The Serie Of Islam From A Scientific Perspective by Dr Al Bouti-Ep.(1)-clip-1

[1995watsup]

fuck u fuck u fuck u fuck u fuck u hypocrit ur mom is a bitch u say praying to bashar alasad is halal roo7 neek halak

[PARATOUMANO]

الحمد لله على نعمة الاسلام جزاك الله خيرا الاستاذ الدكتور محمد سعيد رمضان البوطي و جزاك الله خيرا لواضع الفيديو

[PARATOUMANO]

ما شاء الله

[p48f4eycm1shrch49fhr]

LOL

if islam is such a scientific religion then why are all muslim countries DEAD LAST in science. All christian nations, the jewish nation, the hindu nation and all buddhist nations are alll superior to all muslim countries in science.

And yet you claim that islam is a scientific religion.... You muslims just want to take credit for something other people have figured out to justify why you muslims havent done anything useful for science in 500 years.

[larb13]

@p48f4eycm1shrch49fhr l'islam est une religion de science , les musulmans ont ete les premiers a vous apprendre les mathematiques , la medecine et bien d'autres sciences, l'islam est la religion de sciences , je ne voit pas ou elle est la superiorite des chretiens judaiques hindu ou boudhistes, vos eglises sont vides dans quelles societes vivez vous vos femmes nues sans aucune moral, les femmes ce marient avec des femmes des hommes se marient entrent eux , la prostitution en plein jour ...

[larb13]

@p48f4eycm1shrch49fhr les scandales de pedophilie meme au coeur de vos eglises sans parler de ce qui se passe a gauche et a droite c'est ça votre technologie et votre progression , savez vous , ou vous vous dirigez , moi je vous le dis vers l'aneantissisme bientot ces vos chiens et vos chats qui vous heriterons.quant notre religion et notre islam je vous conseils de revoir votre copie.

[jihkosmos]

@p48f4eycm1shrch49fhr

Dude/Girl, Islam IS a scientific religion, and I don't deny that almost if not all Muslim countries of today are not advanced in science (look history), but if you wish to know more, perhaps you can research into the history of Muslims during the earlier centuries during the time when Europe was in its dark ages, Muslims were living in their Golden age of scientific discoveries.

Look for example at why Algebra is called so. Islam and science does not contradict. Peace.

[daisy26000]

@p48f4eycm1shrch49fhr ...How ignorant are you??? check your history again. If Muslims countries are in this state today simply because Muslims have left Islam and they are trying to mimic the west.

second the Muslim countries are in this state simply because they were destroyed by the 100's of wars waged by the western countries, to rape them from their wealth, culture, religion, and they did a good job

[bettySwollox]

That hat makes him look like a cross between Popeye and one of Santa's little helpers.

[ProfessorDemetri]

why the hell is he sitting infront of that display? i mean...

is there no religion that isn't decorate out the fucking shitter? stop bathing yourselves in earthly beauty and try to find something deeper and more meaningful.

ffs....

[daytona0101]

Does anyone know if he is of the Asharee creed?

[SuleimanalMuslim]

@daytona0101 Is there anything wrong with being of Ash`ari creed? What do *you* mean by Ash`ari creed?

[WolfRage87]

@daytona0101 no he is not ,its the judgement of some illiterates

[Sunduc]

You have a serious problem with reading comprehension, VoKL88. I said one should NOT only respect that which one agrees with.

I find the Abrahamic religions ridiculous, but yet I respect others' belief in it and think they should have the right to their religion.

YOU, on the other hand, seem to think that it is impossible "respect" that which you find ridiculous.

How can I say that?

Easy: When I expressed how ridiculous I thought islam is, you said that implied I could not "respect" it. So!

[Sunduc]

As for freedom of religion: What do you think should be done to an apostate from Islam?

As for what billions find rational ... that is a non-argument if I ever saw one. You yourself are tainting this video by bringing up such an unscientific argument!

[Sunduc]

VoKL88, I really wish you could keep better track of context, and of your own words.

Now check which post I responded to when spoke about the "childish God". Find it? YES! It was your own post, VoKL88! Your own ...

And what did you say in that post? You said that Einstein "believed in God, he just believed that a God that punishes people for their sins is childlike."

So complain about your own post first, ... pull out the beam from thine own eye ...

[Sunduc]

Indeed, and I was responding to that quote, asking if Islam was numbered among those religions Einstein called "childlike" [childish] for their belief in a punishing [eternally tormenting] God.

I assume the answer is yes, and that Einstein is not so much of a hero for the abrahamic theist after all.

[Sunduc]

Most of what modern physics is about, are things we cannot see. What we can see are the *effects* of those things. Heard about the Scientific Method?

Einstein was one of the best there ever was at describing such unseen things, and when such a man discards belief in Hell, it is worth listening.

Concerning "ambiguous scientific miracles" ... that sounds very much like what this whole series is about: attempting to prove your faith by unscientific, ambiguous links between Quran and science.

[bettySwollox]

@VoKL88

'I see the benefit in believing he (God) exists because it gives people a reason to be moral.'

So you don't see any reason why humans would behave in a moral way?

'If all people acted having no conscience belief that they will be accounted for their immoral acts, then there will be lots more crime in this world.'

I think you will find that the most Atheistic nations in the world, are also the most crime free, and tolerant countries.

Surely this fact alone squashes your argument?

[bettySwollox]

@VoKL88

In addition, the most troubling part of your comment was the following:

'If all people acted having no conscience belief that they will be accounted for their immoral acts,..'

If I understand correctly, you are saying that religious people who act in a "moral way", are doing so, because they know that someone is watching them, and they will be judged for these actions in the afterlife. Correct?

If that is what you are saying, then what's moral about that? Essentially they are acting...

[bettySwollox]

@VoKL88

...moral, just to get into Heaven, for an eternal reward, as opposed to doing something because it's the "right thing" to do. If there is an eternity of either punishment, or reward awaiting us all, then why do we need the police, of courts or government?

Either way, you talk about morality as though there is some kind of objective moral giver (see Dr. William Lane Craig) who has endowed his notion of right and wrong upon us. Morality is subjective, and your opinion is not fact!

[ymohsin]

we are not going to resolve a multi-thousand year debate, so you should stop now.

And yes, some people do it just to get into heaven, but others act morally because they know it's right. We can't generalize.

I also don't hope you believe that laughing at Buti's appearance is moral in any way.

There are a myriad of factors that also contribute to atheistic countries' low rate of crime like their socialist systems, so their atheism isn't the only cause of their low crime rates.

[bettySwollox]

"I also don't hope you believe that laughing at Buti's appearance is moral in any way."

You can hope all you like, but I doubt that you could demonstrate to me, that making fun of a man's appearance, is in any way immoral. Feel free to try, but I doubt that you will get very far.

As far as I am aware, thanks to something know as the freedom of speech, I can make fun of who I want, when I want and why I want. My choice to do so, may be immature, or not particularly clever, but immoral?

[ymohsin]

Also, no civilization i our time truly exemplifies the traditions and teachings of a religion. None of the Abrahamic religions are being practiced today the way they were during their golden years.

To see the true effects of each religion, you must examine its effects during the golden ages of that religion, the century directly following the founding of the religion, and you'll find that Islam turned a region of barbarians into the leading thinkers of the world.

[bettySwollox]

@ymohsin

So, if I've understood your assertion correctly, you are stating that Islam has had no use for the past 1300 to 1400 years?

[ymohsin]

i never said it had no use, but rather that Islam was not properly practiced as Muhammad and his companions did for the past 1200-1300 years, although it did produce great minds during those years.

and i do feel one should treat others the way one would want to be treated. if u feel the need to laugh at others to assure yourself that u have the freedom to speak, i respect that, and you're free to do what u want.

again, you're not going to end the theism vs atheism debate, so don't bother...

[bettySwollox]

@ymohsin

I don't believe that I once stated - neither here on this thread nor in my entire life - that I was trying to end the theism vs atheism debate. In fact, I couldn't imagine anything worse than destroying the main topic that I enjoy discussing to great lengths.

As for practising the religion of Islam "properly", as Muhammad and his companions did in the 6th, 7th and arguably the 8th centuries. Would that include the practice of paedophilia, the fighting and killing of infidels,..

[WolfRage87]

@bettySwollox ????? what are you talkin about ??? this is the silliest thing iv ever heard ..if you are referring to islam by mentioning paedophilia or any other inhuman act then your awfully mistaken and you need to track down your source of infos and seek the clear picture and understanding of islam i will be so glad to help you thro if youd like to

[bettySwollox]

@WolfRage87

I need to track down my sources? Hahaha, OK, so what you are positing here, is that the Qur'an (5 translations), the Hadith, and Ibn Ishaq's 'Sirat Rasul Allah', aren't good enough "sources" for my forming an opinion on the subject of Islam, or the practices of its perverted Prophet?

Not that I need your help in understanding anything about Islam, but what "sources" could you possibly conceive of, to think that they trump the ones I'm currently using?

[bettySwollox]

@WolfRage87

I notice that you didn't reply! Scared?

[WolfRage87]

@bettySwollox lol i like ppl with big words and attitudes to cover the facts theyr the real terrified beings .. but its always boring cuze they stray .. wut keeps me interesting is the mind talk , the pure undiluted mind talk with out any distraction of any kind wether it was ur naive arrogant sarcasm or ur biased prejudices makes you incapable of holding a healthy conversation ...

[WolfRage87]

@bettySwollox so if you have something to actually discuss as referring to islam if you base your infos on a certain material on some logical proposals then id be glad to keep this conversation for ever . tell me if ur interested

[bettySwollox]

@ymohsin

...and keeping the "spoils of war" as booty, reducing all non-Muslims to a position of submission, i.e., a second class citizen, where they are forced to pay taxes for being allowed to live as a non-Muslim, and on and on and on?

Just curious!

[bettySwollox]

VoKL88

Academic in my writings? Do you even know what the word academic means?

Maybe you'd like to tell me, what is it precisely, in reading five different translations of the Qur'an and the Hadith, that needs to be a bit more academic?

It's interesting how you've decided to side-step your obligation to answer my questions - or challenge my comments - by suggesting that I've mischaracterised your prophet, and then you go run off to hide behind a last-ditch attempt at an ad hominem.

[bettySwollox]

@VoKL88

The fact that you've probably not even read the books that you are defending, is your problem, not mine! If I read a passage from the Qur'an, or the Haddith, and you suggest that this is a "false conception" based on an incorrect English translation, then that's one thing. But to suggest that I am going out of my way to mischaracterise your prophet, is nothing short of desperately pathetic on every level.

[bettySwollox]

@ymohsin

You, and VoKL88 may think that I was being unnecessarily provocative in my previous statement. However, I merely wanted to know what you deem to be "proper" behaviour, as carried out by Muhammad and his companions? Further more, I would be interested in finding out what "proper" behaviour consists of for Muslims today?

[Sunduc]

Concerning the "ostrich egg", let us look at the verse in question:

79:30: والأرض بعد ذلك دحاها

It employs the word دحاها (Dahaha), which means "(expanded it and) made it flat". The word for ostrich egg is quite another one, which just sounds similar: دحوة (Dahwa). If proof-by-similar-sound is acceptable textual interpretation, no wonder muslims can claim to find so many "scientific miracles" in the Quran!

[Sunduc]

The sound quality is atrocious!

[rightlyguidedsinner]

"Religion depends on controlling information and subsequent manipulation through fear."

Someone have an axe to grind?

But I do agree, science depends on empirical proofs. It can never point to something beyond hard existance. It's a closed circle. Just like religion is ultimately a closed circle.

Otherwise faith and certainty would be the domain of a handful of scientist who could figure it all out in their labs.

God is more generous than that.

[new8745fan]

I don't have an axe to grind per-se.

Science is not a closed circle. It's a bubble,ever expanding with the accumulation of knowledge.

Religion on the other hand,is dogmatic. It rejects any new ideas contrary to it's own (i.e. creationism and evolution) and can never grow.

There's no competition between science and religion.

[rightlyguidedsinner]

-- Information, knowledge, and wisdom. "Science" expands on the first two. Religion calls for propriety in usage of the first two according to principles. That is wisdom.

-- Religion is what binds beliefs with rituals and ethics and yields (hopefully) certain upright behavior. Its purpose is not 'growth'. Its purpose is to reform human behavior. It's like claiming Apples are inferior to Oranges because they don't yield citrus. Well their purpose is not to yield citrus (false analogy?).

[rightlyguidedsinner]

-- Furthermore the aspect of science that is 'closed' is not its ability to discover more physical relationships between certain phenomena in the physical realm. What is closed is "Science's" ability to point to anything beyond the physical. That's why the search for a "universal binding theory" by people like Hawkings is ultimately doomed to failure. The physical can't point to anything beyond itself... by defintion.

[Sunduc]

Science is only about "the physical"? Physics is the only science there is? So what about psychology, mathematics, linguistics, economics ... ?

[bettySwollox]

rightlyguidedsinner

"...science depends on empirical proofs."

You mean empirical evidence? Science doesn't work in proofs. Instead it has theories. Mathematics has proofs!

And what do you mean by science is "It's a closed circle."? The scientific method is hardly a circle, although it may contain a circular motion, within the process of reconsidering one's original hypothesis, but again the entire process from asking the original question, to publishing the results, is not circular at all.

[bettySwollox]

In addition, the discipline of Science is also open to new information in the form of new evidence. Subsequently, Scientific Theories are subject to change, based on that new information, and new evidence. Hence the reason why there is no such thing as Scientific Proof, as proofs are not open to change. Once a proof has been determined, it will always (in principle) stand the test of time.

So, again, how is science a closed circle?

[Telamnar]

Isn't it funny how every explanation for a physical phenomenon found in a holy book is only found AFTER science discovers the phenomenon? Increased understanding of the physical world comes from studying the physical world. It has NEVER come from studying a book.

[Terrywarrior]

not found after science discovers but it become more clearer .........

in the holy book , we know that the moon was 2 pics but we couldn't believe that till the science improve it ......got it??

[Telamnar]

How is the moon in 2 pieces?

[Telamnar]

What I meant was that when a scientific discovery is made with implications regarding something mentioned in a sacred text, holy men will invariably scrutinize the text and reinterpret a verse or two to mean what they now want it to mean.

Have you ever seen anyone produce a scientific discovery by reading a holy text? If you only find it afterwards, by reinterpreting something, then you are suffering from confirmation bias - i.e. seeing what you want to.

[Telamnar]

Also, the earth is a sphere, meaning that it is not shaped like an ostrich egg, The ancient Greeks had figured this out - based on reasoning and observation - and Eratosthenes calculated its size to a close approximation (to within 5-10 percent error) in approximately the year 240 BCE. No divine revelation was necessary to know this.

[Telamnar]

The earth is (according to Wikipedia) either a sphere to one part in 300 (i.e. to within 0.3 %) or an oblate ellipsoid with a flattening of 1/300 (i.e. extremely rounded or shortened). Google an ostrich egg. The earth is MUCH closer to being a sphere than being an ostrich egg. It is smoother than a billiard ball of the same size would be, in fact.

Why do you assert that Islam does not rely on blind faith, but that other religions do?

[Telamnar]

It was already common knowledge that the Earth was spherical in shape at the time the quran was written - the greeks had figured this out centuries ago. Why should I be impressed that the book contains something that was common knowledge at the time it was written? Even if it hadn't been discovered before then, it certainly wasn't beyond the means of people at the time to figure this out. If the book contained a description of protons, neutrons and electrons, THEN I'd be impressed.

[Gnomefro]

Roflmao! The "egg-shaped" earth is a modern apologetic mistranslation. Anyone can check this for themselves by going to one of the many sites where you can compare Qur'anic verses in several translations. The egg shit only appears in 1990 or so.

To add insult to injury, Al-Jalalayn explains the sura as God making the earth *flat*. We can therefore conclude that saying the earth is egg shaped is something a Kafir would do as it implies rewriting the history of Qur'anic interpretation.

[chrinking]

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

و عمرك قلبي للله راكع فما جدوي صلاتي و القلب غاءب حزن الجوارح لايدوم مادامت فطرة الاسلام هي الفرح فياويلي من شيعة ضنو ان شفيعهم هو علي.

[new8745fan]

he sounds like he's choking on something.

And no science and religion can never coexist.

Science depends on reason,logic,and free access of information to thrive.

Religion depends on controlling information and subsequent manipulation through fear.

[new8745fan]

lmao!!! Albert Einstein believed in a god? What a humorus notion. He said,himself in a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz stating that his position is that of an agnostic. He also goes on to say that he thinks that the idea of god is childlike. He also says specifically that moral principles need not the idea of a law giver....Especially a law giver that concerns himself with human affairs.

Also,you say that atheists have been refuted over and over again,on what exactly?

[Sunduc]

And the God of Islam is not one of those childish gods, hung up on punishing people for their sins?

[Sunduc]

To "respect" a belief is not the same as approving or applauding it. If you think so, you can only respect that which you applaud.

I choose, rather, to respect that which I neither approve nor applaud even that which I find ridiculous. That is what religious freedom is about, and not about applauding what you think is ridiculous.