Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - mclinkin94

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
It has been stated in Answering Islam that "Although, as we shall discover later, the presence of the number 19 in the Quran as presented by Dr. Khalifa, is impressive". Obviously the Answering Islam article had non-numerical objections to it, but nevertheless, they assert there is a vast presence of the number 19 in the Quran.
I think the only solution is for me (and you) to study this and see whether such a code exists in the Quran.

It just seems rather odd that an anti-Islamic site that is meant to refute Islam testified to the truth of the Code 19 in the Quran...there must be something serious to it and requires serious study.

In this life, we judge others negatively (even by not speaking to them). We think about them, we call them names--we judge negatively.

I've know someone who was an atheist before he became a Muslim who found more comfort in atheism. This person had a mental illness known as social anxiety. Social anxiety is when you fear everyone's judgement of you and you are nervous in social situations. It is not something rational nor normal. The only cure for it is to go through cognitive behavioral therapy. The atheist was afraid of people judging him as pathetic because he gets too nervous and shaky in social situations. He is unable to find a girlfriend or mate because of his nervousness and he was unable to find a job.

The Atheist found it more comfortable to be an atheist than a Muslim and that is why it took him so long to become a submitter to Allah. As an atheist, he didn't care about anyone's judgement because he was able to tell himself: "The universe will cease to exist and all will be forgotten". This means that there is no reason to care about anyone's negative judgement of you in this life as everything will be forgotten. It was actually his psychologist who asked him of his faith and told him that on his belief system, negative judgement won't matter as everyone will turn to dust and bones and they will forget about you completely! The universe itself will die out.

The Atheist found that quote extremely comforting as he didn't care about anything in the world. He was simple, he lived his life. He realized that everyone's judgement doesn't matter and fear is irrational as everything will cease to exist one day.

But there was a dark thing going on in his heart. He was uncertain whether there is an afterlife. If there was an afterlife, then all WON'T be forgotten as everyone never really dies. He was on the verge of accepting Islam but he couldn't because it would bring his social anxiety back.

His logic is that since everyone will be resurrected, then people won't forget about his negative judgement and he will be remembered forever. People will remember how pathetic he was in this life forever. So he can't find Islam comfortable and it pushes him away from Islam.

This is a really big problem that I think we should address in this research center. We should prove that in the Quran, paradise will be a place where everyone will forget about your life in the temporary world and won't care except for your religious deeds.

We all know that NOTHING in this world matters besides your relationship with Allah and your deeds. We all know that your wealth, your relationships, your life besides your religious deeds will be forgotten.

I think it would be beneficial to write something explaining to him that all will be forgotten in Islam just like atheism, but except your deeds towards Allah. And also it would be beneficial to describe paradise to him and how there will not be any negative judgement therein.

we had an existence at some location (or in some state) prior to our 'physical' birth. (Our physiological state is different from our spiritual state (nafs)). We took a primordial covenant with God at some point before our physical birth (7:172, see also 33:72). This is where our 'innate' belief of some kind of Creator comes from (our 'fitrah'). We also find a reminder of this in verse 57:8. Then we were put to sleep (1st death). We were then given life in our physical state (1st life). We will then be tested in our lives where God will show us His signs in multifaceted forms. We will not be left without purpose (75:36). We will then pass away, 29:57 (2nd death). On the day of resurrection (on the second 'calling' 39:68, 79:6-7) we will be brought back to life (2nd life).

As you can see there are two 'deaths' and two 'lifes'. This understanding also finds some support from the following verse:

"They say: Our Lord! Twice have You made us die, and twice have You made us live. Now we confess our sins. Is there any way to go out?"

Here is an inspirational video about this subject matter:

I found this amazing graphic. I don't think I could have explained this better in words. A flow chart! Why didn't I think of that!

Here is a link incase your computer screen isn't big enough for the picture:

One of the biggest arguments for Quran only Islam is the fact that it has been made plain in the Quran that it's verses are the only verses to be believed in:

[Quran 45:6] These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?

If I write a book and say "These are my sentences which I write to you, do not believe in anything besides my sentences", then I would be CLEAR that the sentences in MY book are the only things to be followed. The above verse uses the word "these" meaning these Quranic verses are the only statement pertaining to Islam that we could believe!

Now sunni and shia muslims say, "oh, when Allah says that these Quranic verses are all that we can believe in, he does not really mean that these are the only verses we can believe in". Well then, let me ask you this. If you were Allah and you wanted to make it clearer that the Quran;s verses are all that we could follow, how would you write this verse differently? How would you better say that these verses are all that we could believe in?

Now that (above) is the strongest argument for Quran-Only Islam! It has been made plain, you cannot hide behind the fact that the Quran makes it clear that you will only follow the verses that are in the Quran.

Now the second strongest argument for Quran-only Islam is that Allah has not mentioned in the Quran the sunnah when he could have. Here is the perfect verse to talk about the sunnah:

Say (O Muhammad), "What is the greatest testimony?" Say, "God is witness between me and you that this Quran has been inspired to me to warn you with it and whomever it reaches." 6:19

This testimony which God describes as "Akbar Shahada" (the Greatest Testimony) commands Muhammad to testify that He received the Quran from God. This testimony speaks of only one revelation received by Muhammad from God which is the Quran. If Muhammad truly received other revelations from God (other than the Quran), would we not find any mention of it in the Quran? Would God hide the fact that He gave Muhammad a revelation independent of the Quran and then command us to obey it?

Wouldn't this verse be the perfect place to mention the other alleged revelation that Muhammad received for mankind?

In the next post, I will post MANY verses that are great places for Allah to even mention the sunnah or at least hint at it.

Many times people list scientific facts without realizing their implications. Many people make arguments but fail to see the philosophical implications of such an argument.

This is an example of how an atheist presented facts that shoots his world view in the foot:

Their article can be found here:

They claim that the Quran does not charge the people of the book with corrupting their scriptures. I will post their main points that make up a summary of the Article and I will refute each point in each successive post.

Their points are:

  • The Qur'an never charges that the Jews and Christians have physically corrupted their scriptures. It states that they have 'changed words from their right places/context (with their mouths)' and 'concealed parts of the message given to them'.
  • The Qur'an claims to verify the books that they have with them. This precludes the possibility that the People of the Book had corrupted scriptures in their possession at the time of Muhammad. The language used in the Qur'an confirms that the whole texts were intact and 'verified' by the Qur'an. Since we have Biblical texts that pre-date Islam, that match what we have today, we know that today's scriptures are the same as they were in and before Muhammad's time.
  • We know that Allah is 'verifying' both the Taurat and Injil; telling Christians and Jews to check their specific scriptures to 'judge by what Allah has revealed.'
  • Both the Jews and Christians were literate peoples who knew their scriptures.
  • Qur'an 2:79 when read in context clearly states that the illiterate people were writing the book 'with their own hands' and claiming it was from Allah. Since we know the people of the Book were literate, these verses are not referring to them.
  • Consider the evidence: The Qur'an never says the physical scriptures of the previous revelations are corrupt (since we have precluded 2:79). If the previous scriptures are not corrupt, what do we do if the Qur'an contradicts the message of the Bible?

In the next several posts, I will go and refute each point.

***I just wanted to make a quick laugh at point #5 that the wiki-Islam article makes. If you haven't noticed, it is claiming that illiterate or unlearned people can write a book with their own hands! LOL! Seems like a very valid interpretation of the Quran  :P***

« on: May 29, 2014, 06:19:10 PM »
I can't seem to get my point across on the proper method to interpret the Quran! If I can't do this, then they can never understand the Quran.

They say that we cannot interpret the Quran without the "infallble Imams" and they cite Quran 3:7. Quran 3:7 just says that only the people of knowledge can interpret the allegorical/hidden meanings of the Quran--and this is obviously true. The #19 miracle is hidden, the rose like paint thing in the Quran can only be understood if you have cosmological knowlege etc. But these shia seem to insist that only imams and religious gurus have the right to tell you that the true meaning of the Quran.

I argued:

1.) The Quran says it has all the details and that Allah explains the Quran and that the Quran explains itself (example: Allah says " "See how We explain the verses that they may understand." (6:65) and we don't need some extra source or some imam telling us what it says Thus Allah revealed verses which provided Tafsir of other verses themselves. If we needed some other source to explain the Quran, Allah would have made the prophet Muhammad write an entire tafsir of every Quranic verse--but that didn't happen. Rather, Allah himself explained the Quran through the Quran.  What remained ambigous in one verse, its clarification and exegesis was provided by Allah Himself by the gradual descent of other verses of the Qur’an. Hence Allah provided the Tafsir of the Qur’an by the Qur’an itself, and did not make His Book dependent on any compilations of traditions for its exegesis. It is by this manner that Allah gave the Tafsir of His Book to the messenger and the messenger inturn conveyed to his audience. The messenger did not give any separate book of Tafsir to the Ummah as the Tafsir of the Qur’an which he imparted on the Ummah was contained inside the pages of the Qur’an itself."

2.) Imams are not infallible as if they were, they wouldn't be contradicting each other. One must be wrong, fallible, eh? Plus, I cannot believe the extent of Idol worship these people have

Should I just give up on them. It seems like people will never stop believing in anything they don't want to. Let me just say that if I was like that, I would have never became a Muslim in the first place.

Just look at this shia clown who thinks there is a hidden meaning in the Quran that contradicts what it clearly says! He calls it "esoteric".

The link is at a specific time, but I cannot believe that a shia can think that the Quran has some kind of hidden meaning and that the Quran STATES that Jesus was not crucified even though it made it clear!!!!!!  :-[ --This is just because some Imam told him so.

In general, the Quran and Allah do not support turning women into tents.

Before presenting the Quranic rules for women's dress, it is essential to be reminded of the following:

1- The Quran is the only source of law that is authorised by God (6:114).
2- The Quran is complete and fully detailed (6:38, 6:114, 6:89 and 12:111).
3- God calls on His true believers to make sure not to fall in the trap of idol worship by following the words of the scholars instead of the words of God (9:31).
4- God calls those who prohibit what He did not prohibit, aggressors, liars and idol worshippers (5:87, 6:140, 7:32, 10:59).

I will very briefly simplify the argument against women covering their whole body or everything except their face. It is very important to state that true Islam is derived from the Quran and not from the culture of the original/current Muslim people.

The strongest argument against this whole scene of head-covers is the fact that there are no words in all the Quran where God commands the woman to cover all her body. We must accept that the Quran has all the details (6:114), and that God does not forget. If God wanted the woman to cover all her body from the neck to the feet God would have said that clearly. Those who make such un-Quranic claims cannot find words in the Quran with such extreme commands, so they manipulate Quranic words, mainly in 24:31 and 33:59, to comply with their false claims.

It is important to state the word Hijab in the Quran does not refer to the same thing that modern muslims call Hijab. The word 'hijab' appears seven times in the Quran (7:46, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17). None of these 'hijab' words are used in the Quran in reference to what the traditional Muslims call today 'hijab', that being the head cover for Muslim woman!

Historical background of hijab: The 'hijab' is an old Jewish tradition that infiltrated into the hadith books like many innovations that contaminated Islam through the hadith. Any student of Jewish traditions would know that the head cover for the Jewish woman is encouraged by the Rabbis and religious leaders. Here is a jewish rabbi discussing this: Many Jewish and Chrstian traditions have entered into our hadiths. One prominent one is the myth of the antichrist or the "dajjal" nonsense.

The Arabic word khimar means cover. Any cover can be called a khimar, such as a curtain, a dress. A table cloth that covers the top of a table is a khimar. A blanket can be called a khimar and so on. The word khamr, which is used in the Quran for intoxicants, has the same root as khimar. Both words mean that which covers. The khimar covers a window, a body, a table and so on, while khamr is that which covers the mind. Traditional translators, obviously influenced by Hadith and culture, claim that khimar in 24:31 has only one meaning, and that is veil or hijab. Thus, they mislead women into believing that 24:31 commands them to cover their hair! The correct meaning of the word khimar can easily be verified by consulting any Arabic dictionary.
In 24:31 God is telling women to use their khimar (cover/garment), which could be a dress, a coat, a shawl, a shirt, a blouse, a scarf and so on, to cover their cleavage/bosoms.

The Quranic proofs:

[Quran 24:31] "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts, and not to reveal any of their ‘zinatahhunna’ (beauty spots) except what normally shows, and to draw their ‘khumurihhinna’(their khimars) over their ‘juyoob’ (cleavage/bossom)"

There are 2 parts of the above verse that make it clear.

For a start, we note that the words ‘head’ and ‘hair’ are not found in 24:31.
In addition, we must differentiate between two components in the wording of 24:31.
God says to women to draw their khimar (garment) over their cleavage/bossom. Here we have:

1- The subject of the command, which is the cleavage/bossom
2- The tool, which is the khimar.

The command is only obligatory in relation to the subject and not the tool.
If the obligation was for the tool as well God would have said:
“cover your hair and cleavage with your khimar”
God is not short of words, nor is God vague in the commands He decrees for us.
God will hold us accountable on the Day of Judgement to the commands He gave us, so it is not rational to imply for one moment that God would give us vague commands which lack precision and certainty.

In the above verse, notice the first underline: It is saying that you should cover your adornments except what normally shows/normally apparent!

The immediate question is: what are the parts of the body which people (in general) and women (in particular) normally cover, and thus would be described as "normally apparent"? When we have defined what is normally covered, it follows that the remaining parts of the body are what is referred to as "normally apparent", or normally uncovered. In general, people cover the following:

1- People cover their private parts in order to maintain righteousness (7:26). For women this would include all parts of the body which have sexual connotation such as the private parts, the backside, the chest, thighs and so on. It is for this purpose that God commands women in 33:59 to lengthen their garments so as not to be too revealing.

2- People also cover their bodies in order to keep warm. In warm climates people would only cover what is included under item 1 above, which would be the minimum clothing required but also with maintaining righteousness, while as in colder climates people would cover more of their bodies depending on the severity of the weather.

The above two points define what parts of the body would normally be covered under the words “normally apparent”.
To imply that the words “normally apparent” mean all the body, as some Imams preach, is yet another manipulation of God’s words.
If God wanted the woman to cover all her body God would not have bothered with words such as the “cleavage” "bosoms" (in my first underline) nor with “what is normally apparent”! God would have simply said “cover all your body”. But for God to single out specific parts of the body for covering is the proof that God never required women to cover all their bodies.

The fact that God says in 24:31 to specifically cover the breast indicates clearly that there are other parts of the woman’s body that do not have to be covered.

If God wanted the whole body of the woman to be covered, God would not have bothered saying "cover your chest" since an overall command to cover all the body would be a more appropriate command, and it would also be the only command that is needed. But since God specifies certain parts of the woman’s body to be covered, then this is clear proof that here are other parts of the woman's body that do not have to be covered, as long as the are not beauty spots of sexual connotation (zinah), and as long as righteousness in dress is maintained (7:26).

"O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. This is better so that they will be recognized and not molested. God is Forgiver, Merciful." 33:59

The command to "lengthen the garment" also proves that the woman is not commanded to be all covered from head to feet. For if that is the case, and the woman is covered down to the ground, there would be no meaning to “lengthen the garment”. How can the woman lengthen a garment that is already down to the ground?

I hope this will help you expose the extreme hypocrites who are distorting the beautiful religion of Islam.

For the sake of brevity, I will stop here. I will answer further questions/comments in this thread.


Summary of the above arguments:
  • 1- There are no words anywhere in the Quran which command women to cover all their bodies. Those who preach such un-Quranic rules cannot find words in the Quran to justify this extremity, so they manipulate various words in 24:31 and 33:59 to justify the falsehood.
  • The fact that God says in 24:31 to specifically cover the bossom indicates clearly that there are other parts of the woman’s body that do not have to be covered.To elaborate on the indication of the words in 24:31, let us ponder on the following example:

    Think of your house and in it you have a garden. You have gardener who comes to look after your garden. One day you tell the gardener: please water the area under the big tree and also water the back of the garden.

    What does this example tell us?
    It tell us that since you specified only areas to be watered, then this is a clear indication that there will be other areas in the garden that are not to be watered. If you wanted the gardener to water the whole garden you would have asked: please water the whole garden.

    When we apply this example to the issue of women’s dress code in the Quran, the same principle applies. If God wanted the whole body of the woman to be covered, God would not have bothered saying "cover your chest" since an overall command to cover all the body would be all that is needed to say. But since God specifies certain parts of the woman’s body to be covered, then there are other parts that do not have to be covered, as long as they are not beauty spots of sexual connotation and as long as righteousness in dress is maintained.
  • The command to "lengthen the garment" also proves that the woman is not commanded to be all covered from head to feet. For if that is the case, and the woman is covered down to the ground, there would be no meaning to “lengthen the garment”. How can the woman lengthen a garment that is already down to the ground?

    I hope this will help you expose the extreme hypocrites who are distorting the beautiful religion of Islam.

Remember: God calls those who prohibit what He did not prohibit, aggressors, liars and idol worshippers (5:87, 6:140, 7:32, 10:59).

This is not a debate post. If you want to debate me about my Quran-Only stance, go here: ",1570.0.html"

My Question is what are the differences in the science of hadith collection between the sunni hadiths and the shia hadiths. What makes the shia think their hadiths are better and what makes the sunni think their is better?


Christian women sentenced to death for apostasy. I urge you to read the comments and see how people feel about this sentence. This sentence is found in the LIES of hadiths. In the lies that the prophet has received another revelation besides the Quran and another source of law especially when the Quran explicitly says it is the ONLY revelation and the ONLY source of law for Islam!

Another sick twisted agenda followed by the disbelievers that follow hadiths. The prophet would be absolutely disgusted by this and he would ashamed of all of these hadith following "muslims". I find it hard to even call these hadith following kaffirs Muslim.

The QUran even predicts this:

The Messenger will say, my Lord, my people have deserted this Qur’an. (25:30)

Indeed Allah and the prophet will be ashamed of his people during judgement day. This means that the QUran predicts that people would have taken another source of law besides the Quran. Do you want to be one of these people?

Punishment for Apostasy in the Quran? NOPE.

The Quran clearly states there are those who believe then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve again. This proves death for apostasy simply did not exist, because if it did, it would be impossible to believe again after unbelief, as they would have been put to death after the first unbelief:

Surely (as for) those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, God will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path. [4:137]

This is further proven by the following verse:

How can God guide a people who have rejected after believing, and they witnessed that the messenger is true, and the clarity had come to them? God does not guide the wicked people. [3:86]

The Quran states, in no uncertain terms, that there is no compulsion in religion:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most sure hand-hold, that never breaks. And God is Hearing, Knowing. [2:256]

The Quran states that God could have made all those on earth believe, thus asks who is man to enforce such a thing if God did not:

And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers? [10:99]

The Quran states there were those who believed part of the time, then disbelieved part of the time in order to confuse and sow discord amongst the believers of the time. If death for apostasy existed, no sane minded person would attempt to do this as they would be killed the very first time they tried it:

A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back. [3:72]

Please also see the clear example set out in 4:88-91, in which the believers are told to offer peace with those who became hypocrites/apostates (i.e. were Muslim in name only but did not follow through with action during hostilities/fighting in this case) if they also offer peace.

To conclude, it is clear that 'death for apostasy' does not exist in The Quran. People are free to believe and live their lives accordingly or not. If a community or system or any structure deprives its members of this basic freedom, it will produce hypocrites and suppressed people who have no strength of belief or goals to work for and will likely result in a weak system or community. Freedom of belief is the air that healthy and just communities breathe.

The most important thing is to realize that if there is any other commandment besides the Quran, you do NOT follow it. The Quran has made it clear it is the only source of law:

”Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?” The Word of your Lord is complete in truth and in justice” 6:115

There is a growing trend in modern society for people to be naturalists. Naturalism is the belief that the natural world is all there is and that there is nothing beyond the natural world. This viewpoint leaves no room for God nor anything outside of the natural realm. My major point here is that belief in naturalism is unjustified!

Naturalism uses a tool known as science. It is actually like a form of scientism which states that the world is governed by only natural laws and that there is nothing beyond the natural (observable/detectable/verifiable) universe.

It is unreasonable to say that things could exist beyond the natural world. This is because we cannot know about such things as we can only observe/detect/measure/verify ONLY things that exist in the natural world. If there is something that we cannot observe/measure/verify/detect, then we wouldn't be able to perceive it. So if it is possible that there are things that we cannot perceive, how can we deny the existence of those things?

Science requires the use of things that we could experiment on/test. Science is all about detectability / observability / verifiability. Now the question is, what if there is something that we cannot measure/observe/verify/detect? Science cannot answer if such things exist so it cannot be determined that such things exist as per naturalistic explanation because the nature of the entity is not within the scope of science/naturalism.

To restate, science deals with things we can observe/measure/verify/detect. If something is timeless/space-less/transcendent and it created space-time (and matter and energy), then it cannot be observed/measured/verified/detected! Things we can observe/measure/verify/detect are only things that exist in the Universe.  God by definition is the creator of the universe, space, time, matter and energy! This means that he is not composed of such things and that he is outside of the universe (transcendent). God exists outside of the universe and the scope of science includes only things that exist in the universe therefore God's existence is beyond science's scope.

The premises could go like this:

1.) The scope of Science/naturalism includes only things we can detect, observe, measure, or verify
2.) We cannot detect, observe, measure, or verify things outside of space-time (matter, energy, time)
3.) Therefore things outside of space-time are not within the scope of naturalism

Premise 1 and premise 2 are universally agreed by all scientists and philosophers. So the conclusion follows, therefore there is no good reason to support naturalism.

With this in mind, we cannot discover anything outside of naturalism's scope. So it is no surprise that we cannot discover God. It is because God is outside the natural world. He created the natural world. How can we observe God is he is outside of space-time and all we can observe have to exist within space-time?

An analogy to the belief in Naturalism would be that of a deep sea fish. Imagine a blind deep sea fish state that "nothing exists beyond the deep ocean, the deep ocean is all there is". The fish is clearly wrong as we do exist beyond the deep sea. not only that, the Fish's belief is unjustified. How could it state that nothing exists beyond the deep ocean if it cannot observe things outside of the deep sea. Just as the deep sea fish is unjustified, we are unjustified in stating that nothing exists beyond the universe. How can we state that if we cannot observe anything beyond the universe (space-time, matter, energy), they do not exist?? The deep sea fish is unjustified in its belief and atheists/naturalists need to understand that their belief is just as unjustified. They need to make more rational and modest claims about reality and the world.

Conclusion: Naturalism and Anti-super-naturalism is an unjustified position.

This should also defeat the idiotic claim that "God doesn't exist because we don't have physical evidence for God". Of course we don't have physical evidence for God. We can't, he is outside of space-time therefore outside the scope of science. We can't measure anything beyond space-time/matter/energy.

It is no surprise that we get naturalistic explanations for the natural world and that we don't get naturalistic explanations of the super-naturalistic world.

Hello brother Osama, I haven't done my research on this topic so I do not have a position.

Let me be the first to say that I would have no issue calling anyone a kaffir when it comes to denying even one verse in the Quran, so I do not think I would be denying a Quranic verse. The issue is though, are these 2 verses Quranic verses? Have they been revealed to us by Allah? I ask this because you have done an extensive study on this 19 code of the Quran and I'm wondering your opinion. Why don't these verses fit within the code? I've read many things and many oppinons so far, but I haven't done any actual research on this topic. Some say these 2 verses are false verses, others say they aren't. But, since you've looked at the 19 miracle and studied it, what do you think of these verses?

I will be looking into this soon. This is what I have found so far about Allah preserving the Quran.

"Indeed, it is We who have brought down the Reminder (Quran) and We will preserve it." 15:9

It is noteworthy here to emphasise that God promises to preserve the Quran and not the "mushaf", the mushaf is the printed Quran.

A confirmation of this issue can be seen in the variations of certain words in the Hafz and Warsh versions of the Quran. The different spelling of a number of words between these two widely accepted versions of the Quran demonstrates that God does not preserve what humans print, but only preserve the Quran which can be accessed by all humans and which is preserved through the code of the Quran.

The Quran is called "mahfooz" (preserved) only in the master tablet with God (85:21) and not in the paper copy printed by humans.

[Quran 85:21] But this is an honored Qur'an, [Inscribed] in a Preserved tablet.

^This is one oppinion. The other opinion is that these verses mean that Allah will defend the Quran that humans have in their hand.

I currently hold no position because I am not in the right place to judge this. I need to look more into this.

Thanks for your help!

Maybe you could reconcile these verses with the 19 code. d

Quran Morality and Moral Code, Laws & QA / Is Hell eternal?
« on: February 25, 2014, 11:27:35 PM »
I wanted to get your views on this.

I also wanted to show 2 articles that suggest hell isn't eternal:

What is very odd is that the first article claims it is written by Osama at the end..But it is not in answering Christianity.

Just wanted to give you a scientific viewpoint of this Quranic consistency


(Qur'an, 23:12) We created man from an extract of clay.

(Quran 32:7) Allah is He who has perfected everything in which he has created, and He began the creation of the human (being) out of clay

Humans were created from clay in stages and Allah has perfected his creation.

(Quran 64:3) ...{Allah has} formed you and perfected your forms

(Quran 71:17) And Allah has caused you to grow from the earth a [progressive] growth.

We were nothing but clay. And we grew from that a progressive growth. Compare to the scientific findings!

Life's molecules originated from Clay, the first cell formed and it has evolved into many species including humans. Where is our origin? Our origin is from an extract of clay. Check out the links and look at their references to read the peer reviewed article they site!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5