188 replies to this topic

[Master Chief]

Ants are among the most remarkable creatures in the world. These tiny creatures are farmers, ability to dominate any environment, have abilities to modify their own body (http://en.wikipedia....ki/Honeypot_ant), they even cooperate with other species of ants, and they also teach other ants (http://www.msnbc.msn...s/#.TuBXJ1aP-So). Please look at the youtube video on how they form a life boat.

[iDevonian]

iDevonian

It's amusing, because you have touched on the one verse which I have most difficulty explaining. I don't pretend I know, but I can go to some length trying to ease the difficulty. It depends on what we mean by "speech".

"O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

Could be translated into ant-semiotics as, "go back in. danger here." which is a plausible expression for a communal creature like an ant. Why then does the Qur'an paraphrase it like this? I don't know. Maybe to contextualise it or relate it to how Solomon interpreted it. We are then told that Solomon says:

So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by They Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous Servants."

So this may have been how Solomon would appreciate the ant's expression.

------

Having explained it, I can't say that my explanation is what was intended.

Alright. Im going to move on now, ill just sweep this story under the rug and act like I never saw it.

Ants are among the most remarkable creatures in the world. These tiny creatures are farmers, ability to dominate any environment, have abilities to modify their own body (http://en.wikipedia....ki/Honeypot_ant), they even cooperate with other species of ants, and they also teach other ants (http://www.msnbc.msn...s/#.TuBXJ1aP-So). Please look at the youtube video on how they form a life boat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A042J0IDQK4

I know what ants can do. The story is still above and beyond the call of reason. By far...

If the story werent meant to be taken literally, then it may be salvageable.

[Lanatin]

They teach other ants and cooperate with them, yet you have difficulty in accepting ants comunicating with one another to warn of an impending danger? You know big footsteps, you see it all the time in summer...little midgets running as far away as possible from your approaching footsteps. You can be really pathetic at times, but what else can I expect from fraudulent accounts that have a bone to pick with 'religion' in general.

[iDevonian]

They teach other ants and cooperate with them, yet you have difficulty in accepting ants comunicating with one another to warn of an impending danger? You know big footsteps, you see it all the time in summer...little midgets running as far away as possible from your approaching footsteps. You can be really pathetic at times, but what else can I expect from fraudulent accounts that have a bone to pick with 'religion' in general.

[EDITED]

Note from mod:
The interfaith dialogue section is not for non-Muslims to ridicule and blatantly condemn our integral beliefs. If you want, discuss Islam in an academic manner. Any unnecessary derision and sarcasm will not be taken lightly. If you can't stick to the rules, I'm afraid you will no longer be welcome here.

Do not repeat this, or you'll receive a warning.

Edited by Basim Ali, 30 March 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[iDevonian]

It has to be metaphorical. If a person steps on an ant hill, you can see that the ants are reacting and communicating with eachother. Maybe Solomon simply had a good understanding of how animals live. And whoever wrote the verse, perhaps they just wanted to demonstrate that Solomon understood animals so well, that it is as if he could understand their actions, almost as if they lived and communicated like we do.

Sort of like how we joke with eachother. If I see a person running really fast, i could call that person a cheetah. But hes not literally a cheetah, I just say that to demonstrate an exceptional characteristic of that person. So maybe Solomon couldnt really talk to animals, rather he just had a very good understanding of them that its almost as if he could hear their words (even if they dont use words).

This would be a more reasonable interpretation of the verse, than actually believing he somehow understood some form of vocal language coming from the ants.

Edited by iDevonian, 30 March 2012 - 11:52 AM.

[Mikael]

And you are trying to say that a man, overheard these little guys communicating their ideas, and he relayed the information into arabic

Oh, does that amaze you? But not the fact that scientists have observed animal behaviour and relayed it in their language, saying 'survival' and 'reproduction' is all that the animal world is based on? Have you scientists heard and interpreted these 'mute' organisms? Or, is this too an absurdity?

All that you have said depends on the word 'literary' that you use, in my understanding. The word for you has a strong scientistic meaning, it seems.

Sigh...

[iDevonian]

Oh, does that amaze you? But not the fact that scientists have observed animal behaviour and relayed it in their language, saying 'survival' and 'reproduction' is all that the animal world is based on? Have you scientists heard and interpreted these 'mute' organisms? Or, is this too an absurdity?

All that you have said depends on the word 'literary' that you use, in my understanding. The word for you has a strong scientistic meaning, it seems.

Sigh...

Scientists understand animals in the way that they communicate. For example, you can understand that ants communicate using pheromones. If Solomon could understand ants, this would be the reasonable way that he could do this. I doubt he would actually go around sniffing their homes and translating it into arabic meaning. It would be more likely that he simply understood how animals react to things, and simply talked about it. Scientists can understand how animals do things, but we cant communicate with them, nor would we ever translate their ideas into a detailed statement about going into your home when troops are coming that may step on you.

The ants arent going around telling eachother to run back into their homes, they dont have brains capable of such communication. They simply act instinctually. And because they arent communicating with ideas, there is no way that a human could claim that they literally were, by vocal abilities or otherwise. They dont have minds like we do, so they cant communicate like we do.

"O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

This is a verse made purely by mankind, with human words and human concepts. And ants dont even know what feet or a foot is, and wouldnt recognize it even if it were smashing them because they dont have a mind. And a person couldnt determine this unless the person could smell the ants and interpret the smell they release. Which is just not reasonable.

If this were in any other religious literature, the Bible or the Torah, you guys would be the first ones making fun of it. Now its seems as though everyone is trying to defend it because its in your own book.

And this goes for birds too. The man supposedly could communicate with birds. And some muslims seem to believe that he could communicate with the entire animal kingdom, as if he could mobilize them and speak their language.

Edited by iDevonian, 30 March 2012 - 12:42 PM.

[:Sami]

Scientists understand animals in the way that they communicate. For example, you can understand that ants communicate using pheromones. If Solomon could understand ants, this would be the reasonable way that he could do this. I doubt he would actually go around sniffing their homes and translating it into arabic meaning. It would be more likely that he simply understood how animals react to things, and simply talked about it. Scientists can understand how animals do things, but we cant communicate with them, nor would we ever translate their ideas into a detailed statement about going into your home when troops are coming that may step on you.

The ants arent going around telling eachother to run back into their homes. And because they arent doing that, there is no way that a human could claim that they literally were, by vocal abilities or otherwise.

If this were in any other religious literature, the Bible or the Torah, you guys would be the first ones making fun of it. Now its seems as though everyone is trying to defend it because its in your own book.

And this goes for birds too. The man supposedly could communicate with birds.

and jinns

[iDevonian]

and jinns

yes and Jinns.


I mean really. Think about it guys. What stops us from communicating with animals today?

There is an issue with language, and the mind. What makes humans unique is our ability to communicate, its something that other animals simply cant do like we do because they dont have a mind. They cant communicate ideas. Ants can leave trails of smells with bodily chemicals. They react based on instinct. Thats all.

So, how could anyone be able to communicate with them? Whats wrong with simply believing its a metaphor? It would make far more sense if this were just a verse to demonstrate Solomons understanding of the animal kingdom and didnt actually mean that he communicates with them. Because talking to an ant with the brain size a tenth of a millimeter in diameter, is essentially the equivelant of communicating with a rock. And that is to say, not at all.

[shiasoul]

The name of this religion was not given until the end (Ghadir). All throughout history, the religion being preached was the religion of the one God. No Christianity, no Judaism, these were names invented by people. Catch my drift?
Then when everything was revealed (in steps), was the name of this religion of God given: Islam

Edited by shiasoul, 30 March 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[iDevonian]

They teach other ants and cooperate with them, yet you have difficulty in accepting ants comunicating with one another to warn of an impending danger? You know big footsteps, you see it all the time in summer...little midgets running as far away as possible from your approaching footsteps. You can be really pathetic at times, but what else can I expect from fraudulent accounts that have a bone to pick with 'religion' in general.

And i guess ill try again here. I never said ants couldnt communicate with eachother. The verse involves mankind understanding ants and ants relaying concepts to eachother about things like feet stepping on them. When I step on an ant hill, they dont all run and take cover, they scatter in random directions trying to kill anything and everything they can that may be threatening them. They dont realize its a big foot from Solomons army. They dont realize the foot is approaching from down the road and that they need to take cover. And its not just ants, its claimed that he can communicate with many animals, even if they dont have a brain. In a physical sense, he may as well be translating the words of trees. When a venus fly trap closes its mouth when a fly lands on it, could Solomon interpret the mind of a plant?

And even if the animal could communicate ideas by other means, like ants using pheromones, how would Solomon know? He would have to smell the ants. Unless he had some sort of special ability in which he had smelling nerves a thousand times more sensitive than a sharks.

The point here is, its impossible because plants dont think. They dont consider that a fly has landed on them just as ants dont say "hey theres a foot on me!". No, they instinctually react. And no human could mobilize them using human communication.

Really we shouldnt even be having this conversation, you guys know that humans cant talk to ants, and you know why.

Edited by iDevonian, 30 March 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

To be honest, I don't think that any of the questions raised in this thread are valid or going to lead us anywhere. Seeing the six pages have been consumed over this topic just surprises me.

The proof has to be an Islamic proof. If not possible then there is no proof of Islam prior to 610ac.

So, basically, you are asking from Islamic proof that existed prior to 610 AC, right?


iDevonian, as you for post (Ugly Jinn, this also relates to you):

Well, it does appear that Islam copied off of prior religions, so the real question becomes, why does anyone believe that it hasnt been copied?

As we can see, there is no evidence prior to the Quran, so how would anyone know that it wasnt copied?

This question is rhetoric by the way. Its not meant to be answered.

I'd like to ask a simple question. You believe in the theory of evolution but it was found by Charles Darwin and not you. So, if you relay that theory to me, do we call this copying? If yes, using this definition, I don't have any problems in saying, yes, Islam copied from other religions. On the other hand, if you call this repeating the same message - or spreading it - then, no, Islam did not copy anything; it merely repeated the message that Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì had sent through the previous religions before.

[iDevonian]

if you call this repeating the same message - or spreading it - then, no, Islam did not copy anything; it merely repeated the message that Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì had sent through the previous religions before.

If I understand you correctly, id say I disagree. I believe parts of both the message of these various religions and the message that Allah SWT had sent were copied.

That is to say, Islam in practice having bits copied from prior religions. As well as the message of Allah being copied over generations.

I say this because, in one hand things do appear to be from prior religions, however the true value of Islam I dont believe is truly in the practices, it stems from much more that predates any religion.

Edited by iDevonian, 30 March 2012 - 03:17 PM.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

If I understand you correctly, id say I disagree. I believe parts of both the message of these various religions and the message that Allah SWT had sent were copied.

That is to say, Islam in practice having bits copied from prior religions. As well as the message of Allah being copied over generations.

I say this because, in one hand things do appear to be from prior religions, however the true value of Islam I dont believe is truly in the practices, it stems from much more that predates any religion.

If it's not too much of a hassle, can you please explain your point again? I did not quite understand what you meant. From what I got, you said something along the lines of Islam and the older religions all being copied and all that being copied from something that predate any religion. Is that what you meant?

By the way, I like the fact you call God Allah - although both refer to the same thing - in front of us and even put ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì in front of His Name, when you don't believe in Him!

[iDevonian]

If it's not too much of a hassle, can you please explain your point again? I did not quite understand what you meant. From what I got, you said something along the lines of Islam and the older religions all being copied and all that being copied from something that predate any religion. Is that what you meant?

By the way, I like the fact you call God Allah - although both refer to the same thing - in front of us and even put ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì in front of His Name, when you don't believe in Him!

Yes, well as you can see in this topic, I always aim to please .

But yea, what it sounded like to me is that you were saying, Islam as a religion, its practices and things like that were not copied from prior religions, however, the true teachings provided by Muhammad were straight from Allah. And so the religion would be copied from the true message of Allah, but not from other religions.

So what I was getting at was, the innate interest that mankind has in believing in God/Allah, Whether they believe in many Gods, or just spirits or one God or theyre some sort of Pantheist or whatever... This would be an innate interest brought from "God" or "Allah", and its something that all religions would be based off of. This is the value that would be copied from something that pre dates religion.

However, there is the actual religion aspect of it. Religions that pagans design, judeo christian religions, Spiritual religions etc. The religions themselves often mimic or copy off of eachother. Whether by practice or by similar ideas of what these Gods are. People are inclined to pray and to sacrifice animals and they have these beliefs of the afterlife. All of these things appear to be manmade.

And they, as religion progresses through time, are filtered. What I mean by that is, as time goes on, people editted religion and re wrote it to better fit their time.

This is why Christianity is so different, and yet, arguably better than Judaism. And this is why many Muslims view their religion as being better than both of the prior. Its because their religions were written later in time, they are editted and remastered versions of the previous.

Have you ever read the Bible? If you read the Bible, which is essentially the Torah and the New testament. You will find that, Christians essentially believe in the combination of two different religions. And realistically, two different Gods. And Muslims who supposedly also believe in truth in these, essentially believe in 3 religions and essentially believe in 3 Gods. Thankfully you guys solve the issue of explaining Judaism and Christianity by simply saying mankind has purged the scriptures. And so, you guys can just call it Allah, and it will cover Allah, and the God of the torah and the God of christianity. Even though if you read the scriptures, its quite clear that these Gods arent the same. Allah in the Quran is nothing like Allah in the Torah. And neither of which are like Jesus in the Bible or God in the Bible.

Mankind hasnt really purged the Bible and Torah, this is simply how the Bible and Torah have always existed. Theyve always contained these wild stories since their origins, just as the Quran has "interesting" stories about prophets communicating with ants and flying white donkeys and things like this (and im ignoring all of the hadeeths that were also filtered out).

All of this, its essentially the evolution of religion. You can see religion progressively change over time along with mankind and our understanding of God and reason.

This is also why pagans barely exist anymore. And this is why Jews barely exist anymore, and this is why Christians are turning into non believers. Religion is continuing to progress, and Islam is not outside of this progression (albeit, no offense but, many people make claims that its a bit behind due to...wars and poverty plagueing many cultures, along with corrupt saudis ruling with an iron fist).

Even Buddhism is essentially a rehashed and redeveloped version of Hinduism. The similarities are there, and you can see how it appears as if a man simply took hinduism, threw out the old and redeveloped it with new details into something more acceptable by his culture. Just as all religions do. Look at that new religion that sprang out with the aliens n such. Its a new idea that people attempted to create...now thankfully we are intelligent enough to throw many of these new religions in the trash. And also let me say, its no surprise that both buddhism and hinduism revolve around the same region. Southeast asia, India. The religions are of the same region because they were developed and created by a common people. Or common ancestor in biological terms. Likewise the Judeo christian religions too stemmed from theiir common ancestral religion, that is Judaism. Rehashed and revamped christianity and soon after Islam.

So anyway. Back to the point. We all have that innate "message from Allah" that is leading us to believe and develop systems that work around our beliefs. However, the religions themselves, in my opinion, its fairly clear that they are replicants of eachother, re developed and rehashed with new cultures and newer times.

Read the Bible and Torah and Quran and just look at how differently each book describes God/Allah. These are not the same Gods. They are made not by the same cultures, they are made not by the same people. And you can see it clear as day.

And this is another reason Im skeptical about Islam. You all claim that Christianity and Judaism are or were originally truthful religions. But your beliefs are so distinctly different from theirs. And you say that its because Judaism and Christianity have been corrupted by man, however, the wild and strange stories we hear from their religions only appear to be corruption by man, simply because the religions themselves are man made (ie, something that appears to be from man, actually is from man). Islam being an updated, rehashed, reeditted and modified version (which is why it appears to be less corrupt or not corrupt at all to some). And this is just as christianity appears to be less corrupt or not corrupt at all in comparison to Judaism, and why buddhism appears to be less corrupt, or not corrupt at all to some, than hinduism.

And the rehashing follows with time and cultural changes. It is the evolution of religion. Its new, it brings about new "functions/practices/teachings", its new adaption propogates throughout the species, recognized as a benefit, and it becomes the dominant "trait", until a greater new "trait' comes along. And this is very clear.

This is also why the God of the Torah, which is far different from the Christian God, Jesus or Allah, fights for the interests of Jews. And this is why Allah speaks to Muslim prophets. Its because these people have developed Gods with respect to their own cultures, for their own people.

Allah wasnt really angry that the Jews were wearing mixed fabrics, the culture had an issue with it. And this is why in the Quran, you wont find the same details about dresscode. Its because the Islamic dress code by culture is very different than Jews of older times. The religions are progressing with their independent societies.

Oh and another thing, you can match the destruction of Jerusalem with the development of Christianity. Isnt that funny, religion, which is supposedly from God, being transformed into another religion, just as culture is being transformed with people. Its no coincidence, its manmade and therefore man chooses what to do with it. It changes as man changes.

Just as after the time Muhammad passed away and the whole Shia Sunni conflict began. Its people rehashing and re editting religion with the transformation of cultural beliefs. And so, even in Islam you have two different historical views, differences in practices and teachings. You keep the same God, you keep many of the same beliefs, but its still an alteration along with culture, just as all other religions were and are.

Sunni and Shia Islam cant both be 100% correct. One must be an alteration made by man. And I instead of saying Shia Islam is the truth and only truth in all of the Islamic sects, I say, its a rehash and re-edit just as every other sect is. And even further, a re edit and rehash of religions even prior that are rehashed and re edited versions of religions even prior to that.

With all the sects and religions out here today, many of them have to be man made and man altered, editted and written. So why in the world would anyone believe Islam is not subject to the same thing? Because you have Muhammad pbuh? (which many other people dont believe he was divine) Because you have Imam, that Sunnis and Shias cant even agree are holy or even existed?

There is a very very very very slim chance, Shia Islam, and Islam in general does not have man made concepts within it taken from prior religions or sect beliefs. As a matter of fact, considering the differences between all of the sects, Id think that it would be a clear fact that there are man made corrupt concepts within Islam. Otherwise, why would so many different sects exist? They must be man made adaptations. Copies, replicants. Mutations with subsequent propogation.

Edited by iDevonian, 30 March 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[iDevonian]

[EDITED]

Note from mod:
The interfaith dialogue section is not for non-Muslims to ridicule and blatantly condemn our integral beliefs. If you want, discuss Islam in an academic manner. Any unnecessary derision and sarcasm will not be taken lightly. If you can't stick to the rules, I'm afraid you will no longer be welcome here.

Do not repeat this, or you'll receive a warning.

I guess ill go ahead and apologize for this too. Though it was a joke, it was potentially a harsh one, so sorry for that.

[:Sami]

Yes, well as you can see in this topic, I always aim to please .

But yea, what it sounded like to me is that you were saying, Islam as a religion, its practices and things like that were not copied from prior religions, however, the true teachings provided by Muhammad were straight from Allah. And so the religion would be copied from the true message of Allah, but not from other religions.

So what I was getting at was, the innate interest that mankind has in believing in God/Allah, Whether they believe in many Gods, or just spirits or one God or theyre some sort of Pantheist or whatever... This would be an innate interest brought from "God" or "Allah", and its something that all religions would be based off of. This is the value that would be copied from something that pre dates religion.

However, there is the actual religion aspect of it. Religions that pagans design, judeo christian religions, Spiritual religions etc. The religions themselves often mimic or copy off of eachother. Whether by practice or by similar ideas of what these Gods are. People are inclined to pray and to sacrifice animals and they have these beliefs of the afterlife. All of these things appear to be manmade.

And they, as religion progresses through time, are filtered. What I mean by that is, as time goes on, people editted religion and re wrote it to better fit their time.

This is why Christianity is so different, and yet, arguably better than Judaism. And this is why many Muslims view their religion as being better than both of the prior. Its because their religions were written later in time, they are editted and remastered versions of the previous.

Have you ever read the Bible? If you read the Bible, which is essentially the Torah and the New testament. You will find that, Christians essentially believe in the combination of two different religions. And realistically, two different Gods. And Muslims who supposedly also believe in truth in these, essentially believe in 3 religions and essentially believe in 3 Gods. Thankfully you guys solve the issue of explaining Judaism and Christianity by simply saying mankind has purged the scriptures. And so, you guys can just call it Allah, and it will cover Allah, and the God of the torah and the God of christianity. Even though if you read the scriptures, its quite clear that these Gods arent the same. Allah in the Quran is nothing like Allah in the Torah. And neither of which are like Jesus in the Bible or God in the Bible.

Mankind hasnt really purged the Bible and Torah, this is simply how the Bible and Torah have always existed. Theyve always contained these wild stories since their origins, just as the Quran has "interesting" stories about prophets communicating with ants and flying white donkeys and things like this (and im ignoring all of the hadeeths that were also filtered out).

All of this, its essentially the evolution of religion. You can see religion progressively change over time along with mankind and our understanding of God and reason.

This is also why pagans barely exist anymore. And this is why Jews barely exist anymore, and this is why Christians are turning into non believers. Religion is continuing to progress, and Islam is not outside of this progression (albeit, no offense but, many people make claims that its a bit behind due to...wars and poverty plagueing many cultures, along with corrupt saudis ruling with an iron fist).

Even Buddhism is essentially a rehashed and redeveloped version of Hinduism. The similarities are there, and you can see how it appears as if a man simply took hinduism, threw out the old and redeveloped it with new details into something more acceptable by his culture. Just as all religions do. Look at that new religion that sprang out with the aliens n such. Its a new idea that people attempted to create...now thankfully we are intelligent enough to throw many of these new religions in the trash. And also let me say, its no surprise that both buddhism and hinduism revolve around the same region. Southeast asia, India. The religions are of the same region because they were developed and created by a common people. Or common ancestor in biological terms. Likewise the Judeo christian religions too stemmed from theiir common ancestral religion, that is Judaism. Rehashed and revamped christianity and soon after Islam.

So anyway. Back to the point. We all have that innate "message from Allah" that is leading us to believe and develop systems that work around our beliefs. However, the religions themselves, in my opinion, its fairly clear that they are replicants of eachother, re developed and rehashed with new cultures and newer times.

Read the Bible and Torah and Quran and just look at how differently each book describes God/Allah. These are not the same Gods. They are made not by the same cultures, they are made not by the same people. And you can see it clear as day.

And this is another reason Im skeptical about Islam. You all claim that Christianity and Judaism are or were originally truthful religions. But your beliefs are so distinctly different from theirs. And you say that its because Judaism and Christianity have been corrupted by man, however, the wild and strange stories we hear from their religions only appear to be corruption by man, simply because the religions themselves are man made (ie, something that appears to be from man, actually is from man). Islam being an updated, rehashed, reeditted and modified version (which is why it appears to be less corrupt or not corrupt at all to some). And this is just as christianity appears to be less corrupt or not corrupt at all in comparison to Judaism, and why buddhism appears to be less corrupt, or not corrupt at all to some, than hinduism.

And the rehashing follows with time and cultural changes. It is the evolution of religion. Its new, it brings about new "functions/practices/teachings", its new adaption propogates throughout the species, recognized as a benefit, and it becomes the dominant "trait", until a greater new "trait' comes along. And this is very clear.

This is also why the God of the Torah, which is far different from the Christian God, Jesus or Allah, fights for the interests of Jews. And this is why Allah speaks to Muslim prophets. Its because these people have developed Gods with respect to their own cultures, for their own people.

Allah wasnt really angry that the Jews were wearing mixed fabrics, the culture had an issue with it. And this is why in the Quran, you wont find the same details about dresscode. Its because the Islamic dress code by culture is very different than Jews of older times. The religions are progressing with their independent societies.

Oh and another thing, you can match the destruction of Jerusalem with the development of Christianity. Isnt that funny, religion, which is supposedly from God, being transformed into another religion, just as culture is being transformed with people. Its no coincidence, its manmade and therefore man chooses what to do with it. It changes as man changes.

Just as after the time Muhammad passed away and the whole Shia Sunni conflict began. Its people rehashing and re editting religion with the transformation of cultural beliefs. And so, even in Islam you have two different historical views, differences in practices and teachings. You keep the same God, you keep many of the same beliefs, but its still an alteration along with culture, just as all other religions were and are.

Sunni and Shia Islam cant both be 100% correct. One must be an alteration made by man. And I instead of saying Shia Islam is the truth and only truth in all of the Islamic sects, I say, its a rehash and re-edit just as every other sect is. And even further, a re edit and rehash of religions even prior that are rehashed and re edited versions of religions even prior to that.

With all the sects and religions out here today, many of them have to be man made and man altered, editted and written. So why in the world would anyone believe Islam is not subject to the same thing? Because you have Muhammad pbuh? (which many other people dont believe he was divine) Because you have Imam, that Sunnis and Shias cant even agree are holy or even existed?

There is a very very very very slim chance, Shia Islam, and Islam in general does not have man made concepts within it taken from prior religions or sect beliefs. As a matter of fact, considering the differences between all of the sects, Id think that it would be a clear fact that there are man made corrupt concepts within Islam. Otherwise, why would so many different sects exist? They must be man made adaptations. Copies, replicants. Mutations with subsequent propogation.

RELIGION as defined by a quantum english expert, a high degree mason and judge , means no belief in GOD.
RE- no .
LEGION , belief or nearness to GOD .
Therefore :Islam. is not a religion but it's a :Deen.
:Quran. is not an ordinary book.
The language used in it , is a "living" language of noun (knowns or facts) and a highly complex coding system that the greatest minds combined with super computers will not be able to solve in a trillion years.
When the :Quran. was revealed to the original :Muslims. it was "diluted" 1:70,000 parts for ordinary :Humans. to understand it.
The Bible . Torah, and all RELIGIONS are created by the VATICAN.
They have a patent , copyright on every RELIGION, hence the similarities , very much like a movie with sequels.
:Allah. is not GOD .( and we as :Muslim. should not even write this in english , as a word beginning with a vowel followed by two consonants negates the entire word.)
one of many acronyms of GOD is Government of Destruction.
Please note.
When I put a : in front of a word it means for the , or of the , which is a propositional phrases making the word a noun.
And when I use all upper case (CAPS) such as RELIGION, this is referring to a word patented , copyrighted by a corporation with it's own meaning.
And that meaning is usually the opposite to what most people think it means.
I have explained the english language in my other posts in more detail.
Therefore you are correct in what you say in most parts.
And what I'm saying here , most of my fellow brothers and sisters will have no idea .
This is "secret knowledge " hidden by our masters,which has leaked to some debt slaves like us
Another aspect of our :Prophets. are that they were very advanced beings , as there were many previous advanced civilisations on Earth , and hey had access to technologies .
Much of these technologies was given to :Nabi-Sulaiman. . including a technology , or secret knowledge (white man's magic as some indigenous people referred to the TV) to communicate with animals , ants, and plasma based entities.
Organisations like the VATICAN , throughout history seized and hidden such technologies and knowledge , and used it for themselves for their own selfish gains whilst at the same time denouncing it as "witchcraft" and "black magic",in order to keep the masses dumb down , and controlled.
Corporation ISLAM was no different , with the parasitical :Banu-Umayyads. clan perverting ISLAM through endless fabricated :Hadiths , and translating the :Quran. into dead fiction non syntax languages like english.
And putting corporate stooges in place of real scholars and preaching fairy tales without the real explanations in the original :Quranic-Arabic. , and real explanation of real esoteric knowledge by beloved :Raosul.(PBUHAHF), and the glorious :Ahylul-Bayt.(PBUT).
Therefore :Islam. and the :Quran. is very unique as it's the only last surviving real "living" book and a system that exists for real living people,and you cannot compare to any other RELIGIONS or BOOKS.
As for proof that predates 610ad, you will get that once you step out of this "matrix".

Edited by :Sami, 30 March 2012 - 11:46 PM.

[iDevonian]

alright, well, im just going to ignore the random stuff about government destruction...

[Mikael]

First a correction for my previous post: Literally, not literary!

My understanding:

Understanding that ants communicate using pheromones does not warrant the belief that one, thus, knows what they communicate. Ants communicate with each other using pheromones, not with scientists, who still rely on observation of behaviour to interpret what the ant (and the pheromone) means. If an alien were to land, he would know that I communicate via my larynx, or my tongue, or my hands, without knowing what it is I communicate.

Scientists understand ants only as much as they observe the behaviour and interpret it.

Scientists can understand how animals do things, but we cant communicate with them,nor would we ever translate their ideas into a detailed statement

Yet scientists have said that the animal world is nothing but about surviving and reproducing (as if animals have a particular aim in life). How else would scientists or man ever be able to make sense of animal world, without interpreting it into their language? If this is so, in what aspect does the scientist's approach outclass a lay person's approach, who is well acquainted with an animal?

A scientist may not be able to communicate with an ant, or with a dog, yet a lay person can be said to communicate with his dog when he pets it, feeds it, seeks its aid, etc. The point is your idea of communication is rigidly scientistic, as I said earlier. Scientists may have broken down communication into forms like mimetic, antennal, pteratic, but this communication is only ever interpreted from observation of behaviour. Likewise for pheromones-alarm pheromones, food pheromones, etc. A lay normal person, when petting his dog, is not concerned with the complicated, criss-crossing terminologies, but simple behaviour.

And ants dont even know what feet or a foot is

Sigh. Must I inform you that in haste you have read the words in bracket as if they were a part of the actual verse?

If this were in any other religious literature, the Bible or the Torah, you guys would be the first ones making fun of it. Now its seems as though everyone is trying to defend it because its in your own book.

Sigh. I do not know if Jebreil and La'nat, and most, have done so. It is usually you who adopts this attitude towards religions.

Edited by Mikael, 31 March 2012 - 02:45 AM.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

^ adding to the above, may I add that there is a huge amount of ambiguity about how ants really communicate. There is also the possibility that they have other means of communication, except for pheromones.

Let me use elephants as an example to explain something. From what I remember of seeing in some documentary, elephants communicate using some types of waves which we cannot detect. Now, even though a scientist can decipher that they use waves, he really can't say what these waves mean to the elephant or whether they "hear" these waves in the same way as us, in words and proper ideas, or whether they just act as stimuli for them to act in a certain way. Observation is good enough but it can't tell you everything. (This was actually, in a way, similar to what Mikael was saying.)

[Khadim uz Zahra]

Yes, well as you can see in this topic, I always aim to please .

I think I saw a bit of a contradiction in your statements:

Read the Bible and Torah and Quran and just look at how differently each book describes God/Allah. These are not the same Gods. They are made not by the same cultures, they are made not by the same people. And you can see it clear as day.

Just as after the time Muhammad passed away and the whole Shia Sunni conflict began. Its people rehashing and re editting religion with the transformation of cultural beliefs. And so, even in Islam you have two different historical views, differences in practices and teachings. You keep the same God, you keep many of the same beliefs, but its still an alteration along with culture, just as all other religions were and are.

You claim that new religions came about due to transformations in culture and that this is also the cause of the Shia-Sunni division but you are neglecting the fact that the division between Shi'ism and Sunni Islam started right after the death of the Prophet , when both parties belonged to the same culture and, therefore, cultural transformation cannot be said to be the cause of this split, simple because the culture was the same!

Coming to your arguement as a whole, may I do something that scientists always ask for: proof for your claims. You may say all this but I also need some empirical evidence to believe it, just like you guys always ask for or else this is just a grand theory conjured by you. I find it quite hypocritical that you rely soooooo much on correlations to prove your points but when we try to use correlation in trying to prove the authenticity of the Quran or the fact that all the Abrahamic religions are from the same source, most atheists say that they need direct proof. You see that there are loads of similarities between the three religions - the correlation - and, yet, you claim that they are different etc, going to the extent of saying that the three religions preach different Gods (this is something I would like you to talk about more).

Yes, I do understand that the way the religious texts explain God is different but this is simply because some of these texts were manipulated (I know that as soon as you read this, you will want empirical evidence for it, which I may think about after you give empirical evidence for your claims).

No one denies that out of the plethora of religions and sects out there, the chance of you land on the right one is very slim indeed but this does not mean that a right religion does not exist at all. Let me give you an example: if you have a math sum which you find very hard and there are 1000 people in your class, you go and ask each of them for an answer and the first 980 all give different answers, all of which are truly ridiculous. The probability that the 20 left are going to give the right answer is very slim indeed but just because the probability is so low, can you claim that none of them knows the answer? What if the 1000th person has the right answer?

So, yes, indeed, religions have been altered by men and this is clearly evident but just because the majority have been altered does not mean that every religion is. No one denies that in between the myriads of sects found in Islam, all, except one, are fabricated and manipulated by men, in some way or other but just because we know this does not mean we stop looking for which one is right and just say that because some were manipulated, all were and that Islam, itself, is wrong. Rather, it is your duty, as the wayfarer to The Truth, to analyse them all and find the right one.

(I am going in reverse sequence.)

As for your theory about "the evolution of religion", I can use the same evidence (in fact, correlations) that you use - the fact that the Abrahamic religions are so similar and, yet, so fundamentally different - to prove what Islam says. While you can use the same data to claim that since they are so similar and yet do different, they must have started with a source and, then, over time, changed to give these different religions, I can support what the Quran says: all these religions were from God and had the same basic concepts but, over time, the people, for their own material benefits, corrupted the religions, which led to the differences between them. Another source of these differences was, as according to the Quran, that those religions had different rulings, which were fit for those times, and when the successive Prophets (peace be upon them all) came, they brought new laws, which were fir for the times that they were living in. The Quranic explanation fits perfectly well with the data that you are using but why, then, do you reject this and take you explanation as the truth? Is this not what atheists always blame us for: subjectivity?

[iDevonian]

Understanding that ants communicate using pheromones does not warrant the belief that one, thus, knows what they communicate. Ants communicate with each other using pheromones, not with scientists, who still rely on observation of behaviour to interpret what the ant (and the pheromone) means. If an alien were to land, he would know that I communicate via my larynx, or my tongue, or my hands, without knowing what it is I communicate.

Scientists understand ants only as much as they observe the behaviour and interpret it.

Yes, thats exactly what I was trying to say. Perhaps I didnt word it well. So the question then becomes, if this is how people understand ant communication, then how would Solomon? Would he understand ants the same way we do today, or did he take it a step further and somehow communicate with them.

And about dogs, what I didnt distinguish between was smart animals like dogs and less intelligent ones like ants. More intelligent animals like chimps for example, we can indeed talk to, and they can and do talk back. But ants are far different.

So how do you think Solomon communicated with ants?

And sorry if im missing anything, but it appears that we agree on how we in modern times communicate with animals.

Sigh. I do not know if Jebreil and La'nat, and most, have done so. It is usually you who adopts this attitude towards religions.

pretty much every other time anyone ever brings up the Bible here on SC, you will hear people talk about how corrupt it is whenever they hear of verses that sound extraordinary or strange.

Edited by iDevonian, 31 March 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[iDevonian]

You claim that new religions came about due to transformations in culture and that this is also the cause of the Shia-Sunni division but you are neglecting the fact that the division between Shi'ism and Sunni Islam started right after the death of the Prophet , when both parties belonged to the same culture and, therefore, cultural transformation cannot be said to be the cause of this split, simple because the culture was the same!

Its culture as well as large scale events that relate to culture, such as the death of a prophet. The point is, they are human events, things that we do and things that happen to us, that alter our religion.

When the prophet died, Gods law didnt change. We changed, we began disagreeing on who the next leader would be. We began to disagree on who was divine, who was the better friend of family member of Muhammad.

This is all us, its all our doing. God didnt change the law, mankind did. And this is how we know, both sunni and shia cant both be 100% correct. Atleast one of them is purged by manmade interpretation.

Coming to your arguement as a whole, may I do something that scientists always ask for: proof for your claims. You may say all this but I also need some empirical evidence to believe it, just like you guys always ask for or else this is just a grand theory conjured by you. I find it quite hypocritical that you rely soooooo much on correlations to prove your points but when we try to use correlation in trying to prove the authenticity of the Quran or the fact that all the Abrahamic religions are from the same source, most atheists say that they need direct proof. You see that there are loads of similarities between the three religions - the correlation - and, yet, you claim that they are different etc, going to the extent of saying that the three religions preach different Gods (this is something I would like you to talk about more).

Even you guys admit that the judeo christian religions come from the same source. So there is no need to prove anything there. What exactly would you like me to support?

Do you not believe that after the fall of Muhammad, mankind deviated in one way or another from the original path? If people have two different beliefs about the same religion, they cant both be right. One of them is corrupted by man, or perhaps even both are. Which is indeed a possiblity. Once Muhammad is out of the picture, along with the following Imam (according to shia but not sunni), theres nothing stopping people from deviating from the truth. Both very well could be corrupted.

Yes, I do understand that the way the religious texts explain God is different but this is simply because some of these texts were manipulated (I know that as soon as you read this, you will want empirical evidence for it, which I may think about after you give empirical evidence for your claims).

Yes, they were manipulated by man. Thats been my whole point.

No one denies that out of the plethora of religions and sects out there, the chance of you land on the right one is very slim indeed but this does not mean that a right religion does not exist at all.

Yes, I understand, but it does demonstrate that many religions are simply editted rehashed versions of their predicessors.

With sunni, shia and suffi Islam. Somebody is doing some editting somewhere, somebody is changing the rules, changing the interpretation, changing the practices etc. This is the work of mankind, not the divine.

So, yes, indeed, religions have been altered by men and this is clearly evident but just because the majority have been altered does not mean that every religion is. No one denies that in between the myriads of sects found in Islam, all, except one, are fabricated and manipulated by men, in some way or other but just because we know this does not mean we stop looking for which one is right and just say that because some were manipulated, all were and that Islam, itself, is wrong. Rather, it is your duty, as the wayfarer to The Truth, to analyse them all and find the right one.

Well, and heres how I see it. The truth of Allah is one that transcends human affairs. Clearly mankind is still stuck arguing over its own manmade rehashed sects and religions. I believe that none those that exist today are true. You guys believe there has to be 1 that is correct. But that 1 that is correct could have come and gone (it coulve been editted and rehashed like the rest of them), or perhaps if everything is truly rehashed and reedited, that true religion may still have yet to come.

As for your theory about "the evolution of religion", I can use the same evidence (in fact, correlations) that you use - the fact that the Abrahamic religions are so similar and, yet, so fundamentally different - to prove what Islam says. While you can use the same data to claim that since they are so similar and yet do different, they must have started with a source and, then, over time, changed to give these different religions, I can support what the Quran says: all these religions were from God and had the same basic concepts but, over time, the people, for their own material benefits, corrupted the religions, which led to the differences between them. Another source of these differences was, as according to the Quran, that those religions had different rulings, which were fit for those times, and when the successive Prophets (peace be upon them all) came, they brought new laws, which were fir for the times that they were living in. The Quranic explanation fits perfectly well with the data that you are using but why, then, do you reject this and take you explanation as the truth? Is this not what atheists always blame us for: subjectivity?

Exactly. But the reality is, the Gods in these holy books are different. Some religions polytheistic, some monotheistic with varying Gods. Do you believe that these polytheistic religions were also brought by prophets and were simply suitable for their times? Or were they simply man made? Thats a question I have asked before, id be interested in what you all believe. The Buddha taught a religion without God at all, but he had such an impact, and was considered by some to be in a way, divine.

And, yes your explanation fits the evidence fine, but at the end of the day, you guys are the ones with the...no offense, but Imams that are "hiding", and miracles that "dissapeared". And Prophets that have simply stopped coming after Muhammad.

I doubt its a coincidence that all of these extraordinary claims simply dissapeared all at once. Perhaps they never existed at all and it simply took us modern aged technology and science to realize it.

Also, You say that "those religions had different rulings, which were fit for those times,". Well, those religions were nothing like Islam. Different Gods, different practices, different beleifs.

I dont even know why you would believe they are associated with Islam. Its a pretty bold claim to believe that these religions are from Allah when some preach atheism or polytheism.

Edited by iDevonian, 31 March 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[iDevonian]

The Quranic explanation fits perfectly well with the data that you are using but why, then, do you reject this and take you explanation as the truth? Is this not what atheists always blame us for: subjectivity?

And as for this, I take my explanation as truth because no offense, yours does not have evidence. Hence the whole purpose behind this entire topic. And by evidence, i mean convincing evidence. Something other than scripture or religious literature.

My claims are simple...mankind reeditted, rehashed and recreated all religions today. Its not extraordinary, its actually plausible. You guys believe 99.99% have been deviated and man editted. I just go, 1 further. And its reasonable because we can see that people do it. We see that people make up religions, we see that people edit and rehash and remake old ones. All of these things, we see occuring.

Now what do we see on your side? I see no miracles, I see no divine prophets, no divine Imam, again, in all seriousness, I dont see people talking to ants, or controlling wind. I dont see these white flying beasts or stones transforming colors based on the sin of man.

All I see are religious people, billions of them, all from different religions, making bold claims about how they are right and everyone else is wrong. None of them present objective evidence, none of them have recorded or been able to show miracles. None of their prophets and divine leaders exist anymore either.

As soon as mankind developed a modern understanding of the world...all divine claims, all mysteriously vanished all at once. 2 thousand years ago, people made bold claims and everyone believed them, but we didnt have cameras or video recorders to prove miracles. When a man rises from the dead, or a sea splits for Jews to cross through, we could prove that if it occurred now, but it simply isnt happening.

And Im saying, odds are it never did. The greeks told tales of powerful Gods, who almost like people had emotions and took action in our affairs. The greek Gods were in some cases, fighting right beside us. But where have they gone?

The greek Gods never existed, its a tall tale. And only now in modern times do we know this. Back then, it was truth, unarguable.

So, my belief about the whole situation is based on what is already seen in the world. What is your belief based on if you have no prophets, no imam, no evidence prior to your own scripture? Your belief is based on faith. That is to say, belief without evidence.

And that is why my understanding of the situation, is more plausible than yours. And not only that, my explanation is made based off of what we can both observe. You see that man creates, edits and rehashes religions all the time.

So now, its up to you to demonstrate why your religion isnt a part of that other 99%. And Im here looking around, and I dont see a single thing that seperates your religion from any other.

As a matter of fact, I can even go a step further and draw parallels between yours and others.

When Jesus died, where did he go? Jesus cant die, otherwise our religion wouldnt be true, so he came back to life, then just dissapeared and went up to heaven. Ok everyone is happy, their religious leader who is supposedly God, didnt die. How about in Islam, where did Imam Mahdi go? But where did he go? Oh hes hiding, ok. But both the Mahdi and Jesus will return and Muhammad. Its been a couple thousand years since the days of jesus, but its ok, they will return. The miracles all stopped and are gone now, but its ok its all part of a test which nobody really understands. But its ok. Nevermind about the rest of the universe, God is here for us here on earth in all the near infinite number of other planets, he is here for us. More specifically the Jews. He likes having animals sacrificed in a certain way.

Does none of this sound strange to you? These are our Judeo Christian religious beliefs. But I would say, it sounds farfetched.

It was all commonly accepted. But as soon as people actually stopped and started asking questions, and started criticising their own beliefs, everything mysterious vanished. All the miracles stopped, all the divine leaders dissapeared in thin air. The moment people stopped and really started considering their beliefs, it all dissapeared.

think about it.

Edited by iDevonian, 31 March 2012 - 10:34 AM.