Mr. Ryan

I recently purchased a book on embryology so that if I ever encounter somebody from from the Dawah Bandwagon spreading their propaganda in the street I can ask them what the Quran says about embryology and then show them what the Quran says is factually incorrect, using it.

I can't seem to find any pictures in the embryology textbook that show the embryo looking anything resembling a leech (Quran 22:5, 40:67 and 75:38), nor can I find where it says the bones come before the flesh (Quran 23:14). Clearly people are being misled. And it seems one needs good grasp of science to demonstrate people are being lied to. People convert based on lied they are fed and it makes me really angry.

I recommend all people carry science textbook in their bag because Dawah Bandwagon jumpers are become ever more frequent on Western streets as Saudi Arabia has loads more money than sense.

So anyway, what would be your top Quran 'miracle' claim you've heard?

I want to learn about how animals - specifically humans develop in the womb. Please do not recommend any books that have anything to do with Keith Moore. Reason being this conversation P. Z. Myers had with Islamists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4trHH6AuZ0

One of which who believes sex with 9 year olds is fine, if the criteria he stated are met:

http://vimeo.com/82192500

You'd think Allah would have made provisions for fasting and prayer in such places and Muhammad would have predicted space travel but it appears the Quran is ignorant.

So Allah leaves it up to fallible humans to issue Fatwas because the Quran has nothing to say about such important issues as these. And the further one get from Earth the more ridiculous praying towards the Kaaba seems.

You'd think they'd be concourses amoungst scholars on praying and fasting in the Article Circle and in space as it is very important issue but there is not.

Some opinions on fasting in the article circle:

1. Some to use the timings of the nearest Muhammadan country

2. Others say to use Mecca's timing

3. And some ignorant people would have people starve to death if Ramadan falls within the period when the sun doesn't set for many weeks because they would have them follow fasting and prayer times local to them.

Source:

The European Council for Fatwa and Research has said Muslims need to follow the local sunrise and sunset, even up north.

I've worked out that you'd have to pray about every 20 minutes on the International Space Station does a full orbit of the Earth about every 90 minutes, thus making sleep is impossible because the position of the sun changes so quickly.

Why would Satan wage a war with a god he knows can't win against?

If Satan stopped tempting people then that means the prophecies in Revelation cannot be fulfilled, correct? God created Satan knowing Satan would tempt humans, and because Satan helps to fulfill the prophecies of Revelation evil must be part of god's plan.

In any case, how are mere humans supposed to do battle with Satan, a being who has always been able to inconvenience even god? To say that an individual sends themselves to hell seems insulting. God could easily chose not send people hell.

God is a lot like the United States foreign policy: "You can do whatever you want so long as you do what I want!"

Also, local is a subjective term which means different things to different people. If the flood was what I consider to be local, i.e. the small town in which I live, what would be the point of building a boat?

Quran 11:42-43 says: And it sailed with them amid waves like mountains, and Noah cried unto his son - and he was standing aloof - O my son! Come ride with us, and be not with the disbelievers. (42) He said: I shall betake me to some mountain that will save me from the water. (Noah) said: This day there is none that saveth from the commandment of Allah save him on whom He hath had mercy. And the wave came in between them, so he was among the drowned. (43)

Which does not seem local to me. Are these mountains the size of mole hills? Doesn't the Quran 2.42 say: "Do not confuse truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth knowingly."

It sounds like proselytizers are trying to mislead people. Nothing new about that...

I have about GB£11000 (approx US$18450) in savings which is student loan money I have accumulated which I don't have to start paying back until I start earning above a certain amount. Reason being, I was fortunate enough to be able to live with my parents whilst I was doing a university course as the money is supposed to help to cover things such as living expenses (i.e. rent).

Below are five options I came up with:

1. Using it as capital to start a business and perhaps go on a course which helps people to start a business. It would be something simple to start with, maybe a kiosk of some kind so I don't have take out another loan.

2. Peer to peer lending, to either individuals or businesses. Clearly there are risks to this and if you can give me some pointers that'd be great.

3. Buy stocks/shares.

4. Buy gold

5. Invest in a franchise (but I think I'd need more money unless I find a partner(s) to work with).

I remember hearing this somewhere. Obviously not all UKIP voters read newspapers.

Obviously nobody today believes this, but Muhammad said so right here:

Obviously the narrator knows where the sun is setting on the horizon from his perceptive (unless he's blind), because the question is pointless otherwise, so he must be asking where the sun goes to as it disappears for the night.

Sunan Abu Dawud - Book 32, Hadith 34

Narrated Abu Dharr:

I was sitting behind the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets ? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water (Hamiyah).

http://www.quranx.com/Hadith/AbuDawud/Book-32/Hadi...

Related Quran verse and Tafisr:

http://www.quranx.com/18.86?allTranslations=y

Somebody once tried telling me Quranx had been hijacked by Zionists, as an excuse, when I showed them this equally preposterous Hadith:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night."

http://www.quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/Book-59/Hadit...

Sure, this is a hypothetical situation, but very soon people will be living on the moon because people want mine the moon for resources.

Since the moon is tidally locked to the Earth there is no sunrise and sunset. Did Muhammad not think about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

Also, praying towards Mecca is impossible if you live on the dark side of the moon and can only be done a certain times during the lunar day given tidal locking.

Would Silicon based life forms frown upon us Carbon based life forms? There are more galaxies then people living on Earth by a considerable margin.

If you're not familiar see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon-based_life#S...

Quran 3:96 says:

"Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;"

http://www.quranx.com/3.96

Part of the Tafsir of Al-Jalalayn for the verse says:

"...The first house, for worship, established for the people, on earth, was that at Bakka (a variant of Makka [Mecca], so called because it ‘crushes’ [tabukku] the necks of tyrants); it was built by the angels before the creation of Adam..."

http://www.quranx.com/Tafsirs/3.96

So my question is:

How can you prove, using archeological evidence, that Mecca is older than Adam or even the valley of Bakkah from the Bible? The first humans lived on the Earth several hundred thousand years ago:

"A miniscule bit of DNA from an African American man now living in South Carolina has been traced back 338,000 years, according to a new study."

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/african-a...

Secondly, Quran 11:42 says:

"So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest): "O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!""

http://www.quranx.com/11.42?allTranslations=y

Al-Jalalayn says:

http://www.quranx.com/Tafsirs/11.42

Where did all the water go that created waves the size of mountains? How could Noah have reached Al-Judi?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Judi

If all of the glaciers melted the global sea level would rise by less than 100m.

I suspect not since there are small but key differences. And yet Muhammadans seem to think that they can speak in the place of Jews. For example this website:

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/554,136400/Is-H...

Says that Halal is just as bad as meat that isn't Kosher.

I'm not actually a Jew. Merely wanting to hear a Jew speak about Halal and Kosher for a change.

P.S. We can dismiss the entire Quran based on this verse alone (for which there are not historical evidence for):

http://www.quranx.com/3.96?allTranslations=y

Pickthal: "Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;"

Tafisr:

http://www.quranx.com/Tafsirs/3.96

The first humans appeared (i.e. Adam) on the Earth several hundred thousand years ago and there is no way Mecca is that old. You'd think that if Mecca is Bakkah there would be lots of archeological evidence supporting that claim. What we find is Mecca is no older than Christianity at best. Therefore Abraham and Adam could not possibility have gone there because there was absolutely nothing there!

Is there any archeology? How come there's no proof humans lived where Mecca is today before the 3rd century AD? Unlike Mecca, there is evidence for the city of Merca in Somalia during time of Abraham:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merca

I always knew the likes of Zakir Naik, Yusuf Estes and Hamza Tzortzis were dishonest, but the below article I have linked is written by somebody who believes the Quran. It essentially explains why people laugh at the Quran, and reason given is the so-called 'Dawah (and Scientific Miracles) Bandwagon' the article goes onto describe. By the way, the idea that the the Muhammadan religion is the fastest growing religion in the English speaking world is a falsehood propagated by the 'Dawah Bandwagon' the article goes onto describe. This bandwagon is of course responsible for all the YouTube videos where people are put on the spot.

See link:

http://www.aqidah.com/creed/articles/apzfw-advice-...

(I have linked to part 1 of 4)

And I quote "Further, Hamza Tzortzis has resorted to dishonesty when unable to remove himself from sticky situations in debate (examples of which will follow inshaa'Allah) and because of his ignorance of matters of al-Qadaa wal-qadar and al-hikmah and al-adl in Allaah's actions, he has been completely OWNED by the atheists when they made him face certain (moral) dilemmas in the course of debate, not being wise to their crafty methods and real objectives. An illustration of that will follow too inshaa'Allaah."

The article goes onto say:

"Hence, the danger in the methodological mistakes of people like Hamza Tzortzis far exceeds the danger of Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins or Paul Myers and their likes, since the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not hold any trust in their opinion or view."

So there you have it - (some of) your own apologists are more dangerous than Atheists. Whether the person who wrote the article has any credibility is another story, but it resonates with me and I think everyone should be worried by people who say it's better to give money to the cause of Dawah than to feed starving people in Somalia:

Yusuf Chambers, from IREA like Hamza Tzortzis, (he said Somalis are nothing more than "clay" and you should donate money to his organization rather than give to charities supporting starving Somalians) Source: (at 1:37 in the video) http://vimeo.com/27686437

Also see here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/importantnaseehah/vide...

I watched an interview with him a while a go on RT and he talked about "freedom" and "software that doesn't control it's users". The exchange was eye-opening, although I must mention I had heard of him before hand and I have used Linux breifly in the past, for a university assignment, and I guess I should not have been so quick to brush aside the inconvenient since I am quite a security concious person. I use DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine, for examploe.

Those interested can watch the cited interview by searching (I'm on my BlackBerry so it's awkward): "Richard Stallman: We're heading for a total disaster" on YouTube.

I was always confused about morality, at least from a religious perspective. The idea that an somebody without a religion is more likely to kill because they are immoral sounds preposterous to me. In other animals of the same species we often see that they try and avoid physically harming each other (when defending their territory or fighting over a potential partner) because it's not beneficial. They want to conserve their energy in order to defend themselves from predators or to hunt. Animals try and avoid harming their own kind because they want to survive as avoiding confrontations will conserve energy.

I watched a documentary called "The Secret Life Of Cats", in which they attached cameras and GPS trackers to domesticated cats. What they found was that the cats in the village tried their best to avoid each other and left their respective houses at times when they knew there wouldn't be any neighbouring cats patrolling their territory. When they did happen to meet a cat they didn't like they'd make lots of noise and try to intimidate the other cat as actually engaging in a physical confrontation with another animal of the same species seemed to be a last resort.

Those interested can watch the cited documentary here: watch?v=M2c5SE_wYp8

Here is a presentation I watched today citing some apparently "moral behaviour" observed in animals other than humans:

www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html

Maybe I've got the wrong idea, but from what I understand physically harming another human is not beneficial to the survival of the human race. As religion is one of the main points of disagreement between peoples, it could be argued that religious people are in fact more likely to kill than non-religious people (Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin did not kill anybody in the name of Atheism). We see that in the Central African Republic:

duckduckgo.com/?q=Central+African+Republic+news

In the Syrian Civil War of course, and surprisingly, even in the U.K. where people who denounce Muhammad are given death threats:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oypdeAccifg

Somebody with more intelligence might not be strong psychically - and therefore not capable of defending themselves - but they are just as beneficial to the survival of the human race as somebody who is psychically strong but nowhere near as smart as them. In a society everybody has a role to play in order for that society to prosper and survive. It seems to me though, that different societies seem to have different sets of moral values. For example, a nomadic society may not care for the elderly as much as a Western one because the frail will slow them down during their travels from place to place. In the West the elderly are seen as people of knowledge and experience and we tend to look after them.

In my opinion, a deity should take away the free will of the murderers to murder so that the free will of the victim is not affected. Surely taking away the free will of the perpetrator is better than taking away the free will of the victim not to be murdered? Why does your deity like to watch people being murdered? My understanding is that these people only do things because their deity told them to do because they are scared of hell and not necessarily because they want to be good human beings. I see a lot of people trying to get brownie-points from Allah for example and often it's the religious people and not the sceptics that deceive people, because see lots of examples of people using scripture for their personal gain.

All Pickthall:

(6:34):

"Messengers indeed have been denied before thee, and they were patient under the denial and the persecution till Our succour reached them. There is none to alter the decisions of Allah. Already there hath reached thee (somewhat) of the tidings of the messengers (We sent before)."

(6:115):

"Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower."

(10:64):

"Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph."

Apparently the Quran was ready in Heaven before the beginning of our universe yet Allah allows the abrogation of verses even though Allah is a god and therefore should be able to know what is going to happen. But 6:115 (from a Meccan chapter: http://tanzil.net/wiki/Revelation_Order ) says the words of Allah have been perfected. If the Quran was ready in heaven and the words have been perfected then why do we have these two verses:

(2:106): "Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?"

(16:101): "And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not."

This also begs the question, why wasn't the Quran revealed straight away to Adam and Eve instead of waiting around 600 years after the Bible was completed? The Quran was ready in heaven wasn't it?

6:34 says there are none to alter the decisions of Allah but apparently Satan can because the original 53:19-20 said:

"Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá and Manāt, the third, the other? These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses

http://www.quranx.com/Search?q=al-Lat&context=

The new verses (53:19-23) say: "Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza (19) And Manat, the third, the other? (20) Are yours the males and His the females? (21) That indeed were an unfair division! (22) They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them. (23)"

(notice how the first two verses of the passage use the exact same wording as the first sentence in the previous 53:19-20)

Shouldn't these new verses have been revealed before Satan tempted Muhammad?

It is my belief that Allah, by revealing the new verses after the event, is changing the Quran to suit Muhammad's situation and is acknowledging Satan tempting Muhammad (why does Allah not protect somebody as important as Muhammad?). And therefore, the Quran could not have been perfected since Allah has to contradict 10:64 because the Quran has changed since Allah readied in Heaven before the universe began. If the Hadith is unauthentic (because people like to dismiss Hadith they don't like) then why does Allah feel the need to specifically mention the names of the three goddesses? The Quran has a lot of say about Pagans but the fact that those names in particular are mentioned should arouse suspicion.

If a deity doesn't stop somebody from taking somebody hostage then he is affecting the free will of the victim. Don't the rights of one person end where those of another begin? The victim should have the freedom not to be taken hostage. But the divine doesn't interviene even though somebodies free will is affected if they doesn't. It can therefore be argued that it is better for a deity to restict the free will of the criminal. Either way only one person's free will is affected (although in many cases the ration of victims to criminals is greater).

Plus, if there is a hell then this deity can prevent them from commiting a sin too since a loving god would not want see humans suffer in hell right? Deities tend to be described as all seeing and all knowing but has your deity ever experienced hell? How can a deity be all knowing if they've never been to hell?

If I have been ignorant then please forgive me but to me it seems like in some cases somebodies free will is affected regardless of whether a deity intervienes or not.

Can somebody who writes horoscopes be a Muslim? If not, then the Islamic Golden Age may not be as Islamic as we first thought. al-Khwarizmi, who is credited with Algebra, is known to have written horoscopes and studied Astrology.

I don't believe an Astrologer can also believe the Quran. Where is the evidence that says he believed Quran? If there is, he probably pretended so he wasn't persecuted or for tax purposes. It seems we should instead be thanking the Zoroastrians for Algebra (or whatever religion he actually was).

All Islam does is copy. It copies Greek science too.

Somebody told me once that if you want to ask questions about the Quran you should go to the Ramadan section, but I don't feel this is right. I believe the Ramadan section should be for questions relating to Ramadan only. And that got me thinking.

In my opinion there should be a section for each of the religions, along with one for the non-religious, so individual sections don't become cluttered (I would guess that the Mythology and Folklore section is where ancient religions such as Aztec, Mayan, Nordic, Greek and Egyptian would be discussed, though I have never visited that section):

Atheism

Buddhism

Christianity

Hinduism

Judaism

Muhammadan

Sikhism

Other, for those not large enough or without a significant presence in the English speaking Yahoo Answers (e.g. Agnosticism, Deism, Jainism, LaVeyan Satanism, contemporary Paganism, Shintoism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism etc.)

Then, each section based on a single religion would have sub section based on events such a Christmas, Diwali and Passover etc. For the larger religions each one could also be subdivided into the major groups (e.g. Protestantism, Roman Catholic and Orthodoxy, Sunni, Shia and the major Buddhist schools and Hindu denominations). Buddhism is the fastest growing religion amongst White people in the English speaking world by the way, and not the Muhammadan religion. Check the census data. Just putting that out there.