I'm confused, I think light *could* perform all three: five, six, or seven complete orbits around the earth, provided we built a device to force it into orbit.
It really depends on the orbit (and whether we let it travel freely all of that second).
I am gonna ask a simple thing From all of you. Do this if you can :
Do they say, "He has invented it"? Say: "Then produce a sura like it and call on anyone ( Both humans or jinns) you can besides Allah if you are telling the truth." (Qur'an, 10:38)
Now, 70% of Qur'an consists of three letters. Most of the verses of Qur'an are in extreme pose. Even the best of the poets yelled out that no man can make such thing and this can not be a poetry. Most of the stories are narrated in Qur'an when some jews or christians came to him asking stuff. So there was never a time to think and then to make such verses in inexplicable. Dude have you ever tried to Check out Qur'an for uself in Arabic lol?
Gentlemen, The most idiotic video i have ever seen against Islam and Muhammad pbuh. When we say that he was an illiterate Means he could not make verses of SUCH HIGH ARABIC STANDARD. What was the miracles of Moses? The miracles destroyed the power of magicians of that time. What about Jesus? Romans were good in medicine. Jesus miracles were of healing. Arabs were only good in trading and Literature. Qu'an defeated all of their literature.
This isn't an argument against Islam, it is a video explaining that illiteracy does not mean one is a simpleton nor incapable of learning. It is a video explaining why the statement "But Muhammad was illiterate" is utterly pointless.
@TheRationalizer Since he was an illiterate how can an illustrate person beat Whole of Arab literature mate? Didn't i just said Quran has highest standard of arabic and words used. U will see pose in every verse e.g
Dock, mock, lock, pock. All are different words , ck is same so sounds same at end. Dude Qur'an is written like that. The context is same and is not deviating from the story but strangely the words used are like that giving same sound. Go do that without even thinking or writing.
As a merchant Muhammad must have had at least some basic skills in reading and writing.
Since I believe the entire quran is a fabrication contrived by Muhammad himself anyway, I have no reason to believe the particular surah claiming Muhammad was an illiterate contains any truth.
i absolutely agree with ur analysis. all of these thoughts were going around in my mind but i wasnt able to give it a coherent structure until i saw the part where u said "being illiterate does not mean being incapable of learning". the argument i.e about the efficiency of oral transmission of quran is simple but effective. this is an excellent video !
brother over here u are just clarifying doubts of some foolish muslims who dont know the history...i am a muslim n i always knew that muhammad saw was an intelligent man.. so what he coudnt read...you know i too cant read chinese.. but i know about its tradition...
*I* am not making a big deal of Muhammad allegedly being illiterate (even though I think there is a hadith where wanted to write something down when he was dying) - My video was made because I was sick and tired of Muslims telling me that Muhammad couldn't have known X or Y because he could not read.
hi mate, i've got a question for you. according to quran, allah made JINHs frm fire & yu countered that argument by sayin fire is not a substance but chemical reaction ( if i got it right) so JINHs cant b made of fire but here is my question, primary livin cells were result of chemical reaction too, so if cells can come frm chemical reaction y cant Jinhs b made of fire??both r result of chemical reactions. mayb im bien an idiot n overlookin facts ...
Primary cells are not made OF chemical reactions, they are the result of chemical reactions working on atoms such as phosphorous - so you could say they are made FROM phosphorous + carbon + etc, but made USING a chemical process.
To say they are made FROM/OF a chemical process is the same as saying they are made of "falling down the stairs" or made of "running into a wall" - it is logically nonsense, unless of course you believe fire is one of 4 elements :)
@TheRationalizer :) i can use this argument next time i debate them.. nobody ever brought this up so far but incase they do i should have a good explanation. thanks :). one of my hindu frn is atheist now, thanks to me, now workin on muslim one but he's a tough nut to crack..lol
People say that Allah can do anything, that is their usual response but this is not logically possible. They will quickly dismiss illogical challenges such as "Can Allah create a rock that even Allah cannot move?" because they see immediately it is illogical.
So Muslims often attribute "super powers" to Allah to overcome any challenge, but the "Jinn of fire" problem doesn't need more power to solve, it is logically impossible - like a 4 sided triangle.
Lol, in the first he shows the Arabic version of who wants to be a Millionaire, and in the second picture, it shows the Character from Slumdog millionaire in the Indian version of who wants to be a Millionaire.
But on topic. What you have said there makes perfect sense. Even if Muhammad was actually an illiterate, that doesn't mean he couldn't take some facts and certain philosophies and cook them to make Quran.
I was in a debate with a person about that Allah made everything in pair. I said only high organism were in pair. Then he went and said about matter and antimatter(pair), I said Ying Yang(Pair) eastern philosophy, and the kid disappeared ever since. Plagiarism much.
@DeadlyDreamerX In fact, this is a proof that Muhammed could have never reached China, nor ever had contact with information from China, implying that China was the farthest place one would reach for education, Besides, that does not even prove anything, It is simply the Prophet's assertion about the importance of education.
He had many people to tell him. And he doesn't need to cite every fucking one of them. I think if you watch this video a couple of times, maybe, and maybe you will understand a bit on what I am talking about.
Listen, it's called deducing. It doesn't need evidence.
Premise Numero uno:
China was not a secluded nation, in fact, it had many trading routes even before the inception of Christianity -- Chinese traveller did come to Middle East and vice verse.
Premise Numero Duo:
There could have been travellers that came from India and South-East Asia to Middle East and vice versa.
@DeadlyDreamerX Deductive Reasoning is good when you are against a crime case, but do you know what fuckin else is needed? FACTUAL EVIDENCE. ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS DEDUCTIVE REASONING, PURE REASON IN A HISTORICAL MATTER IS A CHILD'S JOKE.
I could not find any reference to "Premise Numero Duo" online; Maybe you typed that "reference" wrong?
You seriously having a hard time leaving Islam, no? Come on. You are smarter than this. Yes, not every freaking thing is on the net, there are a good sum of books in the libraries, maybe you should do a research of your on rather than typing in CAPITALS on other people's head. I don't know why Muzzies love to type in Capitals.
I am pretty sure you already know religion is just a way to control people, and Islam isn't exempt of this. Use your noggin for a bit. Come on.
@DeadlyDreamerX Then I do want any proof for the existence of such a book, It's ISBN would help, or it's Amazon/eBay link.
Please I may excuse your low IQ that magically made you deduce that I am an actual Muslim, and that If I am, I would need to leave my religion.
Do a research? with no information at all? If I fuckin went to a librarian and asked for "Premise Numero Duo" She'd probably ask me for it's author and some information, of which you give nothing at all.
@DeadlyDreamerX Religion in and of itself may not be a "way to control People"; I may fear that some religions are, in fact, many are, but I assure you, Islamic teachings will definitely not tell you that there is a "Pope" who may one day control you and decide for you your life; You decide your own life based on the teachings that a God simply ordained, You interpret the teachings with your own thought and background.
This argument is built on an unproven premise, that religion is to control P.
I would have sat and debated with you there, but unfortunately, all I have is 500 words limit.
Then that's not the religion of Islam. Islam is a set of dogmas -- there is no chance of free of interpretation of our own. But if we do, we would have more than dozen of sects, which Islam do have. Then it's useless. What if your interpretation is wrong?
But still, I will not argue on and on about Islam. It's like any religion, synthetic. There is no God. There is no Allah.
@DeadlyDreamerX I will gladly accept a debate provided that you and I do not use insults and remain using a respected language. The problem with your assertion that Islam is a "set of dogmas" is wrong because You do not put in mind that there is no Pope in Islam; Sunni Islam itself is divided into many many schools of thought, each of which has its interpretation of Islam; What If an interp. is wrong? So what? You believed it to be, and God will understand. -> Continued.
@DeadlyDreamerX Now, Islam is of course like any religion, Right that can be wrong and Wrong that can be right. In fact, I may very well have similar beliefs to yours, however, this strays far from our original debate; Please differentiate between Islam as a Religion and Islam as a history; As a religion, You can never have a debate about it, It's about faith. However, as a history, the character and interactions of Muhammed, that is debatable.
Good video, the Sassanid empire controlled yemen and western Arabia prior to Islam and with the trade root running right down southern Arabia any ideas that were current in that empire would have flittered along through word of mouth. Without the internet and Tv Radio and the popular press people entertained each other through conversation and poetry. Cesar said the druids were knowledgeable about the heavens, medicine and many other things. They were an oral culture.
@TheRationalizer Isn't it also true that Uncle MO's trade route (in his pre- prophet career as a trader / bandit) included trips to Greece? I`ve heard that bandied about though not sure if its in an official history - therefore if that is true; word of mouth wouldn't even need to be a Chinese whisper........It also occurs to me that as a trader making trips back and forth from Greece he was probably quite wealthy, and would certainly have had his own literate interpreters in tow.
Actually every thing he said in Quran or Hadith are actually passed down fables and stories.
People claim how did Muhammad Knew about the Iram of the Pillars. We usually say it is either the Jew king or a city that underwent a landslide and disappeared(which was recently discovered). You think people will not notice the disappearance of a trade rout post and no stories to be passed?
Anyway, we can interpret anything with that "Pair" -- so, no, it's not a miracle.
Brother: I spent the first 5 years of my life in London, England, a beautiful city. In court, the defendant is found to be guilty or innocent. Evidence is not considered proof. Reasobale doubt is not proof; instinct plays its role
@TheRationalizer Great video! I recently became an apostate, and I remember reading how the printing press radically changed cognition and communication. The characteristics of orality based cultures, and the previous contemplation of the cosmos and biology by greek philosophers, and (as islamic history points out itself) Muhammad's tribe were known for their poetic skills, so creating a poem over 23 years as you point out wasn't impossible.
Exactly! In 2000 years when we can download information to our brains will they look back and say "How could they have known anything? They couldn't even download!"
@TheRationalizer Thanks for the congrats. I'm really looking forward to the Hamza Andreas debate, I think he's one of the more skilled and charismatic muslim debaters. Should be entertaining, and insightful.
We can get philisophical about anything. There is freedom of religion. I do not know what religion u have, but we are going around in circles. In the final analysis, religion is a matter of faith. Good luck to u.
Brother: You are free to believe whatever you want. The scientific facts in the quran are very straightforward. The documentation is all over the internet. Scientists from all walks of life have confirmed it. Again, there is no compulsion in religion. One is free. In the event you are interested, read about Yusef Estes's testimony on Ramses the II's destiny in the Quran
The easiest argument against this is "Are you sure it wasn't his son Merneptah? Some Muslims claim Ramses II, some claim Merneptah? Why can't they tell objectively which one it is? Oh, perhaps because there is no objective evidence that it was either :)"
Brother: First, Galen and Aristotle have no bearing on Muhammed's scientific knowledge. Second, Moore is not the only one who came forward with that info. There are a myriad of western scientists that have moved along those lines. Read more.
@shaskouri and on what authority are a couple of scientists (all of whom appeared in a saudi funded drama and most of whom recanted what they said in an article by Daniel Golden in the Wall Street Journal) interpreting the quran ? Sure they have knowledge of their respective fields ! since when did interpreting books become the field of scientists ?
What makes you think what Keith moore says is true ?
Also, see for yourself who keith moore really is ? watch?v=8mCaMnCGmAU
Part 2: Out of the ninety-two facts that you have stated to be found in the Koran, at least some of them should have lingered around, at least in a distorted form, throughout history. However, there are no traces to that effect, however hard the orientalists try to demonstrate this. Therefore, the scientific facts in the Koran, as discovered in the last decades, could not have originated from a pre-existing oral tradition.
@shaskouri Instead of making generalized statements, could you be specific and state what facts are mentioned in the quran that where not known at the time ? I am hoping you bring new claims that have not been debunked by many already
Part 1: Vygotsky stated that all knowledge is socially acquired. Based on this definition, one can explore the so-called scientific facts in the Koran.
As stated by unbiased Canadian scientists such as Dr. Keethe Moore, the oral tradition in Arabian history shows no existence of scientific facts therein in any kind of discourse prior to the advent of Islam.
You mean such as the entire works of Galen and Aristotle available in Arabic in the library of Alexandria before Muhammad was even born? You mean that kind of social knowledge?
I wouldn't pay too much attention to Moore, the man who had a book sponsored by the multi millionaire Isama Bin Ladin.
"I was raised by an agnostic and an atheist. Between the ages of 7 and 11 I was m ade to attend Christian morning assemblies at school. I never realised how much of an effect that had on my life until years later I was being taught comparativ e religion at about the age of 13 and caught myself thinking "The claims in all of these religions are all so stupid, except ofcourse Christianity".
@TheRationalizer no,stars are used as the places for pelting fire mass on the devils. for example, someone says that the post will be made a torrent of bullets for the militants he obviously means that the place would be used to launch an effective assault on them
What?! As if it is possible to constrain Arabic to only the words in that one book! You are claiming that the words "automobile", "airplane", "vaccine", and "computer" are all somehow not worthy of being Arabic words, and you're using the internet to do it!
Ironic much?
Your premise is untenable. Languages that refuse to grow will be "steamrolled" by those that do.
I have lots to say about but I`ll try to keep short and simple.
1-My younger brother was only for years old when he started reading(I am not makin it up,it is true).Thinking of archaic form of arabic writing in 6th century(without dots,wovels..)I am sure he was able to read arabic possibly hebrew as well.
2-I really cant see anything astonishing in the quran about embriology.I`d my childehood in a mountain village.I have seen so many dumped fetuses from slaugtered animals in differant phases.
(2)So the people had knowledge about human fetuses too.Women didnt rushed the hospitals when they had miscarriage(because there was no hospitals)I mean everybody was a bit embriolog in this sence.
3-Muhammad married to a cousin of probably the most educated may be most learned man of Mecca,Waraqa Ibn Nawfal.Most likely he lived very close to him(as all families which belong to same clan do,living in the same districh of the towns,for security and inheritance raisons).and saw him in a dailybasis
4-I have two friends one of them despite his universty degree he hates reading.When he needs to reed a book he asks a friend of ours to read it than tell him about.In return he always takes her to restaurants and buys some gifts.The conclusion muhammad possibly didnt like reading and writing (and I dont think he had much material to read or write on).
>for something to be a scientefic error it has to be scientefic statement.
There is no such thing as "a scientific statement" only statements which are based on scientific facts. The verse in question is scientifically inaccurate. The Quran says that if it were written by man it would have errors in it, so it claims to be 100% error free and yet 18:90 and 67:5 are both scientifically proven to be in error.
But I don't expect your bias to allow you to accept it :)
@TheRationalizer 67.5 The verse does not mean that stars are pelted rather the obvious implication is the stars are used as the places for pelting fire mass on the devils. An analogy would better explain the usage. If, for example, someone says that the post will be made a torrent of bullets for the militants he obviously means that the place would be used to launch an effective assault on them.18.90 read some newspapers u will see sun rises and sets.
@TheRationalizer he agrees that stars are used as place by pelting.the arabic word used in the quran means a mass of fire,not necessarily shooting stars.he was a human being,he could have been wrong.
@TheRationalizer If one were to seek the truth one would get it; if one were not to seek it, one would not get it. This principle is true both in case of total truth as well as partial truth.
That is by no stretch of the imagination an answer to my comment.
If Al Jalaylan can think it means something detatches from a star and shoots down Jinn (and is clearly wrong) then the text in the Quran could have been more clear, could it not?
@TheRationalizer who said he is clearly wrong,he is absoulutely right when he says that stars are used as places for pelting,the disagreement is that he thinks shooting stars come down from stars.
We have adorned the lowest heaven, the one closest to the earth, with lamps, with stars, and made them missiles against the devils, should they [attempt to] listen by stealth, in which case a meteor of fire detaches itself from the star, just like a brand is taken from a fire, and either kills that jinn or deprives him of his senses
An individual detachment when the Jinn listens in. Are you saying that is correct?
Can you explain to me then how this lump from the star manages to travel at LEAST 4.2 light years in an instant? Does Allah use its special powers to make the lump of star suddenly appear at the Earth's atmosphere to shoot down the Jinn?
Are you able to think for yourself, or only regurgitate what someone else tells you? Your example is a word for word copy of a less than adequate explanation by LearnQuranicArabic.
So before we continue, are you agreeing that illiteracy is completely irrelevant? Does this mean you will never again say the words "illiterate man" when talking about Muhammad because you now know it is not relevant?
Can an illiterate man not think up a beautiful poem? You are confusing being illiterate with being inarticulate. Being illiterate doesn't mean you are inarticulate, it just means some else has to write it down for you.
Muhammad never recited his own work,not even once.He s got his biblical knowledge from his first wifes cousin Waraqa ibn Nawfal at least for 15 years may be more.And every time he screwed up he accused jews and christians for distorting their original scriptures and not having preserved the way god revealed them.
have you even read the quran? quran 18.86 is a sotry from a mans POV, so 4 versus later in surah kahf 18.90, it says
"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
now this does not mean the sun was LITERALLY rising on the faces of these people, just like 4 versus earler of the same story it doesnt mean the sun was LITERALLY setting in the water.
This is supposed to be Allah telling the story of what a man did, not the man himself telling the story. Only a human would say "he reached the place of the rising sun" because only a human at that time would have thought the Earth was flat.
Not a single scientific error you say?
You mean "Not a single scientific error I WILL ACCEPT"
like u say in your vid...so what? it is allah telling the story, and allah is explaining it from the mans POV, now what has that got to do with an error? by telling us what he saw it paints a better perception of his position. this is NOT AN ERROR!
tell me....does wuran 18.90 say the sun is LITERALLY rising on faces? if you say yes, then you cannot interpret information, if you say no...then you have to admit quran 18.86 does not mean LITERALLY setting either...so which is it?
dont dodge the question, im saying if you think 18.90 is an error, where it says the man found the sun rising on the faces of people, now say it is obviously from his POV, so 4 versus earlier where it says he found the sun setting that is from POV. this is not in modern english..it is an arabic, and old english would be comparable at that time which you would not understand anyway. so it doesnt HAVE to say anything you claim. you cannot interpret this that is the problem
The sun can rise on the faces of people, because as it rises its light shines on their faces, that is perfectly logical.
The error is that the Quran says he reached THE place of the rising sun. This is impossible, it is a scientific error unless the Earth is flat - which is what many people at the time thought. No surprise therefore to see common misconceptions in a man made book.
we have a sun RISE, and we have a sun SET. in the 2 versus, one is described as he saw the sun set, and one is described as he saw the sun rise.
"as it rises its light shines on their faces"
it doesnt say in the quran LIGHT shines on their faces...it says "he found it rising on a people". so basically you are using logic for verse 18.90, but not for verse 18.86 which makes no sense..one is a sun SET, other is sunRISE, its the same story from a mans perspective.
Yes, we have a sun rise and we have a sun set. We do not have THE place the sun sets and THE place the sun rises.
The sun does rise on people every day, that is logical because it is related to a time and not a place. There is a time the sun rises which is relative to the people it is rising on. There is not *A* place the sun rises because this is absolute, not relative.
when it comes down to it, both versus 18.86 & 18.90 are clearly being told from a mans point of view. if someone can understand this (which is not difficult if anyone reads it) then they can understand the quran is not making a sceintefic statement that the sun sets in water...as it would then also be making the statement the sun rose literally on the faces of people. you are going in circles now, it is 100% obvious you choose to misinterpret this verse
The FACT is that the man in the story did not travel until he reached THE place of the setting sun. It was thought at the time that the Earth was flat so this is exactly what a human would have said if he had made up the story, it is however scientifically incorrect, an error.
With just 1400 years scientific discovery I can improve it to be
you are typing in modern english, back then modern english never existed. so when you say "i would have said this or that"....no you would not have. go read old english and see if you understand it, then tell me how you would have said it
secondly, this is written in arabic not english, arabic is far advanced from the later modern english we use where words do not even exist to interpret exact arabic. it cannot be done. so you cannot improve anything
It's not about modern English. In Arabic it is possible to differentiate between "THE place" and "A place" - the Quran says "THE place."
Ibn Kathir explains it like so:
"means, he followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun's setting, which is the west of the earth"
yes but it also says "THE rising place" in verse 18.90...this is what im trying to get through to you. if you make a claim about verse 18.86 being literal...then you have to do the same about verse 18.90. but you claim 18.86 means literal...and 18.90 does not. this is hypocrisy and you cannot claim this. they are both either being scientefic (which they are not), or they are both from a POV (which its easy to see they are).
18:86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun - ERROR
18:90 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun - ERROR
I didn't claim either was correct. You mentioned "rising on people's faces" and I commented on your statement, not 18:86 or 18:90 - both of which are scientifically in error.
good im glad it took you 15 mins to come up with an answer. you earlier said 18.90 coudl say it..now you claim its an error. so you have gone back on what YOU said.
18.90"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
are you claiming the above verse is a scientefic statment rather then a point of vew? because if that had happenned those people would be dead
"The sun can rise on the faces of people, because as it rises its light shines on their faces, that is perfectly logical."
what does this imply? it implies your saying it was logical verse 18.90 saying the sun ROSE on the faces. so now your claiming its an error when earlier you said it was "perfectly logical"
I was saying that YOUR phrase of the sun rising on people's faces is valid because that is a relative statement - the sun rises and casts light on the faces of people all around the world at a different time depending on where in the world they live. That makes sense and if it were in the Quran I would not object. THE place of the rising sun however is absolute not relative, it is wrong.
You failed to quote me because I did not say what you claim.
you got caught out, there is no way you can backtrack. now once again i ask
18.90"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
are you claiming the above verse is a scientefic statment rather then a story point of vew?
18.90"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
are you claiming the above verse is a scientefic statment rather then a story point of vew? it is a simple question..are you claiming its SCIENTEFIC...or POV??? dont cop out
18.90"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
are you claiming the above verse is a scientefic statment rather then a story point of vew?
there are no scientefic errors in the quran, so if one claimes he aquired information from somewhere else then how does it so happen an error was not included? how could someone go around selecting information others had and select whats correct and whats not 1400 years ago..it cannot be done.
so how can you claim that is an error? this confirms you have very limited knowledge of the quran, it was from a point of view and if you bothered to read 4 versus later you would have known this. or maybe you cannot interpret it properly, you should seek help from an educated source to help you out
That doesnt answer the question, the prophet couldn't read and couldnt write fluently (his companions wrote letters for him) - but how could he produce the Quran.?
The Quran in Arabic is a special piece of literature, for a few reasons. It has an almost constant rhythmic poetic flow,that remains in context for many many chapters, yet we must remember verses were revealed seperately within 23 years and stitched together. The miracle is Mohammed an illiterate created a magnifficent book.
@TheRationalizer I need you to explain to me HOW Muhammad managed this masterpiece of literature given that it was revealed in tiny chunks within 23 years and how did it remain and manage to be consistent and flow in a way that shocked and suprised the best of poets in the Arabian peninsula, how did a man who never recited poetry suddenly recite beautiful original pieces of work, not to mention remember it with no evidence of writing it? I need answers from you before i accept your easy way out.
@TheRationalizer Abrogated? A few verses were abrogated to allow people to evolve into the faith, for example first drinking was okay, then not recommended and finally forbidden. This made most sense for a society that loved alcohol, they lost this habit not cold turkey, but gradually which makes perfect sense. Many people make the mistake of abrogation with no context. People think verses revealed in war, with hostile people abrogate verses revealed in peace with peaceful people, thats wrong.
@TheRationalizer "Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.
As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arab literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. - Hamilton Gibb
@TheRationalizer lol well it directly challenges your weak and lazy accusation - "he learned" the Quran is what you are implying. The Quran outright challenges people, non believers in many verses, to create a book such as the Quran before it was even completed.! The prophet spoke of the Quran as a completed book, even though his life was in constant danger, he knew his message was to be completed. I need examples of people who can barely read or write, producing a book honored & prized, go on.
@TheRationalizer Well her could BARELY read or write. I am not saying he was completely dumb and lost, nor 100% illiterate, i never even thought that in the first place, yet it is a fact his companions wrote the letters for him that he sent off to kings while he recited the letters. Yet i see you are taking the easy route, your accusation needs evidence, being that we need someone with a LOW level of literacy, to create a book as powerful as the Quran, they've have 1500 years to do it, so go on.
The thing is, I do not need to prove where the Quran came from. Books are NORMALLY written by humans so that is the correct default position to take. If you think the Quran came from somewhere else then it is up to you to prove your claim.
Telling me it is the best book in the world is not good enough I'm afraid, especially considering I do not agree with you. I've read 3 translations, it's shit.
@TheRationalizer It is shit to you because, well its in English and trust me, it loses its vigour. Even a non Arab, Non Muslim can listen the Quran and hear the true beauty within it. The Quran addresses the issue saying if it was revealed in another language, the challengers would ask WHY it came in THAT language, its just a pointless circle, the fact is i have heard the Quran recited in many other language - Indonesian, German, English, French, Bosnian, Chinese- its BEST in Arabic.
So are you saying that Allah couldn't write a book that was beautiful in all languages, or are you saying he chose to reveal a miracle only to Arabic speakers rather than the whole world?
@TheRationalizer Um, no that is impossible. Languages are different, some more beautiful than others, its impossible to have a book that sounds beautiful in other languages, or looks beautiful in other languages. Arabic is a unique language, for example in Arabic the first chapter is 30 words long, in English its 70 - in that case the more- the less...It gets lost in translation. Watch this short Surah below
>It's impossible for a book that sounds beautiful in other languages
Ah, so you are saying god is not all powerful?
The words "I love you" are beautiful in every language, because it is the meaning of the words which touch our hearts. *If* the Quran is beautiful in Arabic then it is merely the clever arrangement of the words - why couldn't god make the meaning beautiful too?
@TheRationalizer OF course God is all powerful, yet he was put forth the laws of nature in this imperfect world, the law proves that we cannot have a beautiful word that sounds or looks beautiful in every language. The celever arrangement of words must have taken much practise, yet there is no evidence the prophet wrote his words, or pre-planned them, he'd utter them randomly on the spot. The meaning of the Quran is beautiful in many ways, but id understand it to be subjective for some.
God could have pre-planned all languages so that the words in the Quran were beautiful in every language - or are you saying there is a limit to god's powers?
>I'd understand it (the Quran) to be subjective for some
And you think subjective miracles have any credibility?
@TheRationalizer Well the problem with that argument, is that us as the human race do not know the capacity of perfection, if God perfected every language and we heard text in all languages and it was perfect, we wouldn't know it. The words in the Quran are beautiful in Arabic because they came from an Arab. The limit would be to peoples understanding, not Gods powers- we are imperfect & wouldn't know perfection. I never claimed the Quran is a miracle, though it is unique, special, beautiful.
No I didn't say that god needed to perfect every language. I just said he only needed to ensure that languages developed in such a way that when the Quran (and only the Quran) was revealed it would be the only speech in existence that was beautiful in all languages.
>The words in the Quran are beautiful in Arabic because they came from an Arab.
I agree, they did come from an Arab. If they were from god I too would find them beautiful.
@TheRationalizer Okay, im happy to understand your point of view. You can stand by your claim thats the prophet was literate and a learned man that somehow managed to produce this linguistic masterpiece. I though look at it in a much broader spectrum, stuff like that does not happen every day, people with low literacy do not come up with literal gems, it takes study, tests, knowledge, memory, and much thought power, the Quran is outstanding because it stands out from the rest, in a nutshell.
@TheRationalizer Well no, but you claim he was learned, i think you need a certain amount of literacy to properly learn, to properly be articulate in your information, to be consistent and to recall past recitations, literacy and being learned go hand in hand, not only today but even back in the day, the human condition has barely changed since then, our requirements are similar in terms of our intelligence. The problem is that MOST dont read the Quran and THINK its terrible, cant please em all.
@TheRationalizer He could have learned the stuff in the Quran if he had a certain level of literacy, which historically speaking he did not. "Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet" (Quran 7:157). Unlettered means uneducated; untutored; and illiterate. Also you say Muhammad learned the Quran, but who taught him? The Quran touches on countless topics vastly different from one another. In order for him to present this vast information accurately and articulately he needs literacy.
@TheRationalizer As far as i know he did. His scribes would write down his revelations and his companions would eventually too know it all by heart. So memory does play a part in it, though we know the Prophet was orphaned at a very young age, put to work very young, no evidence suggests his education, he was a trustworthy person and had no evidence of mental illness, poetry recitation, deception of religious intolerance. His sudden Quranic recitations came indeed out of nowhere.
Did you even watch this video? Why are you presenting me with arguments that I address in the video?
You are essentially stating: Muhammad could not possibly learn the facts in the Quran unless he could read, however he could learn all of the Quran without being able to read.
Either he could learn a lot of stuff without reading or he could not, which is it?
@TheRationalizer He could LEARN stuff yes, but the Quran is perfect in its presentation. It was how the prophet transmitted the message. He had minimal literacy, he could barely read or write, i think we agree on that. He could learn stuff without reading, but an unlettered person would fail in the presentation of their learning. An uneducated person could know a lot- but would struggle presenting it. The unlettered prophet knew a lot and presented it eloquently far beyond his capabilities.
@TheRationalizer Well, i wouldnt say perfectly capable, i havent seen a book out there that is 114 chapters long remembered back to front by many, another reason the Quran is brilliant is because its easy to rememb
I love how your mustache makes your silliness a little more credible. X3
SilverIcetail 3 months ago
I'm confused, I think light *could* perform all three: five, six, or seven complete orbits around the earth, provided we built a device to force it into orbit.
It really depends on the orbit (and whether we let it travel freely all of that second).
vollmuell 3 months ago
@vollmuell
I hated my choice of the word "orbit" before I even uploaded, but didn't want to re-record it :)
I meant "circuits".
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
Lian CrAIG IS absolutely right when he says.... New atheists are NOT intellectually bright :D
flexpape 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheRationalizer
This has been flagged as spam show
I am gonna ask a simple thing From all of you. Do this if you can :
Do they say, "He has invented it"? Say: "Then produce a sura like it and call on anyone ( Both humans or jinns) you can besides Allah if you are telling the truth." (Qur'an, 10:38)
flexpape 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheRationalizer
Now, 70% of Qur'an consists of three letters. Most of the verses of Qur'an are in extreme pose. Even the best of the poets yelled out that no man can make such thing and this can not be a poetry. Most of the stories are narrated in Qur'an when some jews or christians came to him asking stuff. So there was never a time to think and then to make such verses in inexplicable. Dude have you ever tried to Check out Qur'an for uself in Arabic lol?
flexpape 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheRationalizer
Gentlemen, The most idiotic video i have ever seen against Islam and Muhammad pbuh. When we say that he was an illiterate Means he could not make verses of SUCH HIGH ARABIC STANDARD. What was the miracles of Moses? The miracles destroyed the power of magicians of that time. What about Jesus? Romans were good in medicine. Jesus miracles were of healing. Arabs were only good in trading and Literature. Qu'an defeated all of their literature.
flexpape 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheRationalizer
@flexpape
This isn't an argument against Islam, it is a video explaining that illiteracy does not mean one is a simpleton nor incapable of learning. It is a video explaining why the statement "But Muhammad was illiterate" is utterly pointless.
TheRationalizer 3 months ago 6
@TheRationalizer Since he was an illiterate how can an illustrate person beat Whole of Arab literature mate? Didn't i just said Quran has highest standard of arabic and words used. U will see pose in every verse e.g
Dock, mock, lock, pock. All are different words , ck is same so sounds same at end. Dude Qur'an is written like that. The context is same and is not deviating from the story but strangely the words used are like that giving same sound. Go do that without even thinking or writing.
flexpape 3 months ago
If I'm ever in the UK, I'm going to ask for my pound. No funny stuff, unless its another video. Keep it up man.
NoNamesLeft0102 4 months ago 2
@NoNamesLeft0102 LOL, really, u got satisfied by some puerile stuff?
flexpape 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheRationalizer
As a merchant Muhammad must have had at least some basic skills in reading and writing.
Since I believe the entire quran is a fabrication contrived by Muhammad himself anyway, I have no reason to believe the particular surah claiming Muhammad was an illiterate contains any truth.
MrSteuma 4 months ago 4
@MrSteuma
I don't think he was illiterate either, I just wanted to point out it is a silly argument even if he was.
TheRationalizer 4 months ago 2
i absolutely agree with ur analysis. all of these thoughts were going around in my mind but i wasnt able to give it a coherent structure until i saw the part where u said "being illiterate does not mean being incapable of learning". the argument i.e about the efficiency of oral transmission of quran is simple but effective. this is an excellent video !
Dathinkingman 4 months ago
@Dathinkingman
Thanks, it's one of my favourites.
TheRationalizer 4 months ago
brother over here u are just clarifying doubts of some foolish muslims who dont know the history...i am a muslim n i always knew that muhammad saw was an intelligent man.. so what he coudnt read...you know i too cant read chinese.. but i know about its tradition...
youjayification 5 months ago
@youjayification
*I* am not making a big deal of Muhammad allegedly being illiterate (even though I think there is a hadith where wanted to write something down when he was dying) - My video was made because I was sick and tired of Muslims telling me that Muhammad couldn't have known X or Y because he could not read.
TheRationalizer 5 months ago
hi mate, i've got a question for you. according to quran, allah made JINHs frm fire & yu countered that argument by sayin fire is not a substance but chemical reaction ( if i got it right) so JINHs cant b made of fire but here is my question, primary livin cells were result of chemical reaction too, so if cells can come frm chemical reaction y cant Jinhs b made of fire??both r result of chemical reactions. mayb im bien an idiot n overlookin facts ...
chinamanspeakenlis 6 months ago
@chinamanspeakenlis
Primary cells are not made OF chemical reactions, they are the result of chemical reactions working on atoms such as phosphorous - so you could say they are made FROM phosphorous + carbon + etc, but made USING a chemical process.
To say they are made FROM/OF a chemical process is the same as saying they are made of "falling down the stairs" or made of "running into a wall" - it is logically nonsense, unless of course you believe fire is one of 4 elements :)
TheRationalizer 6 months ago
@TheRationalizer :) i can use this argument next time i debate them.. nobody ever brought this up so far but incase they do i should have a good explanation. thanks :). one of my hindu frn is atheist now, thanks to me, now workin on muslim one but he's a tough nut to crack..lol
chinamanspeakenlis 6 months ago
@chinamanspeakenlis
People say that Allah can do anything, that is their usual response but this is not logically possible. They will quickly dismiss illogical challenges such as "Can Allah create a rock that even Allah cannot move?" because they see immediately it is illogical.
So Muslims often attribute "super powers" to Allah to overcome any challenge, but the "Jinn of fire" problem doesn't need more power to solve, it is logically impossible - like a 4 sided triangle.
TheRationalizer 6 months ago
@TheRationalizer :) I agree.. thanks. I will wait for your next debate... its always entertaining ...
chinamanspeakenlis 6 months ago
i wouldnt really try 'rationalizing' anything to do with islam...they are in complete opposition
MrFakunda 6 months ago
answer 2 your last question is 7 !! :D... yeaaaaaaaaaa.... i can go n start writing a religious book now
chinamanspeakenlis 6 months ago
@chinamanspeakenlis
Tip: Get someone else to write it down, that way you can pretend to be illiterate whilst still being able to research :)
TheRationalizer 6 months ago
@TheRationalizer hahahaha.. im happy that im following you on youtube.. waitin for your nxt debate... :)
chinamanspeakenlis 6 months ago
let me know when you're done... islam is a religon.
you can say the same things about christianity or judiasium
faiqr 6 months ago
@faiqr
I can say the same things about Christianity and Judaism? How do they related to the illiteracy of Muhammad?
TheRationalizer 6 months ago
bullshit
faiqr 6 months ago
@faiqr
>bullshit
How many times can light circle the Earth in 1 second?
TheRationalizer 6 months ago
Lol, in the first he shows the Arabic version of who wants to be a Millionaire, and in the second picture, it shows the Character from Slumdog millionaire in the Indian version of who wants to be a Millionaire.
DeadlyDreamerX 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX
Yep :)
TheRationalizer 7 months ago
@TheRationalizer
But on topic. What you have said there makes perfect sense. Even if Muhammad was actually an illiterate, that doesn't mean he couldn't take some facts and certain philosophies and cook them to make Quran.
I was in a debate with a person about that Allah made everything in pair. I said only high organism were in pair. Then he went and said about matter and antimatter(pair), I said Ying Yang(Pair) eastern philosophy, and the kid disappeared ever since. Plagiarism much.
DeadlyDreamerX 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX
Yeah, they now try to say that it refers to DNA but 92:03 explicitly says Allah made the male and female.
TheRationalizer 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX I wonder how would would dualist philosophy reach Muhammed?
AhmedOnMoment 7 months ago
@AhmedOnMoment
Didn't Muhammad said that get education even if it as far as China?
DeadlyDreamerX 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX In fact, this is a proof that Muhammed could have never reached China, nor ever had contact with information from China, implying that China was the farthest place one would reach for education, Besides, that does not even prove anything, It is simply the Prophet's assertion about the importance of education.
AhmedOnMoment 7 months ago
@AhmedOnMoment
He had many people to tell him. And he doesn't need to cite every fucking one of them. I think if you watch this video a couple of times, maybe, and maybe you will understand a bit on what I am talking about.
DeadlyDreamerX 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX Once again, You give NOT A SINGLE EVIDENCE FOR WHAT YOU SAY. SHOW ME ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT PROVES WHAT YOU FUCKIN SAY.
All what you said to this moment is pure spectaculation, We do not even have ANY evidence that Arabs EVER reached China.
If you want to tell that that all of dualist philosphy was passed to him, then still, WHY DON'T WE HAVE ANY FUCKIN EVIDENCE OF SUCH A THING?
AhmedOnMoment 7 months ago
@AhmedOnMoment
IJDPAJD PADJPAJ WAHJA EVIDECE JCONOFUCKER EVIDENE FUCKIN EVIDENCE
Listen, it's called deducing. It doesn't need evidence.
Premise Numero uno:
China was not a secluded nation, in fact, it had many trading routes even before the inception of Christianity -- Chinese traveller did come to Middle East and vice verse.
Premise Numero Duo:
There could have been travellers that came from India and South-East Asia to Middle East and vice versa.
Now, do your hw.
DeadlyDreamerX 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX Deductive Reasoning is good when you are against a crime case, but do you know what fuckin else is needed? FACTUAL EVIDENCE. ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS DEDUCTIVE REASONING, PURE REASON IN A HISTORICAL MATTER IS A CHILD'S JOKE.
I could not find any reference to "Premise Numero Duo" online; Maybe you typed that "reference" wrong?
AhmedOnMoment 7 months ago
@AhmedOnMoment
You seriously having a hard time leaving Islam, no? Come on. You are smarter than this. Yes, not every freaking thing is on the net, there are a good sum of books in the libraries, maybe you should do a research of your on rather than typing in CAPITALS on other people's head. I don't know why Muzzies love to type in Capitals.
I am pretty sure you already know religion is just a way to control people, and Islam isn't exempt of this. Use your noggin for a bit. Come on.
DeadlyDreamerX 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX Then I do want any proof for the existence of such a book, It's ISBN would help, or it's Amazon/eBay link.
Please I may excuse your low IQ that magically made you deduce that I am an actual Muslim, and that If I am, I would need to leave my religion.
Do a research? with no information at all? If I fuckin went to a librarian and asked for "Premise Numero Duo" She'd probably ask me for it's author and some information, of which you give nothing at all.
Religion may or may not be so
AhmedOnMoment 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX Religion in and of itself may not be a "way to control People"; I may fear that some religions are, in fact, many are, but I assure you, Islamic teachings will definitely not tell you that there is a "Pope" who may one day control you and decide for you your life; You decide your own life based on the teachings that a God simply ordained, You interpret the teachings with your own thought and background.
This argument is built on an unproven premise, that religion is to control P.
AhmedOnMoment 7 months ago
@AhmedOnMoment
I would have sat and debated with you there, but unfortunately, all I have is 500 words limit.
Then that's not the religion of Islam. Islam is a set of dogmas -- there is no chance of free of interpretation of our own. But if we do, we would have more than dozen of sects, which Islam do have. Then it's useless. What if your interpretation is wrong?
But still, I will not argue on and on about Islam. It's like any religion, synthetic. There is no God. There is no Allah.
DeadlyDreamerX 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX I will gladly accept a debate provided that you and I do not use insults and remain using a respected language. The problem with your assertion that Islam is a "set of dogmas" is wrong because You do not put in mind that there is no Pope in Islam; Sunni Islam itself is divided into many many schools of thought, each of which has its interpretation of Islam; What If an interp. is wrong? So what? You believed it to be, and God will understand. -> Continued.
AhmedOnMoment 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX Now, Islam is of course like any religion, Right that can be wrong and Wrong that can be right. In fact, I may very well have similar beliefs to yours, however, this strays far from our original debate; Please differentiate between Islam as a Religion and Islam as a history; As a religion, You can never have a debate about it, It's about faith. However, as a history, the character and interactions of Muhammed, that is debatable.
Thank you.
AhmedOnMoment 7 months ago
pffffff the same shit....but it's good to know that Muhammed doesn't make you sleep well.
JackSparrowDepp 8 months ago
Good video, the Sassanid empire controlled yemen and western Arabia prior to Islam and with the trade root running right down southern Arabia any ideas that were current in that empire would have flittered along through word of mouth. Without the internet and Tv Radio and the popular press people entertained each other through conversation and poetry. Cesar said the druids were knowledgeable about the heavens, medicine and many other things. They were an oral culture.
strangetranceoffaith 8 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith
Could you send me a google books link or something with such a quote in? I'd like to add it to the description bar.
TheRationalizer 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRationalizer i'm on it.
strangetranceoffaith 8 months ago
@TheRationalizer Isn't it also true that Uncle MO's trade route (in his pre- prophet career as a trader / bandit) included trips to Greece? I`ve heard that bandied about though not sure if its in an official history - therefore if that is true; word of mouth wouldn't even need to be a Chinese whisper........It also occurs to me that as a trader making trips back and forth from Greece he was probably quite wealthy, and would certainly have had his own literate interpreters in tow.
yavanna1969 8 months ago
@yavanna1969
It certainly used to take him through Persia, which was a bit of an intellectual hotspot for learning Greek literature.
TheRationalizer 8 months ago
@yavanna1969
Actually every thing he said in Quran or Hadith are actually passed down fables and stories.
People claim how did Muhammad Knew about the Iram of the Pillars. We usually say it is either the Jew king or a city that underwent a landslide and disappeared(which was recently discovered). You think people will not notice the disappearance of a trade rout post and no stories to be passed?
Anyway, we can interpret anything with that "Pair" -- so, no, it's not a miracle.
DeadlyDreamerX 7 months ago
@DeadlyDreamerX Heh My friend, Why don't we find other written records about Iram then?
AhmedOnMoment 7 months ago
@AhmedOnMoment
It wasn't written. It was orally passed down. The basis of this video.
DeadlyDreamerX 7 months ago
Brother: I spent the first 5 years of my life in London, England, a beautiful city. In court, the defendant is found to be guilty or innocent. Evidence is not considered proof. Reasobale doubt is not proof; instinct plays its role
thanks
sal
shaskouri 9 months ago
@shaskouri
You claim that religion is a matter of faith, I asked why you therefore are trying to prove religion is true.
TheRationalizer 9 months ago
@TheRationalizer Great video! I recently became an apostate, and I remember reading how the printing press radically changed cognition and communication. The characteristics of orality based cultures, and the previous contemplation of the cosmos and biology by greek philosophers, and (as islamic history points out itself) Muhammad's tribe were known for their poetic skills, so creating a poem over 23 years as you point out wasn't impossible.
strangestdude 8 months ago
@strangestdude
Exactly! In 2000 years when we can download information to our brains will they look back and say "How could they have known anything? They couldn't even download!"
Congratulations on your apostasy!
TheRationalizer 8 months ago
@TheRationalizer Thanks for the congrats. I'm really looking forward to the Hamza Andreas debate, I think he's one of the more skilled and charismatic muslim debaters. Should be entertaining, and insightful.
strangestdude 8 months ago
My fellow American:
We can get philisophical about anything. There is freedom of religion. I do not know what religion u have, but we are going around in circles. In the final analysis, religion is a matter of faith. Good luck to u.
Thanks
shaskouri 9 months ago
@shaskouri
I am English, not American. I have no religion at all.
If religion is a matter of faith why are you insist that there is evidence?
TheRationalizer 9 months ago
Brother: There is no compulsion in religion. In the event u are interested read about Yusef Estes's lecture on Pharaoh's destiny.
Thanks
shaskouri 9 months ago
@shaskouri
And have you bothered to check the claims by Yusuf Estes?
TheRationalizer 9 months ago
Brother: You are free to believe whatever you want. The scientific facts in the quran are very straightforward. The documentation is all over the internet. Scientists from all walks of life have confirmed it. Again, there is no compulsion in religion. One is free. In the event you are interested, read about Yusef Estes's testimony on Ramses the II's destiny in the Quran
Thank you,
shaskouri 9 months ago
@shaskouri "In the event you are interested, read about Yusef Estes's testimony on Ramses the II's destiny in the Quran"
Oh wow, Ramesses II...Can you please wait 3 days, i will upload a video that will completely debunk this lie
captaindisguise 9 months ago
@captaindisguise
The easiest argument against this is "Are you sure it wasn't his son Merneptah? Some Muslims claim Ramses II, some claim Merneptah? Why can't they tell objectively which one it is? Oh, perhaps because there is no objective evidence that it was either :)"
TheRationalizer 9 months ago
Brother: First, Galen and Aristotle have no bearing on Muhammed's scientific knowledge. Second, Moore is not the only one who came forward with that info. There are a myriad of western scientists that have moved along those lines. Read more.
Thanks
shaskouri 9 months ago
@shaskouri and on what authority are a couple of scientists (all of whom appeared in a saudi funded drama and most of whom recanted what they said in an article by Daniel Golden in the Wall Street Journal) interpreting the quran ? Sure they have knowledge of their respective fields ! since when did interpreting books become the field of scientists ?
What makes you think what Keith moore says is true ?
Also, see for yourself who keith moore really is ? watch?v=8mCaMnCGmAU
captaindisguise 9 months ago
@shaskouri
First, yes they did.
Second, watch my interview with Alfred Kroner who was one of those scientists and keep an eye on my channel for interviews with more in the future.
It is you who needs to read more rather than accepting false miracle claims at face value.
TheRationalizer 9 months ago
part 3: In sum, the Koran is not a codification of previously socially acquired scientific knowledge.
shaskouri 9 months ago
Part 2: Out of the ninety-two facts that you have stated to be found in the Koran, at least some of them should have lingered around, at least in a distorted form, throughout history. However, there are no traces to that effect, however hard the orientalists try to demonstrate this. Therefore, the scientific facts in the Koran, as discovered in the last decades, could not have originated from a pre-existing oral tradition.
shaskouri 9 months ago
@shaskouri Instead of making generalized statements, could you be specific and state what facts are mentioned in the quran that where not known at the time ? I am hoping you bring new claims that have not been debunked by many already
captaindisguise 9 months ago
Part 1: Vygotsky stated that all knowledge is socially acquired. Based on this definition, one can explore the so-called scientific facts in the Koran.
As stated by unbiased Canadian scientists such as Dr. Keethe Moore, the oral tradition in Arabian history shows no existence of scientific facts therein in any kind of discourse prior to the advent of Islam.
shaskouri 9 months ago
@shaskouri
You mean such as the entire works of Galen and Aristotle available in Arabic in the library of Alexandria before Muhammad was even born? You mean that kind of social knowledge?
I wouldn't pay too much attention to Moore, the man who had a book sponsored by the multi millionaire Isama Bin Ladin.
TheRationalizer 9 months ago
"I was raised by an agnostic and an atheist. Between the ages of 7 and 11 I was m ade to attend Christian morning assemblies at school. I never realised how much of an effect that had on my life until years later I was being taught comparativ e religion at about the age of 13 and caught myself thinking "The claims in all of these religions are all so stupid, except ofcourse Christianity".
imRON95 10 months ago
@imRON95
Yes, what about it?
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer no,stars are used as the places for pelting fire mass on the devils. for example, someone says that the post will be made a torrent of bullets for the militants he obviously means that the place would be used to launch an effective assault on them
THEGREATESTUMMAH 10 months ago
@THEGREATESTUMMAH "the stars are used as the places for pelting fire mass on the devils"
obviously: "devils" == atoms, "pelting" == fusion, and thus we all all made of "star stuff"?
WTF?
Jeraminal 10 months ago
@darklightening100 : "the quran is the best source of arabic"
What?! As if it is possible to constrain Arabic to only the words in that one book! You are claiming that the words "automobile", "airplane", "vaccine", and "computer" are all somehow not worthy of being Arabic words, and you're using the internet to do it!
Ironic much?
Your premise is untenable. Languages that refuse to grow will be "steamrolled" by those that do.
Jeraminal 10 months ago
I have lots to say about but I`ll try to keep short and simple.
1-My younger brother was only for years old when he started reading(I am not makin it up,it is true).Thinking of archaic form of arabic writing in 6th century(without dots,wovels..)I am sure he was able to read arabic possibly hebrew as well.
2-I really cant see anything astonishing in the quran about embriology.I`d my childehood in a mountain village.I have seen so many dumped fetuses from slaugtered animals in differant phases.
KaraCarsafliGelin 11 months ago
(2)So the people had knowledge about human fetuses too.Women didnt rushed the hospitals when they had miscarriage(because there was no hospitals)I mean everybody was a bit embriolog in this sence.
3-Muhammad married to a cousin of probably the most educated may be most learned man of Mecca,Waraqa Ibn Nawfal.Most likely he lived very close to him(as all families which belong to same clan do,living in the same districh of the towns,for security and inheritance raisons).and saw him in a dailybasis
KaraCarsafliGelin 11 months ago
(3)
4-I have two friends one of them despite his universty degree he hates reading.When he needs to reed a book he asks a friend of ours to read it than tell him about.In return he always takes her to restaurants and buys some gifts.The conclusion muhammad possibly didnt like reading and writing (and I dont think he had much material to read or write on).
KaraCarsafliGelin 11 months ago
@darklightening100
If I said that the Moon is made of cheese would I be wrong? It's not a scientific statement after all, is it?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@darklightening100
>for something to be a scientefic error it has to be scientefic statement.
There is no such thing as "a scientific statement" only statements which are based on scientific facts. The verse in question is scientifically inaccurate. The Quran says that if it were written by man it would have errors in it, so it claims to be 100% error free and yet 18:90 and 67:5 are both scientifically proven to be in error.
But I don't expect your bias to allow you to accept it :)
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer 67.5 The verse does not mean that stars are pelted rather the obvious implication is the stars are used as the places for pelting fire mass on the devils. An analogy would better explain the usage. If, for example, someone says that the post will be made a torrent of bullets for the militants he obviously means that the place would be used to launch an effective assault on them.18.90 read some newspapers u will see sun rises and sets.
THEGREATESTUMMAH 10 months ago
@THEGREATESTUMMAH
Al Jalaylan disagrees, he thinks it means the shooting stars come from the stars.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer he agrees that stars are used as place by pelting.the arabic word used in the quran means a mass of fire,not necessarily shooting stars.he was a human being,he could have been wrong.
THEGREATESTUMMAH 10 months ago
@THEGREATESTUMMAH
In which case the Quran could have been more clear.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer If one were to seek the truth one would get it; if one were not to seek it, one would not get it. This principle is true both in case of total truth as well as partial truth.
THEGREATESTUMMAH 10 months ago
@THEGREATESTUMMAH
That is by no stretch of the imagination an answer to my comment.
If Al Jalaylan can think it means something detatches from a star and shoots down Jinn (and is clearly wrong) then the text in the Quran could have been more clear, could it not?
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer who said he is clearly wrong,he is absoulutely right when he says that stars are used as places for pelting,the disagreement is that he thinks shooting stars come down from stars.
THEGREATESTUMMAH 10 months ago
@THEGREATESTUMMAH
>who said he is clearly wrong
We have adorned the lowest heaven, the one closest to the earth, with lamps, with stars, and made them missiles against the devils, should they [attempt to] listen by stealth, in which case a meteor of fire detaches itself from the star, just like a brand is taken from a fire, and either kills that jinn or deprives him of his senses
An individual detachment when the Jinn listens in. Are you saying that is correct?
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer yes
THEGREATESTUMMAH 10 months ago
@THEGREATESTUMMAH
Can you explain to me then how this lump from the star manages to travel at LEAST 4.2 light years in an instant? Does Allah use its special powers to make the lump of star suddenly appear at the Earth's atmosphere to shoot down the Jinn?
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@THEGREATESTUMMAH
>Torrent of bullets.
Are you able to think for yourself, or only regurgitate what someone else tells you? Your example is a word for word copy of a less than adequate explanation by LearnQuranicArabic.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
I didn't say 18:90 was a scientific verse, I said it was a scientific error in the Quran. The Quran claims it is without error, but it is not.
It's not that there are no errors in the Quran, it's that there are no errors YOU WILL ACCEPT in the Quran.
Just like 67:5 says that stars are missiles to shoot down devils when in fact the closest star to our own is 4.2 light years away.
Try to destroy me all you wish.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@darklightening100
It would appear that you do not know the difference between being illiterate and being inarticulate.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@darklightening100
So before we continue, are you agreeing that illiteracy is completely irrelevant? Does this mean you will never again say the words "illiterate man" when talking about Muhammad because you now know it is not relevant?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@darklightening100
What has that got to do with being illiterate?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@darklightening100
Can an illiterate man not think up a beautiful poem? You are confusing being illiterate with being inarticulate. Being illiterate doesn't mean you are inarticulate, it just means some else has to write it down for you.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
Muhammad never recited his own work,not even once.He s got his biblical knowledge from his first wifes cousin Waraqa ibn Nawfal at least for 15 years may be more.And every time he screwed up he accused jews and christians for distorting their original scriptures and not having preserved the way god revealed them.
KaraCarsafliGelin 11 months ago
have you even read the quran? quran 18.86 is a sotry from a mans POV, so 4 versus later in surah kahf 18.90, it says
"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
now this does not mean the sun was LITERALLY rising on the faces of these people, just like 4 versus earler of the same story it doesnt mean the sun was LITERALLY setting in the water.
you dont understand the quran
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
I have read 3 translations of the Quran.
This is supposed to be Allah telling the story of what a man did, not the man himself telling the story. Only a human would say "he reached the place of the rising sun" because only a human at that time would have thought the Earth was flat.
Not a single scientific error you say?
You mean "Not a single scientific error I WILL ACCEPT"
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
like u say in your vid...so what? it is allah telling the story, and allah is explaining it from the mans POV, now what has that got to do with an error? by telling us what he saw it paints a better perception of his position. this is NOT AN ERROR!
tell me....does wuran 18.90 say the sun is LITERALLY rising on faces? if you say yes, then you cannot interpret information, if you say no...then you have to admit quran 18.86 does not mean LITERALLY setting either...so which is it?
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
It is an error because for it to be correct the Earth would have to be flat.
To be correct he only needed to say "Till when he reached A place when the sun was setting"
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
dont dodge the question, im saying if you think 18.90 is an error, where it says the man found the sun rising on the faces of people, now say it is obviously from his POV, so 4 versus earlier where it says he found the sun setting that is from POV. this is not in modern english..it is an arabic, and old english would be comparable at that time which you would not understand anyway. so it doesnt HAVE to say anything you claim. you cannot interpret this that is the problem
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
You are being subjective.
The sun can rise on the faces of people, because as it rises its light shines on their faces, that is perfectly logical.
The error is that the Quran says he reached THE place of the rising sun. This is impossible, it is a scientific error unless the Earth is flat - which is what many people at the time thought. No surprise therefore to see common misconceptions in a man made book.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
we have a sun RISE, and we have a sun SET. in the 2 versus, one is described as he saw the sun set, and one is described as he saw the sun rise.
"as it rises its light shines on their faces"
it doesnt say in the quran LIGHT shines on their faces...it says "he found it rising on a people". so basically you are using logic for verse 18.90, but not for verse 18.86 which makes no sense..one is a sun SET, other is sunRISE, its the same story from a mans perspective.
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Yes, we have a sun rise and we have a sun set. We do not have THE place the sun sets and THE place the sun rises.
The sun does rise on people every day, that is logical because it is related to a time and not a place. There is a time the sun rises which is relative to the people it is rising on. There is not *A* place the sun rises because this is absolute, not relative.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
when it comes down to it, both versus 18.86 & 18.90 are clearly being told from a mans point of view. if someone can understand this (which is not difficult if anyone reads it) then they can understand the quran is not making a sceintefic statement that the sun sets in water...as it would then also be making the statement the sun rose literally on the faces of people. you are going in circles now, it is 100% obvious you choose to misinterpret this verse
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
The FACT is that the man in the story did not travel until he reached THE place of the setting sun. It was thought at the time that the Earth was flat so this is exactly what a human would have said if he had made up the story, it is however scientifically incorrect, an error.
With just 1400 years scientific discovery I can improve it to be
"He travelled until the sun rose"
or
"He travelled far to the East"
It's a scientific error, that is a fact.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
you are typing in modern english, back then modern english never existed. so when you say "i would have said this or that"....no you would not have. go read old english and see if you understand it, then tell me how you would have said it
secondly, this is written in arabic not english, arabic is far advanced from the later modern english we use where words do not even exist to interpret exact arabic. it cannot be done. so you cannot improve anything
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
It's not about modern English. In Arabic it is possible to differentiate between "THE place" and "A place" - the Quran says "THE place."
Ibn Kathir explains it like so:
"means, he followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun's setting, which is the west of the earth"
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
yes but it also says "THE rising place" in verse 18.90...this is what im trying to get through to you. if you make a claim about verse 18.86 being literal...then you have to do the same about verse 18.90. but you claim 18.86 means literal...and 18.90 does not. this is hypocrisy and you cannot claim this. they are both either being scientefic (which they are not), or they are both from a POV (which its easy to see they are).
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
18:86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun - ERROR
18:90 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun - ERROR
I didn't claim either was correct. You mentioned "rising on people's faces" and I commented on your statement, not 18:86 or 18:90 - both of which are scientifically in error.
Does that make it clear?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
good im glad it took you 15 mins to come up with an answer. you earlier said 18.90 coudl say it..now you claim its an error. so you have gone back on what YOU said.
18.90"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
are you claiming the above verse is a scientefic statment rather then a point of vew? because if that had happenned those people would be dead
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Quote me
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
you said earlier
"The sun can rise on the faces of people, because as it rises its light shines on their faces, that is perfectly logical."
what does this imply? it implies your saying it was logical verse 18.90 saying the sun ROSE on the faces. so now your claiming its an error when earlier you said it was "perfectly logical"
prototype00000 11 months ago
No, it does not imply any such thing.
I was saying that YOUR phrase of the sun rising on people's faces is valid because that is a relative statement - the sun rises and casts light on the faces of people all around the world at a different time depending on where in the world they live. That makes sense and if it were in the Quran I would not object. THE place of the rising sun however is absolute not relative, it is wrong.
You failed to quote me because I did not say what you claim.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
you got caught out, there is no way you can backtrack. now once again i ask
18.90"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
are you claiming the above verse is a scientefic statment rather then a story point of vew?
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
No, I commented on YOUR text about the Sun rising on people's faces. If you claim I said otherwise then quote me.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
answer the question
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Your question is invalid unless you can show that I said 18:90 was correct.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
how is that invalid? it is a whole new question.
18.90"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
are you claiming the above verse is a scientefic statment rather then a story point of vew? it is a simple question..are you claiming its SCIENTEFIC...or POV??? dont cop out
prototype00000 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
18.90"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
are you claiming the above verse is a scientefic statment rather then a story point of vew?
prototype00000 11 months ago
there are no scientefic errors in the quran, so if one claimes he aquired information from somewhere else then how does it so happen an error was not included? how could someone go around selecting information others had and select whats correct and whats not 1400 years ago..it cannot be done.
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Jinn are made of fire : Go and ask a chemistry teacher why this is a scientific error.
18:86 - The only way you can have a PLACE of the setting sun is on a flat Earth.
Stop being blinkered.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
so how can you claim that is an error? this confirms you have very limited knowledge of the quran, it was from a point of view and if you bothered to read 4 versus later you would have known this. or maybe you cannot interpret it properly, you should seek help from an educated source to help you out
prototype00000 11 months ago
That doesnt answer the question, the prophet couldn't read and couldnt write fluently (his companions wrote letters for him) - but how could he produce the Quran.?
The Quran in Arabic is a special piece of literature, for a few reasons. It has an almost constant rhythmic poetic flow,that remains in context for many many chapters, yet we must remember verses were revealed seperately within 23 years and stitched together. The miracle is Mohammed an illiterate created a magnifficent book.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
If you watched my video and STILL quote Muhammad's illiteracy as being relevant then we have nothing to discuss.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer I need you to explain to me HOW Muhammad managed this masterpiece of literature given that it was revealed in tiny chunks within 23 years and how did it remain and manage to be consistent and flow in a way that shocked and suprised the best of poets in the Arabian peninsula, how did a man who never recited poetry suddenly recite beautiful original pieces of work, not to mention remember it with no evidence of writing it? I need answers from you before i accept your easy way out.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
Consistent? Shit man, have you never heard of the word "abrogated"?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer Abrogated? A few verses were abrogated to allow people to evolve into the faith, for example first drinking was okay, then not recommended and finally forbidden. This made most sense for a society that loved alcohol, they lost this habit not cold turkey, but gradually which makes perfect sense. Many people make the mistake of abrogation with no context. People think verses revealed in war, with hostile people abrogate verses revealed in peace with peaceful people, thats wrong.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
Yes, that's what is otherwise known as "a lack of consistency."
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer "Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.
As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arab literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. - Hamilton Gibb
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
And that's the best you can do? "It's a really good book".
Wow, what a miracle! Please forgive me for my lack of amazement, especially as someone who can only speak English.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer lol well it directly challenges your weak and lazy accusation - "he learned" the Quran is what you are implying. The Quran outright challenges people, non believers in many verses, to create a book such as the Quran before it was even completed.! The prophet spoke of the Quran as a completed book, even though his life was in constant danger, he knew his message was to be completed. I need examples of people who can barely read or write, producing a book honored & prized, go on.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
You are STILL talking about him not being able to read and write. We have nothing to discuss.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer Well her could BARELY read or write. I am not saying he was completely dumb and lost, nor 100% illiterate, i never even thought that in the first place, yet it is a fact his companions wrote the letters for him that he sent off to kings while he recited the letters. Yet i see you are taking the easy route, your accusation needs evidence, being that we need someone with a LOW level of literacy, to create a book as powerful as the Quran, they've have 1500 years to do it, so go on.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
The thing is, I do not need to prove where the Quran came from. Books are NORMALLY written by humans so that is the correct default position to take. If you think the Quran came from somewhere else then it is up to you to prove your claim.
Telling me it is the best book in the world is not good enough I'm afraid, especially considering I do not agree with you. I've read 3 translations, it's shit.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer It is shit to you because, well its in English and trust me, it loses its vigour. Even a non Arab, Non Muslim can listen the Quran and hear the true beauty within it. The Quran addresses the issue saying if it was revealed in another language, the challengers would ask WHY it came in THAT language, its just a pointless circle, the fact is i have heard the Quran recited in many other language - Indonesian, German, English, French, Bosnian, Chinese- its BEST in Arabic.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
So are you saying that Allah couldn't write a book that was beautiful in all languages, or are you saying he chose to reveal a miracle only to Arabic speakers rather than the whole world?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer Um, no that is impossible. Languages are different, some more beautiful than others, its impossible to have a book that sounds beautiful in other languages, or looks beautiful in other languages. Arabic is a unique language, for example in Arabic the first chapter is 30 words long, in English its 70 - in that case the more- the less...It gets lost in translation. Watch this short Surah below
/watch?v=sH3gI0sZ16k
Its simply gorgeous.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
>It's impossible for a book that sounds beautiful in other languages
Ah, so you are saying god is not all powerful?
The words "I love you" are beautiful in every language, because it is the meaning of the words which touch our hearts. *If* the Quran is beautiful in Arabic then it is merely the clever arrangement of the words - why couldn't god make the meaning beautiful too?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer OF course God is all powerful, yet he was put forth the laws of nature in this imperfect world, the law proves that we cannot have a beautiful word that sounds or looks beautiful in every language. The celever arrangement of words must have taken much practise, yet there is no evidence the prophet wrote his words, or pre-planned them, he'd utter them randomly on the spot. The meaning of the Quran is beautiful in many ways, but id understand it to be subjective for some.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
God could have pre-planned all languages so that the words in the Quran were beautiful in every language - or are you saying there is a limit to god's powers?
>I'd understand it (the Quran) to be subjective for some
And you think subjective miracles have any credibility?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer Well the problem with that argument, is that us as the human race do not know the capacity of perfection, if God perfected every language and we heard text in all languages and it was perfect, we wouldn't know it. The words in the Quran are beautiful in Arabic because they came from an Arab. The limit would be to peoples understanding, not Gods powers- we are imperfect & wouldn't know perfection. I never claimed the Quran is a miracle, though it is unique, special, beautiful.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
No I didn't say that god needed to perfect every language. I just said he only needed to ensure that languages developed in such a way that when the Quran (and only the Quran) was revealed it would be the only speech in existence that was beautiful in all languages.
>The words in the Quran are beautiful in Arabic because they came from an Arab.
I agree, they did come from an Arab. If they were from god I too would find them beautiful.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer Okay, im happy to understand your point of view. You can stand by your claim thats the prophet was literate and a learned man that somehow managed to produce this linguistic masterpiece. I though look at it in a much broader spectrum, stuff like that does not happen every day, people with low literacy do not come up with literal gems, it takes study, tests, knowledge, memory, and much thought power, the Quran is outstanding because it stands out from the rest, in a nutshell.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
My claim that Muhammad was literate? Where is that claim? Could it be the part where I say "I am not going to claim Muhammad was literate" perhaps?
The Quran is nothing exceptional. If it were then EVERYONE would think it is.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer Well no, but you claim he was learned, i think you need a certain amount of literacy to properly learn, to properly be articulate in your information, to be consistent and to recall past recitations, literacy and being learned go hand in hand, not only today but even back in the day, the human condition has barely changed since then, our requirements are similar in terms of our intelligence. The problem is that MOST dont read the Quran and THINK its terrible, cant please em all.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
>you need a certain amount of literacy to learn
Right. So are you saying Muhammad could not possibly have learned all of the stuff in the Quran?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer He could have learned the stuff in the Quran if he had a certain level of literacy, which historically speaking he did not. "Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet" (Quran 7:157). Unlettered means uneducated; untutored; and illiterate. Also you say Muhammad learned the Quran, but who taught him? The Quran touches on countless topics vastly different from one another. In order for him to present this vast information accurately and articulately he needs literacy.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
>He could have learned the stuff in the Quran if he had a certain level of literacy, which historically speaking he did not
Did Muhammad know the whole Quran from memory?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer As far as i know he did. His scribes would write down his revelations and his companions would eventually too know it all by heart. So memory does play a part in it, though we know the Prophet was orphaned at a very young age, put to work very young, no evidence suggests his education, he was a trustworthy person and had no evidence of mental illness, poetry recitation, deception of religious intolerance. His sudden Quranic recitations came indeed out of nowhere.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
>As far as I know he did
Did you even watch this video? Why are you presenting me with arguments that I address in the video?
You are essentially stating: Muhammad could not possibly learn the facts in the Quran unless he could read, however he could learn all of the Quran without being able to read.
Either he could learn a lot of stuff without reading or he could not, which is it?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer He could LEARN stuff yes, but the Quran is perfect in its presentation. It was how the prophet transmitted the message. He had minimal literacy, he could barely read or write, i think we agree on that. He could learn stuff without reading, but an unlettered person would fail in the presentation of their learning. An uneducated person could know a lot- but would struggle presenting it. The unlettered prophet knew a lot and presented it eloquently far beyond his capabilities.
ramio1983 11 months ago
@ramio1983
So you agree that he was perfectly capable of learning every word in the Quran. Good, now the next point...
>An uneducated person could know a lot but would struggle presenting it
Why? When people spoke to him did he struggle to present his thoughts because he could not write them down?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer Well, i wouldnt say perfectly capable, i havent seen a book out there that is 114 chapters long remembered back to front by many, another reason the Quran is brilliant is because its easy to rememb