First of all, you seem to be misunderstanding or you just googled and copied and pasted. What you are talking about is baseless and not authenticated.
It is true that God, before time and space, told the pen to write. The pen wrote. God told the Universe to be created. It was created. How was it created? Accordingly to the Big Bang theory. Once again, its not that hard to grasp this concept, that god is not like his creation. He is not limited to time and space. He has no end nor beginning. Who is Mahumit May I ask? And lets suppose this 'Mahumit' married his adopted son's hot wife, what about it? What's wrong with that? In Islam we dont believe that a adopted son is purely is a son. You can treat him like a son; but he doesn't have the rights of a real/blood related son. Where does it say that Zaynab Bint Jahsh was created before creation? Please provide proof when you state such things. If you don't, its called lying and can considered bashing. Now you talk about the relevance of the chapter of the Quran Al-massad; what are you talking about? Do you mean its meaning? And its relevance to the people at that time? It has a hell load of relevance in that time and to this day. Please explain What you dont understand. You probably don't even know any of these stories. Ill answer all your question once you ACTUAL provide references/sources/and use citation and EXPLAIN your issues. Because you haven't really stated anything. I wont even read the rest of your bs youve wrote. Because just what you have stated above is so poorly explained and stated. If you made this as a humor; well you did make me laugh. I laughed pretty damn hard. Thanks for killing my brain cells. ROFLCOPTER.
Also, please how in the world does artificial cells even sum up to a cell? It can preform one-many. Not all. Therefore it isnt a cell. Can this artificial cell reproduce?
What are you talking about three way parent about? what's the relevance?
You claim that humans defeated God; but how? God tells his people to "saving a human is the same as all of Humanity" and "killing a human is like killing all of humanity". So if Doctors can save someone how is that a bad thing? More importantly how does that "defeat" god? When God tells its people to save what/who ever you can.
1. I wrote that reply from memory alone but in search for your citation, I found an even better gem.
You must be registered for see links
Apparently, the first thing Allah created was his "throne" (so that he could sit on it?), which was above "water". That came before the creation of the "heavens and earth". It seems odd that Allah created H20 before space and time, but hey who are we limited beings to question Alan?
2. I asserted that the Quran was supposedly created before the universe (again I argued that from memory but I have read somewhere about a sectarian controversy on whether the Quran was the supposed created word of Allah or not, something to do with a sect known as the mutazilites - trust me I know quite a bit about your religion Fodder3). I claimed that the Quran itself sanctions his marriage to his adopted, i.e. that fact itself is mentioned in the Quran, nothing about that wife being there before the universe.
3. The Quran is little more than a desultory collection of Jewish stories from the other Abrahamic religions and prescriptive "revelations" Mohamed was given that concerned the societal affairs of his own community in his own life-time, as well as his own personal problems. This is what Richard Feynman means when he calls religion "too local": more than 14-billion years ago, Allah created a time-less book which actually mostly deals with the problems of some tribal Middle Easterners spanning no more than a few decades on a little rock called the Earth.
4. Here is one issue Id like you to explain for me: which is it, is the Quran a time-less and eternal book of Allah or does it also deal with the temporal issues of your prophet. You see, when I broach verses sanctioning certain behaviours from the Quran, Muslims always reply with the knee-jerk reaction of "IT HAS CONTEXT". Supposedly that context was that Mohamed lived in the tribal Bedouin society of 7th century Arabia. So which is it? Is sexual slavery, as sanctioned in the Quran, an eternal command from Allah, or does it only apply contextually to 7th century Arabia? Answer that one for me. You can't have and eat your cake at the same time, like you Muslims want.
5. Nice cop-out answer. Did you not assert that the Quran challenged us to "replicate" a cell? Well we have in fact done so. If you read the article, you will find that we have done more than merely create a thing that mimics single cellular functions. Artificial cells in which a synthetic genome (a genome we create ourselves) is inserted into a genomically empty host cell do replicate as any other cell. Genetically engineered mice with sometimes novel traits - e.g. transgenic mice that produce fluorescent protein (glow)- are a common thing of research these days. You can desperately deny it all you want, but that is tantamount to creating life for me because life thus created is not found in the natural world.
6. Another cop-out. The point is that we can create human life that carries genetic code from three, as opposed to two, individuals - something completely unnatural. I wasn't talking about its utility in curing diseases, I was making a point in reply to your assertion that we can't "create" life.
And nevermind all that defeat stuff, that was my attempt at rhetoric.
That's actually quite far from what my suspcions are based on. Well, it's not just that I'm basing it on. You see, I imagine Aim being a troll of some sort. Not trolling just for the fun of it, that'd be disappointng. I believe he takes on different personas to see all the possible ways he can be percieved, or better said, the possible ways ideals can be percieved. Save for a few, he wasn't getting much love propagating such hate against Islam. I'm sure any narcissists and condescendng individual would find it hilarious when another individual opens up to their seemingly hateful philosophies when all they simply did was essentially feed them the same poison just with a sweetener added to it. You take a much more polite approach to topics in general, even your use of "bro" appears to have some kind of manipulative intention (i.e. to blend in and seem more "humanized" versus the monster Aim is perceived as). I find these false personas to be mocking in a way. It's kind of like Sai's smile.
I also first thought his excessive use of hypens was to hide some kind of insecurity (i.e. afraid of being called out for improper use of commans, colons, semicolons, etc.), but the more I read from what I believe to be his alts (you're not the only I suspect of being his), the more it seems like it's to aid him in establishing a distinct posting style and identity.
I know, I haven't said anything that would seem convincing to any outside individual, but I'm not really speaking to them, all that much. You're most likely going to say I'm over-thinking it, but I have over-thought that possibility as well.
I'll end it here. It's extremely off-topic and somewhat bizarre, and the other similarities that I haven't mentioned is going to start being noticed anyways.
PS. There's always proxies/VPNs
PPS. I'm 98% sure
Fine bro, believe what you want, it doesn't bother me (I hope it doesn't bother Aim64C though).
However, Id like to contest some claims you made about his (and presumably mine too) views on Islam. First, Id like to broach a main item of literature concerning my own familiarity with Mohamed: its "The Sealed Nectar" by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, a piece of literature originally prescribed to me by the Imam of a local mosque some years back -incidentally, it was the first prize winner in a "Seerah", i.e. Mohameds biography, writing competition set up by the Muslim league some years back- and it seems to be by far the most recommended biography of the warlord-prophet by orthodox Muslims themselves in the English language.
I mention this because in the past, when I quoted Quran verses or cited Hadith, users here reply that I am supposedly quoting from hate sites or something. As a matter of fact, my knowledge of Mohamed largely comes from my reading of that biography (I have read some a few other biographies too). I challenge every single one of you critics of people like Aim64C to read the Sealed Nectar, especially the period of his life after the "hijra", i.e. migration to Medina, and then come back and tell me again that Islam is all about cotton candy, hugs and giggles. You see, to date I have not debated a single liberal who had ever read a biography of Mohamed much less from an Islamic source, though they seem to be so sure that Islam is comparable to things like Buddhism.
Let me briefly describe the two most important categorizations of the Quran which characterize most usefully Mohameds life (and which is relevant to our discussion), at least as I interpret it. Verses in the Quran can be very broadly dichotomized into what they call the "Meccan" and "Medinan" surahs, which correspond to the location in which they were "revealed" to the warlord-prophet during his lifetime.
You see, Mohamed and his followers initially started out in the city of Mecca as a small and persecuted religious sect. And during this "Meccan" time, when Mohamed was completely powerless, he preached an ideology of "turn the other cheek" and universal brotherhood. All the supposed "tolerant" verses of the Quran that Muslims will show you were revealed in this time period of his life.
Eventually, in fear of his life from the increasingly hostile pagans of Mecca, he and his followers migrated to the city of Medina. And initially, Mohamed talked the same peaceful and tolerant talk as he did in Mecca. But then something interesting happened: in Medina, Islams proselytism was very successful and the Muslims became a significant sized population. Mohamed, for the first time in his life, had acquired power. Military power.
And quite suddenly, Mohameds philosophy underwent a transformation. "There is no compulsion in religion" transformed into "slay the infidel wherever you find him", as Mohamed put his newly acquired power to use in a new activity: violence. And here you will find all the wonderful later verses of the Quran that the jihadists are inspired by.
Tell me Suneidesis, when Mohamed had all the males of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe beheaded and their women taken into sexual slavery, was that not based on a "hateful philosophy", to use your term? I mean yes they had betrayed him in warfare and retribution was warranted but instead of simply expelling them (perhaps also cutting the dominant arm of all the males to ensure no future conflicts), Mohamed chose genocide and sexual enslavement. So I ask you again, was that or was it not based on a "hateful philosophy"?
You see, I say all this because it is in fact a microcosm for what is happening today in Europe and indeed, possibly throughout much of the world. The Muslims are now migrating to places like Europe and the rest of the world.
And just like Mohamed in Mecca, the Muslims, as long as they remain a very small minority, will play the victim, victims of "Islamophobia". But with current demographic trends as they are (Muslim rabbit-rate fertility and continued unchecked mass immigration), within a decade or two, Muslims will make up significant percentages in many European countries, my own included. And when that happens, I am willing to bet a huge amount of money that we will start to see the spirit of Mohamed in Medina manifest itself in these lands.
And when that happens, Muslims will give us infidels two options: slavery in two forms, i.e. either dhimmitude; or becoming a slave of Allah and a servant of Mohamed. Thus, the freedom loving peoples of these lands will be forced to take up arms to fight the Muslims. Ofcourse there will be bloodshed but I really doubt that the European peoples will behead all the Muslims and sexually enslave their women: no, the denoument, when the freedom loving peoples triumph, will simply be the expulsion of Muslims from the western world. I hope all of you contemporary leftists live long enough to see the day, maybe then, Suneidesis, you will realize that this world of ours isn't all about watching shiny rainbows, hugging teddy bears and playing pokemon.
I could frankly care less what Muslims do in their own lands (and I also want western powers to get the hell out of their lands) but I have every right, by any moral standard, to defend my own peoples and civilization from catastrophe. And we have as much right to kick Islam out of our lands as they do of fighting and kicking us out of their lands (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan).
That is my opinion, I don't know how user Aim64C feels but I think that he is an American. You may call him a "monster" but I, on the other hand, feel that he is the spiritual descendant of that great founding father, Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem: I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery".
