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 - mokko

Pages: 1 [2]
I do not see how the "scientific miracles" of your website are any different from those of Virgil’s Georgics’:

However, I would certainly agree with your "under-message": faith and science should not be opposed, Muslims should not abandon Islam in order to become good scientists, quite the contrary, they can find strength inside their faith, Muslims have the potential to do better than the Nasa....but unfortunately, the path you've taken to exemplify those claims is not correct.

I shall say that your work is counter-productive, in order to attract reasonable people to find some truth in the Quran.

But I am afraid that we have to accept that we do not live in the same mental world, and that trying to establish channels of communication between the two is a waste of time.

This is a quote from the link that you gave.  Mr. Ramanujan might be a mathematical genius, and an expert in Calculus and Differential Equations, and has a great analytical mind, but he is not Messenger of GOD Almighty. 

I understand you to mean that Ramanujan was too smart to be trusted as receiving "external" revelation. Ramanujan should have been intelligent enough to produce his revelation "internally". Nice compliment for Muhammad's intelligence (i do not share this view).

I don't think you really read with care what I wrote to you, Mokko.  The Glorious Quran's Miracles in Science and Mathematics are what NASA and the Computer Age of today have begun to unveil.  And Allah Almighty made it very clear that He put those Miracles in the Holy Quran as a proof to Its Divinity.

So again, why don't you bring your best argument against the Holy Quran's Scientific Miracles and see if our Holy Book is Miraculous or not?

My second best argument is that proofs are built on precision and clarity. If science did not pay attention to precison, it would split into sects, like some religions. I am sorry to say that your "miracles" are not precise enough to be useful for ordinary people. Most science is made by ordinary people, not geniuses, and these people need straightforward proofs, step-by-step arguments, like children. Otherwise, they do not understand. They are too dumb to read between the lines accurately.

If you can find the receipe of a drug against cancer in the Holy Book, it would be nice to share it. Ibn Kathir did not. This proof is not sufficient for you?

My best argument is: if you seriously believe in your theory, apply it yourself: use Allah's knowledge to solve hard scientific problems (you have plenty of choice), unveil them before the Nasa does, and believe me, many people will follow your method, as there is a lot of money at stake.

Example: here: you say that the speed of light can be determined from the verse: [Quran 32.5] "(Allah) Rules the cosmic [btw, do we find the word "cosmic" in the arabic version?] affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count."

I honestly do not see how this verse could have anything to do with the speed of light. But maybe you have better ijtihad skills than me, and in this case, you can help the world:  can you tell us how to predict the three-dimensional structure of a protein from its amino acid sequence?

Do not wait until someone else solve this problem, in order to tell us which verse to read, and how to interpret it. Millions of lives are at stake (cancer, viruses...), it is an emergency.

Up to now, the most famous application of this kind of method is Ibn Baz's famous proof, in 1969, that the earth was flat. He carefully read hadith and Quran, and did not care about "non-Islamic" information. In short, Ibn Baz conducted what doctors call a "blind experiment" (!).

It is enough to show that this "knowledge" does not produce interesting results. Maybe tomorrow, with a better method of ijtihad (out of reach with today's knowledge), some Muslims will do better. After all, it is not impossible: science also needs confidence and inspiration.

I do not get the whole point of "re-inventing the wheel" with the Quran.

It would be more interesting if, for example, you could use the Quran to make new scientific discoveries. In science, any inspiration is welcome.

In this matter, Ramanujan did much better: without any training in mathematics, he had divine visions of unknown and precise mathematical formulas (you cannot apply the adjectives "precise" and 'unknown" to your theory), which were latter proved to be correct. His visions are still a source actively used by the math community.

However, it did not lead many people to convert to Ramanujan's religion. What about you? Would you convert to his religion, given its greater "scientific miracles"?

So I am not sure that vague verses that anyone can, a posteriori, twist the way he wants, could get a better treatment.

It's just that no one here really cares about these old lame and boring arguments that are presented by agnostics and atheists and Islamophobes.  The Glorious Quran is the Divine Miracle of Allah Almighty. (...)

I am not sure that what you affirm is really incompatible with the Geschwind syndrome explanation (moreover, this explanation does not imply that he was "crazy", I insist). It was precisely the point of my post. You did not reply to it, nor anyone else.

My post was fully consistent with your "scientific miracle" project: I just asked if it was possible to re-read Quranic verses in light of scientific discoveries on Geschwind syndrome.

An angry and reactive attitude usually does not help in understanding the subtelties of an argument.

However, I will follow your advice, and look for a community that better suits my values and attitude.

Muhammad is the last prophet.


"Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing." (Qur'an 33:40)

1. what are the reasons that make you accept Muhammad and reject White, rather than the other way? do you have any?

Consider all the arguments that Muslims usually give to Christians, in order to make them accept Muhammad, and apply them to the case of Ellen White.

2. By the way, your "ijtihad" is very unclear. See also: "And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger; when their Messenger comes, the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged. (Qur'ân 10:47)"

Since the "epilepsy explanation" of Allah's revelation has not been rejected yet (see my older post), here is an interesting question:

do you accept that Ellen G. White (7th day adventist), whose case looks similar, but in the 19th century, also received her revelation from Allah?


I really don't feel it is necessary to list each point and the link of the article that directly refutes it.  I'll leave that to the reader to sort through.  Our website has literally 1,000s of articles and rebuttals.  There are well over 1,000 rebuttals to direct attacks on Islam on the website.  And your links above give at least 200 points against Islam.  It'll be massive to list each one of them here and the link that refutes it.

Therefore Mokko, like brother Egyptian suggested above, can you please list your top 5 to 10 points that you feel should be a concern to Muslims regarding Islam?  I think this will be far more realistic and will enable us to engage the topics in more details and more fairly.

I look forward to interacting with you on this.

Osama Abdallah

Thank you for these links (indeed, wikiislam seems to be a kind of mirror of answer-islam). I am currently focused on one point, see my thread on epilepsy. Feel free to discuss it.


1- Affirming the Quran (or the word of God) as a miraculous sign , without trying to understand ,upon what basis it is a sign ,is a clear indication of unconditional faith.

I am not asking for a basis for this claim, but for a precision of its meaning. It is a different approach. For example, consider the statement: "the sky is blue".

basis: "I saw it". My experience is a basis for my claim.

meaning: "sky=what lies above the surface of the earth"  "blue= radiation of wavelength 450–495 nm". Therefore, one possible precised meaning is: "what lies above the surface of the earth emits a radiation of wavelength 450–495 nm".

Without some knowledge of (elementary) physics, I could not give a more precise meaning of this statement.  I am not giving a basis to the statement, I am just giving a (hopefully) more precise formulation, that could help other people understand it.

Likewise, my statement in 2) in the first post is an attempt to precise the meaning of the claim "the Quran is a sign of Allah", it does not give a basis for it.

2- I don't think it is correct to say "Islam happens to be very similar to the Ebionite doctrine" ... not only the Islamic view of Jesus conflicts with the Ebionites' views regarding the virgin birth ,the crucifixion ,the resurrection but also the thing that seems that they share Islam with "Jesus humanity " is not exclusive to them but there are other Christians "Unitarians" who denied his divinity as well.

Certainly, and it would be interesting to see what kind of doctrines Muhammad heard about (since his childhood, because human memory can be kept in the unconscious). For example, do we find somewhere allusions to Paul the Apostle's doctrine? (the most influential version of Christianity). It would be interesting, but it is not my main point in this thread.

thank you for the link, i will read it.

PS: Egyptian, you wanted to discuss a specific point, I raised one on another post (on "Quran, miracle and epilepsy")

I would like to know what precise sense you can give to the statement "the Quran is a sign of Allah". I have 2 possible meanings:

1) It is just a miraculous sign. Affirm it, but do not try to understand this statement further.

2) Muhammad received Allah's revelation by way of a Geschwind syndrome (a form of epilepsy) (, or a similar rare mental condition, which explains his hyper-religiosity, hyper-morality, hyper-graphy, deep intuitions  ( and also visions of angels (  ). Moreover, his revelation happens to be very similar to the Ebionite doctrine (, a doctrine held by the cousin of his wife, Khadija ( ).

The statement in 2) is not incompatible with an Islamic conception of miracles (e.g. to count as a miracle, a phenomenon does not need to contradict explanations from science, medicine, or history.

Muhammad was certainly of good faith, he was certainly not a poet nor a liar, far from that. He received revelation from Allah (by the way, note that this term has never-ever been defined with precision by anyone, without inducing plenty of logical paradoxes, which might also be the sign of some deep truth), not out of his own conscience. Muhammad was certainly justified in believing his revelation, and in propagating it, especially because Wikipedia was not accessible in Arabia in the 7th century (his wife was his only source of information, and she did not have internet at home).

which meaning do you prefer? 1) or 2)?  Is 2) "un-Islamic"? Why? Do you have another meaning?

thank you for your replies. QuranSearchCom, I look forward reading your refutations, and discussing them.
Egyptian, I am certainly not an expert of the field, so I may not be the best partner for discussion now. I prefer waiting for the replies of QuranSearchCom, before digging into the subject (however, my personal preference is that you can leave aside biology, and focus on simple logic and physics (simple physics: where the sun hides after sunset, flat earth..., not the big bang) ).

His replies will be useful for everyone: indeed, I did not find any website replying to the objections found on Wikiislam (not even a blog), and I was just surprised.

However, I agree with you that the tone of Wikiislam is not very friendly. It is their mistake, but I am sure that you will be able to focus on healthy questions and objections about this faith. Some people do not hate anyone, they just want the truth.

I am looking for a refutation of some arguments found on the Wikiislam website. I am especially interested to find refutation of those arguments:'an

I want a refutation that addresses the substantive truth or falsehood of a matter.

I insist that a refutation is different from threats (example of threat: "those who believe this website will be punished") and different from attacks (example of attack: "those who wrote this website are bad and stupid people")

I just want honest and serious arguments, thank you.


Pages: 1 [2]

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