• 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!

why it's always ( ISLAM vs. CHRISTIANITY )

glasgowchick

Gives Glory to God !!!
orichalcum said:
As Enhanced Spirit said, all paths are equally valid.

Hi Orchalcum, I have to disagree with the statement of all paths are equally valid..If this were so Why did Jesus say that He was the way the truth and the life no -one comes to the Father except through me.

He also said in John 10 :1 " Truly I say to you. He who does not enter by the door into the fold of sheep, but climbs up some other way he is a theif and a robber..

verse 9 Tells us, " I am the door, if anyone enters through Me he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture".
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
He also said in John 10 :1 " Truly I say to you. He who does not enter by the door into the fold of sheep, but climbs up some other way he is a theif and a robber..
So Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey didn't lead me astray. You can mug some people on the way into heaven and sneak in... Cool!
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
JerryL said:
You argued that the Bible did not claim to be God-breathed. I established that claim wrong. You flopped to ignoring what the Bible says about itself.

So what is a literal translation of "alaq"?

Dust doesn't stick. Nothing doesn't stick.

You also didn't answer the question: What was man made from?
can you please read the link i have posted so you can understand about the creation and that Quran is untranslatable book " any translation will not be accurate as the original language " but they try to make more and more understandable because God challenged people at that time to bring even one verse like Quran but they couldn't because even it's language is a miracle by itself even me my english is not that good as arabic even though i'm not an arab.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
can you please read the link i have posted
I have, but websites don't respond. Would you like me to just link you to people arguing that your website is wrong (http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/)? Kinda defeats the point.

that Quran is untranslatable book " any translation will not be accurate as the original language "
Really? So it's impossible to translate "blood" into Arabic? It must be horrendus for Arab doctors trying to dictate treatment.

What does "alaq" actually mean? If there's not a single word in English, feel free to be descriptive.

but they try to make more and more understandable because God challenged people at that time to bring even one verse like Quran but they couldn't because even it's language is a miracle by itself even me my english is not that good as arabic even though i'm not an arab.
That run-on sentance doesn't seem to make much sense.

I'm actually not nearly as familiar with the errors in the Quran as I am with Biblical errors (less time arguing with Muslism).
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think there is no way from posting everything in details in here so since you want so then read this please ...

the real meaning of the word "`alaq" is "anything that sticks or hangs". Now when the Qur'an said: "He created man of `alaq", it was interpreted by Muslim scholars to imply "a clot of blood". This was not because the word "`alaq" meant "a clot of blood" but because the Muslim scholars felt that in this verse it implied "a clot of blood". If, due to the widening of human knowledge, today we are in a position to know that a child is never "a clot of blood", all that has happened is that we can now safely say that the interpretation of the Muslim scholars was not accurate. If the Qur'an was not available in its original language, as is generally the case with the books, other than the Qur'an, believed to be revealed literature, the Muslims would have had no option but to submit that the Qur'an does have a "scientific error" in it. But the case of the Qur'an is quite different from those other books. It is still in its original language. And the word originally used by the Qur'an (`alaq) is not used only for a clot of blood. It actually refers to "something that sticks" (like semi dried blood, mud, unending hatred/love or a leech).

However, we know now that the ( drop of sperm ) will change after a while in the womb to the second level of creation which is (`alaq ).

Secondly, about " nothing " it means that God created us while we were nothing and Allah raised us of his well saying "be and it is" (3:47) in the moment he created the first human being ever Adam (PBUH ).

we also understand the importance and significance of having a particular piece of literature in its original language. The analysis given above could not have been possible if the original word used by the Qur'an (`alaq) was not definitely known.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
i don't know somthing wrong with my post so i will come back again to correct it ..
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
the real meaning of the word "`alaq" is "anything that sticks or hangs".
So then the Quranic translation is a bad one? It should say "sticky stuff". What idiot choose to substitute a particular substance?

How is "nothing" sticky? Or is that a mistranslation too?

This was not because the word "`alaq" meant "a clot of blood" but because the Muslim scholars felt that in this verse it implied "a clot of blood".
Were they stupid? As you've pointed out, the Quran specifically states later that it was not blood (by offering non-blood substances). A quranic scholar of such reverance that it's their translation of the Quran that we commonly find was both so disrepective of the material as to insert his own opinion (rahter than translate the words of the prophet directly and put "sticky substance") and so ignorant of the Quran as to put something that is established wrong in FOUR other verses? I just lost a lot of respect for Quranic scholars.

However, we know now that the ( drop of sperm ) will change after a while in the womb to the second level of creation which is (`alaq ).
Does it actually say "sperm" here? Or is this another "sticky substance"?

The Qur'an while talking about man's creation, has referred to two distinct creations. One is the creation of Adam (the first man) and the other is the creation of the children of Adam. Adam, as shall be seen later, was created from water/dust/clay etc, while his progeny was created from "a drop of semen".
Reasonable and worth looking at. Where does "nothing" fit in to the story?
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Qur'an while talking about man's creation, has referred to two distinct creations. One is the creation of Adam (the first man) and the other is the creation of the children of Adam. Adam, as shall be seen later, was created from water/dust/clay etc, while his progeny was created from "a drop of semen". These two creations are actually two distinct stages in the creation of man. The first man was created from dust etc and later on, his progeny was created from "`alaqa", which developed from "nutfah" (a drop of sperm). The Qur'an has itself referred to these two distinct stages of creation in Al-Sajadah 32: 7 - 8

Thus, all those verses which refer to "`alaq", "nutfah" and the like are actually referring to the creation of the offspring of Adam, which according to the Qur'an itself was different from the creation of Adam. Therefore the subject matter of these verses, is not in contradiction with that of the others, as the two groups refer to two different things. Thus, Al-`alaq 96: 1 - 2, Al-Nahl 16: 4 and Al-Qiyamah 75: 37 will have to be removed from the contradicting verses list.
Now, after removing these verses, we are left with the following "contradictory" statements of the Qur'an:
  • Man was made from water (21: 30, 24: 45, 25: 54)
  • Man was made from dust/soil (3: 59, 30: 20, 35: 11)
  • Man was made from sounding [extremely dry] clay from black stinking mud (15: 26)
  • Man was raised from the earth (11: 61)
Besides these verses, Al-Saaffaat 37: 11 gives an even different picture, as it says that man was created from such soil that sticks to one's hands, or sticky soil.



<SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">I really do not know what is the contradiction in these verses. Anyone with a literary sense can see that these verses are not contradictory.



<SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">If someone says that I made a cake from flour (soil) and then says I made a cake from water (water), and then says I made this cake from a solution of flour and water (mud, sticky soil), and then says that I made this cake from a dried out solution of flour and water (sounding clay from black stinking mud) and then says I brought the cake out from the oven (raised from the earth), a person may say that the statements are contradictory. But it is quite obvious that they are not. These statements inform us of not only the major ingredients of cake (man) but also give us some information regarding the stages from which these ingredients were made to go through for the ultimate production of the cake (man).

now these 2 things concerned with the first creation ever Adam.

1- dust : because God said ti him Be so he was from dust.
2-nothing : because human being doesn't exist before that.

and these concern with the children of Adam ( us )

3- drop of sperm: when the man drop his sperm in the woman's womb.
4- (mere) clot of congealed blood: the next level or period of sperm which is known in scince as 3alaga.

i hope that i helped ya to understand.

Peace :)
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
JerryL said:
So then the Quranic translation is a bad one? It should say "sticky stuff". What idiot choose to substitute a particular substance?
you must kidding me !!!! :biglaugh: what sticky stuff ?? many things can be stucky but the one is a particular type of blood and i know that you will not understand it but ask any doctor then after that come to argue with me about it because with your current ability of understanding you will not be able to get it unless you expand your knowledge about these stuff inj the future.

JerryL said:
How is "nothing" sticky? Or is that a mistranslation too?
please don't mix between nothing and sticky as i explained in my pervious post.


JerryL said:
Were they stupid? As you've pointed out, the Quran specifically states later that it was not blood (by offering non-blood substances). A quranic scholar of such reverance that it's their translation of the Quran that we commonly find was both so disrepective of the material as to insert his own opinion (rahter than translate the words of the prophet directly and put "sticky substance") and so ignorant of the Quran as to put something that is established wrong in FOUR other verses? I just lost a lot of respect for Quranic scholars.
again and all over again it is not just a blood but a specific type of blood known widly by special people in scince or medicine field and if you lost your respect in people because you misunderstand them so it's up to you and whether you respect them or not so that would not harm them at all and you should correct your way of thinking.

JerryL said:
[/i]Does it actually say "sperm" here? Or is this another "sticky substance"?

Reasonable and worth looking at. Where does "nothing" fit in to the story?
go back and read my last post.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
you must kidding me !!!! :biglaugh: what sticky stuff ?? many things can be stucky but the one is a particular type of blood
So then alaq means "blood"? I thought you said it ment "sticky stuff".

"The word `alaq, does not "mean" blood" - The Truth post 39
If it means blood then it conflicts with the claims "dust", "mud", "nothing" and "semen".

and i know that you will not understand it but ask any doctor then after that come to argue with me about it because with your current ability of understanding you will not be able to get it unless you expand your knowledge about these stuff inj the future.
I think my medical skills are up to the task, feel free to get medically technical.

please don't mix between nothing and sticky as i explained in my pervious post.
"alaq" is claimed in one passage, in others it's dust (3:59), nothing (19:67, 53:35), and semen (16:4)

You've asserted two creations. OK. Which substances go for which creation? Because I've got 4 incompatable ones (or one very unskilled and irreverent translator).
again and all over again it is not just a blood but a specific type of blood known widly by special people in scince or medicine field and if you lost your respect in people because you misunderstand them so it's up to you and whether you respect them or not so that would not harm them at all and you should correct your way of thinking.
So "alaq" refers to a specific type of blood? OK. Which type.

go back and read my last post.
OK

Adam, as shall be seen later, was created from water/dust/clay etc
Which is it? Water? Dust? Clay? Nothing? or "etc"?

while his progeny was created from "a drop of semen
I'll go with that one.

Thus, all those verses which refer to "`alaq", "nutfah" and the like are actually referring to the creation of the offspring of Adam, which according to the Qur'an itself was different from the creation of Adam.
Which were not made by a drop of blood (and no, semen is not any type of blood cell... it's not even a full DNA set (whcih red and white cells have, though not platelets) but half of one.)

Thus, Al-`alaq 96: 1 - 2, Al-Nahl 16: 4 and Al-Qiyamah 75: 37 will have to be removed from the contradicting verses list.
The Quran uses three differnet words with at least two different meanings (blood and semen). That does not remove it from being contrary (in fact it establishes it as contrary).

Besides these verses, Al-Saaffaat 37: 11 gives an even different picture, as it says that man was created from such soil that sticks to one's hands, or sticky soil.
But you said "The word `alaq, does not "mean" blood", asserting instead that it referred to "anythign sticky". now you are asserting that Al-alaq means "blood or semen" and that Al-Saaffaat means "sticky soil"?

1- dust : because God said ti him Be so he was from dust.
2-nothing : because human being doesn't exist before that.
These are contrary. You are apologizing. What happened to "water" and "clay"?

3- drop of sperm: when the man drop his sperm in the woman's womb.
4- (mere) clot of congealed blood: the next level or period of sperm which is known in scince as 3alaga.
3alaga is not an english word. After a sperm cell meets an ovum, and penitrates the outer wall, the sperm's DNA merges with the ovum's and forms a stem-cell. This stem-cell begins replicating and eventually becomes overey cell in the body.

There is no "sperm becomes blood" in any reasonable context. Your assertion is false.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
michel said:
Perhaps that is how you see it, and you believe in what you do, bcause it is right for you. For me, Christianity is 'the right' thing, but, I do not believe that either of us is wrong.
Michel,
How can one not be wrong when one believes Jesus is the only way to salvation and the other believes he was just a man?

Both could be wrong...but both can't be right.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
EnhancedSpirit said:
I welcome the Truth. Peace be with you. I have studied the similarities for years. Islam worships the SAME God of Abraham that is worshipped by the Jews and the Christians. Why does this start an arguement?

It's like watching children argueing over who daddy loves more.

Islam is the way, Jesus is the way, Tao is the way.

The way is the way, is the way. They are all the same way. All paths lead ultimately to the Divinity. The man just said he believes in Jesus, yet Christians still come at him, with razor sharp tongues, passing judgment and critizing things they don't fully understand.

Dear Lord give them eyes so they may see the whole Truth, and let them see how all truths have a common thread, which is God's ultimate Truth and that is plain and simple LOVE.
ES,
I saw no criticism on this thread (at least so far...I'm still reading it).....just people explaining why they believe their way is the truth and how it conflicts with Islam. It's not enough (according to Christianity) to believe in Jesus as a prophet or man...and that is the main sticking point.

I believe everyone has the right to believe what they choose without being discriminated against or dealing with reprisals....but it does not mean I have to agree with them that their path is correct also (or the only one).
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
The Truth said:
ya right so anyone can kill and rape as he want because no sins anymore !!! awesome
No...it means that if you truly repent, and God knows whether you do, then you will be forgiven. If someone kills and rapes as they want, they aren't repentant.


the truth said:
so that means you sacrifice your prophet and you see him ( your love ) as cheap as animals .... WHAT A LOVE !!!
No, *we* did not sacrifice our *prophet*. Our *God*, manifest in human form, *offered* his human life as sacrifice for the sins of man....and I agree. What an incredible expression of love and one I wholeheartedly accept.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
JerryL said:
So then alaq means "blood"? I thought you said it ment "sticky stuff".


"The word `alaq, does not "mean" blood" - The Truth post 39


If it means blood then it conflicts with the claims "dust", "mud", "nothing" and "semen".
IT IS NOT A BLOOD BUT A SPECIFIC TYPE OF STICKY BLOOD


JerryL said:
So "alaq" refers to a specific type of blood? OK. Which type.
* ok listen, when the man put the sperm so then what will happen?
the baby will come out directly ???

ofcourse not but there are many level the sperm go through until it become a baby and the sperm when it strated to grow in the womb it will looks like a sticky dry blood ( in the womb ) then the rest levels until it become a complete baby.

JerryL said:
Which were not made by a drop of blood (and no, semen is not any type of blood cell... it's not even a full DNA set (whcih red and white cells have, though not platelets) but half of one.)
ops ... you mixed things up so i guess you have to go up for a quick revision.

drop of blood & semen ( blood cell ) :tsk:

JerryL said:
The Quran uses three differnet words with at least two different meanings (blood and semen). That does not remove it from being contrary (in fact it establishes it as contrary).
* i explaned already the relation between the semen and the alaq.

JerryL said:
But you said [/font]"The word `alaq, does not "mean" blood", asserting instead that it referred to "anythign sticky". now you are asserting that Al-alaq means "blood or semen" and that Al-Saaffaat means "sticky soil"?


impossible to be anything sticky but i explained it already above.

sticky soil go for the beginning of creation the same as dust.



JerryL said:
These are contrary. You are apologizing. What happened to "water" and "clay"?


the water goes for the sperm too in arabic.



JerryL said:
3alaga is not an english word. After a sperm cell meets an ovum, and penitrates the outer wall, the sperm's DNA merges with the ovum's and forms a stem-cell. This stem-cell begins replicating and eventually becomes overey cell in the body.
sorry 3alaga is alaq in my language sorry cause i meant alaq.


JerryL said:
There is no "sperm becomes blood" in any reasonable context. Your assertion is false.
it's up to you to believe or not to believe and i'm just telling you what is the truth according to what i know and i'm not representing islam but representing myself and what i knew so far.

Peace :)
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Melody said:
No...it means that if you truly repent, and God knows whether you do, then you will be forgiven. If someone kills and rapes as they want, they aren't repentant.
* I'm really so confused :(

if you didn't do any sin for example rape so what you are repenting from?
why anyone who kills and rapes will not be repentant???

is that means there are some sins which we can consider as sins which we can repent from and some not or you mean the first repent means to repent from the sin you didn't ever knew it exist and you don't have any relationship with it which is ( original sin ) ?

how comes ? I'M CONFUSED :banghead3

God is love and love from God is so comprehenisve word that cover everybody even sinner so WHERE DO SINNER SUPPOSED TO GO IF THEY HAVE SINNED ?


Melody said:
No, *we* did not sacrifice our *prophet*. Our *God*, manifest in human form, *offered* his human life as sacrifice for the sins of man....and I agree. What an incredible expression of love and one I wholeheartedly accept.
Can i tell you please a logic example any human being can understand?

what is your opnion about a respectable guy and we can say for example a proffesor who suddnly while he was teaching stand over his table and started dancing ???

Will you say ... WHAT THE ??? :eek:

it's the same case when you think our God made himself in human form which is unrespectable to imagine that about our creater when he made himself a toy for some jews ( his children and his creatures ) to make him suffer and crucify him and all this to make all his children ( us ) clean from sins WHICH HE CAN SIMPLY FORGIVE IT unless there is nothing such exist as a forgivness and what is the point and purpose of forgivness if he can't ((( CAN NOT ))) forgive unless he let some tiny creatures play with his body ((( AND FOR THE SAKE OF GOD DO YOU STILL THINK HE IS THE CREATER OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE WHICH MAKES HIM GREATER THAN EVERYTHING EVEN GREATER THAN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE ))) ?????????????????????????????????????

PLEASE I HAVE NO IDEA WHY DO NOT USE OUR MIND BECAUSE IF WE JUST SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE BLINDLY I WILL JUST ANSWER ANY QUESTION COMES TO ME SAYING go and have some faith from then come back to me so i can explain for you !!!!!

I'M CONFUSED SO ANYONE HERE CAN HELP WITH WHAT I JUST POSTED IN HERE?

:help:
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
IT IS NOT A BLOOD BUT A SPECIFIC TYPE OF STICKY BLOOD
Ok. It's still inconsistant with the other claims.

ofcourse not but there are many level the sperm go through until it become a baby and the sperm when it strated to grow in the womb it will looks like a sticky dry blood ( in the womb ) then the rest levels until it become a complete baby.
1. Semen is not a type of blood. Are you asserting that "alaq" means "semen"?
2. The sperm actually responsable for impregnation is enveloped inthe ovum. It's completely invisible to anyone without a microscope (doesn't look like or stick to anything). It ceases to be a sperm when it merges with the egg and becomes a single stem cell. Then the stem cell starts to replicate.



* i explaned already the relation between the semen and the alaq.
You seem to be arguing that semen, at some point *is* alaq.
Some form of blood:

From you: (mere) clot of congealed blood: the next level or period of sperm which is known in scince as 3alaga. - post 48
From You: many things can be stucky but the one is a particular type of blood - Post 49
From You: it is not just a blood but a specific type of blood known widly by special people in scince or medicine field - post 49
From You: IT IS NOT A BLOOD BUT A SPECIFIC TYPE OF STICKY BLOOD - Post 54

Anything that sticks
From your cite: The real meaning of the word, as would be obvious from an analysis of all the meanings stated above, is anything that sticks to or hangs with something else.
From you: the real meaning of the word "`alaq" is "anything that sticks or hangs". - post 45
From you: And the word originally used by the Qur'an (`alaq) is not used only for a clot of blood. It actually refers to "something that sticks" (like semi dried blood, mud, unending hatred/love or a leech). - post 45

Not blood:
From you: The word `alaq, does not "mean" blood but because of certain properties of blood - post 39

You've asserted that there's a medical word for what you are talking about. What is that word? Perhaps knowing what it is will make these contradictions make sense.


ops ... you mixed things up so i guess you have to go up for a quick revision.

drop of blood & semen ( blood cell ) :tsk:
I'm sorry, that doesn't clear up anything. At one point it's claimed that creation is from a drop of blood. In another, it's claimed that creation is from a drop of semen. (the latter is obviously biologically valid). Are you now claiming that it's "both" (which is not biologically valid) and the Quran just fogets half the ingredients each time?

impossible to be anything sticky but i explained it already above.

sticky soil go for the beginning of creation the same as dust.
But sticky-soil is not water and is not nothing, and dirt is not generally considered mud.

Also, semen is not blood.

the water goes for the sperm too in arabic.
Huh? Are you claiming that they are the same word? That must make talking dirty to your wife rather hard. "hey baby, drink my water"?!?

it's up to you to believe or not to believe and i'm just telling you what is the truth according to what i know and i'm not representing islam but representing myself and what i knew so far.
And I'm pointing out a contradiction. You've made one potentially reasonable apologetic (that there are two different creations being discussed), but that does not resolve your problem.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
The Truth said:
actually i just wanted to know whether people just defend thier beliefs blindly ( which i don't do so ) in order to proof that thier beliefs is the best whatever it is or they try to be flixible with other ideas and beliefs.
I don't think we should defend our beliefs blindly, but I believe that most people have core beliefs that attracted them to a religion and/or keeps them in that religion. The core beliefs provide a foundation for other beliefs. Because of their core beliefs, they are able to accept that there are things that they don't understand completely.

Personally, I can be flexible to outside ideas as long as they do not conflict with my core beliefs.
 

alowyn

Member
Johnny, the irony of that is that those core beliefs are the same in every religion!

Sorry guys, i haven't really followed the thread but felt compelled to comment...

Considering recent events in Europe, could it be that there is a clash of religions between Islam and Christianity, raging particularly in Europe, considering recent events such as Theo Van Gogh's death and the chaos following that? It also seems like the so called "War on Terror" (don't get me started on this) has turned into a battle between Muslims and Christians allied with Jews because it's convenient. It wouldn't strike me as odd, seeing how these are the two largest religions in the world, and that Islam is growing rapidly. Perhaps Christianity is subconsciously threatened? I am speaking in general here, i am well aware that the common Christian/Muslim just going about his/her daily life doesn't see it as that at all. But if Hinduism was the second-largest religion and growing rapidly, hypothetically speaking, would there be a clash like this between Christians and Hindus? What if we swapped Islam and Judaism? would America support the Muslim states to fight off Jewish terrorists?
Someone mentioned previously that it's like children fighting over who is loved more by their parents. That is just so incredibly true. The battle for Jerusalem always strikes me as a sad joke that we're fighting over a holy city. uh-huh. i'm sure we were commanded to do that somewhere... :rolleyes:
 
Top