|
| |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
X
Joined: 08 Dec 2002
Posts: 36
|
 Posted:
Thu Jan 08, 2004 8:52 pm
Post subject: |
 |
|
Nadir that has to be
the worst response in this debate that I have ever seen.
You did not counter anything that Ali Sina said. All you
did is scream "lies" and "liar" and
let's not forget "they can kiss my brown a$$".
How pathetic for someone who called himself the
"Sword of Islam" |
|
| Back
to top |
|
 |
Denis
Giron
Joined: 07 Sep 2002
Posts: 86
Location: New York City, Darul-Kufr
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:06 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Pax
Vobis Bread
| bread wrote: |
As for the ``debate`` carried on
with Mr. Nadir, is it over?
If it is still ongoing, I would like to take part
in it. Espectially about his claims regarding
iron.
If Im not mistaken, he lciamed that to produce
just one atom of irn, it would take 4 times the
energy contained in our solar ssystem??
If I misread it, please correct me. If that was
correctly quoted, then could Mr. Nadir provide
some proof for this claim? I would be very
interested to find out about it. :wink: |
While I don't know about the precise number of 4 (i.e 4
times the energy contained in the solar system), it is
generally agreed from what I can glean on the net that
iron atoms did not originate on earth (or even within this
solar system), because their binding energy is so high
that they had to be forged within a star larger than our
sun. For example, one site states the following:
| Quote: |
Supernovae are the source of many
of the heavy elements such as iron, cobalt,
nickel, titanium, silver and gold that we find on
Earth. The Earth contains material from many
supernovae that occurred before our solar system
was born.
(Source) |
However, with all due respect to Nadir, I don't believe
he's ever going to provide you with a solid answer on this
subject simply because he is not very well versed
regarding it. Nonetheless, one Muslim who, as far as this
layman can tell, seems to have a decent grip on the
subject of nucleosynthesis and the binding energy of iron
atoms would be Dr.
Muhammad Saifullaah, a frequent poster to soc.religion.islam
(SRI) who is a research fellow in the physics (or
engineering?) department at Cambridge university. Dr.
Saifullaah gave what is, as far as I can see, the clearest
Muslim argument regarding the alleged scientific knowledge
hidden in Soorat al-Hadeed
in a SRI post last February:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.HPX.4.33L.0302150922200.2347-100000%40club.eng.cam.ac.uk
The article covers the subject and even gives a couple
relevant links. I really don't believe Nadir has a
thorough understanding of the subject (and I don't mean
that as some sort of disrespect towards Nadir, I actually
have great respect for the man), thus the article above is
probably the best source for getting a clear version of
what the Muslim argument is exactly regarding iron. I
recommend reading it.
That being said, the problem is that what is true of iron
also happens to be true of all of the elements heavier
than helium - i.e. they were not forged on earth. As I
noted in the debate with Nadir, if you take a blade of
grass, almost every element in it was once on a star
outside our earth, and surprise, long before we discovered
this, Walt Whitman wrote in his 19th century piece Song
of Myself: "I believe a leaf of grass is
no less than the journey-work of the stars."
Can one reinterpret poetic references so as to create a
post-hoc harmony with science? Of course! Does this mean
that either of the author of the Qur'an or Walt Whitman
understood nucleosynthesis or binding energy? No. With
regard to the Qur'an specifically, it can be explained in
perfectly natural terms. Why? Because a pious monotheist
would believe that iron, like everything else that is
helpful, is a gift of God, and the nun-zain-lam root
(employed in the relevant verse in Soorat
al-Hadeed) does not have to be literally taken as
descending, but rather as a gift from God (I mean this in
the Form IV - af'ala
- stem, anzala,
where something is caused to descend, thus when the Qur'an
uses the word anzalnaa
- "we sent down" - it could also be taken as a
gift of God, and Wehr lists given of God as one of the
possible, though less literal, meanings).
Think of Soorat ash-Shu'araa
26:198 (though it is Form II), where there is hypothetical
talk of the Qur'an being revealed ("sent down")
to 'Ajameen
(non-Arabic speakers? mutes?). I don't think this should
be taken literally as the Qur'an being dropped out of the
sky, but rather only as given (and the NZL root is perfect
for this since God is in heaven and we are down below,
thus anything He gives us is "sent down").
Similar is the case with Soorat
al-Baqara 2:176 where Allaah nazzala
'l-kitaab, or "sent down the book" (the
book being the Qur'an, but of course the Qur'an did not
fall out of the sky in book form, not even according to
Muslims).
As for Form IV (which is the stem used in Soorat
al-Hadeed), in Soorat
al-Baqarah 2:99 there is mention of sending signs,
and in the same chapter (in verse 57) it states anzalna
alaykumu al-Manna wa as-Salwaa, or we sent down the
manna and the quails. In one Arabic translation of the
Bible I noticed that anzala is used for Luke 1:52, anzala
'l-A'izzaa'i 'ani 'l-karaasiyyi, but I don't think
this means the mighty were literally caused to descend or
fall from their thrones, rather it is figurative. Soorat
al-Araaf 7:26 has God saying "we sent down (anzalnaa)
clothing," but this could be seen as being given
clothing, having clothing bestowed by God, et cetera.
I think the final conclusion is that anzala
does not have to necessarily be taken as literally sending
down. It is possible for a person to use the word in a
figurative sense. If this is possible (and indeed it is),
then it is possible for a mere mortal to use it when
speaking of God giving us iron (as a gift, in light of all
its benefits). Furthermore, it would be more natural to
believe that the author of the Qur'an had physical iron in
mind, not iron atoms. Nadir has not given us any real
reason to consider this verse miraculous - rather all he
has offered is the miracle of reinterpretation. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Spinoza
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Posts: 1407
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:49 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Nadir_ahmed wrote: |
http://examinethetruth.com/Challenge_Sina.htm
more to come...
I can kinda figure, that Ali Sina will never post
this debate the debate folder.... but thats ok,
this will be available on my website, not lost in
some discussion forum...
Robert Morey said, Its always the winning side
which will post the debate  |
While your at it, mister 'honest', why not inform the
people on your site that Meghnad6 was banned after his
remarks instead of passing his racist and violent filth of
as some sort of FFI endorsed rethoric?
Oh, and please note that your dishonesty (or plain and
utter stupidity) with regards to my remarks about your
notion of 'chance' has been exposed and you may need to
update your site and your 'argumentation'; frankly I
wouldn't dare calling someone a liar if I was the one
telling such a lot of untruth.
Best regards.
_________________
Ceterum Censeo Somnium Rabidum Esse Refutandum. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Denis
Giron
Joined: 07 Sep 2002
Posts: 86
Location: New York City, Darul-Kufr
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:36 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to add
that in the Qur'an
Forum I have just submitted a post which
subjects Nadir's first
response to Dr. Sina to some more in depth
analysis. The post can be found here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8753
I put it in that forum because the post is entirely on the
subject of Nadir's arguments for allegedly scientific
statements in the Qur'an being proof that the text is from
God. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Scandinavian
infidel
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 843
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2004 1:58 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| Ali Sina wrote: |
The sixth miracle according to Mr. Ahmed is the
verse:
57.025
We sent aforetime our messengers with Clear Signs
and sent down with them the Book and the Balance
(of Right and Wrong), that men may stand forth in
justice; and We sent down Iron, in which is
(material for) mighty war, as well as many
benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it
is that will help, Unseen, Him and His messengers:
For Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might
(and able to enforce His Will).
Mr. Ahmed says that according to the Modern
science, iron is the only element that does not
belong to the Earth but is sent from heaven to
Earth and hence the above verse is a miracle.
The truth is that four billion years ago, when our
planet was still a scorching ball of fire, a giant
asteroid mostly made of metal struck the Earth
scattering a lot of it to the sky. The asteroid
however penetrated the core of the Earth. That is
why the deeper we go the more metal we find.
However iron was not the only metal found that
came with that asteroid. It contained many other
metals including gold. |
Actually, Ali, that is not entirely accurate. The elements
we have today were already present in this cloud of gas
and dust left over from an earlier supernova explosion. Of
course, this doesn't change the fact that there is
absolutely nothing miraculous about this verse. Sorry, Mr.
Ahmed, but reading scientific knowledge into the Koran is
like trying to squeeze orange juice out of a stone. Good
luck. You're going to need it.
| Ali Sina wrote: |
| Mr. Ahmed in the defense of his
theory states that the energy required to create
one atom of iron equals several times the energy
stored in the sun. This is obviously absurd. |
Yes, it is extremely absurd, and it shows just how much he
lacks understanding of science. An unworthy opponent,
which we should waste no more time on.
There IS indeed something particular about iron: The
fusion process going on inside a star, which is what makes
it produce energy and "burn", stops when the
process has reached iron. When you "melt" two
hydrogen cores together to helium, each nucleon (proton or
neutron) has slightly less mass after the fusion. The rest
is released as energy, after Einstein's (yes, the Jew
one!) famous formula E=mc2 . Likewise, when you fuse
helium cores to oxygen etc., the "excess energy"
due to the loss of mass in every nucleon will be released.
This continues with "heavier" fusions until the
process has reached iron. Because each nucleon in an iron
core has less mass than for any other element, there is no
longer any excess energy to tap. On the contrary, you have
to provide extra energy to fuse two iron cores. Thus the
star loses its energy supply and "dies".
For a big star, this is pretty violent stuff and will
result in a supernova explosion. Most of the star's mass
will then end up as a cloud of gas and dust, which can
than maybe make up the raw materials for new stars and
planets like ours. The fusion process in the old star has
produced all elements known to man, including heavier ones
like gold. Earth and us earthlings are just left-overs
from an old supernova explosion.
By the way, Mr. Ahmed: I'd like to make a challenge of my
own. If the Koran is so scientific, how do you explain
this verse:
72.19 : And when the slave of Allah stood up invoking Him
in prayer they ( Jinns, spirits who are usually evil) just
made round him a dense crowd as if sticking one over
another.
How does a dense crowd of Jinns look like? These creatures
must be important, since the entire chapter (sura 72) is
named after them. Tell us about Jinns. Please. I'd like to
know more about them.
_________________
Islam is like the dinosaurs: Big, ugly and too stupid to
survive. Our grandchildren will know it only from museums,
together with other prehistoric artefacts.
Last edited by Scandinavian infidel on Fri Jan 09, 2004
4:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
bread
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 1974
Location: Eurasia
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2004 2:26 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Iron has four stable
isotopes. In any sample of iron, Fe-56 composes 91.7% of
the sample. This isotope has 26 protons and 30 neutrons.
Fe-54 composes 5.8% of the sample. (Fe-54=26 protons, 28
neutrons). Fe -57 composes 2.2%,( Fe-57=26 protons, 31
neutrons). Fe-58 composes .28%, (Fe-58=26 protons, 32
neutrons.) There is a very slight difference in
proportions of isotopes of extraterrestrial iron.
(meteorites)
Iron composes one third of the earth's mass and in star
systems that have elements of this weight or higher, it is
also extremely abundant, being the most common of the
heavier elements. Iron 56 composes 92% of iron and has the
highest mass defect of any isotope within the periodic
chart. The natural structural extension of silicon 28 is
the proton arrangement of iron 56. This structure is the
least energy structure of 56 nucleons and, or 26 protons.
This structure exemplifies a simple lattice while also
incorporating the strength of in-line posting and the
strength of the completed circular hexagon. 56 nucleons
would achieve this structure with the conversion of
nucleons needed to attain it. This structure is also
almost indestructible meaning its survivability inside the
condition of a star is much greater. The other isotopes of
iron each derive from a unique form of symmetry and each
one is the lowest energy structure for the symmetry they
possess.
Iron has the highest binding energy of all elements. With
a centre neutron, five added neutrons are compressed
around the interior cube.
Nuclear Binding Energy
The "binding energy" of a nuclide is the
"mass loss" or "mass defect" between
the exact mass of a nuclide and the sum of the free masses
of the protons and neutrons which are known to compose it
substituted into the Einstein equation.
The binding energy of a nucleus is almost a billion times
greater than a chemical bond, about 100 kJ/mole.
Stability of Nuclides
The binding energy divided by the number of nucleons
(#p+#n) composing it is a common way to describe the
stability of nuclides.
e-process: A hypothetical group of nuclear reactions by
which the iron group is assumed to be synthesized. At
temperatures > 5 × 109 K and densities > 3 × 106 g
cm-3 there are great numbers of collisions between
high-energy photons and nuclei. These collisions break up
the nuclei, the fragments of which promptly combine with
other particles. Thus, there is in effect an equilibrium
between formation and breakup. Since the iron group has
the largest binding energies, the particles over the long
run will tend to be trapped in these nuclei. The e-process
(the e stands for equilibrium) is presumed to occur in a
supernova explosion.
The Theoretical model of Iron formation is this: in stars
5x or more massive than our Sun, the fusion of hydrogen to
helium, all the way to Iron occurs. But Iron doesn’t
fuse with an energy surplus under ``normal`` conditions.
So suddenly there is no energy outflow to counteract the
enormous forces of gravity, and the star collapses. At
this point the collapsing and by now much denser and
hotter star explodes in a Supernova. The surge of
neutrinos creates a shockwave whick propel the heavy
elemonts into space and these (heavy elements) continue to
be to bombarded by neutrino streams, while capturing many
of these neutrinos, becoming in the process the heavy
elements beyond Iron. If no stars 5x or more massive than
the Sun existed, then no Supernovae and thus no elements
heavier than Iron.
What happens in the case of a star that is sub-mass for a
Supernova, say 0.4 to 3.4 times the mass of our Sun? Well,
after the hydrogen ``fuel`` is used up and turned into
helium, then helium is fised firther into carbon. (for our
Sun that would be done in a few minutes). Carbon structure
(atomic structure) is too strong to be fused any further
by the compressed mass od such a small star and the Star`s
fusion processes come to an end. Eventually it becomes a
white dwarf, the size of a planetoid a few thousand miles
across.
Thus all the elements beyond hydrogen are ``manufactured``
inside stars. Iron is just one of them(the star must be 5x
or more larger than the sun).
When Mr. Nadir interprets the Quran as saying Iron is
``sent down`` by Allah as meaning supernovas producing
Iron he is grasping at straws. All elements beyond
hydrogen are produced inside stars. Where in the Quran is
it written about fusion or stars exploding (supernovas)??
This is a forced interpretation of a vague verse. More
likely Muhammad was referring to meteoritic iron, since
the Arabs of his days didn’t yet achieve iron age and
were using only meteoritic iron which was scarce, and
whatever iron tools or weapons they could purchase ready
made from the Byzantines and Persians.
| Quote: |
Ali Sina wrote:
Mr. Ahmed in the defense of his theory states that
the energy required to create one atom of iron
equals several times the energy stored in the sun.
This is obviously absurd. |
Yes, this is absurd. When fusion occurs, only a minute
amount of the mass of the lighter elements fused to
produce a heavier elelemnt is transformed into energy
accordingto the E=mc2 formula. Obviously if the entire
mass of the sun were trabsformed into energy this released
energy would be far larger than the energy necessary to
create one atom of iron.
_________________
Bread, proudly a former Muslim who saw the light.Islam is
the only personality cult dedicated to a dead man,
MuhamMAD. MuhamMAD is the only paedophile, antisemite,
ethnic cleanser and rapist who is worshipped and praised
for ``moral``behaviour. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
aliayesha
Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 3
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2004 4:12 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| Is there any place in
Koran where it says the water in the clouds come from the
water in the seas and lakes? All I could find in Koran is
that Allah gives water from the clouds. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
PeaceOnEarth
Joined: 13 Sep 2003
Posts: 93
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2004 4:44 am
Post subject: Iron .... NOT |
|
|
The
most tightly bound nuclei is not that of Iron. It is that
of Ni.
Element.........B/A
(Binding energy/mass no.)............B
(keV)
Ni(62)...............8794.60...............................545,254.20
Fe(58)..............8792.23...............................509,949.34
Fe(56)..............8790.36...............................492,260.16
Ni(60)...............8780.79...............................526,847.40
Units of B/A are keV
In terms of total binding energy, both Ni(62) and Ni(60)
come ahead of Fe. In terms of B/A, Ni(62) leads all.
Reference:
Wapstra, A. H. and Bos, K., "The 1983 atomic-mass
evaluation. I. Atomic mass table," Nucl. Phys. A 432,
1-54, 1985.
A convincing case for Ni(62) having the highest binding
energy can also be found in the following paper:
Reference:
Fewell, M. P., "The Atomic Nuclide with the Highest
Mean Binding Energy", Am. J. Phys. 63, July 1995.
--------------------------
I will also answer the most obvious question that will
come from the above notes:
Higher the binding energy per nucleon an element has, the
more stable it is because it is difficult to divide the
nucleus due to its strong binding energy per nucleon. In
this respect, the element that has the highest binding
energy per nucleon is the most stable substance on the
earth. Why is then Fe the most abundant element and not
Ni?
Fewell discusses this point, and indicates that the reason
lies with the greater photodisintegration rate for Ni(62)
in stellar interiors.
------------------------------
Proof that Sun can produce
more energy than the nuclear binding energy of Fe
There are two ways of producing energy from an atom:
fission and fusion. Amount of energy produced is much
greater in nuclear fusion than in fission. Sun is not a
static storehouse of energy. It is generating energy
through fusion of "Godzillion" number of
hydrogen atoms .
Energy is generated in the Sun through the following
reaction:
overall reaction is "burning" hydrogen to make
helium (i.e., fusing of hydrogen atoms to make Helium) :
4H + 2e --> 4He + 2 neutrinos + 6 photons
In this reaction, the final particles have less internal
energy than the starting particles. Since energy is
conserved, the extra energy is released as energy of
motion of the nuclei and electrons in the solar gas, the
production of lots of low energy photons and, finally, the
energy of the neutrinos, which just "fly" right
out of the Sun. The amount of energy involved is 26 MeV =
26 x 10^6 eV each time the reaction above happens.
Total nuclear binding energy of Fe_58 is 510 MeV. For
every 4 hydrogen atoms that are fused, we get 26 Mev. 100
hydrogen atoms generate = 26 * 25 = 650 MeV > 510 MeV.
In case you did not know, Sun has ***lot*** more than 100
hydrogen atoms. Sun definitely produces a lot more energy
than the total nuclear binding energy of an Fe atom.
Reference:
"How the Sun Shines" http://www.nobel.se/physics/articles/fusion/index.html
------------------------------
An obvious question related to fusion would be: If fusion
is such a greater source of energy than fission, why do we
not use it on earth?
Answer is that the temperatures needed to initiate fusion
reactions are so high that it makes it currently
impractical. In the "Hydrogen" bomb, the energy
needed for fusion is created via a fission reaction.
We don't need to challenge the powerful Sun for this. US
can do this with Hydrogen bombs right here on earth if
there is a need.
------------------------------
Here endeth the lesson.
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -
Russell
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye.
The more light you shine on it, the more it will
contract."
Last edited by PeaceOnEarth on Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:48 am;
edited 18 times in total |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
adnan
Joined: 29 Jun 2002
Posts: 3024
Location: Ex-Muslim from Pakistan, now in USA
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2004 4:47 am
Post subject: |
|
|
you guys know more
Science than Allah 
(but ofcourse you do) |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Scandinavian
infidel
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 843
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:03 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| adnan wrote: |
| you guys know more Science than
Allah
|
Well, it doesn't take much of an effort!
Kafirs: 1 - Allah: 0
_________________
Islam is like the dinosaurs: Big, ugly and too stupid to
survive. Our grandchildren will know it only from museums,
together with other prehistoric artefacts. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Egyptian
Kafir
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Posts: 476
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:06 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Oh..damn..what am I
missing here? 
guys..guys...what are you doing? whats all this Scientific
stuff for?
to refute this kid's claims..all what you need is this:
some knowledge of arabic!
because all
of these claims are nothing but this:
1- lying in translation of a certain word.
2- lying in the "tashkil" of a certain arabic
word..wich may change its meaning.
3-lying in the meaning of a certain old arabic word that
is unknown to people today, and give it totally different
meanings that what it originally supposed to mean.
thats it..
just like the word that I have exposed a fraud awhile
back....and what you guys are discussing now..the word
"anzala" wich the crocks claim it means
"brought down" ...while it actually means
"created" because it was used in another verse
to describe cattle and clothes !! last I checked, cattle
and clothes were not "brought down" to us from
the heavens...I wrote a rersponse to this somewhere in the
quran forum look it up.
while i know that this "theory" is wrong in the
first place, I do not care to discuss weather its
scientific or not, just expose the abuse of the arabic
word, because when just this was done, the muslims'
argument is eradicated from its core.
their premise is the following:
-this certain word in this verse means "..."
if you eradicate this premise by proving that that certain
word does NOT mean "..." , you eradicate the
rest..easily, smoothly.
play it smart! expose their arguments as fraud from its
linguistic side, no need to give yourself headechs with
all this scientific arguing..
_________________
Did I offend you Muslims? |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Brigitte
Joined: 14 Dec 2002
Posts: 310
Location: Dar el Entisar
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:26 am
Post subject: |
|
|
So, I see that Mr.
Nadir has been BEATEN twice on the "iron"
subject, once with good scientific reasoning and a second
time thanks to EK with a linguistic argument. I wonder if
he's going to put that on his site...
I have been following this debate and had to conclude that
Mr. Nadir doesn't really have any good scientific
background... I almost feel pitty for him. Why on earth
did he want this debate on scientific grounds in the first
place?
Brigitte |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
bread
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 1974
Location: Eurasia
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2004 12:19 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The most tightly bound nuclei is
not that of Iron. It is that of Ni. |
You are right only for Ni 62, a rarer isotope, but not for
the regular Ni60.
I was referring to the basic form of Ni (Ni60).
But you are right about Ni62.
I guess Nadir was really having a different point in mind:
i.e. that a star the size of our tiny, puny Sun, cannot
fuse beyond Iron and that in order to do that it would
have to be at least 5x bigger. If that is what Nadir meant
to say, then he was right. This is so, as I explained
above.
But he worded it in a confusing maner and in that maner
that he worded it it is wrong.
However, my good friend Egyptian Kafir demolished his
argument completely, because it seems Mr. Nadir had
mistaken the meaning of the Arabic word he used to deduce
these ``scientific`` claims in the Quranic verse he
discussed here with us.
Thanks Mr. Egyptian!
Thanks also PEaceon Earth for pointing out about the
isotope Ni62.
_________________
Bread, proudly a former Muslim who saw the light.Islam is
the only personality cult dedicated to a dead man,
MuhamMAD. MuhamMAD is the only paedophile, antisemite,
ethnic cleanser and rapist who is worshipped and praised
for ``moral``behaviour. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
trubluearthling
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 21
Location: New Kafirland
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 09, 2004 12:24 pm
Post subject: |
 |
|
Egyptian Kaffir has
pointed out a valid arguement here.
| Quote: |
while i know that this
"theory" is wrong in the first place, I
do not care to discuss weather its scientific or
not, just expose the abuse of the arabic word,
because when just this was done, the muslims'
argument is eradicated from its core.
their premise is the following:
-this certain word in this verse means
"..."
if you eradicate this premise by proving that that
certain word does NOT mean "..." , you
eradicate the rest..easily, smoothly. |
I would like to add to that. Muslims themselves admit to
not fully understanding the Quran. They stand divided over
interpretations of variations of meanings in Quran. That
problem itself should never have occured since Allah says
in the Quran that 'it is a
clear book', 'easy
to understand' and'a
guidance for all mankind'. But the fact remains
that the Quran is easily manipulated by its defenders,
thanks largely to the amount of figurative speech and
metaphorical descriptions it contains. That resulting
ambiguity, is justified by muslims as Allah's will of not
disclosing the truth of Quran to those whom Allah chooses
not to(as mentioned in the Quran), and not as a
contradiction to the 'clear book', 'easy to understand'
verses made elsewhere in the Quran.
Furthermore, muslims today claim that science is only now
beginning to discover 'facts' mentioned in the Quran 1400
years ago. Let us assume for the sake of arguement that
Quran contains scientific facts. And that the 'signs' and
'miracles' in it are proofs that authenticate Quran as
divine. I ask Mr Nadir, if science is only now uncovering
the secrets contained in the Quran, were people who lived
before such scientific advancements took place, to have
beleived in it blindly as the word of Allah? The Quran
when it was revealed only mentioned events and occurances
that were obvious and easily observed by everyone around
Muhammad. At the time of Muhammad up until recently, there
was no claim of anything mentioned in the Quran being even
remotely scientific. In the absence of such facts, on what
grounds did Allah expect those people to believe in Quran
as his/her/its work? Is Allah not short-changing us(people
in the 21st century) with 'less proofs' as opposed to
future generations who will have the scientific know-how
to unearth the rest of the 'secrets' contained in the
Quran?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Go to page 10
| |
|
