Miracles, THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE

If you read the post about astronomy, the answer was there about moon as a reflecting light.
Nope. I don't see it.
All I see is a quote which tells me that when the Qu'ran talks about the light of the moon, it is refering to it's beauty and not to the literal meaning of light as you'd have us all believe.

“It is He who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty).” [Al-Qur’an 10:5]



Can you point out any other religious book which shows such great compatanility with modren day science.
Buddhist Abhidharma.

Mohsin said:
Just tell me when you think that I should post the next series of miracles.
When I get to see one. :p
 
Namaste all,


Salaam Moshin,

let me ask you... if a miracle is a measure of truth... what of the miracles of the various other religious traditions? are those all discounted? if so, on what basis?
 
Brian, don't be dense

I said:
What has that question got to do with anything?

I am sat in a building composed of brick - a resource used for at least 6,000 years. Are buildings made of brick therefore of no worth now? Perhaps I should live only in a building made of concrete, glass, or steel? Ah, but the Romans learned to industrialise those processes in the 1st century AD. So are these things are also therefore of no worth now?

I am making a point that Muslims glorifying past Muslim science doesn't do modern Muslims any good when faced with modern medical problems which require exacting modern medical science, nearly all of which has been developed in spite of religious obstruction, e.g. the Enlightenment vs. the RCC and in our times modern knowledge vs. traditional Islamic instructions that is used to block Western science knowledge as well as Western culture. If the West has developed a better building it won't be recognized by people who claim the old brick buildings are good enough even though they are caving in during earthquakes and killing people who could otherwise be protected.
 
samabudhi said:
Nope. I don't see it.
All I see is a quote which tells me that when the Qu'ran talks about the light of the moon, it is refering to it's beauty and not to the literal meaning of light as you'd have us all believe.

Can you, by any manner, prove to me that the Arabic word noor does not mean reflected light? If you cannot, do not pass such arguments.

Now, some people have got a feeling that I am only accepting Qur'an as a word of God. It is a fundamental belief for a Muslim to believe in all the Prophets and the books that were revealed on them. Also, there would be no Prophet after Muhammad(P.B.U.H). Now, by name we can only point out twenty five of the prophets and four scriptures as their names are present in the Qur'an. Also, it is said in Islam that there were prophets/messangers sent to every nation, but they were for their people and for that time only and Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) will be a Prophet for the entire world. The number given is about 1,24,000. Now if by my posts I have doubted in devine involvement/nature of any religious scripture, I appologize for my mistake. I accept that I have said about contradictions in the Bible, but these are not from God, but due to human intervention/involvement. The prophecies of the Bible are also very much proven to be true. I accept that the challenge I gave can be true for other religions aswell, but now I will only point out the several reasons that why Qur'an is concidered miracles and following which, people are entering into Islam. The evidance of this can be seen from the links that I gave. Please note that it is not the only reason why we believe in Islam, but they are reasons strong enough to convince many people.
 
arielmessenger said:
I am making a point that Muslims glorifying past Muslim science doesn't do modern Muslims any good when faced with modern medical problems which require exacting modern medical science, nearly all of which has been developed in spite of religious obstruction, e.g. the Enlightenment vs. the RCC and in our times modern knowledge vs. traditional Islamic instructions that is used to block Western science knowledge as well as Western culture. If the West has developed a better building it won't be recognized by people who claim the old brick buildings are good enough even though they are caving in during earthquakes and killing people who could otherwise be protected.
Firstly, do you consider calling someone "dense" to be typical of your manners?

Secondly, I do not believe the argument that Mohsin makes is that we should fall back on science as it was represented in the 7th century. Mohsin's argument is that the Qur'an is particularly advanced on the scientific level for the time of its writing.

Whether someone accepts the logic of that argument is one matter - but bear in mind what the actual argument is, please, when discussing it.

Also note that obstruction of scientific development by the RCC - particularly with reference to the inquisition - was principly due to political reasons - ie, maintaining a certain central control of Europe - which was essentially the main political task of the Papacy across the Middle Ages to Renaissance. Read a little history of Europe in the Mediaeval Period and you'll see that - else read Machiavelli's "The Prince" and realise he was merely stating the obvious political realities of the time, rather than inventing them.

I would also invite you to state which specific religious instructions from the Quran - even the Hadith - specifically speak against learning, education, and the accumulation of knowledge.
 
arielmessenger said:
The way Muslims idolize Mohammad and the Quran as infallible also reminds of how Christian fundies try their best to find any little scrap of evidence that "proves beyond doubt" that the Bible stories are all 100%true when in fact no reputable historian or archeologist teaching in at any university level today will dare make such claims when every year more Bible myths continue to be exposed as such.

Word Idolatry is not a spiritual path. It is idolization of words written by men, fallible human beings for people afraid to think for themselves. If one needs another in order to think about God correctly what does this tell us about God? That God is not open to anyone but the special elite person or persons who alone can dictate what God is, what God wants, and how God want everyone to live. I'm sorry but this isn't my God who seems to be able to reach just about anyone under the sun or moon who seriously looks for It. We don't need to make idols of men or books in order to reach God all by ourselves. We don't idolize scientists and yet they have saved far more lives than Moses, Jesus, or Mohammad put together. This is exactly the way we should treat those who would speak for God. Put their evidence to the test instead of enshrining them in religious mystique and unquestioned authority.
I AGREE.

If the medieval practices and the medieval beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that are based on superstitions were eliminated, then we could start building a rational and logical belief system that is based on truth and an understanding of spirituality. This is the value of truthfulness and rationality.
Truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong. Spiritual interaction is only possible between spirits. Claims of supernatural acts performed by physical or spiritual beings in the physical universe are not truths. In this 21st Century, the Age of Technology, we are still plagued by religious beliefs that may be a contributing cause of terrorism, killings and wars between nations. Belief in a God who causes catastrophes, punishes people and who created the universe out of nothing as if by magic was brought about by hysteria and superstition. This thought process needs to be reassessed and brought up to date. Open-minded people must use common sense to determine whether this God was incorrectly perceived, misinterpreted and misunderstood by the masses of a bygone era.

Perception plays a major role in religions. There are numerous interpretations of the Scriptures, hence there are various sects who use the same source, the Bible or the Qur'an, but come to different conclusions. Religious differences are acceptable by the majority as long as fanaticism does not cause physical confrontations. The ironic fact is that the followers of these religions all claim to live by the Word of God. Many claim that God has personally talked to their messengers who have relayed these Words of God to others. Apparently the Words of God were either misinterpreted, God is contradicting himself, or we start all over again by each side claiming to live by and having heard the Word of God correctly. When establishing an association with the present day problems between Jews, Christians and Muslims, we can come up with numerous answers, however if there were no distinctions between Muslims, Jews, and Christians, strife would be nonexistent. The major distinction is religion. When peoples' concept of God is flawed, corrections, truth, logic and common sense thereof must eventually prevail. Human fallibility and misconceptions have labeled God for past millennia as one who interferes with the natural forces and free will of people by threatening punishment to those who disobey his bidding. The God of our ancestors had to be humanized in order to have the masses adapt the thought processes to that time period. God does not change with the times but our perception of who God is should change as societies eliminate their superstitious beliefs. God, the Ultimate Spirit consists of Supreme Purity, Pure Intelligence, Pure Logic, etc., is not encumbered by human attributes and has no needs, or a desire to be worshiped, prayed to, exalted, venerated, deified, or anything else that we have to offer.

God is a God for ALL & too large to fit into any one religion. As time passes and when people eventually transcend their religious prejudices they will no longer say, “I am a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian”; then they will say “I am a Jewish Transcendentalist, a Muslim Transcendentalist, a Christian Transcendentalist”; and thereafter they will say “I am a Transcendentalist”.

Namaste,
Kurt
 
arielmessenger said:
The way Muslims idolize Mohammad and the Quran as infallible also reminds of how Christian fundies try their best to find any little scrap of evidence that "proves beyond doubt" that the Bible stories are all 100%true when in fact no reputable historian or archeologist teaching in at any university level today will dare make such claims when every year more Bible myths continue to be exposed as such.

.
Just a side note, in reality, in the Middle East, the Bible is used extensively as a tool to find cities named in the Bible. In every case the Bible has proved accurate.


Previously I had a post about contradictions in the Qu'ran, and Mohsin was not able to access the site, I just checked it a few minutes ago, and it was working. If there weren't dozens of them, I would type in the contradictions here, but that would quite probably take me several days.
 
cmptechie said:
Just a side note, in reality, in the Middle East, the Bible is used extensively as a tool to find cities named in the Bible. In every case the Bible has proved accurate.
The Bible is not the sole product of someone's imagination. Neither are sea dragons, nor UFOs. There is a perfectly acceptable explanation for each.
The Bible started off as a collection of folk stories and bonified historical evidence which was put together and distorted into it's present form.
When scientists try to disprove Bible stories, they look into history and see events which did take place, but which were perfectly explainable by modern science. The Great Flood for instance was proven to be the flooding of the Black Sea. The plagues in Egypt too, were proven, and traced back to freak weather.

If the Bible was in fact all lies, it would never have got off the ground.
A lie will only exist if there are truthes supporting it.

What people who want the Bible to be true will say is, 'Look here. A truth! Therefore the whole Bible must be true!'
What people who want the Bible to be false will say is, 'Look here. A lie! Therefore the whole Bible must be a lie!'
How naive.
 
cmptechie said:
Just a side note, in reality, in the Middle East, the Bible is used extensively as a tool to find cities named in the Bible. In every case the Bible has proved accurate.

As I said earlier, Muslims have firm belief that an original Bible did came from God. We are not doubting that, but still, there are contradictions in the Modren Bible and are due to human involvement.

cmptechie said:
Previously I had a post about contradictions in the Qu'ran, and Mohsin was not able to access the site, I just checked it a few minutes ago, and it was working. If there weren't dozens of them, I would type in the contradictions here, but that would quite probably take me several days.
As many as they are pointed out, they have been publically clerified. Just so you know, there were around 60,000 books written against Islam in a span of 150 years. Do you think that the points on such sites were not placed forward. There are Muslim scholors who have publically clerified the contradictions. If they would not have, I would not have placed this claim. As I said about places where there are diehard critics of Islam and the Qur'an, there have been people writting about all and any contradictions they can find. Again they are always monitered by Muslim scholors and clerified. As a case came out between me and Samabudhi in the thread about Misconceptions, all the contradictions are due to mistranslations, misqoutations and false assumptions.
 
Mohsin said:
As a case came out between me and Samabudhi in the thread about Misconceptions, all the contradictions are due to mistranslations, misqoutations and false assumptions.
Excuse me!!!, but I don't recall ever coming to a conclusion about that thread. I must say I'm rather taken aback, stepping on me to hold your argument in this thread. I found your metaphor of constructing a building to be wholly inadequate. We were not arguing the possibility of simultaneous 'construction' but rather the wording which is used in the Qu'ran.

If God/Muhammed (your choice) had intended to make clear that they were built simultaneously, he would have worded it like this:
'It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; {summa} He made the heavens into seven firmaments.'
and not like this:
'It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; {summa} He turned to the heaven and made them into seven firmaments.'

And what does this mean anyway, since we're back onto the subject: 'Also, the original contradiction has been removed, i.e. six days(periods of time) or the eight days(periods of time).' What's also?

In answering these questions, I'm sure you'll understand why I chose not to reply to you statements. The Arrrgggh factor. I may enjoy debates, but this one must be the biggest zero I've taken part in yet.
 
The best thing about Qur'an is that it's language is still alive. Arabic has the title for having several meanings out of a single word for example, Alaq(also means a clot of blood, a leach like substance, something that clings. In this case, all are correct). If you are doubting those, go confirm. Your query that why the language is not so clear, then you should realize that there is a depth in meaning in it. The more you research, the more you will find. Also, it is this complex and deep languague that has made impossible to produce something like it. By the way, english is only the translation and in many cases, the translations are not similar(not in meaning, but in context or words).
 
Miracle # 4: OCEANOLOGY

BARRIER BETWEEN SWEET AND SALT WATERS

“He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress.” [Al-Qur’an 55:19-20]

In the Arabic text the word barzakh means a barrier or a partition. This barrier, however, is not a physical partition. The Arabic word maraja literally means ‘they both meet and mix with each other’. Early commentators of the Qur’an were unable to explain the two opposite meanings for the two bodies of water, i.e. they meet and mix, and at the same time there is a barrier between them. Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity and density(Principles of Oceanography, Davis, pp. 92-93). Oceanologists are now in a better position to explain this verse. There is a slanted unseen water barrier between the two seas through which water from one sea passes to the other. But when the water from one sea enters the other sea, it loses its distinctive characteristic and becomes homogenized with the other water. In a way this barrier serves as a transitional homogenizing area for the two waters. This phenomenon is also mentioned in the following verse of the Qur'an:

“And made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water?” [Al-Qur’an 27:61]

This phenomenon occurs in several places, including the divider between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean at Gibralter. A white bar can also be clearly seen at Cape Point, Cape Peninsula, South Africa where the Atlantic Ocean meets the Indian Ocean. But when the Qur’an speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier.

“It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: one palatable and sweet, and the other salty and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, and a partition that is forbidden to be passed. [Al-Qur’an 25:53]

Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from that found in places where two salt water seas meet. It has been discovered that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.”(Oceanography, Gross.p.242. Also see Introductory Oceanography, Thurman, pp.300-301). This partition (zone of separation) has a salinity different from both the fresh water and the salt water(Oceanography, Gross.p.244. Also see Introductory Oceanography, Thurman, pp.300-301). This phenomenon occurs in several places, including Egypt, where the river Nile flows into the Mediterranean Sea. These scientific phenomena mentioned in the Qur’an was also confirmed by Dr. William Hay, a wellknown marine scientist and Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, U.S.A.
For picturial representation, view this link http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-e.htm

DARKNESS IN DEPTHS OF OCEAN

Prof. Durga Rao is a world renowned expert in the field of Marine Geology and was a professor at King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah. He was asked to comment on the following verse:

“Or (the Unbelievers’ state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow(waves) topped by billow(waves), topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! For any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!” [Al-Qur’an 24:40]

Prof. Rao said that scientists have only now been able to confirm, with the help of modern equipment, that there is darkness in the depths of the ocean. Humans are unable to dive unaided underwater for more than 20 to 30 metres, and cannot survive in the deep oceanic regions at a depth of more than 200 metres. This verse does not refer to all seas because not every sea can be described as having accumulated darkness layered one over another. It refers especially to a deep sea or deep ocean, as the Qur’an says, “darkness in a vast deep ocean”. This layered darkness in a deep ocean is the result of two causes:

1. A light ray is composed of seven colours seen in the rainbow. These seven colours are Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red (VIBGYOR). The light ray undergoes refraction when it hits water. The upper 10 to 15 metres of water absorb the red colour. Therefore, if a diver is 25 metres under water and gets wounded, he would not be able to see the red colour of his blood, because the red colour does not reach this depth. Similarly, orange rays are absorbed at 30 to 50 metres, yellow at 50 to 100 metres, green at 100 to 200 metres, and finally, blue beyond 200 metres and violet and indigo above 200 metres. Due to successive disappearance of colour, one layer after another, the ocean progressively becomes darker, i.e. darkness takes place in layers of light. Below a depth of 1000 meters there is complete darkness.(Oceans, Elder and Pernetta, p.27.)

2. The sun’s rays are absorbed by clouds which in turn scatter light rays thus causing a layer of darkness under the clouds. This is the first layer of darkness. When light rays reach the surface of the ocean they are reflected by the wave surface giving it a shiny appearance. Therefore, it is the waves which reflect light and cause darkness. The unreflected light penetrates into the depths of the ocean. Thus, the ocean has two parts. The surface characterized by light and warmth and the depth characterized by darkness. The surface is further separated from the deep part of the ocean by waves. The internal waves cover the deep waters of seas and oceans because the deep waters have a higher density than the waters above them. The darkness begins below the internal waves. Even the fish in the depths of the ocean cannot see; their only source of light is from their own bodies.
The Qur’an describes this aptly: “Darkness in a vast deep ocean overwhelmed with waves topped by waves”. In other words, above these waves there are more types of waves, i.e. those found on the surface of the ocean. The Qur’anic verse continues, “topped by (dark) clouds; depths of darkness, one above another.” These clouds as explained are barriers one over the other that further cause darkness by absorption of colours at different levels.

Prof. Durga Rao concluded by saying, “1400 years ago a normal human being could not explain this phenomenon in so much detail. Thus the information must have come from a supernatural source”.
For picturial representation, view the link http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-f.htm
 
ROFL!!!
How ironic that I'm being drowned out by more miracles about none other than, YES, OCEANOLOGY!
:D :D :D

The best thing about Qur'an is that it's language is still alive. Arabic has the title for having several meanings out of a single word for example, Alaq(also means a clot of blood, a leach like substance, something that clings. In this case, all are correct).
The best thing about the Qur'an is that the language is ambiguous you mean. How fortunate. I'd definitely choose it for divine revelation in that case!
 
Salaam Moshin,

i would be curious to hear your reasons for denying the other religions claims to miracles and therefore, their "proof" of relevation.
 
Last edited:
Mohsin said:
I have come across several people who say that religion is blind and that miracles are unscientific and thus believing in them is illogical.
Truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong. Spiritual interaction is only possible between spirits. Claims of supernatural acts performed by physical or spiritual beings in the physical universe are not truths.

If the medieval practices and the medieval beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that are based on superstitions were eliminated, then we could start building a rational and logical belief system that is based on truth and an understanding of spirituality. This is the value of truthfulness and rationality.

Namaste,
Kurt
 
samabudhi said:
The best thing about the Qur'an is that the language is ambiguous you mean. How fortunate. I'd definitely choose it for divine revelation in that case!
I think you'll find it more a point of expressiveness, rather than complete ambiguity. The English language itself requires context, and even then different wordx and phrases can be read to have different interpretations.
 
Vajradhara said:
Salaam Moshin,

i would be curious to hear your reasons for denying the other religions claims to miracles and therefore, their "proof" of relevation.

Walaikum-as-Salam
I though I already answered that. I am not at all denying the divine nature of any of the religious scriptures. It is a firm belief of a Muslim that Allah sent down Messangers and Prophets to all the nations, but they were for there time and for there people and Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) is the last and final messanger and is for the entire world. We, by name only know twenty five prophets and four scriptures as they are mentioned in the Qur'an. It is also in Islam that there were about 1,24,000 Prophets and Messanges sent to this world. So, may be these scirpture can be from these prophets but we cannot claim this for sure. If I have doubted the divine nature of any scripture, I appologize for it. I never mean't to do that. I hope that this satisfies.
 
Mohsin said:
Walaikum-as-Salam
Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) is the last and final messanger and is for the entire world.
As long as the world exists there will always be new messengers of Allah/God.
The spirit, when the mind is in mental stasis, can at times connect with the Supreme Spirit, as evidenced by messengers. (Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Ahmad, Bahaulla, etc.) The mind's ability to interpret this connection and messages is often deficient, hence we have the creation of various religions.

Please peruse the Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam. http://www.alislam.org/books/philosophy/index.html
In The Philosophy of the Oaths of the Holy Quran paragraph 7 & 8 state:

As six hundred years had passed after the time of Jesus, and no recipient of revelation had appeared during the interval. The whole world had been corrupted. The history of every country shows that before the advent of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, falsehood had become current throughout the world. Why did this happen? This happened because divine revelation had been held back for a long time and the kingdom of heaven had fallen into the hands of human reason alone. No one is unaware of the corruption in which the people were involved by following defective reason. Thus when the rain of revelation did not descend for a period, the water of reason dried up.

So in these oaths God Almighty draws attention to this firm and eternal law of nature and calls for reflection upon it that all the vegetation of the earth depends upon the water of heaven. Thus, for the hidden law that governs divine revelation the obvious law of nature is a witness. Then try to derive benefit from the testimony of this witness and do not make reason alone your guide, for it is not a water that can continue without heavenly water. As it is a characteristic of heavenly water that it pulls up the water of all the wells, whether it falls directly into a well or not, in the same way, when a recipient of divine revelation appears in the world then, whether a wise person follows him or not, reason is illumined and clarified to a degree not witnessed before. People begin to search for the truth and their faculty of reflection is stirred up from the unseen. Thus, all this upsurge of reason and of the heart is initiated by the blessed advent of the recipient of divine revelation and the waters of the earth are pulled up by it. So, when you find that everyone has started a search for religion and an upsurge has stirred earthly waters, then rise up and be warned and know for certain that heavy rain has fallen from heaven and that the water of divine revelation has fallen upon a human heart.

Islam, Bahaism, Sikhism and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Communities could combine their resources and be the leaders of a new vision of unity. Yet it is ironic that these four faiths who have been founded by the latest messengers of God argue amongst themselves for the right to be the correct one.

Kurt
 
I said:
I think you'll find it more a point of expressiveness, rather than complete ambiguity. The English language itself requires context, and even then different world and phrases can be read to have different interpretations.
Fair enough, but then why try to argue that it is absolute and flawless when it is accepted that it is ambiguous.
And why would God choose a medium which was subject to such interpretation? He should have engrained his ideas in our mind. We should be born believing in God.
 
samabudhi said:
We should be born believing in God.
Now that in itself is a very interesting comment - I'll start a new thread on that. :)
 
Back
Top