In the Qur'an God has never ordered the killing of women and children and to understand the rest we must look to the history of the text that is well documented!

If the verse says to kill unbelievers, who are you to argue? The issue on being defensive is highly debatable considering the Islamic Conquests.

I am not here to argue, only to interpret. As I said, when we look to the context of the verse and the context of the Surah and what actually happened in History, God did not command Muslims to attack, but gave permission to defend themselves. This is a whole other story.

As for your 'hint' for Islamic conquests killing unbelievers mercilessly I have a feeling you read a magazine article to come to that conclusion! lol, I really hope you didn't.

As for the mountains resembling 'pegs' the only 'context' we can probably look at is the environment in which this verse was revealed.

The environment then was one of ignorance, myth and superstition.

Exactly! God bless you child! lol, so we see the significance when in an environment of ignorance a verse is revealed hinting at the occurrence of mountainous roots (something that is NOT myth) and how such mountains resemble pegs in their embedding nature.

Wow, its refreshing to hear some truth every now and then!

Incorrect, it is very much relevant indeed. The language is just as important as the context as only someone who can read and understand Arabic will understand the impact of such a language being used for the 'word of God'. He/she will also see the depth of the grammar, words and symbolism used that isn't common in any other language. I will give an example below when I address the accuracy of translation.

Completely false.

Care to elaborate on your comprehensive two-worded reply?

The thing I am trying to show you, is that there are no words written there that you believe are demeaning to women or scientifically inaccurate.

LOL! What a whopper!

It is a whopper! that you haven't given at iota of evidence to show otherwise!

I also want to make it clear that the English is an attempt at understanding the Qur'an and is not the 'word of God'.

LOL! The Quran is the word of Muhammad, not God, and it doesn't matter what language it's in. Irrelevant.

When I said 'Word of God' it is what we believe, hence the quotation marks, my point is that the english translation (In Islamic tradition) is not the Qur'an. Whether you believe it is the word of God or not is irrelevant.

No, there are many errors in the Quran because it was written by men who lived their lives under myths and superstitions.

Care to elaborate, or give an example monsieur?

You are confused that translations are word for word or that one word in one language cannot be explained by other words in other languages. They can.

Nuh uh, I have shown that in Arabic the word (إلا) cannot be translated in english to show it's full meaning. It can only be translated into 'except' as that's what it means, but the context and when the word is actually used in Arabic cannot be replicated in the English language.

Translations don't necessarily have to be word for word, don't put words into my mouth and refute my example properly.

In other words, YOU are actually making a claim that states there are things that exist in the universe ONLY in the Arabic language. That is childish nonsense.

lol, I said no such thing.

I read it, it was pure garbage.

Care to elaborate where the garbage is?

Wow, you just don't get it. I can read the Quran without having someone else give me their interpretations of it. Muslims don't even agree with their own various interpretations and kill each other over them.

You are right, I don't get it. I don't get where are on Earth you get your interpretations? And no, I don't kill my brothers for their opinion. You seem to believe 5% of the religion represents the other 95%. I believe in statistics that would be an inaccurate assumption.

So since you are attempting to interpret it, I believe you think you are worthy of being an interpreter, because I have never heard of your interpretations before from reliable sources.

Hence, your belief about me being a worthy interpreter is utterly meaningless.

I don't believe you are worthy of being an interpreter, wow, you are good at playing with words.

I said, YOUR belief that you are worthy of being an interpreter is absurd, since YOUR interpretations they are unsupported, baseless and completely lacking authority and historical meaning. Let alone it contradicts the rest of our religion.

They may be reliable in your mind, but not in others, including other Muslims.

Incorrect, the reliability of Ibn Kathir and the Prophets (peace be upon him) interpretations of important verse is undisputed between the sects.

It seems to be a problem with the small percentage of terrorists, criminals and ignorant peoples and then you.

As I've shown in my reply to 'Goat', in another thread that you partook in, that's not what it means in Arabic.

You did nothing of the sort. Beat means beat.

You know, denying facts that are available for everyone to see and read doesn't really do your case any good.

Here is the reply to Goat:

@Goat: Hey again!

Thanks for citing the Qur’an, there are several points I will address in my reply. I will give what many Muslims as well as myself give for the interpretation of this verse.

First, the English translation does not do the Arabic Qur’an justice in many instances, this is a good example. The verse in question is:

Quote:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). - Qur’an 4:34 – Yusuf Ali translation


The word in question is “idribuhunna� which is derived from “daraba� which means “beat�. Now this is not the only translation of the word “daraba�, as seen in the same chapter (4:94), “daraba� means to ‘go-abroad’:

Quote:
O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: 'Thou art none of a Believer!' Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:94)"


Also in verse 14:24 it means to “give an example�. The word ‘darabtum’ (4:94) and ‘daraba’ (4:34) share the same root in the same chapter, so here it is very possible that God commanded Muslims to leave the home altogether and desert their wives for a while. Keep in mind that this is in the case that the wife does something outside of the marriage contract – like cheat for example. We understand this from the translation of the word ‘Nushuz’: (Animosity, hostility, rebellion, ill-treatment, discord; violation of marital duties on the part of either husband or wife.)

As stated in an article by Rachael Tibbet I quote:

Quote:
Qur'anic commentators and translators experience problems with the term Adribu in the Qur'an not just in this verse but in others, as it is used in different contexts in ways which appear ambiguous and open to widely different translations into English. 'Daraba' can be translated in more than a hundred different ways.


Now this chosen translation makes sense for several reasons:

1) The Qur’an says don’t hurt your wives:

Quote:
“...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"


Quote:
"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves;and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:128)"


As we see here, this verse (4:128) shows that there should be an agreement between the couple, maybe an agreed separation whether temporary or permanent – agreeing with the translation of ‘adriboo’ as ‘to separate’ or ‘to part’.

Quote:
"O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness,that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity.. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"


Quote:
"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect.(The Noble Quran 30:21)"


2) The Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him)) says do not hit your wives:

Quote:
“Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"


Quote:
“Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face,and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)"


Quote:
Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: “…..So act kindly towards women.� (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)"


Interesting as well is:

Quote:
Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, 'The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135)"


We conclude that this makes more sense instead of ‘beat’ as this not only agrees with what the Prophet said and the rest of the Qur’an but seems more logical when dealing with a spouse that has broken a marital contract and more practical than to actually ‘beat’ them.

And Allah Almighty knows best, and may He forgive me if I made any mistake here.

Hope this has helped!

This really doesn't show me anything, yes they are very interesting and useful articles, but it doesn't address my point or list in any way whatsoever.

*sigh* In other words, you are refusing to learn anything about geology and mountains and will embrace your holy book for those answers. Okee dokee.

*sigh* In other words, you are refusing to address my points and list and are avoiding the whole topic altogether. Okee dokee!

Here is the list for the reader's sake (something A Troubled Man, has soo eloquently avoided to address):

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.

Take care!

[A Troubled Man]

@ A Troubled Man: Whattup!

Basically, your entire post is just repeating the same nonsense over and over.

[Peace]

@ A Troubled Man: Whattup!

Basically, your entire post is just repeating the same nonsense over and over.

Nope, my entire post is an effective rebuttal to your points and your reply is proof of it. If you wish to change the subject and keep to what me and Burninglight are talking about here then I would also be happy to do so.

We are discussing the supposed 'Islamic trinity' and more recently the textual compilation and history of the Qur'anic text in comparison to the Old and New Testaments.

[Burninglight]

@ A Troubled Man: Whattup!

Basically, your entire post is just repeating the same nonsense over and over.

Nope, my entire post is an effective rebuttal to your points and your reply is proof of it. If you wish to change the subject and keep to what me and Burninglight are talking about here then I would also be happy to do so.

We are discussing the supposed 'Islamic trinity' and more recently the textual compilation and history of the Qur'anic text in comparison to the Old and New Testaments.

The things Muslim accuse Christians of such as ascribing partners unto God or association is what Muslim are doing for the most part with the exception of Quranic Muslims. For instance, the last part of the shahadah is an association. Why can't you just say you believe in the one and only true God? Why do you have to mention Muhmamad as his slave? Christians do not have to mention the name of non deity. Jesus is God's very word that He spoke all things into existence. It is written: "In the beginning was the word. The word was with God. The word was God!" Jn 1
BYW, I don't believe you are gainsaying Troubled man.

[Peace]

@Burninglight:

Let me make it clear, you have not addressed my first post yet (lengthly response about the Qur'an's textual integrity in comparison to the OT and NT), I will not address your second post unless you promise to address my first post as it is a different subject altogether, and now the topic you are asking me about is yet another whole different topic!

I will address this one and the other one nonetheless, but know that you haven't replied to my first post which if you don't reply to I will take it that you agree with me.

The things Muslim accuse Christians of such as ascribing partners unto God or association is what Muslim are doing for the most part with the exception of Quranic Muslims.

For instance, the last part of the shahadah is an association.

This is funny coming from a Christian, do you know what ascribing partners even means? or what the Shahadah actually is?

I will do your job for you:

In Islam, shirk (Arabic: شرك‎ širk) is the sin of idolatry or polytheism. i.e. the deification or worship of anyone or anything other than the singular God, or more literally the establishment of "partners" placed beside God. It is the vice that is opposed to the virtue of Tawheed (monotheism).[1]

The Shahadah is:

There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet and messenger.

See your problem?

Why can't you just say you believe in the one and only true God?

As I've shown we do, I should be asking you why don't you believe in one and only one God? Not 3 versions of God, that are one in purpose but different in physical nature?

Why do you have to mention Muhmamad as his slave?

Because this describes the relationship a human has to his creator, know that the concept of 'slave' in the Arab region is much different than the widely accepted western depiction of 'slave'. In the Western tradition a slave was an abused poorly treated not paid illegal stolen human. Indeed a slave was treated like dirt, funny enough, the Church once justified slavery with the Bible! Read:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/1 ... litionism/

Anyways, in Arabia, a slave was treated differently, still very bad, but different. In Arabic a slave is the 'servant' or 'submitter' to someone. Not a poorly treated piece of dirt, but a servant. So Mohammad is not worshipped as he made it clear that he is the servant of God.

Remind you of someone?

Acts 3:26 - To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities. - New King James version

or:

Acts 3:26 - Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. - King James version

So who's right? the newer edition? or the older? why the many contradicting 'editions' in the first place?

If you aren't slaves/servants of God, then why does He punish you because of your sins? Why does He send earthquakes on humanity if we aren't under his control?

Christians do not have to mention the name of non deity.

So you accept that Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost/Spirit/Truth/Angel Gabriel/Comforter are deities worthy of worship? What about the rest of the Prophets you believe in? Moses? Abraham? Adam? Noah? (peace be upon them all) are they also deities?

So you believe in three deities? or one? see how messed up this is? Can I still be a Christian if I don't believe in Noah (peace be upon him)? Wasn't he a Prophet of God?

We believe they were ALL Prophets, Glory be to God who does not have a begotten 'son'.

Jesus is God's very word that He spoke all things into existence.

Sorry what? Jesus created the world? Wait or did God? We believe Jesus (peace be upon him) is God's word but not GOD!

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; - The Noble Qur'an (3:45)

It is written: "In the beginning was the word. The word was with God. The word was God!" Jn 1

I'm sorry your going to have to interpret this for me since the english written infront of me doesn't make sense.

BYW, I don't believe you are gainsaying Troubled man.

Of course you don't How can you support baseless claims that are rarely backed with any evidence, we would be lucky to witness the evidence from A Troubled Man, or his reply to my specific 'list'. We can dismiss all of his claims as gossip unless he shows otherwise. This claim is unsportsmanlike if you don't explain why.

[Burninglight]

@Burninglight:

Let me make it clear, you have not addressed my first post yet (lengthly response about the Qur'an's textual integrity in comparison to the OT and NT), I will not address your second post unless you promise to address my first post as it is a different subject altogether, and now the topic you are asking me about is yet another whole different topic!

I will address this one and the other one nonetheless, but know that you haven't replied to my first post which if you don't reply to I will take it that you agree with me.

The things Muslim accuse Christians of such as ascribing partners unto God or association is what Muslim are doing for the most part with the exception of Quranic Muslims.

For instance, the last part of the shahadah is an association.

This is funny coming from a Christian, do you know what ascribing partners even means? or what the Shahadah actually is?

I will do your job for you:

In Islam, shirk (Arabic: شرك‎ širk) is the sin of idolatry or polytheism. i.e. the deification or worship of anyone or anything other than the singular God, or more literally the establishment of "partners" placed beside God. It is the vice that is opposed to the virtue of Tawheed (monotheism).[1]

The Shahadah is:

There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet and messenger.

See your problem?

Why can't you just say you believe in the one and only true God?

As I've shown we do, I should be asking you why don't you believe in one and only one God? Not 3 versions of God, that are one in purpose but different in physical nature?

Why do you have to mention Muhmamad as his slave?

Because this describes the relationship a human has to his creator, know that the concept of 'slave' in the Arab region is much different than the widely accepted western depiction of 'slave'. In the Western tradition a slave was an abused poorly treated not paid illegal stolen human. Indeed a slave was treated like dirt, funny enough, the Church once justified slavery with the Bible! Read:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/1 ... litionism/

Anyways, in Arabia, a slave was treated differently, still very bad, but different. In Arabic a slave is the 'servant' or 'submitter' to someone. Not a poorly treated piece of dirt, but a servant. So Mohammad is not worshipped as he made it clear that he is the servant of God.

Remind you of someone?

Acts 3:26 - To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities. - New King James version

or:

Acts 3:26 - Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. - King James version

So who's right? the newer edition? or the older? why the many contradicting 'editions' in the first place?

If you aren't slaves/servants of God, then why does He punish you because of your sins? Why does He send earthquakes on humanity if we aren't under his control?

Christians do not have to mention the name of non deity.

So you accept that Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost/Spirit/Truth/Angel Gabriel/Comforter are deities worthy of worship? What about the rest of the Prophets you believe in? Moses? Abraham? Adam? Noah? (peace be upon them all) are they also deities?

So you believe in three deities? or one? see how messed up this is? Can I still be a Christian if I don't believe in Noah (peace be upon him)? Wasn't he a Prophet of God?

We believe they were ALL Prophets, Glory be to God who does not have a begotten 'son'.

Jesus is God's very word that He spoke all things into existence.

Sorry what? Jesus created the world? Wait or did God? We believe Jesus (peace be upon him) is God's word but not GOD!

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah; - The Noble Qur'an (3:45)

It is written: "In the beginning was the word. The word was with God. The word was God!" Jn 1

I'm sorry your going to have to interpret this for me since the english written infront of me doesn't make sense.

BYW, I don't believe you are gainsaying Troubled man.

Of course you don't How can you support baseless claims that are rarely backed with any evidence, we would be lucky to witness the evidence from A Troubled Man, or his reply to my specific 'list'. We can dismiss all of his claims as gossip unless he shows otherwise. This claim is unsportsmanlike if you don't explain why.

You have grave misconceptions of Christianity. We believe in one God; not three different gods who are one in purpose with different physical attributes.

We believe that God is Spirit; He is Holy; therefore, He is the Holy Spirit. Gabriel is not The Holy Spirit; he is an ministering angel messenger. Jesus is God's word incarnate. In the beginning the word was with God and the word was God. Jn 1. The word wasn't always called Jesus, but Jesus was always the word of God. Jesus is all that God is, but not all there is to God!

Why God has made His word flesh and His Spirit Truth /Holy or why he has made them distinct persons I don't understand, but I am not commanded to understand it. If Christians don't understand this, Muslim know infinitely less. Finally, if Allah and Muhammad didn't understand and knew less about the Christian concept of the trinity than the Christians themselves, what makes you think you can explain any better?

The only thing i see that relates to one in purposes and 3 different beings is Allah, Muhammad and Gabriel who are, IMHO. Islam is confusion, Gabriel is a messenger as all angels are, but Muhammad is called Allah's messenger. I thought Gabriel was his messenger? How can that be? Muhammad is really a messenger of a messenger????