-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question about 28:4 to Muslim posters
- Thread starter TG123456
- Start date
OK, let's go by only what the Quran says and ignore the Tafsir.
The verse states that Pharaoh made the people into factions.
We know however that the people of Egypt existed as factions long before the Exodus story allegedly took place.
I understand, but what type of factions are you talking about? religious faction? political factions? social factions? profession faction? physical factions? spiritual factions? managerial factions? or what exactly?
They existed as social factions, as there was a class system in place. If there were Hebrew monotheists in Ancient Egypt at that time, there also would have been religious factions, since there would be different religions and I doubt the Ancient Israelites would have taken part in Ancient Egyptian festivals where the Pharaoh was "deified".
What kind of factions is the Quran talking about?
That's the thing. The Quran didn't specify what sort of faction. Allah emphasize the injustice that was implemented, that's why you can see in the following verse:
{5} وَنُرِيدُ أَنْ نَمُنَّ عَلَى الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَنَجْعَلَهُمْ أَئِمَّةً وَنَجْعَلَهُمُ الْوَارِثِينَ
And We wished to be gracious to those who were being depressed on the land, to make them leaders (in faith) and make them heirs,
That means Allah condemned the injustice that was done on dividing people in a way that will take advantage of some of them by oppressing them and promised to end their misery.
For example today you can see in the US that there are the 1% rich and the middle class then then poor/homeless. There was also another way in the US of dividing people in the past based on race as White and Black. So, the Quran didn't mention how many section there was but mentioned that because of this system a group was oppressed and justice needed to be served.
I hope that answered your question.
True, but the Quran's author also stated that the Pharaoh of the Exodus "made" the people of Egypt into factions. If we look at the chronology presented in the Quran, the only two possible choices of Pharaohs who would have fit into the narrative would have been Tuthmose III and Ramses II. Neither of them made Egypt into a place where some people were living well and others were treated unequally. It was like this before their time.
This is an awesome example. You brought up the fact that in America there is both a class and a racial divide, and you are very much correct.
Imagine if someone wrote "Barack Obama made the people of America into factions". It would be completely mistaken. The racial and class divide certainly continues under his presidency, but he in no way "made" things this way- they existed as such before he was elected.
It was great discussing, but I think the problem remains.I hope that answered your question.
Did those who were before the Pharaoh which the Quran mentioned also slaughter the sons of the people at that time? If it is so kindly provide a source to support that. It's interesting to me as well since this will give a chance to search more about this topic which i didn't read about in details before.
Imagine if someone wrote "Barack Obama made the people of America into factions". It would be completely mistaken. The racial and class divide certainly continues under his presidency, but he in no way "made" things this way- they existed as such before he was elected.
It was great discussing, but I think the problem remains.
I agree with you, if things were done even before Obama becomes a president then he didn't make them.
Actually, there is no record anywhere in the history of Ancient Egypt of any ruler doing what the Bible and Quran allege Pharaoh did, ie enslaving a group of its own residents because of their ethnicity/religion and waging an infanticide. This for me makes the story very suspect. There were slaves in Ancient Egypt, but the majority of them were foreigners who were brought in as prisoners of war.Did those who were before the Pharaoh which the Quran mentioned also slaughter the sons of the people at that time? If it is so kindly provide a source to support that. It's interesting to me as well since this will give a chance to search more about this topic which i didn't read about in details before.
There were also those Ancient Egyptians who were enslaved for committing crimes, or because they fell into debt. However, a Pharaoh deciding to enslave a whole segment of people living under his rule due to them being foreign, has no precedence either before or after Ramses II or Tuthmose III.
The first time there is any mention of the enslavement of Hebrews residing in Egypt is found in the Book of Exodus, which was written some 600 years after these events allegedly took place.
However, notice that 28:4 doesn't merely say that Pharaoh slaughtered the sons of a segment of his people- it states that he made the people into factions and then it continues by saying what he did- ie oppressing a sector among them and killing their newborn sons and keeping the women alove.
28:4
Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters.
Ramses II may have committed the widespread infanticide of Hebrew babies, but even if he did, that didn't mean he made the people into factions. They existed as factions already prior to the killing of Israelite babies.
Ancient Egyptian society was highly polarized. The chasm between rich and poor appears to date back to pre-dynastic times [2] and grew more pronounced with the passage of the centuries [4]. Juan José Castillos of the Uruguayan Institute of Egyptology in Montevideo bases his conclusions on the disparity between the numbers of large, sumptuous tombs and of simple graves during the Naqada I period and later: Except for occasional local discontinuities that occur due to ecological, economic, or political events, Pre-dynastic Egypt evolved steadily into a more stratified society without great disruption. [1].
From the unification of the country onward, a diminutive rich upper class ruled with the help of a small scribal administration over the masses of Egyptian workers and peasants living barely above subsistence level, soaking up most of the surplus the labour of the workers produced. This development reached an apex during the beginning of the pyramid age, when the building of the royal tombs and mortuary temples required the effort of the whole nation, setting the pharaoh apart from the other members of the upper class. It was followed by a decline in the wealth and power of the pharaohs and their families and by the rise of the local nobility during the late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period. After the 12th dynasty monarchs gained power over the country, they relied heavily on the services of the scribal class which remained the mainstay of authority throughout pharaonic history.
Labour
... manual labor is little elevated; the inaction of the hands is honorable.
Precepts of the prefect, the lord Ptah-hotep
This largest part of the population consisted mostly of peasants and farm labourers, generally despised by their superiors. How free they were throughout history is unknown, but there are documents which seem to imply that many of them lived in a state similar to that of the serfdom known in the European Middle Ages. Slaves, not as utterly without rights as they often were in other slave-owning societies, were relatively few in numbers, and it is debatable whether they should be looked on as a different social class.
Other commoners, be they farmers or artisans, were their own masters, possessing homes and land, buying and selling belongings and produce as they saw fit. They employed servants and workers and were at times even masters of slaves, but most people worked at least to a certain extent under some kind of supervision by scribal officials belonging to some estate, temple, or state administration.
Literacy marked the dividing line between the proletariat and the upper classes, but it was seemingly less rare among members of the working class than had been assumed in the past. Certain groups needed knowledge of hieroglyphs, e.g. artists who had to copy sacred texts correctly onto tomb walls and coffins [8]. Hieratic was also known. Quite a number of inscribed ostraka were found at the New Kingdom village of Deir el Medina dealing with everyday matters. The study of reading and writing became easier and probably more widespread with the introduction of the Greek alphabet by Hellenistic settlers in the last centuries of the first millennium BCE and its adaptation for the writing of Late Egyptian, Coptic.
The differences in wealth and status among these commoners were considerable, even if they dwindle into insignificance when comparisons with the upper classes are made: At Kahun (Hotep Senusret) built during the Middle Kingdom flat sizes in the workers' quarter were between 50 and 80 m², at the New Kingdom settlement Deir el Medina the average flat covered 80 m², the smallest flats measured about 50 m², and the largest, probably those belonging to the foremen and village administrators, 160 m².
The social classes in ancient Egypt
Some more evidence of the social classes Ancient Egyptians were divided into, from an essay by Dr. Okhon, from the University of Calabar, Nigeria.
As a policy, Pharaoh owned all the land, was the commander-in-chief of the army and controlled the irrigation system. Social inequality was rife in Ancient Egypt. The society was divided into three broad classes.
In the upper class, there priests, the court nobility, and the landed nobility. While the priest presided over religious ceremonies, especially burials, the court nobles served as government advisers, while the landed nobles managed their large estates. The upper class lived in affluence "with palatial homes, with luxurious furnishings, elaborate gardens and sumptuous food (Wallbank et al, 30,31).
The middle class was made up of skilled artisans, rich traders, teachers, artist, doctors and scribes. Scribes, who served as letter writers, occupied an important position in Ancient Egypt, because of the low level of literacy.
The lower class was made up slaves and peasants. "The slaves were usually prisoners of war. Like the peasants, they worked on farms, irrigation systems, roads and building projects. The peasants were heavily burdened by taxes and forced labour, had few political rights." (Wallbank, 31).
Religion and Politics in Ancient Egypt, Etim E. Okhon, Ph.D
http://www.scihub.org/AJSMS/PDF/2012/3/AJSMS-3-3-93-98.pdf
Great.I agree with you, if things were done even before Obama becomes a president then he didn't make them.
Now imagine if Obama for some reason passed some laws that the income gap between Americans greater than it already is, or that under his presidency the Jewish Americans found themselves in the same socioeconomic situation that many African Americans were already living in.
Would it be truthful to say that he had "made" the people of America into factions, or did factions exist already prior to these new groups of people also facing economic discrimination?
Looking at American history, you will know that during the Second World War, many Japanese Americans were put into internment camps. As this was happening and prior to this, African Americans were facing racial and economic discrimination. Would it be truthful to say that the President who put the Japanese Americans into internment camps "made the people" of America into factions? Or did they exist like that before this crime was undertaken?
Actually, there is no record anywhere in the history of Ancient Egypt of any ruler doing what the Bible and Quran allege Pharaoh did, ie enslaving a group of its own residents because of their ethnicity/religion and waging an infanticide. This for me makes the story very suspect. There were slaves in Ancient Egypt, but the majority of them were foreigners who were brought in as prisoners of war.
There were also those Ancient Egyptians who were enslaved for committing crimes, or because they fell into debt. However, a Pharaoh deciding to enslave a whole segment of people living under his rule due to them being foreign, has no precedence either before or after Ramses II or Tuthmose III.
The first time there is any mention of the enslavement of Hebrews residing in Egypt is found in the Book of Exodus, which was written some 600 years after these events allegedly took place.
However, notice that 28:4 doesn't merely say that Pharaoh slaughtered the sons of a segment of his people- it states that he made the people into factions and then it continues by saying what he did- ie oppressing a sector among them and killing their newborn sons and keeping the women alove.
28:4
Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters.
Ramses II may have committed the widespread infanticide of Hebrew babies, but even if he did, that didn't mean he made the people into factions. They existed as factions already prior to the killing of Israelite babies.
Ancient Egyptian society was highly polarized. The chasm between rich and poor appears to date back to pre-dynastic times [2] and grew more pronounced with the passage of the centuries [4]. Juan José Castillos of the Uruguayan Institute of Egyptology in Montevideo bases his conclusions on the disparity between the numbers of large, sumptuous tombs and of simple graves during the Naqada I period and later: Except for occasional local discontinuities that occur due to ecological, economic, or political events, Pre-dynastic Egypt evolved steadily into a more stratified society without great disruption. [1].
From the unification of the country onward, a diminutive rich upper class ruled with the help of a small scribal administration over the masses of Egyptian workers and peasants living barely above subsistence level, soaking up most of the surplus the labour of the workers produced. This development reached an apex during the beginning of the pyramid age, when the building of the royal tombs and mortuary temples required the effort of the whole nation, setting the pharaoh apart from the other members of the upper class. It was followed by a decline in the wealth and power of the pharaohs and their families and by the rise of the local nobility during the late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period. After the 12th dynasty monarchs gained power over the country, they relied heavily on the services of the scribal class which remained the mainstay of authority throughout pharaonic history.
Labour
... manual labor is little elevated; the inaction of the hands is honorable.
Precepts of the prefect, the lord Ptah-hotep
This largest part of the population consisted mostly of peasants and farm labourers, generally despised by their superiors. How free they were throughout history is unknown, but there are documents which seem to imply that many of them lived in a state similar to that of the serfdom known in the European Middle Ages. Slaves, not as utterly without rights as they often were in other slave-owning societies, were relatively few in numbers, and it is debatable whether they should be looked on as a different social class.
Other commoners, be they farmers or artisans, were their own masters, possessing homes and land, buying and selling belongings and produce as they saw fit. They employed servants and workers and were at times even masters of slaves, but most people worked at least to a certain extent under some kind of supervision by scribal officials belonging to some estate, temple, or state administration.
Literacy marked the dividing line between the proletariat and the upper classes, but it was seemingly less rare among members of the working class than had been assumed in the past. Certain groups needed knowledge of hieroglyphs, e.g. artists who had to copy sacred texts correctly onto tomb walls and coffins [8]. Hieratic was also known. Quite a number of inscribed ostraka were found at the New Kingdom village of Deir el Medina dealing with everyday matters. The study of reading and writing became easier and probably more widespread with the introduction of the Greek alphabet by Hellenistic settlers in the last centuries of the first millennium BCE and its adaptation for the writing of Late Egyptian, Coptic.
The differences in wealth and status among these commoners were considerable, even if they dwindle into insignificance when comparisons with the upper classes are made: At Kahun (Hotep Senusret) built during the Middle Kingdom flat sizes in the workers' quarter were between 50 and 80 m², at the New Kingdom settlement Deir el Medina the average flat covered 80 m², the smallest flats measured about 50 m², and the largest, probably those belonging to the foremen and village administrators, 160 m².
The social classes in ancient Egypt
Some more evidence of the social classes Ancient Egyptians were divided into, from an essay by Dr. Okhon, from the University of Calabar, Nigeria.
As a policy, Pharaoh owned all the land, was the commander-in-chief of the army and controlled the irrigation system. Social inequality was rife in Ancient Egypt. The society was divided into three broad classes.
In the upper class, there priests, the court nobility, and the landed nobility. While the priest presided over religious ceremonies, especially burials, the court nobles served as government advisers, while the landed nobles managed their large estates. The upper class lived in affluence "with palatial homes, with luxurious furnishings, elaborate gardens and sumptuous food (Wallbank et al, 30,31).
The middle class was made up of skilled artisans, rich traders, teachers, artist, doctors and scribes. Scribes, who served as letter writers, occupied an important position in Ancient Egypt, because of the low level of literacy.
The lower class was made up slaves and peasants. "The slaves were usually prisoners of war. Like the peasants, they worked on farms, irrigation systems, roads and building projects. The peasants were heavily burdened by taxes and forced labour, had few political rights." (Wallbank, 31).
Religion and Politics in Ancient Egypt, Etim E. Okhon, Ph.D
http://www.scihub.org/AJSMS/PDF/2012/3/AJSMS-3-3-93-98.pdf
Great.
Now imagine if Obama for some reason passed some laws that the income gap between Americans greater than it already is, or that under his presidency the Jewish Americans found themselves in the same socioeconomic situation that many African Americans were already living in.
Would it be truthful to say that he had "made" the people of America into factions, or did factions exist already prior to these new groups of people also facing economic discrimination?
Looking at American history, you will know that during the Second World War, many Japanese Americans were put into internment camps. As this was happening and prior to this, African Americans were facing racial and economic discrimination. Would it be truthful to say that the President who put the Japanese Americans into internment camps "made the people" of America into factions? Or did they exist like that before this crime was undertaken?
From your main source:
Ancient Egypt: an introduction to its history and culture
Instead of an introduction: A word of caution
This site is based on what is considered more or less orthodox chronology, which of course means that there are other, 'deviant' chronologies. On the whole I prefer the plodding examination of facts however few and poorly understood to the flights of fancy of some of the alternative historians. Chances are it gets us a bit closer to the truth, which, unless time travel is invented, we will never know [2].
For many occurrences there is very little evidence, but whole edifices of connections, interrelations, influences and causes have been constructed by serious, well meaning experts often on the flimsiest of grounds.
That means they don't know everything and will never be able to because they can examine what evidence they stumble upon but they will never claim to know EVERYTHING happened at that time.
I don't think we can ever claim to know the truth about everything. The Book of Exodus makes some historical errors, by inflating the number of Israelites to higher than any population of that region could have been at the time. We don't know everything we need to know about Ancient Egypt, but we know enough to know that such a statement is not true.
We do however know that factions in Ancient Egypt existed prior to Ramses II. We know this because we know that his father, Seti I, had slaves.
Many slaves laboured on the estates of the pharaohs, the nobility and the priests. Seti I announced on the Wadi Halfa stela how he had endowed Min-Amen's temple at Buhen, so that his storehouse was filled with male and female slaves from the captivity of his majesty, L.P.H. Ramses III is said to have given 113,000 to the temples during the course of his reign.
The slaves who found themselves serving the royal family [14] or the nobility were generally the lucky ones. Their life was often less hard than that of the native peasants. The children of a few of these slaves, foreigners or Egyptians, who had exceptional ability, made themselves indispensable to their masters and rose to high positions in the bureaucracy or married into their former owners' families after being set free.
Ancient Egypt: Slavery, its causes and practice
You stated earlier that when the Quran's author wrote "factions"
That means Allah condemned the injustice that was done on dividing people in a way that will take advantage of some of them by oppressing them and promised to end their misery.
Obviously, a society where slaves existed and peasants were treated badly (in fact in some cases worse than the slaves), people were divided in a way that some were being taken advantage of.
However, neither Ramses II or Tuthmose III "made" this situation. Ancient Egypt was like that long before they assumed power.
We will never be sure 100% of what happened at that time. They were historical events. Some incidents were recorded and some incidents were not. I'm not sure how familiar you are with historical studies but no one worth the knowledge he attained ever claim to know everything about any period anytime.
They just try to investigate based on the *available* evidence they have then they build the scenarios as they discover more and more about it. Sometimes a new discovery can change everything.
For example, our Christian brothers say that Jesus was crucified, but with the new revelation, the Quran, God told us the truth already, which is that he wasn't crucified and wasn't killed. That's the guidance of Quran which was revealed by God. So, just because historians and archaeologists are yet to discover everything with 100% certainty, that doesn't make the Quran in question. You can question the Quran if you are sure of something as a fact 100%, but not with interpretations of a science which depend on discoveries and connecting the dots rather than direct facts.
They just try to investigate based on the *available* evidence they have then they build the scenarios as they discover more and more about it. Sometimes a new discovery can change everything.
For example, our Christian brothers say that Jesus was crucified, but with the new revelation, the Quran, God told us the truth already, which is that he wasn't crucified and wasn't killed. That's the guidance of Quran which was revealed by God. So, just because historians and archaeologists are yet to discover everything with 100% certainty, that doesn't make the Quran in question. You can question the Quran if you are sure of something as a fact 100%, but not with interpretations of a science which depend on discoveries and connecting the dots rather than direct facts.
Let me give you one more example. I'm not sure if you ever read about it but if you googled the Dmanisi Skull of Georgia, you will be astonished to read that this single discovery might be a turning point for evolution theory. You can read more about it below as well:
This skull may have just rewritten the book on human evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/s...y-rewrite-humans-evolutionary-story.html?_r=0
Dmanisi skull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does this skull rewrite the history of mankind? 1.8 million-year-old remains suggest all human ancestors belonged to the SAME species but just looked different | Daily Mail Online
Peace be upon you.
This skull may have just rewritten the book on human evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/s...y-rewrite-humans-evolutionary-story.html?_r=0
Dmanisi skull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does this skull rewrite the history of mankind? 1.8 million-year-old remains suggest all human ancestors belonged to the SAME species but just looked different | Daily Mail Online
Peace be upon you.
Salaam Alaikum, TashaN.
We can be sure there were Pharaohs in Egypt. We can also be sure that prior to the Pharaoh of the Quran ascending to power, the people of Ancient Egypt were already divided into various classes with some being very much taken advantage of and abused; while others lived on top.
We also know that 6 months is not the period of gestation for a baby, neither the average period or even the minimum period.
Interestingly, almost every historian and Biblical scholar- whether or not they are Christian- believe that Jesus was crucified. His crucifixion is mentioned not only in the Gospels and early church writings, but also the Annals of Tacitus, who was a pagan Roman historian. Interestingly, prior to Islam, the only record we have of people denying that Jesus was crucified was from those who believed He was a ghost and had no human in Him whatsoever.
That is correct, but we can be sure of some things based on the evidence that we do have.
We can be sure there were Pharaohs in Egypt. We can also be sure that prior to the Pharaoh of the Quran ascending to power, the people of Ancient Egypt were already divided into various classes with some being very much taken advantage of and abused; while others lived on top.
We also know that 6 months is not the period of gestation for a baby, neither the average period or even the minimum period.
You are saying the Quran disproves the crucifixion, but your argument is only correct if the Quran is indeed from God.
Interestingly, almost every historian and Biblical scholar- whether or not they are Christian- believe that Jesus was crucified. His crucifixion is mentioned not only in the Gospels and early church writings, but also the Annals of Tacitus, who was a pagan Roman historian. Interestingly, prior to Islam, the only record we have of people denying that Jesus was crucified was from those who believed He was a ghost and had no human in Him whatsoever.
Great stuff, thanks! I don't believe in human evolution, and never did. I find it kind of funny when some people who push that story laugh at the idea of God. What sounds more silly to you- an All-Powerful and All-Knowing Creator making us, or the idea that millions upon millions of years ago we evolved from ape-like creatures who evolved out of fish who evolved out of something else that randomly came to life after some non-living chemicals randomly came together out of nowhere and reacted? Sounds like a good Disney flick.
No one is *sure*. They can only speculate.
Your comment here reminded me of the other thread which i forgot so i replied there. I hope you will check it.
You are saying the Quran disproves the crucifixion, but your argument is only correct if the Quran is indeed from God.
I can expect atheists to go that road, but a Christian? come on. In this case i'm going to tell you that Jesus didn't exist according to many historians. Your only proof is the bible itself which is obviously bias.
'Jesus Christ didn't exist' according to Michael Paulkovich who found no mention of him in historical texts | Daily Mail Online
Did the historical Jesus exist? A growing number of scholars don’t think so
Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up. - The Washington Post
They will also tell you God doesn't exist. Are you willing to accept all what they say?
Great stuff, thanks! I don't believe in human evolution, and never did. I find it kind of funny when some people who push that story laugh at the idea of God. What sounds more silly to you- an All-Powerful and All-Knowing Creator making us, or the idea that millions upon millions of years ago we evolved from ape-like creatures who evolved out of fish who evolved out of something else that randomly came to life after some non-living chemicals randomly came together out of nowhere and reacted? Sounds like a good Disney flick.
It's not a faith that you choose to either believe or disbelieve in it. It's science, and science has no religion. I'm quite shocked that you are picking and choosing. At times you show scientific evidence and when it comes to a scientific fact like evolution you deny it outright.
By the way, you need to study evolution more because it doesn't work in the way you described.
If that is the case, we can only speculate that there ever was a person called "Pharaoh" in Egypt, we can't be *sure*. We also cannot be sure that Muhammad existed or that anything really happened. Are you suggesting we dismiss historical and archaeological evidence?
I read it and responded, my friend.
Of course not, however the existence of Jesus was attested to by not only early Christians but also historians from that same time period. One of these historians also attested to His crucifixion.
You seem to be dismissing evidence that I present for the crucifixion of Jesus. What evidence do you have to present to back up your belief that He was not crucified?
You make a good point, but notice there is a difference. I am a teacher and I work with kids and that means that absolutely everything I say is true and correct and that's that.
LOL no, I'm kidding. I can be an arrogant jerk, but I'm usually not that open about it.
However, a difference between the theory of human evolution (what I am referring to) and the decomposition of the coccyx or babies being born before 6 months have passed is that the first example is theoretical, whereas the other two are readily observable.
Most scientists do believe that human beings evolved from non-human life, and that we shared a common ancestor with apes. This is a widely held belief, and they provide evidence that they believe proves this. However, it does remain a theory since there is no way to prove this.
In contrast, it is possible to bury a body in very acidic soil and come back even a few decades later and find that all the bones have decomposed. It is also possible to see that some children are born before the passing of 6 months.
After skeletonization has occurred, if scavenging animals do not destroy the bones, acids in many fertile soils take about twenty years to completely dissolve the skeleton of mid- to large-size mammals, such as humans, leaving no trace of the organism. In neutral-pH soil or sand, the skeleton can persist for hundreds of years before it finally disintegrates. Alternately, bones occasionally undergo fossilization, converting into more durable minerals that can persist indefinitely.[3]
Skeletonization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I apologize for being facetious. Please describe for me how it works.
Again, just to be clear, I am discussing human and not animal evolution.
Ha ha. I really love your sense of humor.
I wish we would meet in person someday, we would become great friends, but i think that won't be easy since we leave far from each other.
Not exactly. The theory of evolution is not just some unproven theory. It's a proven theory and it exist just like gravity and similar well known theories. Why would you accept the theory of gravity but not the theory of evolution?
No need to apologize.
Yes sure. You can read more about evolution below:
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is no archaeological evidence that Jesus ever existed but Prophet Mohamed's grave exist.
My point is not to say that Jesus never really existed, but is just to make a counter argument. You told me i can't rely on the Quran to prove anything, so i thought it was ironic since we should be on the same boat. Got my point?
Thanks.
I have a proof from the Quran and also from the Bible itself. Which one you prefer?