Problem areas in the Quran
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14407
Printed Date: 30 April 2024 at 7:05am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Problem areas in the Quran
Posted By: Apollos
Subject: Problem areas in the Quran
Date Posted: 19 March 2009 at 6:05pm
|
The Muslims on this site have done a good job of describing why they believe the Bible has contradictions in it. They may not be getting a good explanation from Christians or Jews on their examples because Muslims, Jehovah�s Witnesses, New Age and Atheists jump in with an assortment of responses that are often different. But that�s OK because this site is sponsored by Muslims and we should expect to learn more what Muslims believe from this site than to enlighten Muslims to our particular beliefs (or lack of). So, I start this topic here with the hopes of learning how Muslims explain apparent contradictions of their own Scripture. I have done a quick search on the forum and didn�t see it come up so if there is an existing topic that addresses this here, please direct me to that. I am not posting this to say: �See your book has contradictions too.� I don�t believe there are any real contradictions in the Bible so I am not playing that game. I also know that most extensive writings have puzzles or apparent contradictions in them and a superficial reading may leave someone with a false impression as to the writing�s coherency. There are a lot of puzzling things to me in the Quran but I imagine some could be resolved by a different translation or similar. I am trying to omit those type here. I think the below examples are obvious problem areas that a reasonable person is justified in asking about after reading the Quran. I welcome explanations from Muslims as to how you resolve these. Apparent Contradictions Was the earth created in six days (Sura 7:54, 10:3) or two days (Sura 41:9)? If the Qur�an is pure Arabic (Sura 12:2, 13:37; 16:103; 41:41), then why are there so many foreign words in it? Is the evil in our life from Satan (Sura 4:117-120), from Allah (Sura 4:78), or from ourselves (Sura 4:79)? If only Allah is to be worshipped (Sura 4:116, 18:110), then why were the angels commanded to bow down to Adam (Sura 15:29-30; 20:116)? Is Allah�s day like 1,000 human years (Sura 22:47) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)? If both are just meant to be vague expressions, what do they really describe? If it is forbidden to adopt sons (Sura 33:4-5), then how can it be permissible to marry the wives of adopted sons (Sura 33:37)? I know there is another passage that says that Jesus only appeared to be crucified but this one seems to say Jesus died and was resurrected � or what else is it saying? (Sura 19:34-35 -- "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.� Apparent Inaccuracies Many verses describe the earth as flat. I understand that corresponding tafsirs validate this interpretation. Numerous hadith also describe a flat earth, with the sun and moon rotating around earth. (Sura 2:22; 13:3; 15:19; 16:15; 20:53; 22:65; 27:61; 40:64; 43:10; 50:6-7; 51:48; 55:10; 71:15-20; 78:6-7; 79:7-30; 88:20; 91:5-6). How can this be? Suras 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6-7; 88:19 tell us that God placed (threw down) mountains on the earth like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. Sounds like more flat earth mythology. What�s up? In Sura 18:86 it states, "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn! Either punish them, or treat them with kindness." This sounds like a fable with more flat earth thinking in mind. If not, where is this location and people? Sura 86:5-7 tells us that man is created from a gushing fluid that issues from between the loins and the ribs. Is this saying that the semen which creates a child originates from the back or kidney of the male and not the testicles? Sura 23:13-14 � �Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (fetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature.� Is this supposed to be embryonic development? If so, it is totally wrong. The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at Apollos |
Replies:
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 4:03am
|
BISMILLAH
So called contradictions is Qura'n are not like those in distorted bible. You don't find contradictions, within the same context.
For instance, {Just one example } - The authors of Samuel and Chronicles relate the same story abt Prophet David taking a census of he Jews. However, in 2nd Samuel, it states that Prophet David acted on God's instructions, while in 1st Chronicles, he acted on Satan's instructions.
I Chronicles 21 - The Numbering - " And Satan, stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
Now, can you show such contradictions. These blunders don't occur, if its the word of God. Anyways, now shall i clear up your misconceptions, which you highlighted as contradictions. Let me tell our readers, that these contradictions are most common at any anti-Islamic site. There only aim is to weaken those with less faith, or cause confusions to those studying Islam.
You can also dump those puzzles even. We have all answers to it.
Was the earth created in six days (Sura 7:54, 10:3) or two days (Sura 41:9)? Lets look at those ayaat
7: 54 - Indeed, your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and then He rose over (Istawa) the Throne. He brings the night as a cover over the day, seeking it rapidly, and (He created) the sun, the moon, the stars subjected to His command. Surely, His is the creation and ommandment. Blessed is Allah, the Lord of all that exists!
10: 3.- "Surely, your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days and then rose over (Istawa) the Throne, arranging the affair ﴿of all things﴾. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after He permits. That is Allah, your Lord; so worship Him (alone). Then, will you not remember
41: 9. Say: "Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days And you set up rivals with Him That is the Lord of all that exists.' Now, read those three ayaat and let me know, wherein do you find the contradiction. EARTH AND HEAVEN WERE CREATED IN 6 DAYS. ONLY EARTH WAS CREATED IN 2 DAYS.
HOPE THIS CONTRADICTION IS APPARENT NOW. I shall try to answer as much as i can today. If left any, insha Allah, shall answer tomorrow.
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 4:18am
|
If the Qur�an is pure Arabic (Sura 12:2, 13:37; 16:103; 41:41), then why are there so many foreign words in it?
Lets look at these ayaat you quoted.
12:2. Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an in order that you may understand
13:37. And thus have We sent it (the Qur'an) down to be a judgement of authority in Arabic. Were you to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which has come to you, then you will not have any Wali (protector) or defender against Allah 16:103- And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him.'' The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur'an) is (in) a clear Arabic tongue 41:41. Verily, those who disbelieved in the Reminder when it came to them. And verily, it is an honorable well -fortified respected Book. If you notice, 41:41, does n't give any word or meaning as "arabic". It is an honorable and well-fortified book. So kindly check up them, before just blindly pasting. ANyways, answering you -
Any language in the world has in it many words from other languages. That does not make it imperfect. If we look at the English language as an example, we find hundreds of words that derive from other languages. The word 'kiosk' is originally Polish, while the phrase tete-a-tete is originally French ....... etc.
These words, and hundreds others, although of foreign origin, have become part of the English vocabulary. Since these originally foreign words have found their way into the English vocabulary, their use is well within the use of 'Perfect English'. 'Perfect English' is thus a question of a script that is written in correct grammar.
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 9:40am
Satan provoked David to gave the wrong amount it is not contradiction if he was mislead by satan it is strange muslims always use this text to defend themself.
So what is the big deal David was decieved by satan and gave God the wrong numbering and He was furious about it.
|
seekshidayath wrote:Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 10:29am
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 11:49am
Seekshidayath,
The example you present from the Bible is easily resolved but you don't want an explanation. You just want to attack the Bible again. As I said in the intro - Muslims spend most of their time attacking the Bible so why would you act Islam is the faith being attacked. You attack the Bible here in hopes of weakening someone's faith and then you act as if that is my motive. I didn't get these examples from an anti-Muslim web site but they are things I have noticed in my own reading over a long period of time. I used the search engine on the Islamcity site here to find the specific suras and instances of the puzzles I have read in the past. I hope you will have answers for these areas and I am honestly interested in how Muslims understand these passages. Don't read your evil motives into my post.
Apollos
|
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 11:54am
Apollos
|
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 12:13pm
|
Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 12:59pm
|
To Apollos Topic:Heaven and Earth were created in 6 days or 8 days? Answer By Dr.Zakir Naik I do agree that the Qur�an says that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days i.e. 6 epochs and it is mentioned in Surah Al A�raf chapter 7 verse 54 Surah Yunus chapter 10 verse 3 Surah Hud chapter 11 verse 7 Surah Al Furqan chapter 25 verse 59 Surah Al Sajdah chapter 32 verse 4 Surah Qaf chapter 50 verse 38 Surah Al Hadid chapter 57 verse 4 The verses of the Qur�an which according to you say that the heavens and the earth were created in 8 days are Surah Fussilat chapter 41 verses 9 to 12 "Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two days? And do ye join equals With him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds; He set on the (earth) mountains standing firm, High above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, In four days, in accordance with (the needs of) Those who seek (sustenance)." Moreover, He Comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth. "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly. They said: "We do come (Together), in willing obedience." So He completed them as seven firmaments in two days and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command and We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the decree of (Him) the exalted in might, full of knowledge." [Al-Qur�an 41:9-12] On the face of it, it seems that these verses of the Qur�an give the initial impression that the heavens and the earth were created in 8 days. Allah says in the beginning of this verse that those who exploit this information contained in this passage to raise doubts about its authenticity are equally interested in promulgating blasphemy and denying His unity. Allah is telling us that in course of time, there will emerge unbelievers who will make use of this apparent contradiction. 2. Summa means moreover If you analyse these verses carefully, it speaks about 2 different creations: the earth and the heaven. The earth excluding the mountains was created in 2 days and the mountains were set on the earth standing firm and blessed and measured its sustenance in 4 days. Therefore the earth along with the mountains was created in 6 days according to verse 9 and 10. Verse 11 and 12 says, moreover the heavens were created in 2 days. The Arabic word used in the beginning of verse 11 of Surah Fussilat is summa which means; �then� or �moreover�. There are certain Qur�anic translations, which have, used �then� for the word summa which, indicates �afterwards�. If �then� is wrongly used for summa then the total of the creation of heaven and earth will be 8 days which will conflict with other verses of the Qur�an which says heavens and earth were created in 6 days and will also conflict with the Big Bang Theory as well as the verse of the Qur�an Surah Al Ambiya chapter 21 verse 30 which says that heavens and the earth were created simultaneously. Therefore the correct translation of the word summa in this verse would be �moreover�. Abdullah Yusuf Ali has rightly translated the word summa or moreover which clearly gives an indication that while the earth along with the mountains, etc. was created in 6 days simultaneously the heavens were created in 2 days. Therefore the total does not come to 8 days but 6 days. If a builder says that he will construct a 10 storey building and surrounding compound wall in 6 months and after completion of his project he gives a more detailed account saying that the basement of the building was built in 2 months and the 10 storeys took 4 months and simultaneously, while the basement and the building was being constructed, he also constructed the surrounding of the building along with the compound wall which took 2 months. Therefore both his first and second descriptions are not contradicting but the second statement gives a more detailed account for the construction. 3. Heavens and the Earth created simultaneously The Qur�an describe the creation of the universe in several places, sometimes it says the heavens and the earth (7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 32:4, 50:38, 57:4) while in other places it says earth and the heaven (49:9-12, 2:29, 20:4) thus further supplementing the verse of Surah Al Ambiya chapter 21 verse 30 which speaks about the Big-Bang and that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously. Similarly in Surah Al-Baqara chapter 2 verse 29 "It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; Then He turned to the heaven and made them into seven firmaments. And of all things He hath perfect knowledge." [Al-Qur�an 2:29] "It is who has created for you all things on the earth summa simultaneously made the heaven into seven firmaments". Here also if you wrongly translate summa as �then� only then would this verse contradict the Big-bang theory and other verses of the Qur�an. Therefore the correct translation of the word summa is �moreover� or �simultaneously�. |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 3:12pm
|
Mansoor Ali,
I am more confused than I first was. It seems like you are contradicting what Seek said and it seems like you are actually contradicting your own statements with whether God created everything simultaneously or in a sequence. Will you or someone try to simplify what you are saying and show how each of these various statements of the Quran reconcile?
Apollos
|
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 7:09pm
MY QUESTION OUT OF THAT CONFLICTING PRSENTED VERSE WAS "IS THE LORD OF DAVID THEN SATAN ? GOD FORBID! {READ BOTH VERSES AGAIN}
Likewise, II Samuel 6:23 - " Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had NO CHILD until the day of her death"
II Samuel 21:8 is different - "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth ; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzilai the Neholathite.
Did Michal have children or not ?
Note : The name Michal in II Samuel 21:8 is still present in the King James version and the New World Translation of the holy Scriptures used by the Jehovah's Witnesses but is changed to Merab in the New American Standard Bible 1973
[extract from H.M Baagil 's dialogue with a christian]
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 7:20pm
Then you are welcome Apollos, if you are really honest. Incidentally, all of your, so called contradictions were similar to those from anti-Islam. We don't have any problem even if you present from anti-islamic site, but the point is such people, don't really ponder or look into Qur'an. I just want them to study seriously and honestly. If at all you have any questions, it shall be my pleasure to answer you, honestly ! I shall try my best to answer , else, get them answered to you by our other members, who possess better knowledge. Anyways, i shall look to answer, any other question unanswered.
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 11:43pm
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 12:03am
|
[QUOTE=Apollos][QUOTE=Saladin][QUOTE=Apollos]
Is the evil in our life from Satan (Sura 4:117-120), from Allah (Sura 4:78), or from ourselves (Sura 4:79)? (4:118) upon whom Allah has laid His curse. He said (to Allah): 'I will take to myself an appointed portion of Your servants146
(4:119) and shall lead them astray, and shall engross them in vain desires, and I shall command them and they will cut off the ears of the cattle,147 and I shall command them and they will disfigure Allah's creation.'148 He who took Satan rather than Allah for his guardian has indeed suffered a man-ifest loss.
Satan induces us to sin but we sin out of our freewill.
Thanks for the clarification. (BTW-this is the basic explanation for the Bible "contradiction" Seek listed in his post).
Can you explain further how the references to Allah being the source are understood?
(4:78) Wherever you might be, death will overtake you even though you be in massive towers. And when some good happens to them, they say: 'This is from Allah'; whereas when some misfortune befalls them, they say: 'This is because of you'.109 Say: 'All is from Allah.' What has happened to this people that they seem to understand nothing?
*109. When such people encounter success and victory, they attribute it to the grace of God. They allow themselves to forget that this grace came to them through no one but the Prophet (peace be on him). When they are either beaten or face setbacks because of their own faults and weaknesses they gratuitously exonerate themselves and place the blame squarely on the Prophet (peace be on him).
(4:79) Whatever good happens to you is from Allah; and whatever misfortune smites you is because of your own action. We have sent you to mankind (O Muhammad!) as a Messenger, and Allah is sufficient as a witness.110
*110. Such people are responsible for their own conduct. It is they rather than the Prophet (peace be on him) who will be censured. The task entrusted to the Prophet (peace be on him) was merely to communicate to them the ordinances and directives of God and he acquitted himself of it very well. It was not his duty to compel them to follow the right way, so that if they failed to follow the teachings communicated to them by the Prophet (peace be on him) the responsibility was entirely theirs. The Prophet (peace be on him) would not be questioned as to why they disobeyed.
Ok, i shall add bit more explanation to this. This is about the people of Pharoah
(And if some good reaches them) meaning, fertile years and provision of fruits, produce, children, etc., they say, "This is from Allah,'' but if some evil befalls them like drought, famine, shortages of fruits and produce, death that strikes their children or animals, and so forth they say, "This is from you,'' meaning, because of you and because we followed you and embraced your religion. Thus, if evil afflicted them, they ascribed it to evil omens connected with Musa and those with him. The same is the statement uttered by the hypocrites, who embraced Islam outwardly, but disliked it inwardly. This is why when a calamity befell them, they attributed it to following the Prophet Allah then said while addressing His Messenger , but refering to mankind in general, Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, meaning, of Allah's bounty, favor, kindness and mercy is from Allah swt. But whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself., meaning because of you and due to your actions. Similarly, Allah said, And whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much. As said, above {post} that the final decision to decide and act between satan's whisperings and goodness, is with us.
You can still post any doubts you have out of these answered. InshaAllah, {If Allah wills}, we shall move to next
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 1:12am
No satan is not David god but he could have been easily mislead by satan even today satan is in control of this world.
There a difference between Michal and Merab may be it was a misprint I hope we can solve more problemsin future.
The AOV,ASV,BBE and ESV Bibles stands Merab but all KJV Bibles it is writen Michal
2Sa 6:23 And Michal, Saul's daughter, had no child till the day of her death.
2Sa 21:8 But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Saul to whom Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, had given birth; and the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, whose father was Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: |
Posted By: mariyah
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 6:35am
|
Hmmm..
Very simple, the answer is in secular history, which Christians dont ascribe to because it often undermines the truths of their respective faiths.
Do you have a torah written in the original Aramaic, then you have the true scriptures. That also goes for the Injeel, or gospel. Jesus spoke Aramaic, not the current version of European origin "hebrew". And are you a qualified scholar of the aramaic language? if not, then what does the bible yours today really say? And tsk tsk, The pagan emperor Constantine burned all manuscripts that opposed his rewritten texts after the council of Nicea in century 3 CE. What a pity. The new Bible incorporated the values of pagan rome to entice the romans to convert to the "new religion". And anyone who objected to his new made up version were branded as heretics. Ask the followers of Arius.
Most Scholars of the Quran will tell you that most or all of the translations of the quran today are not concise or accurate. They are provided to help those who cannot learn or read or understand arabic to understand THE ESSENCE of the Quran. I have copies of several translations and I have had a local scholar who teaches our quranic arabic classes SHOW US the inconsistencies. This is a native arabic speaker who was schooled in the middle east in classical quaranic arabic who is making these statements.
So you can search through the English versions all you want to try to trip us up. Please read the Quran in Arabic and then you will understand it. Do you read Arabic? ------------- "Every good deed is charity whether you come to your brother's assistance or just greet him with a smile. |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 9:16am
|
Is that a Muslim belief - that Jesus will come again and then die again? By whose hands will he die? Can you help me understand this "end times" belief better?
[Allah knows best] Afaik, Jesus will come again, fight against the evil forces, defeat them and bring about global peace and righteousness. How he'll die the one and only time he'll die - I dont know, natural death I think. About the evil forces, they're those that're opposed to God and goodness. Could be from any denominations.
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 10:43am
|
Apparent Inaccuracies Many verses describe the earth as flat. I understand that corresponding tafsirs validate this interpretation. Numerous hadith also describe a flat earth, with the sun and moon rotating around earth. (Sura 2:22; 13:3; 15:19; 16:15; 20:53; 22:65; 27:61; 40:64; 43:10; 50:6-7; 51:48; 55:10; 71:15-20; 78:6-7; 79:7-30; 88:20; 91:5-6). How can this be? Please can you be specific.....what words or phrases in these verses indicate flat earth?
Suras 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6-7; 88:19 tell us that God placed (threw down) mountains on the earth like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. Sounds like more flat earth mythology. What�s up? Its a geological fact! Mountain roots extend into the mantle thus acting as a stabilizer to the crust.
In Sura 18:86 it states, "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn! Either punish them, or treat them with kindness." This sounds like a fable with more flat earth thinking in mind. If not, where is this location and people? I dont know where this location is but I regularly see the sun setting in the sea and someplaces in the mountains. What about this verse do you think is flat earth-ish? Anyway click on this link - http://www.answering-christianity.com/sunrise_sunset.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/sunrise_sunset.htm
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 5:10pm
Mariya,
Once again you are trying to change the subject to an attack on the Bible. Is it because you think I am attacking the Quran? I am not - I am only trying to understand how you explain some obvious puzzles I have read. Do you not see I called these problems "apparent contradictions". I notice that the majority of Muslim attacks on the Bible are copy and paste from anti-Bible sources and Muslims even copy from atheists and apostates to do this. I highly doubt that these Bible passages occurred to them as they read the Bible in a natural fashion.
So to your attack on the Bible. You obviously don't know history or you would know that the common written language of the Jews during Jesus' day was Greek. He read and spoke Greek at times, Hebrew at times and yes He spoke Aramaic to the common people. You are completely wrong in claiming the Injeel or the Old Testament was written in Aramaic. If your claim of Constantine burning the originals was true, why do we have Hebrew and Greek manuscripts hundreds of years before this that are identical to the manuscripts after Constantine's date. Just explain one of these: There is a scroll of Isaiah that was sealed away hundreds of years before Jesus came. It was found with the dead sea scrolls in the 20th century. It could not have been known or touched by Christians yet it is identical to the Hebrew manuscripts we have today - the ones the English Bible is based on.
As for your statements about the Quran, why do you say I am trying to trip you up? You admit that the English versions of the Quran are not accurate so is it surprising to you that I am finding puzzles? This one statement you make clears up a lot for me. Thank you. On the other hand, I am not going to learn Arabic so I can read the Quran. If 85% of Muslims can't read Arabic, why should I? BTW - why would you trust Arabic scholars to tell you what the Quran says but not trust Hebrew and Greek scholars to tell you what the Bible says?
Apollos
|
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 5:16pm
I have never heard of mountain "roots" or anything about mountains stabilizing the crust. In fact they are a result of the earth's crust rupturing and rising under unstable earthquakes. (I live in earthquake country and I have seen them do this). Can you please direct me to experts who support your idea?
Apollos
|
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 5:25pm
In the translations I read it refers to the earth being stretched out, laid out like a carpet, with tent pegs, etc. The passages about the Mountains holding down the earth seem to correspond to this as well. Such descriptions imply a flat earth view and don't make sense for a sphere that we know the earth is.
Since another Muslim says the English translations are not precise or accurate, maybe you can tell me what the Arabic is describing in these passages.
Apollos
|
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 5:28pm
I am sure that many people see the same thing when they read the Quran so I am not surprised others have noted some of the same things I have.
Were the examples from the Bible you posted ones you had noticed when reading the Bible in an honest way or just copy and pastes from an anti-Bible web site? Have you actually read the Bible or just parts of it?
Apollos
|
Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 12:34am
|
peace!
If only Allah is to be worshipped (Sura 4:116, 18:110), then why were the angels commanded to bow down to Adam (Sura 15:29-30; 20:116)? 32:9 (Picktall) Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit; and appointed for you hearing and sight and hearts. Small thanks give ye!
you see adam had within him something nothing in creation contained not even the angels. not even satan himself. that is a piece of gods spirit itself. a piece of god himself ,a gift to us. ie : Psalm 82: 6. { also note that this is the verse jesus himself uses in the gospel of john to justifiy him being called " the son of god."}
he comanded the angels bow down because of this. also bowing is not only a sign of worship it's also a sign of respect and admiration.
love
leland
------------- love for all conquers all |
Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 1:05am
|
peace to you!
Is Allah�s day like 1,000 human years (Sura 22:47) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)? If both are just meant to be vague expressions, what do they really describe?
they mearly state that god is the only one who knows. how can anyone imagin ,not to mention understand the time frame of god.
1,000 to 50,000 it's all irrelivent to god is it not? as the two verses you mention states.
also i'm very joyfull to see your interest in the qu'ran.
and as you have surely noticed by now. muslims
welcome their faith and qu'ran questioned.
unlike some faiths whos members turn toward anger and intolerence when their beliefs and writings are questioned or scrutenized .
leland ------------- love for all conquers all |
Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 1:15am
|
peace !
If the Qur�an is pure Arabic (Sura 12:2, 13:37; 16:103; 41:41), then why are there so many foreign words in it?
i've noticed this also. foreign words describing foriegn things and foriegn happings. how would muhammad know of such things?
muslims call it revelation!
leland ------------- love for all conquers all |
Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 1:23am
|
peace! Is the evil in our life from Satan (Sura 4:117-120), from Allah (Sura 4:78), or from ourselves (Sura 4:79)?
all things come from god weather good or bad. god greated satan, god greated humanity.
the link below gives a very good explanation on this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=871B7yTOWsg&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=871B7yTOWsg&feature=related ------------- love for all conquers all |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 3:57am
Honestly speaking, i did not read whole Bible yet. Am reading it since 4 months. Those two verses i quoted were from a book "Christian-muslim" dialogue. I did clearly see the difference.Can you answer me of those verses, whom we consider as contradictions in bible ? Anyways, am sorry for it, that i did not study it whole. Coming to Quran, even if you read it in parts, its not a problem, Apollos. The point is we need to read that with its context. Only then will we get its true understanding.
You can read Qur'an from this site - Accept this as a gift from me
 http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem%5Fquran/ - ttp://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem%5Fquran/
Just click at those surahs, and try to read it. If you have any doubts then, can surely post them here.
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 9:37am
Leland,
Another Muslim said bowing is not the same as worship - as you say. Do Muslims agree on this view? Also, are you saying that because humans have the spirit of God within them, that angels should bow down and worship some humans today?
Apollos
|
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 9:45am
http://%5bQUOTE=Apollos%5d%5bQUOTE=Saladin -
The Quran is metaphorically expressing this fact.
When oceanic and continental plates come together, geologists believe the continental crust buckles. On the surface, the buckling manifests itself as a rising mountain range, but beneath the crust, the buckling creates a heavy, high-density "root" that holds the crust down like an anchor, says Garzione.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080605150912.htm - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080605150912.htm
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 10:25am
|
Saladin,
In the translations I read it refers to the earth being stretched out, laid out like a carpet, with tent pegs, etc. The passages about the Mountains holding down the earth seem to correspond to this as well. Such descriptions imply a flat earth view and don't make sense for a sphere that we know the earth is.
Since another Muslim says the English translations are not precise or accurate, maybe you can tell me what the Arabic is describing in these passages.
Apollos
(13:3) He it is Who has stretched out the earth and has placed in it firm mountains and has caused the rivers to flow. He has made every fruit in pairs, two and two, and He it is Who causes the night to cover the day.8 Surely there are signs in these for those who reflect.
We know the earth is spherical and the Quran indicates that in some verses but "visually" isnt the earth stretched out for us inhabitants of earth? I dont know what you see Apollos but I dont see "flat earth" in these verses.
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 10:36am
Saladin,
I don't see how the "root" below the crust is part of or even connected to the mountain on top of the crust. I also don't see how this fits with the expression that Mountains hold down the earth like tent pegs since the holding down of the earth's crust is accomplished via a heavy high density "root" that is not part of the mountain itself. But, if this is what you believe and the Quran's language can be interpreted with such great latitude and flexibility to accomodate the facts about this aspect of science, why do Muslims demand such a narrow interpretation of other passages and of Bible passages?
Apollos
|
Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 8:07pm
|
peace
Many verses describe the earth as flat. I understand that corresponding tafsirs validate this interpretation. Numerous hadith also describe a flat earth, with the sun and moon rotating around earth. (Sura 2:22; 13:3; 15:19; 16:15; 20:53; 22:65; 27:61; 40:64; 43:10; 50:6-7; 51:48; 55:10; 71:15-20; 78:6-7; 79:7-30; 88:20; 91:5-6). How can this be? Suras 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6-7; 88:19 tell us that God placed (threw down) mountains on the earth like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. Sounds like more flat earth mythology. What�s up? 2:25 (Y. Ali) But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).
jesus also says in thomas "that truth is reviled in type and image, because the world could not exept it any other way "
a simialarity not literal. a likeness so that we may have some understanding. can any of us truely comprehend the whole of creation that's "streched out" before us?
leland
------------- love for all conquers all |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 8:10pm
|
I�d like to add a question to my initial list. Though it involves many areas of the Quran, I don�t think I need to list specific references. I�m not interested in how a specific passage on this is explained but the complete concept of Mercy and Justice. Here is what I mean: I know there are many references in the Quran about God being Just and God being Merciful. Though the same words are in the Bible I think Muslims reject the Christian and Jewish view of these and I would like to know how Muslims reconcile these two opposing attributes of God. As an illustration, consider a person who has done something wrong according to God�s standards. If God did not require full consequences/punishment for this wrong, God couldn�t be Just, could He? Yet if God requires this person to be punished, where is God�s Mercy? Apollos |
Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 23 March 2009 at 4:30am
|
Yet if God requires this person to be punished, where is God�s Mercy?
peace!
this question attains to the will of god. who among us can fully comprehend that? a similitude may help.
say a child does wrong . a parent who truely cares will correct { punish } the child with a negitive to establish and explain a positive. thus bringing the child back to a correct path for his/her own well being.
the punishment itself is a mercy to the development of the child .
as for the punishment of DEATH { damnation of the soul .} it to could be a mercy .
as those who are saved with eternal life are released from themselves from the present reality to everlasting life.
those who are punished in turn are also released from themselves in this reality. even though to eternal death it may still be a mercy to them. a putting out of ones miserey so to speak.
it would not be surprising the mercy of god would be as profound as god himself is.
leland
------------- love for all conquers all |
Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 23 March 2009 at 8:02am
|
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 23 March 2009 at 11:52am
How does this relate to a Muslim whose balance of deeds is 51% good?
Apollos
|
Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 23 March 2009 at 1:54pm
|
peace and joy be yours today!
How does this relate to a Muslim whose balance of deeds is 51% good?
i realy can't answer that. it's beyond me. but it seems that in the muslim in your example the good holds the controling share.
leland
------------- love for all conquers all |
Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 23 March 2009 at 2:13pm
|
peace!
Another Muslim said bowing is not the same as worship - as you say. Do Muslims agree on this view? Also, are you saying that because humans have the spirit of God within them, that angels should bow down and worship some humans today?
Apollos
as for bowing it's used as a sign of worship as stated all over the bible. but it is not the only use for it.
it's a sign of respect,admoration and also as a sign of obedeance to the one giving the command.
as for the angels worshiping humanity today we can't say. we don't know why the command to bow was for. was it for an act of warship?an act of respect? an act of admoration? or an act of obedence to god?
leland ------------- love for all conquers all |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 23 March 2009 at 2:53pm
So does this mean that you are unsure as to how God will judge such a person? I would have thought this question would be of the utmost concern to the indivdual.
Apollos
|
Posted By: Usmani
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 12:41am
|
Quote:-As an illustration, consider a person who has done something wrong according to God�s standards. If God did not require full consequences/punishment for this wrong, God couldn�t be Just, could He? Yet if God requires this person to be punished, where is God�s Mercy? >>>This would be dealt with case to case basis. If another person did something wrong according to God�s standard and did repent in the world and tried his best to compensate his wrong doing then we can expect that God would see his wrong doing with His Mercy and may forgive him. ------------- Engage your self in good deeds,otherswise yours nafs will engage you in bad deeds |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 5:33am
|
Saladin,
I don't see how the "root" below the crust is part of or even connected to the mountain on top of the crust. I also don't see how this fits with the expression that Mountains hold down the earth like tent pegs since the holding down of the earth's crust is accomplished via a heavy high density "root" that is not part of the mountain itself. But, if this is what you believe and the Quran's language can be interpreted with such great latitude and flexibility to accomodate the facts about this aspect of science, why do Muslims demand such a narrow interpretation of other passages and of Bible passages?
Apollos
Allah says: ( Have we not made the earth as a wide expanse, and the mountains as pegs? ) (78: 6-7)
The Verse indicates that mountains are pegs for the earth. A peg has part of it above the surface of the earth and the bulk of it underground; its function being stabilizing something else. Geographers and geologists, however, define the mountain as a landmass that projects conspicuously above its surroundings and is higher than a hill. Professor Zaghlul El-Naggar says: �All current definitions of mountains are confined only to the outer morphology of such landforms, without the slightest notion to their subsurface extensions which have lately proved to be several times their outward height.� Then he adds: �This fact started to come to light only in the middle of the nineteenth century, when George Airy (1865) proposed that the enormously heavy mountains are not supported by a strong rigid crust below, but that they �float� in a �sea� of dense rocks�. Airy�s theory became an actual fact because of the progressive knowledge of the internal structure of the earth by means of seismic measurements. It has become definitely known that mountains have roots extending deep in the ground and may be up to fifteen times the height of the outward protrusions above ground, and the mountains play a significant role in halting the horizontal jerky movement of the lithospheric plates. This role started to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics in the late 1960. Professor Zaghlul defines mountains in the light of this modern information by saying: �Mountains are merely the tops of great masses of rock, floating in a more dense substratum as icebergs float in water.� The Qur�an describes mountains in respect of their shape and function. Allah says: (And the mountains as pegs.) (78: 7) and (He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you.) (3: 10) and (And we have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and we have made therein broad ways (between mountains) for them to pass through; that they may receive guidance.) (21: 31)
Mountains are pegs with respect to the earth�s surface, for as most of a peg is hidden in the ground for stabilization, the bulk of a mountain is hidden underground to stabilize the earth�s crust. Moreover, as ships are anchored with anchors that are sunk in water, the earth�s crust is stabilized by its mountains with their roots extending in the mantle, a semi-liquid sticky layer upon which the earth�s crust floats. http://www.55a.net/eng/25.htm - http://www.55a.net/eng/25.htm
Its not a case of interpretating to accomodate the facts, Apollos. The Quran is clear about the fact.
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Schematic section. Mountains, like
Another illustration shows how mountains are peglike Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 5:41am
| As Salamu Alaikum, Saladin.Good job! May Allah Bless you(Ameen) |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 5:57am
|
As an illustration, consider a person who has done something wrong according to God�s standards. If God did not require full consequences/punishment for this wrong, God couldn�t be Just, could He? Yet if God requires this person to be punished, where is God�s Mercy? Allah does not require punishment for the wrong a person commits once the person turns to Him in sincere repentance. Allah says He created us weak; prone to sinning. Allah is the Most Just, He will never punish sinners without giving them the opportunity to repent. And once they repent sincerely, Allah the Most Merciful is Oft Forgiving.
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 6:59am
|
Another Muslim said bowing is not the same as worship - as you say. Do Muslims agree on this view? Also, are you saying that because humans have the spirit of God within them, that angels should bow down and worship some humans today?
Apollos
There's none worthy of worship besides Allah. The Angels were commanded by Allah to prostrate before Adam (to honor Adam) because Allah has cast a reflection of His divine characteristics on him (Adam). No creature of Allah was/is ever permitted to worship anyone besides Allah and no man now is permitted to bow or prostrate before anyone besides Allah.
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 7:38am
|
Alleged inaccuracy: Sura 86:5-7 tells us that man is created from a gushing fluid that issues from between the loins and the ribs. Is this saying that the semen which creates a child originates from the back or kidney of the male and not the testicles?
Please click on this http://www.answering-christianity.com/munir_munshey/semenproduction_rebuttal.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/munir_munshey/semenproduction_rebuttal.htm to correct your misunderstanding.
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 8:06am
Apollos
|
Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 8:10am
|
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 8:45am
|
Alleged inaccuracy: Sura 23:13-14 � �Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (fetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature.� Is this supposed to be embryonic development? If so, it is totally wrong.
EMBRYONIC STAGES"Man We did create From a quintessence (of clay); Then We placed him As (a drop of) sperm In a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm Into a clot of congealed blood; Then of that clot We made A (foetus) lump; then We Made out of that lump Bones and clothed the bones With flesh; then We developed Out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, The Best to create!" [Al-Quran 23:12-14] Prof. Marshall Johnson is one of the leading scientists in US, and is the head of the Department of Anatomy and Director of the Daniel Institute at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia in US. He was asked to comment on the verses of the Quran dealing with embryology. He said that the verses of the Quran describing the embryological stages cannot be a coincidence. He said it was probable that Muhammad (pbuh) had a powerful microscope. On being reminded that the Quran was revealed 1400 years ago, and microscopes were invented centuries after the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Prof. Johnson laughed and admitted that the first microscope invented could not magnify more than 10 times and could not show a clear picture. Later he said: "I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that Divine intervention was involved when Muhammad (pbuh) recited the Quran." According to Dr. Keith Moore, the modern classification of embryonic development stages which is adopted throughout the world, is not easily comprehensible, since it identifies stages on a numerical basis i.e. stage I, stage II, etc. The divisions revealed in the Quran are based on distinct and easily identifiable forms or shapes, which the embryo passes through. These are based on different phases of prenatal development and provide elegant scientific descriptions that are comprehensible and practical. http://www.ediscoverislam.com/Quran-Islam-and-Science/Islam-Quran-and-Science/the-holy-quran-and-modern-science - http://www.ediscoverislam.com/Quran-Islam-and-Science/Islam-Quran-and-Science/the-holy-quran-and-modern-science
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: christine123
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 10:05am
Greetings, Apollos! I am new to the forum and have not met you yet. Just yesterday I found the answer to this question, and it is from a man who was a Christian and who is now Muslim. He gives a really great explanation in the videos here: http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52971 I hope it is as helpful for you as it was for me! Peace, C |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 March 2009 at 5:22pm
|
Just a couple of observations: 1. Mountains clearly do not stop the earth from shaking. Most earthquakes originate in mountainous areas, whereas most plains are stable. 2. It is the mother's ovum, not the father's sperm, which develops into a fetus. The sperm is a vehicle for DNA, nothing more. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 25 March 2009 at 1:29am
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 25 March 2009 at 1:24pm
|
Christine,
I went to the site you referenced and listened to some of the videos. Since I listened to the top video first I have to comment on something the convert states there: He summarizes his conversion with : �Islam is everything I wanted Christianity to be.� If this statement doesn�t strike you as completely subjective and weak, let me reverse the statement. Let�s imagine he said: �Christianity is everything I wanted Islam to be�. Unless we already esteem this person as a better thinker than ourselves or others we bump into, why would such a statement matter? But on to the video clip that addresses the question I raised. The convert says that Justice and Mercy are exclusive to each other. He says that in Islam you can get one or the other but not both. In this way, God can be merciful and forgive someone regardless of what they have done wrong. Justice is simply waived by God because He can do whatever He likes. Or God can require Justice (punishment for doing wrong) and He has the same option here as with Mercy. He can ignore mercy and forgiveness and simply employ Justice. The speaker is quite content with this answer. Are you? I ask this because the speaker on the video may not be representing what the Quran actually says and I don't want to conclude too much too soon. I will break this down so you understand why I suspect he is not representing Islam correctly.
If God is completely Holy and completely Merciful, it makes no sense to say God can choose which attribute to exercise at any given time. In fact, if these attributes are part of God�s nature, He could not do such a thing because it is contrary to His nature. It is illogical and contradictory. The type of double-talk the speaker uses in his answers is called �equivocating�. In logic this is a fallacy and in this case it goes like this: Someone calls God �Merciful� and �Just� and they mean �all merciful� and �all Just�, "always merciful" and "always just". Then the same person describes God�s actions as �Merciful� and �Just� but they mean �sometimes merciful� and �sometimes just�. Do you see the equivocation problem? The speaker on the video is definitely guilty of this but I don�t want to assume that all Muslims are doing this. Hence my question � Do you think the speaker is representing what Islam and the Quran actually teaches? Apollos |
Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 26 March 2009 at 6:00pm
| As Salamu Alaikum,Apollos.Allah is Most High He can do what ever He wants,Punish the wrong doer or not can you not see that we are tested in this life,If Allah Wills He can make the wrong doer lead you wrong to see if you will follow just because his punishment can go unoticde in this world.How can you not understand that.I know alot of Christians my whole family are.Some of them believe all of thier sins are forgiven on Sundays,After they have came from the Dance clubs,and bars the night before. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 26 March 2009 at 6:26pm
|
Can you find a single reputable geologist or seismologist who would agree with that claim?
I'm sorry, but the Quran simply has it wrong. It is perpetuating the ancient myth of sperm as a kind of "seed" which is planted in the womb, but science now knows that is incorrect. The sperm cell does not develop at all -- it dies after it delivers its DNA payload. It is the ovum (egg cell), and only the ovum, that divides and grows into a fetus. That is why we inherit mitochondrial DNA (the DNA found outside the nucleus of our cells) only from our mother. The ovum is the seed. Sperm is just the fertilizer (pun intended) that makes the ovum grow. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 26 March 2009 at 8:15pm
|
From Muslims I know, Muslims on this site and Muslims making public statements, I see that Muslims do not agree on many supposedly clear teachings of the Quran: Some say Jihad is an internal war, others say it external and physical Some say tolerance of others is commanded, others say intolerance is commanded. Some say Christians and Jews are good people and a Muslim can even marry one. Others say Christians and Jews are evil and should not be befriended. Some say Islam is compulsory, others say it is not. Some say the Quran is simple to understand even in English. Others say it is inaccurate unless in Arabic There is no need to prove which of these views is correct to me. I am just observing what I see in practice. The problem is though � if Muslims can�t agree what the Quran teaches on these things, why do Muslims on this site claim that the Quran is so clear and logical? Apollos |
Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 26 March 2009 at 9:06pm
| Salams,Ron Web.Without sperm you get no baby,even so If it is not Allah's Will no one can have babies.Allah knows All. |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 26 March 2009 at 10:59pm
The Quran is quite clear. Example: 2:256 (Y. Ali) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
This couldn't be more clear. You cannot force someone to believe in Islam or accept Islam, period. Unfortunately not all people comprehend all things in exactly the same way.
This is exactly why the fact that the text of The Quran has not been changed or revised is so vitally important. Because while men may disagree on some of the meaning of The Quran, their own opinions or comprehensions have not been written into or revised into it's manuscript. ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 26 March 2009 at 11:44pm
|
Yes and the Quran doesnt say that the sperm alone develops into a fetus.[/quote] I'm sorry, but the Quran simply has it wrong. It is perpetuating the ancient myth of sperm as a kind of "seed" which is planted in the womb, but science now knows that is incorrect. The sperm cell does not develop at all -- it dies after it delivers its DNA payload. It is the ovum (egg cell), and only the ovum, that divides and grows into a fetus. That is why we inherit mitochondrial DNA (the DNA found outside the nucleus of our cells) only from our mother. The ovum is the seed. Sperm is just the fertilizer (pun intended) that makes the ovum grow. [/QUOTE]
Actually the sperm's mitochondria almost always die, though cases have been found where people's DNA are from their father, but the sperm itself enlarges into a male pronucleus which bonds with the female pronucleus of the egg and their chromozones combine creating the zygote and resulting embryo.
So, the sperm doesn't die at all. It actually fuses with the fertile membrane of the egg and is drawn into cytosol of the egg where it enlarges into the male pronucleaus.
Sort of planting a seed, so to speak.....
Fertilization begins with the binding of a sperm head to the outer coating of the egg (called the zona pellucida). http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Exocytosis.html - Exocytosis of the acrosome at the tip of the sperm head releases enzymes that digest a path through the zona and enable the sperm head to bind to the plasma membrane of the egg. Fusion of their respective membranes allows the entire contents of the sperm to be drawn into the cytosol of the egg. (Even though the sperm's mitochondria enter the egg, they are almost always destroyed and do not contribute their genes to the embryo. So human http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/CellularRespiration.html#mtdna - mitochondrial DNA is almost always inherited from mothers only.)
Within moments, enzymes released from the egg cytosol act on the zona making it impermeable to the other sperm that arrive. Soon the nucleus of the successful sperm enlarges into the male pronucleus. At the same time, the egg (secondary oocyte) completes meiosis II forming a second polar body and the female pronucleus. The male and female pronuclei move toward each other while duplicating their DNA in http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/CellCycle.html - S phase . Their nuclear envelopes disintegrate. A spindle is formed (following replication of the sperm's centriole), and a full set of http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/D/D.html#dyad - dyads assembles on it. The fertilized egg or zygote is now ready for its first mitosis. When this is done, 2 cells � each with a http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Chromosomes.html#diploid - diploid set of chromosomes � are formed. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Sexual_Reproduction.html - http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Sexual_Reproduction.html
A pronucleus (plural: pronuclei) is the nucleus of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm - sperm or an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cell - egg cell during the process of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilization - fertilization , after the sperm enters the ovum, but before they fuse. Sperm and egg cells are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ploidy - haploid , meaning they carry half the number of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome - chromosomes . When the pronucleus of a sperm fuses with the pronucleus of an egg, their chromosomes combine and become part of a single diploid nucleus in the resulting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo - embryo , containing a full set of chromosomes. The appearance of two pronuclei is the first sign of successful fertilization as observed during http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation - in vitro fertilisation , and is usually observed 18 hours after insemination or ICSI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronucleus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronucleus
pronucleus
[-no̅o̅′klē�əs] pl. pronuclei
Etymology: Gk, pro + L, nucleus, nut kernel the nucleus of an ovum or a spermatozoon after fertilization but before fusion of the chromosomes to form the nucleus of the zygote. Each pronucleus contains the haploid number of chromosomes, is larger than the normal nucleus, and is diffuse in appearance. The pronucleus of the ovum is formed only after it has completed its second meiotic division and the second polar body has formed, which occur after the spermatozoon has penetrated. It then loses its nuclear envelope, releasing the chromosomes so that synapsis with the chromosomes of the male pronucleus, which is contained in the head of the spermatozoon, can occur. Also called http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/germinal+nucleus - germinal nucleus , http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/germ+nucleus - germ nucleus . See also http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/oogenesis - oogenesis , http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/spermatogenesis - spermatogenesis
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Male+pronucleus - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Male+pronucleus ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 27 March 2009 at 8:05am
Akhe Abdullah,
Charis kai Eirene. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that God is not "always just" but "sometimes just" - is that correct? Otherwise I don't understand you. For if God can sometimes ignore what justice requires, He would not be "always just", would He?
Please help me understand your words better.
Apollos
|
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 27 March 2009 at 6:39pm
|
Your own source contradicts you. It's not "the sperm itself", but only the nucleus, that enlarges -- and not even the whole nucleus, because the nucleic envelope is stripped away, leaving only the genetic material inside. The rest of the sperm cell -- the tail, the outer cell membrane and the inner mitochondria -- is gone. Only the ovum remains intact after fertilization. It is the ovum which is the first (and largest) cell, the one that divides and grows into a fetus and then a baby. Shasta'sAunt, we've had many a lively debate together, and even as we disagreed I have been impressed with your knowledge, your intelligence and rhetorical skill. It's truly a shame to see those talents exerted in defending the indefensible. You must know that in Muhammad's time the sperm was literally thought of as "seed", while the ovum (the proper analogue for a seed) was unknown; and you must realize that the only reason that the Quran mentions the former but not the latter is that Muhammad didn't know about the latter. If this were a passage in the Bible, which doesn't claim to be the literal word of God (at least not according to knowledgeable Christians), I'm sure you would agree that the Quran's description of conception is just a metaphor, and the important thing is the underlying message of man's humble beginnings, not the physiological details. This isn't meant to be a medical text, after all. But because you insist that this is God Himself talking, that option is not ideologically open to you. Here we have a nice illustration of why I was saying in that other discussion ("Why a corrupt Bible is a problem of Islam") that a certain amount of uncertainty, and hence some room for interpretation, is a good thing in holy scripture. This will be my last message on this topic. The facts speak for themselves, and there isn't a lot more to be said. I'm sure you'll have some clever response, and I'll let you have the last word. But after you have responded, just do me a favour: read it over again and ask yourself if you really believe it. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 27 March 2009 at 7:43pm
|
"Your own source contradicts you. It's not "the sperm itself", but only the nucleus, that enlarges -- and not even the whole nucleus, because the nucleic envelope is stripped away, leaving only the genetic material inside. The rest of the sperm cell -- the tail, the outer cell membrane and the inner mitochondria -- is gone. Only the ovum remains intact after fertilization. It is the ovum which is the first (and largest) cell, the one that divides and grows into a fetus and then a baby." You are right, the facts speak for themselves. I don't need a clever response, perhaps you should read it over again. It is the egg that loses it's envelope, not the sperm:
"The pronucleus of the ovum is formed only after it has completed its second meiotic division and the second polar body has formed, which occur after the spermatozoon has penetrated. It then loses its nuclear envelope, releasing the chromosomes so that synapsis with the chromosomes of the male pronucleus, which is contained in the head of the spermatozoon, can occur."
"A sperm, from the http://www.answers.com/topic/ancient-greek-2 - ancient Greek word σπέρμα (seed) and ζῷον (living being) and more commonly known as a http://www.answers.com/topic/sperm-13 - sperm cell, is the http://www.answers.com/topic/ploidy - haploid http://www.answers.com/topic/cell - cell that is the male http://www.answers.com/topic/gamete - gamete . It http://www.answers.com/topic/fertilize - joins an http://www.answers.com/topic/ovum - ovum to form a http://www.answers.com/topic/zygote - zygote . A zygote is a single cell, with a complete set of chromosomes, that normally develops into an http://www.answers.com/topic/embryo - embryo . Sperm cells contribute half of the http://www.answers.com/topic/gene - genetic information to the http://www.answers.com/topic/ploidy - diploid offspring. In mammals, the http://www.answers.com/topic/sex - sex of the offspring is determined by the sperm cell: a spermatozoon bearing a Y http://www.answers.com/topic/chromosome - chromosome will lead to a http://www.answers.com/topic/male - male (XY) offspring, while one bearing an X chromosome will lead to a http://www.answers.com/topic/female - female (XX) offspring (the http://www.answers.com/topic/ovum - ovum always provides an X chromosome). Sperm cells were first observed by http://www.answers.com/topic/antonie-van-leeuwenhoek - Anton van Leeuwenhoek in http://www.answers.com/topic/1677 - 1677 . http://www.answers.com/topic/sperm-1#cite_note-0 - [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/sperm-1 - http://www.answers.com/topic/sperm-1
The sperm and the ovum combine, half and half, to create the diploid. ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 28 March 2009 at 6:46am
| Salams, Apollos.So you are saying that you dont undestand that God does what he wants?It's that simple,If you do wrong you will be ultimately judged by God according to your good deeds and your bad.Everything that you say and do is being recorded.You see Apollos,when you talk to us Muslims,We always speak of Allah,We are always concious that He is whatching and hearing.Can you understand that? |
Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 28 March 2009 at 6:59am
|
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 28 March 2009 at 10:12am
Please ask any geologist, what the earth would be if not for mountains.......uninhabitable. The Quran puts the facts metaphorically, you just gotto understand.
Click on this http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program8%20MountainBuilding/program8.html - http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program8%20MountainBuilding/program8.html to learn about mountain building and the vital role mountains play.
Excerpts from the article -
....When we look at modern day mountain belts, we recognize there are really two portions, an interior portion of metamorphic rocks and igenious rocks that are intrinsic to that continent and then an outboard portion on amalgamation of exotic or suspect terrane that have come from various distances and representing various ages of ancient rock.
Regardless of how they formed, mountain belts along convergent boundaries stop growing when subduction ends. They gradually deteriorate to become part of the low-lying craton itself. Ultimately, of course, mountain building ends, and that signals the end of convergent plate motion, a settling back or perhaps low angle distributive faulting occurs, which extend the mountain belt rather than compress it, and the forces of erosion once this constructional stage is over take over. ....It's now known that most mountain ranges are underlain by crustal roots floating atop the hot plastically deforming mantle. The roots grow as a result of compression during plate convergence. As mountain ranges are worn down, their roots are buoyed upward by the mantle. Because the mantle is far stiffer than the most fluid lava, the crust flows upward quite slowly sustaining a hilly topography in the landscape for hundreds of millions of years. As the crust rises, rocks from ever deeper levels inside the Earth are brought to the surface and worn away. The floating of Earth's crust atop the mantle is termed "isostasy". This is similar to what happens at sea, where large icebergs float with more ice extending beneath the surface than small ones do. In the same way, tall mountains usually have roots extending deeper into the Earth than low mountains made up of the same rock type. In both cases, far more mass lies hidden from view than can be seen at the surface. Isostasy is the process by which different thickness and different density irregularities in the outer Earth float in gravitational equilibrium with one another. When you build up a large mountain range, you're liable to have a root underneath and a lot of material piled up high on the Earth's surface, and, ultimately, if you don't have forces to keep it piled up, that is going to tend to want to equilibrate and float in gravitational equilibrium with the other areas around it. As mountain belts uplift and late in their stages, they may begin to actually undergo extensional collapse or breaking apart at the high levels due to the force of gravity. At their deeper levels, there may be plastic flow underneath them or compensation by flow in the mantle in order to let whatever root that exists to equilibrate and to come to gravitational equilibrium with the mantle and a lower crust around it. During this stage of ultimate isostatic equilibration, if there are no longer major forces uplifting the mountain range, then erosion will ultimately win out over the uplift process, and the mountain belt will be beveled to a much flatter lower relief surface. At this stage the mountain belt is well on its way to becoming part of the craton. ....Mountain ranges, newly forming and ancient, mark the growth of continents in response to plate movements. Floating on Earth's plastic mantle, these gigantic topographic features disappear slowly as their low-density roots are buoyed up. So mountains owe their existence to two factors: the heat that drives plate tectonics and the effects of gravity. In time, mountains wear flat, adding new crust to the cratons, the oldest, most stable lands on the planet Earth. ------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 29 March 2009 at 7:58am
Akhe Abdullah,
Charis kai Eirene. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that God is not "always just" but "sometimes just" - is that correct? Otherwise I don't understand you. For if God can sometimes ignore what justice requires, He would not be "always just", would He? Please help me understand your words better. Apollos
Salams,You make it hard,May Allah make it easy for you.I'm saying Allah does what He wants,And thats all I will say,And that's all Im saying.I will not say anything about Allah that I am not commanded to say.He is All Mighty,All Powerfull.
Akhe Abdullah, ,
If that is what Muslims believe, OK, I understand what you are saying. The reason I was not sure is because I didn�t expect this to be the case from people who refer to God as Holy and Just. I think you know that from my perspective I can not conceive of a God who is completely Holy and Just yet He can tolerate or ignore a �little� sin. It would be like a spouse who we call �faithful� but they commit adultery now and then; It would be like a judge who decided some people should be punished for murder but others could be let go if they felt bad for what they had done. I am not trying to change your mind or argue, just explain to you why your concept is surprising to me. I too believe that God can forgive sins but according to the Bible it requires a sacrifice to satisfy the debt of our sins. This is why the Old Testament requires animal sacrifices and the New Testament says Jesus died on the cross. I understand that you disagree but what was the purpose of the Old Testament sacrifices from your perspective? Apollos |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 30 March 2009 at 3:30pm
Ron,
some times things are not easily understood for various reasons. Let me take a wack at this.
First, have we agreed on simple and major points, such as God, Jesus and Salvation that we took a rare subject to argue about?
Any way, I think I can try to make some sense out of this, not through some techincal ways rather ordinary and simple analygy, from an ordinary believer's perspective with real life examples:
About mountains:
by the way I am a geologist by education, but I know most of you are not, so I will use it indirectly. Now most of you have not studied or observed how mountains are formed and so on. But we all live in houses, man made structures. Save a few, many of us know term, "foundation". Many of us have seen a house being built. We also know that a house and its walls need foundation. Also we know the bigger the structure the more deep and wide the foundation will be needed to have a STABLE house or a building. So, a deep, wide foundation is the key to a stable wall/building/structure, and what is between the walls as well.
About egg and sperm.
word sperm in English translations does not exactly represents the actaul word used in the Quran in Arabic. The use of such translated words in English is to represent the closest in meaning and is mare understanding of the individual translater. But the whole issue is not as problematic as "chicken or egg" which came first question.
Now even for those of you who still insist here is an analygy:
A chicken egg can become a chic or a boiled egg depending how much heat you apply, but the detemining factor is heat, whithout heat, its just an egg, but with proper heat it becomes a live chic. So the ovum, is not a human without that liquid (or sperm if you insist) reaches or rests on it thus making it appear quite obvious that it is that liquid/sperm that causes conception, and life begins.
Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 30 March 2009 at 3:49pm
Apollo,
for that we call Him God, the all knowing, where our mind finishes His keeps going to infinite. One thing I do remember from the Quran is that not a tiny bit of injustice will be done, meaning that God will recompense all, those who had done wrong and those against whom wrong is done as well. What I learn through Quran is that God is more forgivieng than punishing for our acts, if we seek that route (seeking His forgiveness).
The only sin that does not have forgiveness as God has said clearly in His message for mankind is worshipping others beside and/or as God (Shirk).
Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 31 March 2009 at 10:10am
The scholar Ulfat-Aziz-us-Samad says:
Are the New-Testament reliable? The Gospels are unreliable because they were written very late; decades after the 12 apostles were martyred. Read the quotations below: "The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin
Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second
century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels
had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old
Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. (The Book Your
Church Doesn�t Want You to Read, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Tim%20C.%20Leedom&rank=-relevance,+availability,-daterank - - Leedom ) �Not a single
Gospel was written down at the time of Jesus, they were all written long after his
earthly mission had come to an end� (Maurice Bucaille,
The Bible, the Quran, and Science p. 127), |
Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 31 March 2009 at 11:20am
|
As Salamu Alaikum,Brother Mansoor Ali.Jazakallah Kheiran for the post.Ajabanee Haqqan!
[IMG]smileys/smiley32.gif" align="middle" /> May Allah Bless you.You keep up the good work. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 31 March 2009 at 5:54pm
|
I had intended to leave this discussion alone, Hasan, but since you have addressed me I am happy to reply:
As a geologist, are you willing to say that mountains prevent the earth from shaking? Yes, a solid "foundation" prevents the mountain from shaking, but that's not what the Quran says.
If the Quran said that sperm causes conception, then that would make sense; but it clearly says that sperm becomes a clot, which becomes a fetus -- and that is simply incorrect. It is the ovum, not the sperm, that is the first cell, which grows and divides and eventually become a fetus and a baby. With in vitro fertilization we can actually watch it happen, so there can be no doubt. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 31 March 2009 at 5:58pm
Mansoor Ali, I asked you why the Old Testament sacrifices were commanded. I think you believe these were commanded, correct? But instead of helping me understand what you believe about these you jump into another attack against the Bible and not even of the Old Testament that I inquired about but the New Testament. Why does every belief you have require you to criticize the Bible as part of your explanation or your attempt to change the subject? It is offensive, slanderous and illogical. You want to quote the Bible when it agrees with your beliefs but you want to claim it is all corrupted when part of it disagrees with you. You quote atheists extensively to prove your opinion is �true� and you treat people of the Book like enemies. All you are doing is showing that you have no direct answers for your own faith unless it involves slandering someone else�s. Thanks for helping me understand Muslims better. Apollos |
Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 31 March 2009 at 6:10pm
|
Posted by Apollos:
Where does Justice come into this scenario? Specifically, if someone does harm or evil to another and then repents to Allah, how is it just to dismiss the wrong that was done to the other party?
Apollos Posted by Honeto:
Apollo,
for that we call Him God, the all knowing, where our mind finishes His keeps going to infinite. ....
Hasan
from Apollos:
Hasan,
It seems to me that you are content to invoke ignorance when you can't explain how justice and mercy can be reconciled, but you scream "illogical" if a Christian can't explain the Godhead to you satisfactorily. This is what I have called "hypocrisy" in other posts. You think you should be allowed to get away with a statement like the above rather than show how these two opposing attributes can be reconciled - but you don't have the same approach to others, do you?
Apollos
|
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 31 March 2009 at 7:43pm
Islamically if someone has wronged another person it is up to the wronged person to offer forgiveness for that wrong, not God.
Hadrat Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) relates that the Holy Prophet (may Allah�s blessings and peace be upon him) once asked his Companions: �Do you know who is a pauper?� The Companions replied that a pauper is a person who had no money or property. The Holy Prophet (may Allah�s blessings and peace be upon him) elucidating the point said: �A pauper from among my followers (Ummah) is one who will come on the Day of Judgement with a record of Salah (Prayers) and Sawm (fasting) and Zakat (payment of poor due) but also he had abused somebody, slandered someone, usurped the goods of another person, had killed someone or beaten yet another person. Then all the oppressed persons will receive a part of the aggressor�s good deeds. Should his good deeds fall short (of his aggression), then the aggrieved person�s sins and faults will be transferred from them to him, and he will be thrown into the Fire (of Hell). (Muslim) Hadrat Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) relates that the Holy Prophet (may Allah�s blessings and peace be upon him) said: Truly, everyone will get his rights on the Day of Judgement, even the wrong done to a hornless goat by a horned goat will be redressed. (Muslim) ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 01 April 2009 at 5:45pm
Ron,
sience is all theory, no scientist will sign a court document to any of their claims or theories. And I don't want to get into that. What I tried to do was give an example with a use of something we all are fimilier with in order to make sense that just as a wall or a building is firmer in the ground because of its foundation, or what is between walls with foundation is securer, the same goes for anything that follows the same principle. Quran does not say anything that negate that logic, unless you have your mind set other way. Just read those translated words over and over, they do not say anything that defy this logic and common sense.
Now, as far as your insistance ovum vs sperm, all I will say again is that Quran dos not use the word sperm, as the translation does. And by the way ovum alone cannot and does not turn into a human, or does it? Is that what you are insisting? Because I don't see you have a point otherwise.
Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 April 2009 at 6:35pm
|
Your example describes something different than what the Quran is talking about. You are right in saying that the foundation prevents the mountain from shaking, but the Quran says that the mountain prevents the earth from shaking. I'm not asking you to sign a court document, Hasan. I'm just asking whether it makes sense geologically to say that the mountains stop the earth from shaking. Would the earth shake more if it didn't have mountains?
(It is obvious that the liquid referred to is sperm, is it not? What else would it be?) I don't know how I can make my point any clearer. The ovum, not the sperm, is the first cell of the human body, It remains intact throughout the process of fertilization, notwithstanding Shasta'sAunt's insistance on misreading her source by confusing the nucleus with the cell itself. It is the ovum that divides and grows. The sperm cell, by contrast, does not develop at all -- it is completely dismantled in the process of extracting the DNA. It makes about as much sense as describing where chickens come from by talking about rooster sperm but not even mentioning the egg. It's obvious that whoever wrote that passage in the Quran did not know about the existence of human ova, and assumed (as did everyone else at the time) that it was the man who provided the "seed". ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 01 April 2009 at 11:38pm
Crucifixion is a lie according to several of the Disciples' early writings:
Also, please visit:
|
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 02 April 2009 at 9:20am
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 April 2009 at 5:17pm
|
I didn't miss it, but I did miss its relevance. Where exactly does it say that "the earth will boogie if it didnt have mountains"?
I'm a bit suspicious of your translation (just what is "female germinal fluid" anyway?), but it's still wrong. He was never a drop of fluid of any kind. He was a single cell, a specialized type of human cell called an ovum, functionally equivalent to a chicken egg but much, much smaller. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 02 April 2009 at 6:45pm
More articles on Crucifixion Fraud. Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman - Is there Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf - http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf Did Jesus of Nazareth Physically Raise From the Dead? - Debate between Shabir Ally & Craig : http://www.shabirally.com/play.php?file=DID%20JESUS%20OF%20NAZARETH%20PHYSICALLY%20RISE%20FROM%20THE%20DEAD%20-%20ALLY_CRAIG.wmv - http://www.shabirally.com/play.php?file=DID JESUS OF NAZARETH PHYSICALLY RISE FROM THE DEAD - ALLY_CRAIG.wmv Did Jesus Die For The Sins Of The World - Shabir Ally & Forward: http://www.shabirally.com/play.php?file=Did%20Jesus%20Die%20For%20The%20Sins%20Of%20The%20World%20-%20Ally_Forward.wmv - http://www.shabirally.com/play.php?file=Did Jesus Die For The Sins Of The World - Ally_Forward.wmv Cross Resurrection and Salvation - Shabir Ally & Shenk: http://www.shabirally.com/play.php?file=Cross%20Resurrection%20and%20Salvation%20-%20Ally_Shenk.wmv - http://www.shabirally.com/play.php?file=Cross Resurrection and Salvation - Ally_Shenk.wmv |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 02 April 2009 at 7:55pm
Ron, the ovum is surrounded by fluid.
In the http://www.answers.com/topic/ovary">ovary the immature ovum is associated with follicle cells through which it receives material for growth. In mammals, as the egg matures, these cells arrange themselves into a structure known as the Graafian, or http://www.answers.com/topic/vesicular - vesicular , follicle, consisting of a large fluid-filled cavity into which the ovum, surrounded by several layers of cells, projects from the layer of follicle cells that constitutes the inner wall (see illustration). The fluid contains http://www.answers.com/topic/estrogenic - estrogenic female http://www.answers.com/topic/sex-hormone - sex hormone secreted by cells in an intermediate layer of the http://www.answers.com/topic/follicular - follicular wall.
------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
||||||||
It really is a pivotal moment in the whole process, the beginnings of life in a way 
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 April 2009 at 8:07pm
Of course it is, but the fluid does not become a fetus as the Quran says. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 02 April 2009 at 9:34pm
The Quran doesn't say the fluid becomes a fetus, the Quran says: PART OF GERMINAL FLUID. Without what is in the fluid, the sperm and the ovum, part of the fluid, none of it would be possible.
"was he not a drop or part of germinal fluid (Mani) emitted or programmed" (Surah Al- Qiyama, Ayah 37)
Mani means male or female germinal fluids. "Then We placed him a drop (Nutfah) in a place of settlement firmly fixed", (Surah Al-Mu 'minun, Ayah 13) If the spermatozoon were not emitted into the female through a drop of fluid then it would not have the chance to fertilize the fluid surrounded female ovum. The fetus is half male pronucleus and half female pronucleus forming the zygote. Without each half the embryo would not exist.
The embryo then comes to rest in the endometrium. Once a blastocyst is detected the endometrium becomes, or remains actually since it doesn't shed as in a menstrual cycle, decidua. The decidua basalis becomes part of the placenta; it provides support and protection for the gestation.
"in a place of settlement firmly fixed"
------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 April 2009 at 4:48pm
|
The ovum is not part of the fluid, any more than a fish is part of the water it swims in, or you and I are part of the atmosphere.
You are still failing to distinguish between the cell and its nucleus. Yes, the nuclei unite, but only the ovum continues to exist as a cell. Look, the bottom line is that anyone asked to describe the process of conception on a science test would get a failing grade if they omitted to mention the ovum. The passages in the Quran can be validly interpreted as poetic or metaphorical or as a moral lesson, but not as science. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 04 April 2009 at 7:22am
|
"The ovum is not part of the fluid, any more than a fish is part of the water it swims in, or you and I are part of the atmosphere."
Really?
Humans
At the atomic level, the body is made up of chemical elements essential for life. Four major elements, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, collectively account for more than 96 percent of adult body weight. The remaining are minerals present in the form of salts. Calcium and http://www.answers.com/topic/phosphorus - phosphorus make up the major bulk of remaining minerals, found mostly in bone.
Atomic model Fish
The main constituent of fish flesh is water, which usually accounts for about 80 per cent of the weight of a fresh white fish fillet. Whereas the average water content of the flesh of fatty fish is about 70 per cent, individual specimens of certain species may at times be found with a water content anywhere between the extremes of 30 and 90 per cent.
"You are still failing to distinguish between the cell and its nucleus. Yes, the nuclei unite, but only the ovum continues to exist as a cell."
That is incorrect. The ovum no longer exists in it's original state after fertilization any more than the sperm. The zygote is half male pronucleus, the spermatozoon, and half female pronucleus, the ovum.
"A sperm, from the http://www.answers.com/topic/ancient-greek-2 - ancient Greek word σπέρμα (seed) and ζῷον (living being) and more commonly known as a http://www.answers.com/topic/sperm-13 - sperm cell, is the http://www.answers.com/topic/ploidy - haploid http://www.answers.com/topic/cell - cell that is the male http://www.answers.com/topic/gamete - gamete . It http://www.answers.com/topic/fertilize - joins an http://www.answers.com/topic/ovum - ovum to form a http://www.answers.com/topic/zygote - zygote . A zygote is a single cell, with a complete set of chromosomes, that normally develops into an http://www.answers.com/topic/embryo - embryo . "Look, the bottom line is that anyone asked to describe the process of conception on a science test would get a failing grade if they omitted to mention the ovum." Just as they would fail if they omitted the mention of the sperm. The bottom line is, conception can not occur without both, and both contribute half and half.
"A sperm, from the http://www.answers.com/topic/ancient-greek-2 - ancient Greek word σπέρμα (seed) and ζῷον (living being) and more commonly known as a http://www.answers.com/topic/sperm-13 - sperm cell, is the http://www.answers.com/topic/ploidy - haploid http://www.answers.com/topic/cell - cell that is the male http://www.answers.com/topic/gamete - gamete . It http://www.answers.com/topic/fertilize - joins an http://www.answers.com/topic/ovum - ovum to form a http://www.answers.com/topic/zygote - zygote . A zygote is a single cell, with a complete set of chromosomes, that normally develops into an http://www.answers.com/topic/embryo - embryo . The passages in the Quran can be validly interpreted as poetic or metaphorical or as a moral lesson, but not as science.
The passages of The Quran are pretty dead on.
------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Doo-bop
Date Posted: 04 April 2009 at 12:18pm
|
"Fish
The main constituent of fish flesh is water, which usually accounts for about 80 per cent of the weight of a fresh white fish fillet. Whereas the average water content of the flesh of fatty fish is about 70 per cent, individual specimens of certain species may at times be found with a water content anywhere between the extremes of 30 and 90 per cent."
And you think this makes the fish part of the water it swims in?
 ------------- "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" - John the Baptizer (John 1:29) |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 04 April 2009 at 8:29pm
|
[QUOTE=Doo-bop]
"Fish
The main constituent of fish flesh is water, which usually accounts for about 80 per cent of the weight of a fresh white fish fillet. Whereas the average water content of the flesh of fatty fish is about 70 per cent, individual specimens of certain species may at times be found with a water content anywhere between the extremes of 30 and 90 per cent."
And you think this makes the fish part of the water it swims in?
I think that all living organisms on this planet are made up of a percentage of water and require water to live.
Where do YOU think this water comes from? ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 April 2009 at 8:30am
(You see what I have to put up with?
 )
The ovum is no longer "in it's original state", because it has already started developing into a fetus. But it does still exist, with its cell wall intact and all the contents still contained within it. Unlike the sperm cell, which is mostly gone. Only the pronucleus remains.
You're equating the male pronucleus with the spermatozoon, and the female pronucleus with the ovum, both of which are incorrect. At first I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, but I'm beginning to think maybe you truly don't understand the difference between the nucleus of the cell, and the cell itself. So maybe I need to go back to basics.
Have a look at this diagram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Complete_diagram_of_a_human_spermatozoa.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Complete_diagram_of_a_human_spermatozoa.svg The ovum is also a cell, but it is roughly spherical and thousands of times larger than the sperm. It also contains a nucleus, and during fertilization the nucleus also loses its envelope in order to unite with the (pro)nucleus of the sperm; but the ovum itself, including the outer cell wall, remains intact. Outwardly, there is little or no change to the ovum after fertilization.
So you agree that both descriptions would receive a failing grade?
To say that fish are partly made of water is not the same as saying that water is partly made of fish. (I can't believe I even have to explain this!) ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 05 April 2009 at 5:40pm
|
Ron likes to play ...... Ok Ron, you said that the OVUM is the proper analogue for a SEED. Now, can you find a single reputable embryologist who'll agree with you on this?
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 April 2009 at 8:00pm
Actually, the word "ovum" can be applied to plant as well as animal reproduction. Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Brittannica:
"In 1703 Samuel Morland, in a paper read before the Royal Society, stated that the farina (pollen) is a congeries of seminal plants, one of which must be conveyed into every ovum or seed before it can become prolific."
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/BOS_BRI/BOTANY_from_Gr_l3or6v17_plant_6.html - http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/BOS_BRI/BOTANY_from_Gr_l3or6v17_plant_6.html ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 05 April 2009 at 9:44pm
|
1703 is a long time ago. In botany, seed is the FERTILIZED ovule of a plant. And you're saying the ovum is analogous to a seed, like the ancients thought sperm was the seed.
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 06 April 2009 at 6:52pm
Ron,
yes, without mountains the surface of the earth will be more shakey. Here is how, just like a carpet sitting atop floor, the crust of the earth sits on top of the mantle, the roots of the moutain as pegs hold down the crust. If those pegs or roots of the mountain were not there you will feel earth sliding a lot more like a carpet on the floor. That's just my explaination, God, the Creator knows the best.
As far as ovum, I said what I knew of. As I said before I studied Geology, and am able to explain what I understand of it.
And by the way, its not the answer whether egg or sperm that will save us from fire, rather how and if we recognized our maker and served Him as we are supposed to, or we forgot about that and argued about if egg came before or chicken, and life ended before we could figure that out, and forgot to ponder the bigger question, to serve our maker or those made by Him.
Hasan ------------- The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62 |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 07 April 2009 at 5:12am
Ron,
The sperm develops into a pronucleus just as the ovum develops into a pronucleus. The ovum is no longer an ovum at this point and no amount of repeating that it is is going to make it a scientific fact. The sperm AND the ovum develop into the zygote. Without both this simply could not occur.
BTW, you didn't say that water is partly made of fish, this is what you said:
"The ovum is not part of the fluid, any more than a fish is part of the water it swims in, or you and I are part of the atmosphere."
But regardless, once a fish dies and decomposes it does become part of the water it swims in, part of it's ecosystem, just as when we die and are buried we become part of the earth upon which we walk. ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 07 April 2009 at 5:25am
|
Ron,
Perhaps this will help you. Please note that ovum does not even appear on any of these charts.
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/ - http://www.visembryo.com/baby/
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/Cst800.jpg">
 ------------- �No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 07 April 2009 at 7:20pm
|
Well, apparently no amount of repeating it will get you to stop confusing the cell and its nucleus. It is not the sperm/ovum, but only the nucleus of the sperm/ovum, that "develops" into a pronucleus. The rest of the sperm cell disintegrates, while it is the ovum that remains intact and continues to develop -- which is made clear on the very site you subsequently referenced:
"The human body is made of about 100 trillion cells, all of which are descendants of a single cell � the fertilized egg (zygote)." http://www.visembryo.com/baby/NewsArchive69.html - http://www.visembryo.com/baby/NewsArchive69.html ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 08 April 2009 at 10:17am
|
The rest of the sperm cell disintegrates, while it is the ovum that remains intact and continues to develop
Ron, apparently no amount of repeating it will get you to understand that the ovum and the zygote are two different kinds of cells.
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 08 April 2009 at 4:03pm
I'm not sure what you mean by "different kinds", but a zygote is a fertilized ovum, not a fertilized sperm. Its nucleus is different (half from the sperm's pronucleus, half from its own pronucleus), but the rest of the cell, including the cell wall, the mitochondria, the cytoplasm, etc., are all intact and unchanged from the ovum. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 09 April 2009 at 9:29am
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 09 April 2009 at 10:44pm
|
Yes, clear enough. Once again, your own source says it: "In general, it is fertilization that sets the egg on an irreversible pathway of cell division and embryo development." My point from the beginning has been that while the sperm provides half of the DNA, it is the ovum (egg) that is generally regarded as the cell that develops into a person, as stated above. To describe human reproduction without mentioning the human ovum makes no more sense than to describe where chickens come from without mentioning a chicken egg. It strains credibility to claim that an ovum, which is not a fluid, can be considered "part of a fluid" just because fluid makes up part of an ovum. The only reasonable conclusion is that Quran does not mention the human ovum because no one at the time knew that such a thing existed. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 10 April 2009 at 5:55am
Yes, clear enough. Once again, your own source says it: "In general, it is fertilization that sets the egg on an irreversible pathway of cell division and embryo development." You're blundering once again, Ron. The emphasis in that sentence is on fertilization.
Explanation:
Fertilization, the process in which http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556926/Gamete.html - gametes �a male's sperm and a female's egg or ovum�fuse together, producing a single cell that develops into an adult organism.
Each gamete contains only half the genetic material of the original cell. During sperm and egg fusion in fertilization, the full amount of genetic material is restored: half contributed by the male parent and half contributed by the female.
When the membranes fuse, a single sperm and the egg become one cell.
Finally, in a process that is also poorly understood, the egg and sperm nuclear envelopes (outer membranes) fuse, permitting the chromosomes from the egg and sperm to mix within a common space. A zygote is formed, and development of an embryo begins.
My point from the beginning has been that while the sperm provides half of the DNA, it is the ovum (egg) that is generally regarded as the cell that develops into a person, as stated above.
You're blundering persistently. FTR, Once an ovum is fertilized by the sperm, a new cell - the ZYGOTE, with a new genome and cytoplasmic composition is formed. Its not the ovum that develops into an embryo and forth but the ZYGOTE.
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |
Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 10 April 2009 at 6:12am
|
"The sperm cell does not develop at all -- it dies after it delivers its DNA payload. It is the ovum (egg cell), and only the ovum, that divides and grows into a fetus. That is why we inherit mitochondrial DNA (the DNA found outside the nucleus of our cells) only from our mother." Ron, apparently with your out-dated embryology info, you might be unaware of this -
The human sperm centrosome is responsible for normal syngamy and early embryonic development.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=Palermo%20GD%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus - Palermo GD , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=Colombero%20LT%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus - Colombero LT , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=Rosenwaks%20Z%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus - Rosenwaks Z .
Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, NY 10021-4872, USA. As early as 1887, it was postulated that the mature oocyte possesses all of the elements necessary for embryonic development with the exception of an active division centre, and that the spermatozoon contains such a centre, but lacks the substrate in which to operate. This division centre is called the centrosome. The precise definition of this structure is still a subject for debate. It consists of two centrioles in a perpendicular arrangement and pericentriolar material, and is considered to be responsible for nucleation of microtubules and the formation of the mitotic spindle. There is a paternal pattern of inheritance of the centrosome in humans; thus, human oocytes lack centrioles but the spermatozoa carry two. At gamete fusion the sperm tail is incorporated into the ooplasm, and the centriolar region forms the sperm aster while the sperm head is decondensing; this aster acts to guide the female pronucleus towards the male pronucleus. The centriole duplicates during the pronuclear stage, and at syngamy centrioles are found at opposite poles of the first cleavage. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9414462?log$=activity - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9414462?log$=activity
And you're saying, the sperm is a goner.
------------- 'Trust everyone but not the devil in them' |