Home

Op-ed

Authors

FAQ

Leaving Islam

Library

Gallery

Comments

Debates

Links

Forum

Author

Message

Denis Giron

Joined: 07 Sep 2002
Posts: 82
Location: New York City, Darul-Kufr

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:26 pm Post subject: My thoughts on this discussion thus far...

Pax Vobis Muslims and non-Muslims

I just came across this thread, and wanted to give my thoughts on the issue. I didn't expect the vituperation to reach the level that it has.

Regarding my debate with Nadir Ahmed, a transcript is forthcoming. It is, admittedly, my fault that no transcript has been completed yet (it is half done), as I volunteered to take on the task by myself, and have yet to complete it after nearly four months. Nonetheless, information on the debate (including links to relevant text discussions before and after the debate) can be found here:

http://www.joes.com/home/ahmedgiron/

Among the links given there, the one I recommend most is the following, from the usenet newsgroup soc.religion.islam -

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

The link above is to probably the most in depth discussion on the debate (and certainly one of the most civilized) on the net.

I was well aware that Nadir felt he won our debate, and that is fine (many Muslims who have emailed me agree - I happen to disagree, and many non-Muslims have emailed me also disagree). However, I was not aware that I was one of the people who "have been wiped out, exposed as frauds, and have fallen to the Sword of Islam" as Nadir rather strongly put it in his opening post of this thread. Very Happy

That being said I'd like to quickly comment on Dr. Sina's wonerful post regarding our debate. While there are some finer points that I might disagree with in terms of answers to each piece of evidence called to witness by Nadir, I generally agree with Dr. Sina's post overall. With that I would like to comment on the following by Dr. Sina:

Quote:

Denis is very cautious and does not call the Quran to be a hodgepodge of gibberish. He tries to be politically correct. He is even afraid to call a spade a spade and say all these verses are rubbish. He goes only as far to say that the “knowledge” contained in these verses were already known to humans prior to Muhammad. What knowledge? Most of the Quran is garbage.

A couple of people have actually commented that they felt I was too soft or too kind. The reality is that I wanted to present an approach that was as objective as possible, and I believe I did that. Though I'm an Atheist, my objections were not Atheist-specific or even non-Muslim specific. That is, even a Muslim could use the same argument I employed (and while they will remain anonymous, a few Muslims did email me and state that they generally agreed with my approach - not everyone is so impressed by the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an). The fact that my argument remains the same regardless of whether it is employed by a Muslim or an Atheist or a Christian, I think, is a testament to its objectivity. I apologize if this seems like I'm patting myself on the back a little hard here. Very Happy

Now I would like to note what Nadir has written in the response to Dr. Sina's post, which appears on Nadir's website. Now, I have spoken to Nadir on the phone, and had discussions with him over the net, and I have great respect for the man. That being noted, I do think Nadir has made an effort in the response on his site to drag this particular dispute with Dr. Sina and FFI to a level that is even lower than it already is. I do understand that FFI often has an atmosphere that is conducive to losing yourself to abuse (even I have succumbed to this, after deriding others for being abusive I started to unleash a rather abusive barage on Bread a few weeks back, which had to be tempered by the moderator - apologies to Bread and Dr. Sina). Nadir also got into some rather hateful, venom-filled exchanges with Sam Shamoun. I'm not saying that any of us are perfect, or that Nadir is entirely to blame. But I do think Nadir should be careful not to let the level of discourse drop any lower thant it already has.

In Nadir's response, I found the following to be rather humorous:

Quote:

ALI SINA DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE MY ARGUMENT!!!!!

Smart people who have listened to the debate realize that you CAN NOT pass off all of the scientific statements as guesswork and coincidence, look what one of Ali Sina's fans who listened to the debate said:

Spinoza:

"I listened to Denis Giron's debate and I thought the argument of 'chance' was rather ridiculous"

here is a smart kid, he knows the pit falls that lie ahead... I only wish Ali Sina had the same common sense Smile

Nadir cites Spinoza as weighing in on his side. I read Spinoza's post, and what he said was the following:

Quote:

I listened to Denis Giron's debate and I thought the argument of 'chance' was rather ridiculous.

Scrape together a few post facto mircles of reinterpretation, ignore the fact that most of the Quran contains complete idiocy and quite a few errors and inconsistencies (which require tremendous amounts of doublethink, blissful ignorence and mental gymnastics to swallow) and claim the divine (!) authorship of that wicked piece of 'literatuur' has been 'proved'.

It seems to me that Spinoza was obviously referring to Nadir's arguments about chance, not my own (of course, to be sure, Spinoza could clarify his position). Others have called Nadir to task for the nature of his "chance" argument. One commentator on the Nadir's algorythm (i.e. a person that Nadir invited to give his thoughts on the debate, who in turn gave his thoughts on our earlier text debate) said the following:

Quote:

One of the fundamental flaws in NA's algorithm (which, in the middle of a very childish ad-hominem attack, he claimed to be completely objective and unbiased and leading to irrefutable conclusions) is that, when using it to analyze passages, he randomly throws in "...but doubtful" in a very arbitrary manner. Why is it doubtful? If it's not obvious, it needs to be justified - and NA's assessments when using his algorithm are anything but obvious. In fact, even when he says something is "possible" or "impossible" there is no justification at all. (And many things he said are "impossible" are perfectly possible, as DG demonstrated - and NA then ignored.)

Of course, there's still the fundamental problem that DG kept addressing and NA never answered, which is the justification behind alternative G of the algorithm. All propositions in a logical argumentation must be either obvious, or justified by other propositions that are either obvious or justified by other propositions... and so on until you find out that ALL of the axioms (basic, non-justified propositions) that your argument depends on are self-evident. Well, the famous alternative G (that one of the possible reasons why someone in the deep past said something that agrees with modern science is that a vague "source greater than man" was involved) is NOT self-evident, at least not given the limited number of alternatives in the algorithm, and NA refused to justify it when asked to do so. (He kept just nit-picking the definition of "phenomenon" even after DG clearly said that was not the most important point.)

The fact remains that, with all due respect, Nadir has never given any justification for the numbers he put forth. They are completely arbitrary. He then took these unjustified figures and concluded that the only explanation is a divine one (which is a huge logical leap to say the least). When it was explained to him several times that even if we accept his unjustified figures, there are natural events that take place at even smaller odds (such as the combination of clothing that arises randomly in a room of 69 people), Nadir's response was to write a post where he concluded that even those events prove God's existence! He had totally missed the point. Perfectly natural events can happen at small odds, thus even if we accepted Nadir's unjustified figures, they do not allow him to conclude a divine explanation is the only possible answer. As for each piece of evidence itself, it has been shown repeatedly that there is nothing particularly miraculous about any given example. In short, I feel wholly justified in saying that Nadir did not succeed in proving the Qur'an was the word of God in our debate.

-Denis Giron

meghnad6

Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 78

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:38 pm Post subject: My comment

eezeevee, Bread and many other like minded people have said many a time " we hate Islam , but we do not hate Muslims". This is a contrdictory and unsustainable intellectual position that many rationalists have taken to prove their politically correct stand on a relatively simple issue. I believe that Ali Sina also subscribes to that line of thought. I believe that this an apologistic position for the rationalists against their own vehement attacks on Islam. The position has some similarity to the apologistic postures that many Islamic scholars, like John Esposito and Karen Carpenter, have taken toward Islam. My conviction : Islam and Muslims are two sides of the same coin. They are complimentary to each other. One can not exist without the other. If one hates Islam one must hate Muslims. Islam provides the fertile ground on which Muslims grow just like weeds grow on fertile land. Muslims provide the fertilizer to make the ground more fertile. It is an absurd proposition that one hates communism but one does not hate communists. It is true that the same person may not hate Russians, Chinese or Cubans. But he certainly hates communists. By hating Muslims, one does not hate Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Egyptians or Nigerians. Let us call a spade a spade: Islam and Muslim are one and the same thing.

DoctorNO

Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Posts: 487
Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:45 pm Post subject:

Would Nadir Ahmed redirect his debate with me? I would love to take this guy apart. Leave it to me, Ali. _________________ Islam - the religion invented by Mohammed.

arifqurashi

Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 340

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 8:11 pm Post subject:

meghnad6 wrote:

Islam and Muslims are two sides of the same coin. They are complimentary to each other. One can not exist without the other. If one hates Islam one must hate Muslims. Islam provides the fertile ground on which Muslims grow just like weeds grow on fertile land. Muslims provide the fertilizer to make the ground more fertile. It is true that the same person may not hate Russians, Chinese or Cubans. But he certainly hates communists. By hating Muslims, one does not hate Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Egyptians or Nigerians. Let us call a spade a spade: Islam and Muslim are one and the same thing.

How about this, I have a dear friend who has cancer, I hate cancer but I still love my dear friend. If I'm alive then, I will also attend his funeral for he is sure to die soon. My folks are Muslims all my relitaves are Muslims, do I hate them? no. Some of my best friends are Muslims (who do know that I'm not), should I hate them?
I think you need to think this over more before you make up your mind. Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, everyone likes to be known, this is their way of doing so, 1.2 billion Muslims love these people.

On another note, I feel sorry for Ali who has to respond to Mr. Nadir. This man is not worth responding to.
Arif

yeezevee

Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 2642

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 8:38 pm Post subject:

Quote:

meghnad6:: eezeevee, Bread and many other like minded people have said many a time " we hate Islam , but we do not hate Muslims".
This is a contrdictory and unsustainable intellectual position that many rationalists have taken to prove their politically correct stand on a relatively simple issue. I believe that Ali Sina also subscribes to that line of thought. I believe that this an apologistic position for the rationalists against their own vehement attacks on Islam ...

dear mr. meghnad6,.. Please make a new thread on How to eliminate Islam by Education or How to Eliminate Muslim by what ever is the method you choose to. such as killing every one....this thread is for discussing the subject of debater Mr. Nadir.. If you have anything to say on that subject such as 1). "Iron being the only element out heavens from Allaha Hand or 2). why you can not see your hand under 100feet water in the ocean.. Also Due to Allah may be blinding your brians.. so don't see your hands under the ocean....etc... from Nadir.....please do continue ..other wise make a new thread start writing on How to eliminate Islam and other religions that have similar scriptures.. if not same...

regards
yeezevee

Ali Sina

Joined: 15 Feb 2002
Posts: 2245

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:36 am Post subject:

Mr. Ahmed

The first part of your argument is nothing but ad hominen, insults and boastfulness. Since none of that has any scholarly value I leave it unanswered. You obviously feel that ad hominem is a good substitute to reason and when you are short of reason you can freely insult your opponent and thus win the battle. This is why Dr. Morey did not think you are worth responding to. However since one of my objectives is to prove Islamsists are savages full of arrogance and bravado I am pleased by your behavior and encourage you to continue.

The fact that you quote a racial remark made by a poster in FFI to smear the name of FFI and neglected completely the warning that this poster received and the angry reaction of the regular members of FFI is also good indication of your selective mind. This shows clearly you are desperate to find any fault with your opponents, and will even use the mistakes of those who have nothing to do with FFI to make your point.

You are obviously no one that needs to be exposed. I don’t think I should give you that much credit in saying I exposed you. You are too insignificant for that. The reason I am interested to continue this debate is not because I see any value in you but because you are a typical Muslim and I am interested to make my readers get to know a typical Muslim. A good example is worth much more than what I can say with a thousand words.

You wrote:

Quote:

to put Ali Sina's refutation in a nutshell, he basically said, that all the scientific statements in the Quran were ALL coincidences and good guesses

Obviously you did not read what I wrote or did not understand it. I did not say those verses are coincidence and good guess. I said most of what Muhammad said is wrong and the rest is commonsense, things that any ignorant man living in his time could have known. As I said your argument is petitio principii. It means that your premise is wrong. Your premise is that what Muhammad said is true and then conclude that a man like him could not have come to that many correct conclusions on his own and hence the Quran must be the word of God. But as you part from a false premise your conclusion is wrong. Obviously you are stuck here and can’t go forward. This is all you learned and this is all you can talk about. Therefore all you can do is repeat yourself like a broken disk. There is no reason to see whether what Muhammad said was because he was a genius, just guessed them, was a great scientist etc. Because what he said is mostly wrong and what is not wrong is commonsense and general knowledge available to anyone at his time.

You quoted Spinoza, one of the members of FFI who said:

Quote:

I listened to Denis Giron's debate and I thought the argument of 'chance' was rather ridiculous.

And triumphantly concluded:

Quote:

Smart people who have listened to the debate realize that you CAN NOT pass off all of the scientific statements as guesswork and coincidence, …
here is a smart kid, he knows the pit falls that lie ahead... I only wish Ali Sina had the same common sense Smile

However in your haste you forgot to read the rest of his message or may be you did not comprehend what he wrote:
Spinoza continued:

Quote:

Scrape together a few post facto mircles of reinterpretation, ignore the fact that most of the Quran contains complete idiocy and quite a few errors and inconsistencies (which require tremendous amounts of doublethink, blissful ignorence and mental gymnastics to swallow) and claim the divine (!) authorship of that wicked piece of 'literatuur' has been 'proved'.

This is basically my argument. The question of chance, guess or genius becomes ludicrous when the entire Quran is full of nonsense, errors and absurdities. I am afraid your understanding is very limited.

Bees:
As for the question of the bees, there is just one verse in the Quran and I already quoted it.

016.068
And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's) habitations;

What is so scientific about it? Any idiot knows that bees build their cells in hills, on trees and in human dwellings? Why such a sentence should be a miracle? As I said the word bee in Arabic is feminine. Muhammad had to use this word because this is an Arabic word and there is no other word that can substitute it. So if any credit is due it should go to the Arabs who invented a feminine word for bee. This argument of yours is as ridiculous as saying someone calling a hen, hen must have divine knowledge because hens are female.

2.
As for the city of Iram I said that people will not forget the loss of a city and the destruction of Iram was something that the Arabs knew. Muhammad was not the only person with this knowledge. In response to that you wrote:

Quote:

if that logic was true... then that means we have a record of EVERY destroyed city from the time of Adam, which would go back BILLIONS of years ago, I would like to ask Ali Sina to please provide for us that list Smile

First of all Adam is a mythological personage. Second, the age of humanity is not billions of years. Homo Sapience is only 100,000 years old. Thirdly humans started to become city dwellers no more than four thousand years ago and Forth the writing was invented almost at the same time. So this demand shows the lack of knowledge of Mr. Ahmed. Finally such a request is just laughable. How can one produce the list of all the cities lost? I just highlight these things so we can peer into the pathetic mind of a Muslim. In my response that it is not likely for the Arabs to forget one of their own cities, this gentleman is demanding that I produce a list of all the lost cities dating back to BILLIONS of years. Confused

Mr. Ahmed said that the name Iram did not exist in any pre-Islamic books. I said what books? Muhammad and his marauding gangs burned all the pre-Islamic books. They dismissed them as false or redundant because as Muhammad said anything pre-Islamic was Jahili (ignorance) and there was no need for them. The history reports the burning of the libraries in virtually all the countries that Muslims invaded. The most famous one of then was the huge library of Alexandria.

From the time of the pre-Islam very little books are left. The Egyptian scholar Taha Hussain, in his book Fi al-Adab al-Jaheli contended that:

The vast quantity of what is called pre-Islamic poetry has nothing to do with the pre-Islamic literature, but it is fabricated after Islam. ... Thus our research will lead us to a very strange conclusion; that this poetry can not be used in interpreting the Qur'an. http://debate.domini.org/newton/inventions.html

Paul Newton the Christian scholar on Islam states:
"Need is the mother of invention" is a saying that is true in many areas but in particuler it is true to what is called the science of the Qur'an.
“When the Muslims found themselves in the need to protect what they believed to be the miraculous nature of the Qur'an they invented:
1.
Pre-Islamic poetry.
And
2.
They invented non-Hijazi and foreign words
3.
They invented grammatical rules.
And it goes without saying that
4.
They invented a huge amount of Hadith.

He proves each and every one of his claims in an article available here:
http://debate.domini.org/newton/inventions.html

According to Taha Hussain Muslims destroyed all pre Islamic books and then fabricated poetries and words to justify the errors of the grammar of the Quran. The proof is convincing. One evidence presented by Taha Hussain is that all those poetries are in Quraysh dialect when in reality the Arabs spoke many different dialects and it is highly unlikely that these Arabs who were so tribalists would compose poetries in the dialect of the Quraysh instead of their own. They went even as far as to compose poetries and attribute them to Adam.

Mr. Ahmed asks me to remove my website if I can’t prove what I say is true. I have proven everything I say about Muhammad and the Quran is true. My challenge is that if anyone can prove me wrong I will remove my site. As I said before Mr. Ahmed has problem with comprehension. He has learned only one argument and that is the bee, Iram, iron, sea, orbit argument and that is all he can talk about. That argument is proven false but he can’t get over it because that is all he knows. Unfortunately that little knowledge proved to be unfounded and now he does not know where to stand.

Mr. Ahmed quoted the verse 3:7 that says some of the verses of the Quran are clear and some are not. Can he tell us why the Quran contradicts itself in other verses and claims to be:
clear book (5:15)
easy to understand (44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40)
explained in detail (6:114),
conveyed clearly (5:16, 10:15)
with “no doubt” in it (2:1).

I also quote the questions raised by Orenda one of the members of FFI. Those are also my questions. She wrote:

“I have a big problem with this ayah I am hoping you can help me to understand. To me this ayah is entirely illogical. Why would Allah purposefully send revelations which are unclear? and that he knows that will cause Fitnah and that he knows people will use the unclear verses for evil. ? Why would I purposefully give unclear directions to my friend when I know the chance could mean the loss of her very life?

Why send unclear meanings at all, because Allah says none know the hidden meaning except Allah. Therefore, it would be useless to study the Qur'an front and back, in fact the ayah implies that searching for hidden meanings cause fitnah. Allah has declared that only he knows the hidden meaning.

Yet, at the same time, Allah expects those people who are knowledgable to say we believe in it, all of it. The clear AND unclear.

How can they believe in the unclear parts when they can not know the meaning?!”

As for a “barrier between fresh and salt water” there is no such barrier at all and the Quran is wrong. The sweet waters enter the sea and eventually mix with the sea water. Anyone standing on a hill can see that when the water enters the sea (especially when it is muddy) it pushes the sea water aside and because of its momentum goes forward. In the mouth of the delta the waters seem to be separate but soon they merge. The Quran mentions that there is a barrier and the Quran is wrong. So the question of probability and chance is irrelevant because the Quran is wrong.

Mr. Ahmed provided a link to the Islamic site that tries to explain the miracles of the Quran. In that link there is a picture of the Mediterranean Sea meeting the Atlantic Ocean and the Gibraltar Sill acting as the barrier between the two seas. Then he claims that this is what Muhammad is talking about? Mr. Ahmed, do you have any proof that Muhammad is talking about this Gibraltar Sill? It is up to you to present your evidence. Where is your proof? If Muhammad had specified the Seas then I could accept your claim. Otherwise it is just a vague statement that Muslims could even use if we discover a planet in another solar system with a barrier between two seas.

As the verse 25:53 makes it clear, Muhammad is talking about two seas one with sweet and palatable and the other with salty and bitter water. The water in both Atlantic and Mediterranean are salty. Therefore this verse does not refer to any two seas but to the waters at estuary where an arm of the sea extends inland to meet the river. In this case as I said there is no “forbidding partitions” between the waters and they eventually mix. On one side we have the fresh waters of the river running into the sea and on the other side we have the salty water of the sea being pushed away. In between the two we have a mixture of the two waters. The Islamic site claims this water in between acts as the barrier. This statement is simply asinine to say the least. The waters eventually keep mixing until all the salt water and sweet water become one. The mixed water between the two waters is not the barrier but the reverse. It is the mixture of the two.

When I say that Muhammad must have heard that at estuaries waters do not mix Mr. Ahmed says “ total baseless assumption, show us proof of what you are saying if you are truthful”

Dear Mr. Ahmed. I am not making any absurd claims about Muhammad. It is you who are claiming Muhammad had never heard about this phenomenon that could have been observed by anyone and was known universally by all seamen and those who lives near the deltas. It is up to you to prove to us that he never had heard what everyone else already knew.

If I write the relativity formula and claim this is revealed to me and I never heard of Einstein, it is not up to you to prove I have heard of him. It is up to me to prove I have not.

Once again you affirm that science has confirmed that there is a barrier between the seas. The only link you provide is the Islamic site from where you learned the only argument you have mastered. Please provide one reliable non-Islamic site that says there is “a barrier and a forbidden partition” between salty water and sweet water.

You sound like that fox who was caught stealing the grapes and when brought to the judge pleaded innocence and produced his tail as his witness. Islamic sites are not scientific sites. They all rehash the same nonsense and their claim that Quran is scientific is no proof to us.

You wrote:

Quote:

To sum up what ali states, he passes it off as a coincidence

I am sorry. I don’t think you are really paying any attention. To say these are all coincidences I must first agree that the Quran is right. I never said such thing. Quran is wrong in most of these cases and where it is right the knowledge was available to sun and dry and hence it was no coincidence that Muhammad got it right. Muhammad said nothing that an unlettered man of his time could not have known.

The rest of the “rebuttal” written by this character Mr. Ahmed is filled with insults and name-callings. I do not think my readers really are interested in that kind of debate. I let him win in the arena of hooliganism and arrogance uncontested.

Mr. Ahmed also demands that I should prove that Muhammad destroyed the books of the Jahilia, the pre-Islamic era called by him the age of ignorance. I believe that is ludicrous. It is up to him to show us at least one book of history, philosophy, medicine, astrology, or chemistry dating back to the Jahilia. It is unreasonable to assume that a nation known for their eloquence and literature did not write a single book on any science. As I said there are some poetry attributed to the Jahilia, but as Taha Hussain has shown they are all forgeries. Muslims simply destroyed all the books in Hijaz as they did in Egypt, Iran and virtually everywhere they invaded. Take the example of Iran. There are very little or virtually no books left from the time of before the Arab invasion. Is it logical to believe that a country such as Iran that rose to become the superpower of the world and in one time excelled Greece and Rome did not have any scholars prior to Islam? Islam is the enemy of culture, diversity and freedom of thought. Even today possessing a Bible in most Islamic countries is a crime.

Finally you have not yet answered the question that I repeatedly asked you in each and every communication to you. Do you think if you prove that the Quran is miraculous but fail to disprove the charges of murder, assassination, lecher, pedophilia, genocide, theft, etc that I bring against Muhammad he is still a prophet of God? Let us suppose you prove the Quran is miraculous but Muhammad is proven to be a villain and a monster. Who do you think the author of the Quran would be? Don’t you think may be then the Quran is the work of Satan? I need an answer to that. You seem to not to want to discuss the character of Muhammad while I believe this is crucial. Would you follow a murderer if he can impress you with a few tricks? You actually seem to not to want to discuss anything else but what you learned about bees, etc and what you are so good at i.e. insults.
_________________
Doubt everything, find your own light!

syamal

Joined: 09 Nov 2002
Posts: 395

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:17 am Post subject:

Quote:

Islam and Muslims are two sides of the same coin. They are complimentary to each other. One can not exist without the other. If one hates Islam one must hate Muslims. Islam provides the fertile ground on which Muslims grow just like weeds grow on fertile land. Muslims provide the fertilizer to make the ground more fertile.
It is an absurd proposition that one hates communism but one does not hate communists. It is true that the same person may not hate Russians, Chinese or Cubans. But he certainly hates communists. By hating Muslims, one does not hate Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Egyptians or Nigerians. Let us call a spade a spade: Islam and Muslim are one and the same thing.

Dear Meghnad, you are wrong.

Where is moderator? Sleeping. Why this posts not yet deleted.

mughal200

Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 522
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:28 am Post subject:

Brother nadir, It is very important that you realise the fact that truth is categorised in to four categories namely, absolute truth, proven truth, probabale truth and possible truth. To which category does islam or the quran belong according to you? This will help us see what we are discussing and what for. Your post actually disproves your own claim because you fail to prove it thereby. I will wait for your response to see what you are trying to establish eg are you trying to tell us that the quran is word of god as an absolute truth? If not, are you trying to tell us that the quran is word of god as a proven truth? If not, are you trying to tell us the quran is word of god as a probable truth? Or if not, are you trying to tell us that the quran is word of god as a possible truth? I categorise the quran as a book that is falsely attributed to god, for reasons I have made clear in my articles, the links to which have already been placed on this thread on the very first page. You can never prove the quran miraculous by taking some verses of the quran and interpreting them to fit the scientific facts as discovered by present day scientists and ignoring the verses which contradict those ideas. Harun yahya has done that already but has failed. For example, he decided to interpret words saba samawaat=seven heavens as atmospheric layers. The problem he failed to address is that stars are below the lowest heaven. There are no stars within the stratasphere layer that is closest to the earth. The problems in the quran are similar even in ordinary verses dealing with constitution eg looking at law of equality and fairness, we find the quran telling us to be just and fair to each other yet it also tells us to be unfair to each other as well ie women are not given the equal rights when it comes to beliefs, politics. society, culture or economy. This is why when muslim scholars of the quran talk about islam, justice and fairness they quote some verses and ignore the ones that oppose that very same idea or practice. I am fully aware of the fact that some quranic verses can be interpreted the way you are doing but at the same time there are verses which cannot be interpreted any other way than opposite. For example, take the verse 25/53 and the way you have interpreted it and look at 35/12 and see how that stops you from doing what you did. Likewise you took verse 57/25 for iron being sent down but ignored the verse itself as well as 39/6, 6/136 and the like. I know the probabilities you are implying but they serve no purpose here and are self defeating. The reason is that before these probabilities could be accepted, the quran needs to be proven true and if the quiran could be proven true then probablities serve no purpose in proving the quran, do they? There are 6238 verses in the quran and if the quran was truly perfect the probability of anyone producing such a book is 1/6238X1/6237X1/6236............... This is what you are doing with numbers of words in a verse and number of letters in a verse etc etc..... The down side of this idea is that at the end of the day, it still proves that there is statistically yet a chance no matter how small that some one could produce such a book, and that ruins your whole argument, for the quran has to be 100% impossible for anyone other than allah to produce. With all due respect dear brother, I think that you have over looked the implications of your own arguments, if I may say so. Anyway wish you luck and _________________ All the best, from Mughal at http://www.religionandsecularism3.gq.nu/favorite_links.html

adnan

Joined: 29 Jun 2002
Posts: 2988
Location: Ex-Muslim from Pakistan, now in USA

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:56 am Post subject:

Nadir

Quote:

I dont see you name there Ali lol Smile

Please get your english right first atleast, check the grammer before putting on your DEBATES online.
Plus also, the link to your site on that same page:
http://www.examinethetruth.com/ahmed_sina.htm is wrong. Just the carelessness with which you're debating as writing in rough hand without no editing, double checking and refining reflects the poor quality of your debate as well, as also proved below:

Quote:

Rather, Ali Sina, what you are, is a garbage man. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk. You recycle garbage.

Nadir, thats coming from you on your website ExamineTheTruth.com ? Come on, do some justice to the URL name. Its not TalkingTrash.com, its ExamineTheTruth.com
Good luck in refuting Ali Sina, I predict you'll delete the debates later on because in reality you'll be too embrassed and frustrated, but wouldnt want to show your situation to the public, so would rather delete it and do the disappearing act.

Adnan
(former muslim from Pakistan, now agnostic)

X

Joined: 08 Dec 2002
Posts: 35

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 6:37 am Post subject:

He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. - Qur'an, 25:53 try a simple experiment. get three bowls, water, salt, red food coloring and blue food coloring. in one bowl, place clear tap water and add red food coloring to it. In another, mix the salt and the water and add the blue food coloring to it. place the some of the sweet water with salt water in a separate bowl. You will see that the heavier, denser salt water sinks to the bottom. BUT guess what? take a spoon and stir the bowl up and guess what happens...THEY MIX TOGETHER......so much for the forbidden barrier

Ali Sina

Joined: 15 Feb 2002
Posts: 2245

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:14 am Post subject:

Muhammad must have heard this story from the sailors or those who had seen it first hand but he did not get the full story and thought that the waters will remain unmixed. In his Quran he tried to jumble all his knowledge and everything that he had heard and learned. Most of what he said is partially true but partially false. However he never tried to say anything concrete. He mentioned things on the go vaguely. And because he spoke vaguely it is difficult to understand what this guy was actually saying. This gives his followers ample opportunity to interpret what he said as they please, If they are proven wrong all they have to do is to say the previous generations did not understand this verse correctly and now science has made us see the real meaning behind those verses. _________________ Doubt everything, find your own light!

yeezevee

Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 2642

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 8:18 am Post subject:

Quote:

....He mentioned things on the go vaguely. And because he spoke vaguely it is difficult to understand what this guy was actually saying...

Mr. Mohammad was very cleaver guy and was very clear, when it comes to marrying young Women who were as young as his daughters, Looting Booty...killing those who didn't believe in his Allaha and preaching his followers .. when they die for the expansion of Islam through Jihad.. they all will spend rest of their eternal time in Heaven with houries....His contribution to the humanity is that hadiath.. that is only the true preaching he preached to his followers..Most of the Q'uran is a copy/paste and most of it is Ambiguous..

yeezevee

Spinoza

Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Posts: 1405

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:15 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Yes I was siding with you on that one: I actually would go a bit further: Nadir has actually asked me about this himself:

Quote:

"hi spinoza, so if i understand you correctly, you are saying that the Quran has been proved to be from a higher power... but other problems with it.... ?" (from a private message Sun Jan 04)

to which I replied:

Quote:

"...No. It has not been proved. I find it ridiculous that someone can claim 'proof' on a scientific basis while *proof* doesn't even exist in science.

Also handpicking a few cases that using some mental gymnastics, double think and ante facto reinterpretation whilst ignoring all the stuff that's clearly *wrong* is intellectually dishonest. I think Denis was way too polite in that 'debate' I heard online. You are a gifted speaker and a above avarage debater but as a scientist and a logical thinker you are lacking.

And even if the Quran would be of a higher power (which I do not believe at all) it is clear as the light of day that it is anything but a benevolent power.

Best whishes to you and I hope that one day you will step into the light again...." (a private message Sun Jan 04)

Normally I wouldn't dare posting from PM's but since we have a fraud on our hands that actually misused my quotes to make them say the opposite of their intented meaning I thought it prudent to let you all know.

Also I would like to add: not only are Nadir's numbers totally arbitrary (and somewhat idiotic...) and his 'miracles' highly contestable (or even outright rejectable: Jerusalem is at 700 meter above sea level for example, hardly the 'lowest point on earth') his test is also flawed: his 'miracles' aren't chosen from a-select verses nor does he take into account the absolute nonsense that is told in other verses: each of which is a guarantee that it cannot be the words of a truthspeaking, allknowing God. Period.

So not only is mister Nadir 'I use proof in Science' (!) Ahmed a very poor mathematician (or a rabidly dishonest one) he is also a liar when he tries to pass my comments off as supportive for his 'chance' argument.
_________________
Ceterum Censeo Somnium Rabidum Esse Refutandum.

MrHappy

Joined: 11 Nov 2003
Posts: 54

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:42 pm Post subject:

Well, I've seen enough. Lock the thread, we're done. If this was a boxing match, the fight would have been stopped by now. Ali Sina would be carried round the ring shoulder high while the medics took care of his protate opponent, erm, whatisname ? Questions would be asked as to why the referee let the fight go on so long. It would be recorded that erm, whatisname never stepped into the ring again.

trubluearthling

Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 14
Location: New Kafirland

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:10 pm Post subject:

mughal200 wrote:

Quote:

Rather, Ali Sina, what you are, is a garbage man. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk.

You're right. But not just Ali, all of us behind FFI are garbage men. We are left with the task of putting the Quran and the pedophile prophet's teaching into the rubbish bin. Well someone has to do the dirty work.

Nice try Nadir. By the way, did you chance upon that '360 joints' miracle mentioned in the hadith?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7180

Perhaps you could use that to scientifically explain Muhammad's joy-ride to heaven on Buraq, the winged horse. I'll believe you brother. After 360 joints, anything is possible.

Quote:

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk.

Glad that you mentioned it. We were of the impression that you were trying to be a jerk, when there was absolutely no need to.

Go to page 8

Articles	Op-ed	Authors	Debates	Leaving Islam	FAQ
Comments	Library	Gallery	Video Clips	Books	Sina's Challenge

© copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.