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.

Messages - Sama

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... 35
« on: March 03, 2018, 01:24:14 PM »
You are welcome Shaad.

« on: March 03, 2018, 01:21:13 PM »
The original video:

This man made many points and she refuted none.

« on: March 01, 2018, 05:08:01 AM »
Allah doesn't have to tell the truth.
That's wrong. He says the truth.

« on: March 01, 2018, 04:58:12 AM »
Can the so-called "Vestigial Organs" Be A Proof Of Neo-Darwinism ?
A vestigial organ, by evolutionary definition, is an organ that was once useful during a previous stage of your evolution for a supposed ancestor, but in the course of time, that organ was no longer needed, but continued to remain in the body.


1- Devolution Not evolution !

If vestgial organs would prove anything, they prove devolution, NOT evolution !
Darwinists claim that some of our organs are falling into disuse. Yet, in contrast, they provide us with no one NEW, developing organ. The "vestigial organs" idea, if it could be true, would only prove the opposite: devolution!

2- Not for survival !

Not all organs are necessary for survival,this doesn't mean they are useless!
You have 2 lungs, you need one to survive. You have 2 kidneys, you need 1/10 for survival. No one claimed the other lung may be 'just for fun'.
you will survive if your eyes and arms are cut out, and they are not "vestigial," or useless organs.

3- Causing problems ?!

people have far more problems with their lungs, hearts and stomachs, than they have with 'vestigial' organs. Almost any organ in your body can kill you if is it sufficiently diseased. How many people die of heart attacks vs. appendicitis? The heart, the physical or the spiritual one, is far more troublesome. If your lungs become infected, you can die but no one suggests removing the lungs as a preventive measure during surgery for another reason.

4- Affirming the consequent !

[If we ignored the fact that they actually prove devolution] For this type of argument to be used, one has to assume evolution to be true in the first place! So, if vestigial organs are obviously left over from our evolutionary heritage, then evolution must be true. Here evolution is assumed to be true in order to make the argument. This is a logical fallacy.


How did such an idea become accepted in the first place? It happened in a time of great ignorance. The whole idea of "vestigial organs" was originally conceived back in the early 1800s, at a time when physicians were still blood-letting in order to cure people of infection. But since that time there has been an immense quantity of research in every imaginable field. There is now no doubt by competent biologists that every large and small part of the human body has a special function during the life of the individual.

It strongly appears that the true "vestigial organ" in earlier times, was an ignorant mind; a mind that did not know why organs were in the body, and was too impatient and lazy to do the laborious work needed to identify functions. But we should not want to call ignorance a proof of evolution.

Just because someone doesn’t know the function of something, that does not mean there is none, which means:If none of our organs nor genes were "known" to have function, this wouldn't prove it's vestigial, It's more appropriate to say: Human don't know Yet!

Blechschmidt notes that
"no organ could exist that is functionless during its development," an axiom that also applies to the nervous system.(Blechschmidt, The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy, 91. )


Reputable scientists now recognize that the evolutionary teaching of "vestigial organs" actually retarded scientific knowledge for decades. Instead of finding out what the appendix was for, it was called "vestigial" and was cut out. Researchers were told it was a waste of time to study any possible use for it. For the same reason, lots of children have had their tonsils removed, when they really needed them!

"The existence of functionless 'vestigial organs' was presented by Darwin, and is often aced by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that 'vestigial organs' pride no evidence for evolutionary theory." *S.R. Scudding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. (May 1961), p. 394.

7- Lost primary functions !

Confronted with the fact that many previously thought to be "vestigial" organs, are now known to have functions , Darwinists made a funny conjecture that these organs "developed secondary functions", however, they didn't provide the scientific criteria to determine if a function is primary or secondary !!

8- Some known functions of some "alleged vestigial organs":

« on: February 25, 2018, 02:10:10 AM »
Do you refer to al-jamarat ?

« on: February 24, 2018, 07:29:56 AM »
Honestly, I have low vitamin D because I don't go outside often lol

Well, resort to other sources

Vitamin D [25(OH)D] serum concentration of 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L) was safe and would ensure the full benefit of vitamin D for older adults. Most babies need oral vit. D to prevent rickets. If you have deficiency, you may take pills.


"In the original Hebrew, the Ten Commandments don’t address coveting, so common renditions like “do not covet” or “thou shalt not covet” are mistranslations.

The Hebrew verb in the 10th commandment (or, for some, the 9th and 10th commandments) is chamad. As usual, we learn what the word means by looking at how it is used elsewhere.

The clearest case against “covet” is Exodus 34:24, which has to do with the three pilgrimage holidays, for which the Israelites would leave their homes and ascend to Jerusalem. Exodus 34:24 promises that no one will chamad the Israelites’ land when they leave for Jerusalem to appear before God.

It seems absurd to me to think that the Israelites were afraid that in leaving their land for a while, other people would desire (“covet”) it. After all, other people could desire the land whether or not the Israelites were around.

So it’s pretty clear that chamad doesn’t mean “covet” or “desire” there.

In Deuteronomy 7:25, we see chamad in parallel with “take” (lakach): “Do not chamad the silver and gold [of statues of false gods] and take [lakach] it…” Just from this context, the verb could mean “covet,” but other than our preconceptions of what the text should mean, we see nothing to suggest that translation. (By similar reasoning, it could mean “draw a picture of” or any number of other possibilities for which there is no evidence.)

Furthermore, the parallelism here suggests that chamad is like lakach. That is, to chamad is to take in some way, not to want in some way.

We find the same juxtaposition of chamad and lakach elsewhere. For example, in Joshua 7:21 we read “[Achan said,] `when I saw among the spoil a beautiful mantle from Shinar, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a bar of gold weighing fifty shekels, then I chamaded them and took them” (NRSV, my emphasis). Proverbs 6:25, too, puts the two verbs together. These examples further reinforce the close connection between chamad and lakach.

And in Proverbs 12:12, we see a pair of opposites: “righteous” and “give” versus “wicked” and “chamad.” So chamad seems to be the opposite of “give.”

All of these point in a clear direction: chamad doesn’t mean “covet” or “want.” It means “take.”

So the last commandment should read: “Do not take…”

« on: February 21, 2018, 10:59:46 PM »
Also it is not sutaible for hot desert.

Similar stupid claim was made by hypocrites: They are a fitting example of people with no will power. Numerous indeed are those who dislike to go through any hardship and turn away when they are required to make a real effort, preferring cheap comfort to noble effort and humble safety to a position of honour that involves taking risks. They collapse in utter exhaustion behind the rows of believers who move on with seriousness, knowing that the advocacy of the true message requires great sacrifices. Nevertheless, those believers march forth and pay little attention to the size of the opposition or the tough impediments they face, because they know that it is part of human nature to try to overcome impediments.

Those who remained behind rejoiced in their staying [at home] after [the departure of] the Messenger of Allah and disliked to strive with their wealth and their lives in the cause of Allah and said, "Do not go forth in the heat." Say, "The fire of Hell is more intensive in heat" - if they would but understand. (9:81)

The sūrah answers them coupling the truth with sarcasm: “They said [to one another]: Do not go to war in this heat.’ Say: ‘The fire of hell is far hotter.’ Would that they understood.” If they fear the heat of the summer and prefer the comfort of staying in the shade, how will they tolerate the heat of the Are of hell, when it is much more intense and longer lasting? Although this sounds like a remark full of derision, it only states the truth. The choice they had to make was between striving for a certain period in defence of God’s cause, tolerating the heat of the earthly summer or being thrown in hell for an extended period the length of which is known to God alone.

« on: February 21, 2018, 10:12:23 PM »
Vit. C has nothing to do with sunlight exposure,

There are two ways we get our vit. D other than exposure to sunlight: Diet and supplements.

In your diet, you can get a natural form of vitamin D3 from foods such as egg yolks (one yolk has 20 IU of vitamin D) and fatty fish (youll get 400 IU of vitamin D from 5 ounces of salmon). Alternatively, look for cereals, juices and other D-fortified foods to supplement your D intake. Milk, for example, is fortified with 100 IU per cup.

Muslim women can easily expose their bodies to sun as men do. They don't have to go out naked. Sunlight exposure can happen inside home too !

Does wearing hijab cause osteoporosis?

« on: February 21, 2018, 10:02:24 PM »
An Orthodox Christian priest praising the Muslim Women who observe the modest dress of Hijab and act morally upright.

British Muslim women who wear the hijab feel generally better about their body image than those who don’t wear the hijab suggests research published in the British Journal of Psychology.

The research, conducted by Dr Viren Swami from the University of Westminster and colleagues looked at body image issues amongst British Muslim women.

Dr Swami explained: “In the West anxiety about body image, for women, is so prevalent it’s considered normal. This study aimed to explore how these attitudes differ within a British Muslim community.”

A total of 587 Muslim women aged from 18 to 70 years from London participated in a number of tests. From this group 218 women stated they never used the hijab and 369 women said they used some form of the hijab at least now and then.

Participants undertook a number of questionnaires that asked them to rate their own feelings of body dissatisfaction, how much pressure the media put on them to be attractive and how religious they were. They were also asked to match their own figure to a set of female silhouette images that ranged from emaciated to obese.

The results showed that women who wore the hijab generally had a more positive body image, were less influenced by the media’s beauty ideals and placed less importance on appearance.

Dr Swami said: “Although the results showed only a small difference between those who wear or don’t wear the hijab it does suggest the hijab offers Muslim women a small protective effect in terms of feeling positive about their body image. It appears that those who choose to wear it are better able to distance themselves from the Western thin ideal.

“These results may have useful implications for intervention programmes aimed at promoting healthier body image among Muslim women in the West. For example, by identifying those aspects of hijab use that are associated with more positive body appreciation in future studies, it might be possible to isolate factors that can be targeted in intervention programmes.”

The journal, entitled “Is the Hijab Protective? An Investigation of Body Image and Related Constructs Among British Muslim Women”, can be accessed here.

The Society publishes 11 academic journal titles in conjunction with our publishing partner Wiley-Blackwell. The British Journal of Health Psychology publishes original research on all aspects of psychology related to health, health-related behaviour and illness across the lifespan. Visit the Wiley online library for more information.

Society members can access via PsychSource, our searchable journals, books and multimedia database, developed in partnership with Wiley-Blackwell. Abstracts are free to all, full-text free to members.

« on: February 21, 2018, 09:59:33 PM »
 Asalam Alaikum

Muslim woman who follows Islamic dress code consider themselves free from being judged by her physical features, but rather to be judged by her character. What important is their intellectual and personality, and not the discrimination for their beauty. While women always emphasize on their beauty to fulfil the standard of attractiveness set by men, Muslim women set themselves free from being such a display object , but rather consider themselves as humans who have an exclusive right over themselves.


First and foremost, we must wear hijab because Allah has commanded us to do so: "O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should caste their outer garments over their persons (in abroad). That is most convenient, that they should be known and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Qur'an, 33:59].

" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and their ornaments except what appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty..." [Qur'an 24:31].

We must obey Allah because He created us to obey Him: "I have only created jinn and man that they obey Me." [Qur'an 56:51]. Therefore, being Muslim means to obey Allah whatever He commanded us to do. We know that whatever Allah has commanded us to do is for our own benefit and it does not profit nor harm Him.

Some of the benefits are:

a) We are protected from sexual attention. Have you noticed how women who beautify themselves and walk down the street get a lot of sexual attention? The West says that it is not the women's fault that she is sexually molested and rapped. And that it is her right to dress as she pleases. But it is her fault for enticing the offender and his fault for committing the crime. Both are at fault. When a Muslim woman is fully covered, she will not get the sexual attention. She may get attention at first out of curiosity but this is not the same as sexual attention, for sexual attention is the dangerous one.

b) Society is not corrupted by evils. It is common knowledge, even amongst Western psychologists who would admit it, that man is a sexual creature. When he sees a beautiful woman, he will get sexual urges. You can just imagine what happens to a society with so many women flaunting their beauty around! Where will these men (and women) go to fulfill their urges? Look around your society - rape, pedophilia, buggery, gayism/lesbianism, adultery, broken homes, mistresses etc - all sorts of indecency arises. A'uthubillah! We seek refuge with Allah from such vulgarity!!! At the other extreme, when women's beauty is seen as a common thing because it is everywhere, people will get bored with it and therefore want to try something different - hence, homosexuality, buggery etc. A'uthubillah! We seek refuge with Allah from such horror!!! So it does not matter whether a woman is in mini skirts or in loose clothing, as long as she is not totally covered, her beauty is still seen. Have you noticed how a change in hairstyle can beautify a person? Or how long, beautiful, not-so-clinging clothing actually accentuates the body? If you have seen those 'make overs' you will understand that it is the hair, make-up and clothing that beautify the person (superficially of course).

c) Promotes modesty. Women don't become slaves to their vanity. They don't compete with each other and 'bitch' over it. This is not to say that wives don't try to look good for their husbands. In fact, they should because this is the norm: the woman and man makes her/himself beautiful for her/his partner. What makes more sense? A woman who beautifies herself for the all and sundry to see but does not do so inside her home for her loved one, or a woman who beautifies herself for her husband and covers and protects herself from the eyes of the world?

We pray that this has helped. May Allah guide you.

« on: February 19, 2018, 05:22:39 PM »
jazakum Allahu khaira

« on: February 19, 2018, 06:43:10 AM »

If you have further points, kindly explain them because I don't watch anti-Islamic videos.

« on: February 19, 2018, 06:40:30 AM »
Wa alaikum assalam

can you explain it. I don't know anything about it.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... 35

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube