Editor's Blog10 mins ago
Keyplus: Answers to your questions
64 Answers
Since Venator, on his thread - http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//1 - Christianity, Judaism came before Islam then why Muslims respect Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh)more than their (supposed to be ) real believers. Have you ever seen a Jew or Christian putting PBU (peace be upon him/them)?
2 - Muhammad could not read or write still he managed to copy things from previous books including Bible (OT & NT), Greek studies, and all of what was there before his time. He did not travel that much, Arabic Bible was not available until centuries after him; he did not have computer, USB sticks, and many more things. Still he managed to copy only what would be proved correct centuries after and left out illogical things. So perhaps you can try doing this in this age.
3 - He managed to write (or according to you copied) a book that is read and believed in by billions (whether you like it or not) still he did not write his name on it as an author and therefore did not claim any credit for it. Show me one person in modern history who would do that?
4 - In the book he (copied according to you) he talked about a woman (Marry or Mariyam) as chosen best among the all of the women in the world and he named a whole chapter in her name. Why did he not put his own mother's name there? And people who believe in that woman's son as son of god has her hardly mentioned in their book let alone naming a whole chapter to her. And then according to them Muhammad was an enemy (and still is) so why he gave that much respect to the mother of someone he is supposed to be the enemy of. //
Keyplus, your reasoning is quite childlike.
1. Every time a prophet is mentioned Muslims say PBUH - therefore Islam must be older than Judaism and Christianity. How does that work then?
2. Mohammed was a leader of men raised by influential men - and despite what you'd like to believe he was no fool. As a merchant, he could not have been quite as illiterate as your teachers would have you believe and he would have been well acquainted with people from far and wide.
3. He was the author of the Koran (although others played a big part in assembling and editing it) - and it seems to me he's received nothing but credit.
4. That has to be the daftest thing I've ever seen you write. It's just a thought but perhaps he didn't use his own mother because she wasn't a virgin, she wasn't the subject of legend, she wasn't reputed to have been chosen by God, she didn't have a starring role in the story he was intent on hi-jacking - and she would have impressed no one!
It's ridiculous to claim the Islam is older than Judaism and Christianity - absolutely ridiculous. It's clear to anyone reading the Koran - without a pre-existing agenda - that Mohammed was well acquainted with Judaism, Christianity, and the works of the ancient Greeks - and that's borne out by the fact that he copied some of their errors! He was a wily old war-mongering merchant - and nothing more.
2 - Muhammad could not read or write still he managed to copy things from previous books including Bible (OT & NT), Greek studies, and all of what was there before his time. He did not travel that much, Arabic Bible was not available until centuries after him; he did not have computer, USB sticks, and many more things. Still he managed to copy only what would be proved correct centuries after and left out illogical things. So perhaps you can try doing this in this age.
3 - He managed to write (or according to you copied) a book that is read and believed in by billions (whether you like it or not) still he did not write his name on it as an author and therefore did not claim any credit for it. Show me one person in modern history who would do that?
4 - In the book he (copied according to you) he talked about a woman (Marry or Mariyam) as chosen best among the all of the women in the world and he named a whole chapter in her name. Why did he not put his own mother's name there? And people who believe in that woman's son as son of god has her hardly mentioned in their book let alone naming a whole chapter to her. And then according to them Muhammad was an enemy (and still is) so why he gave that much respect to the mother of someone he is supposed to be the enemy of. //
Keyplus, your reasoning is quite childlike.
1. Every time a prophet is mentioned Muslims say PBUH - therefore Islam must be older than Judaism and Christianity. How does that work then?
2. Mohammed was a leader of men raised by influential men - and despite what you'd like to believe he was no fool. As a merchant, he could not have been quite as illiterate as your teachers would have you believe and he would have been well acquainted with people from far and wide.
3. He was the author of the Koran (although others played a big part in assembling and editing it) - and it seems to me he's received nothing but credit.
4. That has to be the daftest thing I've ever seen you write. It's just a thought but perhaps he didn't use his own mother because she wasn't a virgin, she wasn't the subject of legend, she wasn't reputed to have been chosen by God, she didn't have a starring role in the story he was intent on hi-jacking - and she would have impressed no one!
It's ridiculous to claim the Islam is older than Judaism and Christianity - absolutely ridiculous. It's clear to anyone reading the Koran - without a pre-existing agenda - that Mohammed was well acquainted with Judaism, Christianity, and the works of the ancient Greeks - and that's borne out by the fact that he copied some of their errors! He was a wily old war-mongering merchant - and nothing more.
//1 - Christianity, Judaism came before Islam then why Muslims respect Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh)more than their (supposed to be) real believers. Have you ever seen a Jew or Christian putting PBU (peace be upon him/them)?
No, because it's a Muslim tradition, that Jews and Christians by definition do not follow. The fact that a tradition exists in one religion tells us nothing about the truth of it.
The more interesting question is why Islam, coming as you say, after the other two, should choose to recognise and venerate characters from that religion?
One obvious response to that is that Islam was not built from thin air. The Torah is confused about whether there is just one deity or many for the reason that the Jewish myth was built on the back of conquest and assimilation of other cultures. The simplest thing to do with the key beliefs of other cultures is to assimilate their beliefs into your own but change the meaning. This has the effect of preserving the cultural identity while minimising chances of dissent and revolution from the newly overlaid culture. Christianity is much the same - just look how pagan beliefs were recast as Christian ones around the Christmas and Easter stories.
Islam was built on a foundation of the existing Jewish and Christian myths, recast to fit the new narrative.
2 - Muhammad could not read or write still he managed to copy things from previous books including Bible (OT & NT), Greek studies, and all of what was there before his time. He did not travel that much, Arabic Bible was not available until centuries after him; he did not have computer, USB sticks, and many more things. Still he managed to copy only what would be proved correct centuries after and left out illogical things. So perhaps you can try doing this in this age.
Despite your repeated assertations that it is true, the Koran has a far share of absolute nonsense and it is certainly not correct to say only correct thing were incorporated (the old (and erroneous) stuff about embryology that you refuse to belief is nicked from the much earlier and widely-believed during Mohammed's time views of Galen, for example, despite the fact that it can be verified by simply looking it up).
Given Mohammed dictated the Koran over a long period, it is hardly difficult to imagine that he incorporated new information as he came across it.
3 - He managed to write (or according to you copied) a book that is read and believed in by billions (whether you like it or not) still he did not write his name on it as an author and therefore did not claim any credit for it. Show me one person in modern history who would do that?
The I Ching.
4 - In the book he (copied according to you) he talked about a woman (Marry or Mariyam) as chosen best among the all of the women in the world and he named a whole chapter in her name. Why did he not put his own mother's name there? And people who believe in that woman's son as son of god has her hardly mentioned in their book let alone naming a whole chapter to her. And then according to them Muhammad was an enemy (and still is) so why he gave that much respect to the mother of someone he is supposed to be the enemy of. //
I'm really not quite sure what you think is remarkable about the fact that he didn't use his mum's name. As before, Islam was built upon an existing foundation that was recast to fit with the new narrative, so it is entirely unremarkable that Mohammed acknowledged those stories. That his belief system was later viewed negatively by those traditions says nothing of consequence.
No, because it's a Muslim tradition, that Jews and Christians by definition do not follow. The fact that a tradition exists in one religion tells us nothing about the truth of it.
The more interesting question is why Islam, coming as you say, after the other two, should choose to recognise and venerate characters from that religion?
One obvious response to that is that Islam was not built from thin air. The Torah is confused about whether there is just one deity or many for the reason that the Jewish myth was built on the back of conquest and assimilation of other cultures. The simplest thing to do with the key beliefs of other cultures is to assimilate their beliefs into your own but change the meaning. This has the effect of preserving the cultural identity while minimising chances of dissent and revolution from the newly overlaid culture. Christianity is much the same - just look how pagan beliefs were recast as Christian ones around the Christmas and Easter stories.
Islam was built on a foundation of the existing Jewish and Christian myths, recast to fit the new narrative.
2 - Muhammad could not read or write still he managed to copy things from previous books including Bible (OT & NT), Greek studies, and all of what was there before his time. He did not travel that much, Arabic Bible was not available until centuries after him; he did not have computer, USB sticks, and many more things. Still he managed to copy only what would be proved correct centuries after and left out illogical things. So perhaps you can try doing this in this age.
Despite your repeated assertations that it is true, the Koran has a far share of absolute nonsense and it is certainly not correct to say only correct thing were incorporated (the old (and erroneous) stuff about embryology that you refuse to belief is nicked from the much earlier and widely-believed during Mohammed's time views of Galen, for example, despite the fact that it can be verified by simply looking it up).
Given Mohammed dictated the Koran over a long period, it is hardly difficult to imagine that he incorporated new information as he came across it.
3 - He managed to write (or according to you copied) a book that is read and believed in by billions (whether you like it or not) still he did not write his name on it as an author and therefore did not claim any credit for it. Show me one person in modern history who would do that?
The I Ching.
4 - In the book he (copied according to you) he talked about a woman (Marry or Mariyam) as chosen best among the all of the women in the world and he named a whole chapter in her name. Why did he not put his own mother's name there? And people who believe in that woman's son as son of god has her hardly mentioned in their book let alone naming a whole chapter to her. And then according to them Muhammad was an enemy (and still is) so why he gave that much respect to the mother of someone he is supposed to be the enemy of. //
I'm really not quite sure what you think is remarkable about the fact that he didn't use his mum's name. As before, Islam was built upon an existing foundation that was recast to fit with the new narrative, so it is entirely unremarkable that Mohammed acknowledged those stories. That his belief system was later viewed negatively by those traditions says nothing of consequence.
-- answer removed --
First of all I must congratulate you Naomi for making an effort. But without going into details and without wasting too much time “WITH YOU”, I would sum it up in few lines.
Muslim believes that message given to all of the prophets was same that worship only one God and accept the will of God over your own Will. And that is very clear in Torah and Bible. Judaism is nothing but a Tribe and Christianity is the same as in both of the “so called” religions they have named it after a person or a tribe. According to that formula Islam should have been called either Arabism, Quraishism or at the most Muhammadism. And few westerns did call it Muhammadanism.
But then again why am I wasting time even n all this. Here is the easiest way. Bring me one verse from Torah or Bible where Moses (pbuh) or Jesus (pbuh) themselves called whatever they told people Judaism or Christianity and I will accept any of that religion or will become Atheist. There you go, I have put my head on line (as I have done it before) or you put your head on line if you have that much of courage.
Nice to see you Waldo. As an educated person you must be aware of all of the theories regarding embryology. I have once posted here a very detailed analysis of all of the theories including Greek, Indian, Arabic, and few more. Unfortunately I can’t find that link and the one I have is not working (few will jump on me now). But why not keep things simple with you also and ask you the same question I asked you once. Would any normal person with a little bit of sense listen to a person called “Waldo” on a website known as Answer bank or he would listen to a person called Keith Moore who still is an authority in the medical science when it comes to embryology? And then would anyone with least sense believe that a person called “Waldo” on a website known as Answer bank knew more about Greek knowledge of Embryology and Dr Keith Moore did not know about it? Very simple questions so please answer?
Muslim believes that message given to all of the prophets was same that worship only one God and accept the will of God over your own Will. And that is very clear in Torah and Bible. Judaism is nothing but a Tribe and Christianity is the same as in both of the “so called” religions they have named it after a person or a tribe. According to that formula Islam should have been called either Arabism, Quraishism or at the most Muhammadism. And few westerns did call it Muhammadanism.
But then again why am I wasting time even n all this. Here is the easiest way. Bring me one verse from Torah or Bible where Moses (pbuh) or Jesus (pbuh) themselves called whatever they told people Judaism or Christianity and I will accept any of that religion or will become Atheist. There you go, I have put my head on line (as I have done it before) or you put your head on line if you have that much of courage.
Nice to see you Waldo. As an educated person you must be aware of all of the theories regarding embryology. I have once posted here a very detailed analysis of all of the theories including Greek, Indian, Arabic, and few more. Unfortunately I can’t find that link and the one I have is not working (few will jump on me now). But why not keep things simple with you also and ask you the same question I asked you once. Would any normal person with a little bit of sense listen to a person called “Waldo” on a website known as Answer bank or he would listen to a person called Keith Moore who still is an authority in the medical science when it comes to embryology? And then would anyone with least sense believe that a person called “Waldo” on a website known as Answer bank knew more about Greek knowledge of Embryology and Dr Keith Moore did not know about it? Very simple questions so please answer?
Oh yes, I forgot to mention that by posting this question here Naomi has shown that how much mentally she/ or he (we are not sure are we?) is under pressure by my posts. Where usually she says that my posts do not make any sense. I do get more and more encouragement because there is a well known saying.
Action speak louder than words. And Naomi’s actions speak louder than her /his words
Action speak louder than words. And Naomi’s actions speak louder than her /his words
Never have I expected anyone to believe anything I say merely by dint of being posted by me. Your claim is based on a fallacy.
I strongly recommend anyone to look at the claims made for what the Quran says about embryology and compare them to a credible medical text.
If you do and find that vague statements that can be interpreted to mean almost anything and utter absurdities that cannot possibly be said to have any resemblence to reality, then so be it. But don't expect to be taken seriously.
As for your continued argument from authority (a formal logical fallacy) I would repost something I've put on here before:
---------------------------
Let us say that I have a doctorate in mathematics. I say 2+2=5. Let us say that you do not have a doctorate in mathematics. By your logic, 2+2 now equals 5 because someone with a qualification made an assertion.
Qualifications may be an indication of expertise, but they are not a guarantee that everything they say is true. Evidence is what is required, and under normal circumstances one would hope a qualified scientist would provide it. You rely on the fact that Keith Moore has credentials, but ignore the fact that he has no evidence.
Evidence NOT qualifications, got it? That's why people disbelieve you; your so-called experts assert in contradiction with the EVIDENCE.
---------------------------
Interestingly, Keith Moore will no longer answer emails about his 40 year old claims about embyrology and Islam because it has been so damaging to his professional credibility.
The claims were made in his book The Developing Human, 3rd edition. This book has has two editions. One contains the claims of which you're so fond. It's exclusive to the Arabic world. The other version of the book contains none of the factually incorrect claims you continually trumpet as so damning. Interestingly, some of the scientific texts that Moore references in the relevant section of that book actually directly contradict Moore's claims about the Islamic claims.
If you wish to test my claims, simply email him and ask him to comment. He's Professor Emeritus of Surgery and former Chair of Anatomy at the University of Toronto. Should be simple, right? Don't take the word of some bloke on a website for it, *ask* the man you claim is right.
Do let us know how you get on.
I strongly recommend anyone to look at the claims made for what the Quran says about embryology and compare them to a credible medical text.
If you do and find that vague statements that can be interpreted to mean almost anything and utter absurdities that cannot possibly be said to have any resemblence to reality, then so be it. But don't expect to be taken seriously.
As for your continued argument from authority (a formal logical fallacy) I would repost something I've put on here before:
---------------------------
Let us say that I have a doctorate in mathematics. I say 2+2=5. Let us say that you do not have a doctorate in mathematics. By your logic, 2+2 now equals 5 because someone with a qualification made an assertion.
Qualifications may be an indication of expertise, but they are not a guarantee that everything they say is true. Evidence is what is required, and under normal circumstances one would hope a qualified scientist would provide it. You rely on the fact that Keith Moore has credentials, but ignore the fact that he has no evidence.
Evidence NOT qualifications, got it? That's why people disbelieve you; your so-called experts assert in contradiction with the EVIDENCE.
---------------------------
Interestingly, Keith Moore will no longer answer emails about his 40 year old claims about embyrology and Islam because it has been so damaging to his professional credibility.
The claims were made in his book The Developing Human, 3rd edition. This book has has two editions. One contains the claims of which you're so fond. It's exclusive to the Arabic world. The other version of the book contains none of the factually incorrect claims you continually trumpet as so damning. Interestingly, some of the scientific texts that Moore references in the relevant section of that book actually directly contradict Moore's claims about the Islamic claims.
If you wish to test my claims, simply email him and ask him to comment. He's Professor Emeritus of Surgery and former Chair of Anatomy at the University of Toronto. Should be simple, right? Don't take the word of some bloke on a website for it, *ask* the man you claim is right.
Do let us know how you get on.
Keyplus, re-posting your questions from an unrelated thread into this one is known as courtesy - but it seems that's not all you don't know. ;o)
And for goodness sake stop harping on about poor Professor Moore. That beleaguered man has never mentioned a word about the 'science' of Islam since, under duress, he was obliged to make that embarrassing video - and every time you wheel it out you make yourself more foolish. Do get a grip on reality.
And for goodness sake stop harping on about poor Professor Moore. That beleaguered man has never mentioned a word about the 'science' of Islam since, under duress, he was obliged to make that embarrassing video - and every time you wheel it out you make yourself more foolish. Do get a grip on reality.
-- answer removed --
Christianity was formed around 0 AD. Islam was formed around 7 AD. Big difference.
Mohammed, when he died insisted that he was buried in a cave made of magnetite and that his coffin was made of iron. Result? The coffin appears to float as if by magic, (because magnetite attracts iron), and make his followers believe that he is magical and sacred. Very devious and deceitful in my book.
Mohammed, when he died insisted that he was buried in a cave made of magnetite and that his coffin was made of iron. Result? The coffin appears to float as if by magic, (because magnetite attracts iron), and make his followers believe that he is magical and sacred. Very devious and deceitful in my book.
Gosh - a compliment from Mike11111. That's a first! I'm flattered! Of all the eminent names he could have chosen he's picked Birdie and me! Shame he left one out though - Keyplus. He doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of God and the great redeemer either.
Sir Alec, that's a bit of a myth, isn't it?.
Sir Alec, that's a bit of a myth, isn't it?.
Naomi - /////And for goodness sake stop harping on about poor Professor Moore./////
Only because he said something you do not agree with. Typical atheistic stance. Only believe or credit the people who say what you believe in. Had this Keith Moore said otherwise, or if he would say anything otherwise in the future then I would see if you would ignore that. Very simple but true.
And yes I do not believe that Jesus (pbuh) was son of God and so do many Christians.
Duncer – They just can’t ignore me and they just can’t give up. Because I oppose their propaganda and they are not used to this sort of opposition. Although Naomi claims that my posts are baseless, I am digging myself deep, and all those sorts of things you can think of. But still the crux of matter is that she follows every post of mine and posts after it. You just go and check it for yourself. Or why go too far. Let’s see if she can ignore me NOW ON THIS THREAD.
Only because he said something you do not agree with. Typical atheistic stance. Only believe or credit the people who say what you believe in. Had this Keith Moore said otherwise, or if he would say anything otherwise in the future then I would see if you would ignore that. Very simple but true.
And yes I do not believe that Jesus (pbuh) was son of God and so do many Christians.
Duncer – They just can’t ignore me and they just can’t give up. Because I oppose their propaganda and they are not used to this sort of opposition. Although Naomi claims that my posts are baseless, I am digging myself deep, and all those sorts of things you can think of. But still the crux of matter is that she follows every post of mine and posts after it. You just go and check it for yourself. Or why go too far. Let’s see if she can ignore me NOW ON THIS THREAD.
Waldo – There is no logical fallacy from me. I have read ( as I mentioned before) a very detailed study and analysis about the comparison between all of the theories available before Quran and the Quranic sayings. Perhaps you have not read that as you always talk about Galen and that’s all. But what I am saying is that I am not a scientist and have never claimed to be. But I asked few very simple questions. I will put them again and this time I would suggest (although I do not like it) but please answer these in yes or no.
1 – Is Professor Moore a known personality when it comes to Embryology?
2 – Did he say that whatever is there in Quran agrees with modern knowledge?
3 – Do you believe that he did not know about what Galen and others said?
4 – Finally if he did all this because of money as suggested by Naomi, then is there any direct statement from him clarifying that either way? Or perhaps Naomi is his book-keeper.
5 – Why his work is being taught today in the medical colleges if the gut is not so credible?
Once again as I have learnt here by wasting so much time. I will now only respond to any of the posts if you will answer my questions. Otherwise we have wasted hours and days on this same topic.
1 – Is Professor Moore a known personality when it comes to Embryology?
2 – Did he say that whatever is there in Quran agrees with modern knowledge?
3 – Do you believe that he did not know about what Galen and others said?
4 – Finally if he did all this because of money as suggested by Naomi, then is there any direct statement from him clarifying that either way? Or perhaps Naomi is his book-keeper.
5 – Why his work is being taught today in the medical colleges if the gut is not so credible?
Once again as I have learnt here by wasting so much time. I will now only respond to any of the posts if you will answer my questions. Otherwise we have wasted hours and days on this same topic.
Since I long ago decided that trying to debate with keyplus is futile, I'll just make minor comments to two others.
Mike11111 - your last post is as incomprehensible as most of yours are. How do you know that God sent his 'son'? And if the fact that naomi and birdie deny that something exists means that it does...well, gosh, I expect those unthinking people also deny the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and Cinderella. Silly, aren't they?
Sir Alec - there was no AD0. And Christianity was formed around AD55 by Paul. If Jesus existed (and there is no trace of him nor any mention of him until Paul) then he was plainly a Jew and uninterested in any other religion, let alone in forming one - which would have been blashemy.
Sorry, naomi, to hijack, but these errors have to be corrected as we go along. And how come keyplus doesn't know what sex you are?
Mike11111 - your last post is as incomprehensible as most of yours are. How do you know that God sent his 'son'? And if the fact that naomi and birdie deny that something exists means that it does...well, gosh, I expect those unthinking people also deny the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and Cinderella. Silly, aren't they?
Sir Alec - there was no AD0. And Christianity was formed around AD55 by Paul. If Jesus existed (and there is no trace of him nor any mention of him until Paul) then he was plainly a Jew and uninterested in any other religion, let alone in forming one - which would have been blashemy.
Sorry, naomi, to hijack, but these errors have to be corrected as we go along. And how come keyplus doesn't know what sex you are?
Keyplus, you're being silly again. Why wouldn't I post here - it's my thread!
When did I suggest that Professor Moore said what he said for money? I don't think that is true at all - and I'm pretty sure I've never said it. At the time - and we're talking 40 years ago - he was working for the Saudi government - and he said what he said in order to retain possession of his head!! Think about it. What do you think would have happened to him if he'd told the truth and said the science of the Koran is tosh? We've seen what happens when westerners commit far lesser 'sins' - like drawing silly cartoons of Mohammed!! And why hasn't he repeated those remarks since he was obliged to make that highly embarrassing video? I'll tell you. Because he knows it isn't true- and he has always known it isn't true! Yes, that bogus information remains in Professor Moore's book that is reproduced in Muslim countries and used in Muslim countries - because that's what those people want to believe - and, like you, they are happy to teach their children lies because it suits their purpose - but you won't find it in his books that are used in the west. It simply isn't there. Why do you think that is?
And furthermore, why is it so important to you to claim that one western scientist, 40 years ago, agreed with the science of the Koran - even though, in fact, he said it under duress and never really did agree with it? Where are all the reputable Muslim scientists who agree with it? I don't see them putting their professional reputations at risk. Do you?
When did I suggest that Professor Moore said what he said for money? I don't think that is true at all - and I'm pretty sure I've never said it. At the time - and we're talking 40 years ago - he was working for the Saudi government - and he said what he said in order to retain possession of his head!! Think about it. What do you think would have happened to him if he'd told the truth and said the science of the Koran is tosh? We've seen what happens when westerners commit far lesser 'sins' - like drawing silly cartoons of Mohammed!! And why hasn't he repeated those remarks since he was obliged to make that highly embarrassing video? I'll tell you. Because he knows it isn't true- and he has always known it isn't true! Yes, that bogus information remains in Professor Moore's book that is reproduced in Muslim countries and used in Muslim countries - because that's what those people want to believe - and, like you, they are happy to teach their children lies because it suits their purpose - but you won't find it in his books that are used in the west. It simply isn't there. Why do you think that is?
And furthermore, why is it so important to you to claim that one western scientist, 40 years ago, agreed with the science of the Koran - even though, in fact, he said it under duress and never really did agree with it? Where are all the reputable Muslim scientists who agree with it? I don't see them putting their professional reputations at risk. Do you?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles37 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles97 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles114 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.