einstein a jew?

[paarsurrey]

That has nothing to do with what david said. You just added another requirment. His poin was many religions make the same claim htf is anyone to know which is right

I thought that David's feeling were unnecessarily injured; so I wanted to tell that what Sumaidi has written does not conform to what Quran mention, in my opinion.

 

[sumaidi]

I have for several years an I still study it from time to time today. So yeah your not doing any good. Actual more harm then anything else

you will find the right way. verses in quran mention it, if some one really search in the of god, god promises he will find the way. 100% i'm sure you will find it if you really really do that. open mind.

 

[Iti oj]

i spent two years in deep studying and praying i gave more time to Islam then any other religion since i left my church. again none of this has anything todo with the op

 

[Iti oj]

I thought that David's feeling were unnecessarily injured; so I wanted to tell that what Sumaidi has written does not conform to what Quran mention, in my opinion.

thats a good point. but i think davids point would still work in this context

 

[paarsurrey]

is that right that many brilliant person in thinking come from jew? is albert einstein a jew? what about bill gates?

There is no harm if brilliant persons are from Jews; after all they are a part of the humanity.

 

[Iti oj]

There is no harm if brilliant persons are from Jews; after all they are a part of the humanity.

amen :yes: frubals

 

[Shadow Wolf]

i mean that living after dead is very very important thing to think. i think it the most important. a smart person should choose heaven than hell, aren't they? do you agree to call some one, who discover a big theory of relativity here but he burn in hell forever, as a smart person?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
I would say that indeed he was very intelligent. After all grasping the mathematical and scientifically concepts he did can be a very daunting and difficult task.

sorry friends, if you reject islam as a religion you will REALLY burn in hell forever. its not a joke. god has gave you brain to think. god has already sent messages and signs. why don't you think? are you really glad in hell with einstein? you will.
if you smart use the time to really study & compare the religions. if you really really search the right way, god promises to give the right path.

I have studied several religions, which I why I personally reject them all. I find it to be very arrogant and anthropocentric to believe that god made humans in his likeness and image, and to declare our species the pinnacle of creation when we may just be a prototype gone wrong. Although our desires for violence and bloodshed are congruent with the god of the Abrahamic religions.

friends, i invite you to also study about islam, from it holy book, qur'an. also hadith, so you can know about muhammad exactly. you know the information from the source not from people. because if you know it from people, it can be wrong.

Muhammad was just as much human as the authors of the Torah, the Old Testament, the Gospels, and Paul, assuming these people actually existed.

 

[sumaidi]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
I would say that indeed he was very intelligent. After all grasping the mathematical and scientifically concepts he did can be a very daunting and difficult task.


I have studied several religions, which I why I personally reject them all. I find it to be very arrogant and anthropocentric to believe that god made humans in his likeness and image, and to declare our species the pinnacle of creation when we may just be a prototype gone wrong. Although our desires for violence and bloodshed are congruent with the god of the Abrahamic religions.


Muhammad was just as much human as the authors of the Torah, the Old Testament, the Gospels, and Paul, assuming these people actually existed.

shadow, do you know that muhammad was uneducated person?. how could be an author. if you want to know about muhammad, i suggest you to read from hadith ( bukhari, muslim, nasai, tirmidzi, ibn majah, abu daud). if you read from book ( someone opinion), its not good choice. not pure

 

[Rakhel]

shadow, do you know that muhammad was uneducated person?. how could be an author. if you want to know about muhammad, i suggest you to read from hadith ( bukhari, muslim, nasai, tirmidzi, ibn majah, abu daud). if you read from book ( someone opinion), its not good choice. not pure

But aren't the hadiths written in a book, as well? And isn't their accuracy disputed? And what about the Sunnas? shouldn't they be read, as well?

 

[Iti oj]

I see my story was not good enough for the op

 

[sumaidi]

But aren't the hadiths written in a book, as well? And isn't their accuracy disputed? And what about the Sunnas? shouldn't they be read, as well?

my friend rakhel, ya hadiths written in a book. that right. but remember hadiths contain what people said about what muhammad has done, said, like and dislike. and its not opinion what about muhammad was. sunnas mean what muhammad do and said = hadith ( hadith contain sunnas ).
its accuracy? that's a good question. in hadith, its accuracy you can read / judge by knowing the person who the hadith ( rawee ) and the contain of hadith ( matan). that why there are hierarchy on its accuray, such as shahih ( best accuracy), hasan ( good accuracy ), dhaif ( weak accuracy ) ect. if its shahih we can believe it full, as it dhaif we doubt about its accuracy.

 

[Rakhel]

my friend rakhel, ya hadiths written in a book. that right. but remember hadiths contain what people said about what muhammad has done, said, like and dislike. and its not opinion what about muhammad was. sunnas mean what muhammad do and said = hadith ( hadith contain sunnas ).
its accuracy? that's a good question. in hadith, its accuracy you can read / judge by knowing the person who the hadith ( rawee ) and the contain of hadith ( matan). that why there are hierarchy on its accuray, such as shahih ( best accuracy), hasan ( good accuracy ), dhaif ( weak accuracy ) ect. if its shahih we can believe it full, as it dhaif we doubt about its accuracy.

"Contain what (other) people said about what muhammad has done, said, like and dislike." How is that not opinion?

And the person that wrote that hadith is dead, only to have his hadith was replaced by the opinion of what someone thinks the hadith says.

So it really wouldn't matter what I thought the hadith said because I would have a different opinion from you as to what that hadith said.

 

[sumaidi]

i give an example. imam bukhari as a hadith collector. he collected what people told about what muhammad did and said. he collected in a book name shahih bukhari. for example he got news (told about muhammad) from A, A got the news from B, B got the from C, C knew that muhammad has said like this ".....". ( .... = hadith contain). A, B, C are the rawees. imam bukhari investigated the rawees. is there any of them a liar, weak in memory ? if the rawees are honest one he wrote that this hadith shahih ( good accuracy) in rawees. this book ( hadith shahih bukhari) no contain of his (bukhari) opinion.

by the way what wrote above is good (... some one will always tell you 're wrong)

 

[sumaidi]

my friend rakhel, sorry i have to go to university here, im a lecturer in civil engineering dept. i will see your quote next time.
you are a good learner, i think you have to read the hadith ( ex. shahih bukhari) so that you can judge that its contain author opinion or not. thanks

 

[Rakhel]

i give an example. imam bukhari as a hadith collector. he collected what people told about what muhammad did and said. he collected in a book name shahih bukhari. for example he got news (told about muhammad) from A, A got the news from B, B got the from C, C knew that muhammad has said like this ".....". ( .... = hadith contain). A, B, C are the rawees. imam bukhari investigated the rawees. is there any of them a liar, weak in memory ? if the rawees are honest one he wrote that this hadith shahih ( good accuracy) in rawees. this book ( hadith shahih bukhari) no contain of his (bukhari) opinion.

We call this the "telephone game." A tells B "Jesse took the pen from Alice." B tells C, "Jesse stole Alice's pen." C then tells D that "Jesse stole Alice's pendant." D goes to E and says, "Jesse sold Alice's pen and paper."
By the time the message gets back to A, the message is no where near what A said.

by the way what wrote above is good (... some one will always tell you 're wrong)

Thank you. I figure it holds enough truth for both the believer and non-believer.

 

[gnostic]

But aren't the hadiths written in a book, as well? And isn't their accuracy disputed? And what about the Sunnas? shouldn't they be read, as well?

my friend rakhel, ya hadiths written in a book. that right. but remember hadiths contain what people said about what muhammad has done, said, like and dislike. and its not opinion what about muhammad was. sunnas mean what muhammad do and said = hadith ( hadith contain sunnas ).
its accuracy? that's a good question. in hadith, its accuracy you can read / judge by knowing the person who the hadith ( rawee ) and the contain of hadith ( matan). that why there are hierarchy on its accuray, such as shahih ( best accuracy), hasan ( good accuracy ), dhaif ( weak accuracy ) ect. if its shahih we can believe it full, as it dhaif we doubt about its accuracy.

"Contain what (other) people said about what muhammad has done, said, like and dislike." How is that not opinion?

And the person that wrote that hadith is dead, only to have his hadith was replaced by the opinion of what someone thinks the hadith says.

So it really wouldn't matter what I thought the hadith said because I would have a different opinion from you as to what that hadith said.

i give an example. imam bukhari as a hadith collector. he collected what people told about what muhammad did and said. he collected in a book name shahih bukhari. for example he got news (told about muhammad) from A, A got the news from B, B got the from C, C knew that muhammad has said like this ".....". ( .... = hadith contain). A, B, C are the rawees. imam bukhari investigated the rawees. is there any of them a liar, weak in memory ? if the rawees are honest one he wrote that this hadith shahih ( good accuracy) in rawees. this book ( hadith shahih bukhari) no contain of his (bukhari) opinion.

by the way what wrote above is good (... some one will always tell you 're wrong)

Some of those hadiths were written century or 2, after Muhammad's death.

And you have to admit, some of them are not considered authentic by Muslims. And the Sunni and Shiite also disagree with each other over which hadiths are authentic.

So I am not sure you can really say which deserve to be "canon" and which not.

I certainly would believe the ones where Muhammad went from Mecca to Jerusalem in a single night on a magical steed, and then another brief jaunt or visit to heavens. It is no more believable than Enoch visiting different levels of heavens from the 2 books of Enoch.

 

[sumaidi]

We call this the "telephone game." A tells B "Jesse took the pen from Alice." B tells C, "Jesse stole Alice's pen." C then tells D that "Jesse stole Alice's pendant." D goes to E and says, "Jesse sold Alice's pen and paper."
By the time the message gets back to A, the message is no where near what A said.

Thank you. I figure it holds enough truth for both the believer and non-believer.

ya that's rather the same. that's why its need the accuracy note. hadith no. 01 in bukhari, note: its shahih, no 02.... etc. imam bukhari as a rawee he search the info about about all rawees. he took miles on journey to meet all rawees. if the rawees allready died, he collected info about the rawees, that he a smart, honest, believable one or not?

sorry if my explanation is not clear. my english language so weak.

the best way to know hadith is you read the hadith your self. a set of shahih bukhari for example.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

You know, when I see threads like this, it makes me think more that Islam is nothing more than a practical joke played on the one once called "an *** of a man, whose hand will be against all and whom all will turn their hands against" or something like that.

EDIT: The joke is funny as hell, btw.

 

[sumaidi]

I certainly would believe the ones where Muhammad went from Mecca to Jerusalem in a single night on a magical steed, and then another brief jaunt or visit to heavens. It is no more believable than Enoch visiting different levels of heavens from the 2 books of Enoch.

sometimes in religion we can not 100% use our logic. our brain has it capacity to think. we can not solve problems that is out of our capacity.

if god sent muhammad in the speed of light, its need less than an hour to arrive at that far place isn't it? but this not mentioned both in quran and hadith. NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE to god.
do you think that is impossible little liquid (sperm) can grow and become a big creature just like you and me today?

 

[gnostic]

sometimes in religion we can not 100% use our logic. our brain has it capacity to think. we can not solve problems that is out of our capacity.

That's either wishful thinking or delusion. It is also using argument from ignorance.

(I hope you know what an argument from ignorance mean.)

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean god can do this "everything" of yours: "NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE to god".

And this:

if god sent muhammad in the speed of light, its need less than an hour to arrive at that far place isn't it? but this not mentioned both in quran and hadith. NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE to god.

...this is a perfect example of the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

It is pure pseudoscience. You either believe in magic or science fiction, and this doesn't help you to understand how seriously foolish you sound.

And unless you speaking metaphorically, a human being can't travel at the speed of light, without being literally fried. The more faster you go, the more mass you would need. You need to understand physics, especially the speed of light, or else you don't know what you're saying.

And BTW. If you could move Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem, then up to heavens, then all the way back to Mecca, then travelling at the speed of light, would take less than a second. Not an hour. Do the maths.

do you think that is impossible little liquid (sperm) can grow and become a big creature just like you and me today?

And here you're attacking the straw man (another logical fallacy).

Do I think it is impossible?

Know I don't. And I don't know why you would assume I would think it is impossible?

The process of conception to birth is a natural process - called reproduction. It required NO god for reproduction to occur. No divine intervention.

Here, you're confusing natural phenomenon with divine intervention.

All you needs to do is take a little time to understand biology, and study reproduction to know how sperm and egg form any creature, including humans, cause conception. There's no god's involvement.

It doesn't require a "god" or "magic" to how people or animal reproduce.