The Jews will deceive people and say that Allah made an eternal covenant with them and said He would never abandon them. This is false, because the covenant which Allah Taala made with them was conditional, and if they fulfilled the conditions than He would continue to bless them, but if they didn't than He would abandon them and raise up a new ummah. This fact is mentioned in their own book
"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." (Jeremiah* 31:31)
The new covenant which is binding upon not only the nation of Israel, but in fact all the nations of the world is the covenant which Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) has been brought with, namely Islam.
*Jeremiah is from the Old Testament - which Jews accept.
Saturday, 21 March 2009
PDF
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Abiogenesis is just hypothesis, not fact
I'm going to discuss some parts of brother steve/Abdul Fattah's article on abiogenesis [life coming from non life] so its easier to understand the weaknesses in the study, which is used by many to support the claim that life can come from non life.
Its already self explanatory, but it can get abit complicated for someone who doesn't know too much about the topic. So its aimed at people who don't have much knowledge on science (and might fear to get in debate). Insha Allah it'll help you on replying to people who might themselves not know the weaknesses in their own arguments.
the full article can be accessed here;
http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm
Lets Start
First of all - abiogenesis is more closer to hypothesis than real scientific proof.
Hypothesis is;
So this theory is not really scientific FACT. It's a concept which scientists are trying to prove, but it isn't yet proven [as we will see below insha Allah.]
Intro to Miller's Study
The famous study which is always stated to prove that life can come from non life is Miller's Study, the brother summarises the study in three sentences;
Miller tried to imitate the early earths atmosphere, and like he said - a small amount [2%] of amino acids (which are building blocks for proteins, which are building blocks for life) were produced. But harmful substances were also produced in the experiment; tar and carboxylic acids.
Tar is harmful to organic matter [amino acids are organic] because; Tar contains hosts of poly nuclear aromatics, toxic heavy metals, naphthenic acids, benzene and fused benzenoid type materials which are declared toxic by EPA-USA(Google it). Tar is a carcinogen which can damage genes (and therefore could destroy any DNA produced.) Also Tar can coat organic matter stopping light and water getting to the organic matter..as the carboxy groups above - therefore stopping life.
Harmful carboxylic acids are dangerous for amino acids because they react with the amino groups on the amino acids. So amino acids react with the Carboxylic acids, forming it into amides and amino carboxylates. So in this case, the amino acids can't be used to form into proteins, since they've reacted and become amides and amino carboxylates.
But since a small amount of amino acids were produced in the experiment, lets say for arguments sake that they survived the harmful substances, and lets move forward.
Amino acids are the building blocks of life - but the experiment doesn't show how they formed into Proteins
What are amino acids? Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins , which if formed together in the right way - will form proteins, and proteins form into tissues, and tissues can become muscles, muscles wrap around bone and nerves to become organs (i.e. an arm, heart etc.), and lots of functioning/working organs become an organism (a being i.e. an animal.)
So one question which we already get in our mind is that if amino acids do form through the experiment, how do they later on form in the correct way to become useful proteins? The experiment doesn't answer that question. So already, this experiment does not explain how life originates. You are justified to deny abiogenesis and are not going against science if you do so, because science has not proved its reality yet.
DNA & Proteins need each other for reproduction, so which one came first?
First, for a 'living' cell to exist, or pass its genes on to future generations - it needs DNA. Without DNA, it can't pass on its 'genes' to the future generation. Your DNA contains ALL your body information, such as your physical attributes (i.e. hair colour, eye colour etc. to how tall you would be.) That's why you share your DNA to your parents, since its their genes which pass onto you - which make up your DNA. If they never had DNA, they wouldn't exist, therefore they wouldn't be able to pass any genes onto you - so you wouldn't exist.
RNA is similar to DNA, except that its one strand (of nucleotides) instead of two strands (of nucleotides) coiled together (which is DNA).
[DNA is usually in animals, and RNA is usually in viruses etc.]
Anyway;
DNA cannot come into existence by itself because it's made up of nucleic acids (which are made with the help of proteins). But proteins can't be made except with the DNA telling the amino acids to be in the correct sequence to form into useful proteins.
DNA cannot be reproduced unless it has a cell membrane that it can reside in and other organelles [which are made of proteins] enter this cell, which aid it in reproducing itself [like a factory holding together the workers and the boss (DNA) telling the cell what to do]. The cell relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. The problem is though, that proteins can only be made with DNA.
So what came first? DNA or Proteins? Since the proteins [organelles] are required to reproduce the DNA in a cell, and DNA is required to produce proteins.
That's a Paradox, one cannot be produced without the other. So this is a BIG question mark on the study of abiogenesis, since both DNA and Proteins are extremely complex to have formed by themselves.
If someone was to argue that they did form together or independently, then they need to provide scientific studies to show that this is possible. As of now, there has been no scientific studies or results to prove this to be a reality (with Miller only showing that a small amount of amino acids can be made).
Life 'could' have originated through abiogenesis, but its too complicated to be a certainty.
In the near past people would argue against abiogenesis by saying that cells are way too complicated (with small organelles within it and a nucleus - like a working factory which allows the cell to function in its role well and make copies of itself). So scientists put forward the idea that the first cell probably never had organelles with it, but rather - organelles formed on the planet [through abiogenesis] and moved into a cell membrane, the DNA also got into the cell - and the cell was able to make copies of itself and evolve into more advanced organisms over time.
Note: Scientists have been able to produce Cell Membranes lately (cell membranes are made up of fat/lipids) and the procedure isn't too complicated, and is scientifically possible [this is what you usually see in the big science headlines when they argue they're getting closer to making 'life'.]. But the production of cell membranes isn't the biggest problem for them, since the complexity of Design is in support of a believer in God more than an atheist. Due to this, some atheists have explained that we cannot be certain of how life really originated, but they are trying to find out how it could have possibly originated. But can't a theist then argue that life could originate the way their scripture states? i.e. both depend on faith since both are events which science has not proved yet.
Left Handed Isomers are only useful in biology
There are two types of amino acids, left handed and right handed (isomers) [Imagine your left hand and right hand - they're the same - but the total mirror opposite of each other]. In biology, only left handed ones are present from the most simple of biological organisms to the most complex [for plants and animals]. There are no right handed amino acids which can be used, and if they were to get involved - they wouldn't just be unuseful, but they would destroy the organism itself.
[img]http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/199-1.jpg[/img]
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/199-1.jpg
So since amino acids are required to produce proteins, and atheists say they formed coincidentally into the correct sequences and formed into useful proteins (for life), that 'coincidence' isn't enough, but there cannot even be ONE right handed amino acid which gets involved in this sequencing - otherwise the whole organism will be destroyed.
But someone can argue that yes, left handed ones were only present and this is why there was no harm in amino acids coming together to form into the correct proteins. The problem is though that in Millers Study, there were BOTH left handed AND right handed (amino acids/isomers) produced equally. (Search Racemic mixture)
So the 'coincidence' of the amino acids being left handed only, without allowing even one right handed amino acid [isomer] to get involved in its sequencing is impossible. There is not even one natural selection mechanism which will allow any right handed amino acids to be removed - if it was to find any in its sequencing - instead it would be totally destroyed and the whole process of abiogenesis would have to start all over again to 'create' life, but again - the same problems would arise on this issue..
In other words, its like tossing a coin thousands of times and only getting heads (or left handed isomers only.) It's simply impossible unless someone was to control it purposelly this way.
Nucleotides of DNA can only be right handed isomers
If you're surprised about this, then you should also know that the nucleotides which make up the DNA can only be made up of right handed isomers, and no left handed isomers. Otherwise, if a left handed isomer nucleotide got involved in the make up of DNA, it would be destroyed altogether in a similar way.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
Organelles Entering a 'Closed' cell?
But lets say that cell membranes could form in the early earth atmosphere - as science has shown. And lets - for arguments sake - accept that the complex protein organelles are formed on the planet [although the first point about DNA & Proteins complexity and its paradox refutes this claim]. The question still comes up; how did this cell membrane open up to allow DNA, and even the organelles to enter it? Remember that the cell membrane is just made up of fat/lipids. It doesn't have anything extra special about it to know what to do. It can't say to itself 'open up' because it doesn't have anything to tell it to do that.
So how did these organelles or even the DNA enter into this cell membrane? The cell membrane is required because this is the location where the DNA, and the organelles work together to allow the cell to function. The cell membrane is what protects all these organelles and DNA together and keeps them in place so they don't spill or move away somewhere else outside the cell.
The only way the cell could allow other things to enter it is if it had 'receptors' - which could recognise to accept good things to enter it [i.e. organelles] and to leave the harmful things out (which could potentially destroy the cell). But scientists have not produced any cells which have receptors [they've only made cells which are closed and don't let anything to go in/out of them.] The cell membrane wouldn't even have anything to tell it to open or close since fats by themselves cannot do such a thing. The only reasons cells can do this today is because they have organelles within them which do allow this to occur. A fatty/lipid membrane by itself can't do such a thing.
So how was the first cell able to reproduce itself when all the different required components (cell membrane, organelles & DNA) were separate from each other? And furthermore, they couldn't enter a cell membrane - which is required for the cell to function & make copies of itself [cell division.]
People sometimes argue that earlier cells were much more simple and less complicated than the cells today, but even then - that does not answer how DNA and organelles entered into the cell membrane in the first place to allow it to make copies of itself and advance onto a more advanced organism.
Lightning strikes the same spot continuously for a whole week?
This is what happened in Miller's study, he placed electrodes in his mixture to charge up the mixture for a few days to a week. These electrodes were taking the place of lightning in the early earth atmosphere, with the lightning striking the location where the abiogenesis would be occurring.
So the question is; is this is really possible? Can lightning really hit the same spot continuously for days upon days? I believe its impossible. There's a famous saying that 'lightning doesn't hit the same spot twice'. But for a whole week continuously?
Another angle to looking at it -panspermia-* is even more far fetched. Rather then only suggesting lightning struck at the exact same spot for a whole week, it also suggest that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But these peptides are short chains of amino acids, not the long proteins necessary for life. Furthermore it's even more unlikely considering not just any meteor would fit the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up in the atmosphere destroying the amino acids, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive either. At the same time delivering enough energy for the chemical process to take place. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply avoids the problem of having to explain how these molecules were formed trough natural processes.
Time doesn't matter if the right components (and conditions) are met for it to take place
Now, often people reply that this experiment only lasted a couple of days or a week, whereas the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true.
But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would run a stretch of 100m on a track of 200m or 300m or even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run those 100m of that track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance because the additional length has no bearing on the likeliness of the performance. Likewise; the many years that the universe existed, and the many planets that were suitable for this process to occur does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. The amount of time available, as long as it is enough, doesn't make the chemically impossible into probable. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.
The last two sentences also clarify that even if small amounts of amino acids are produced, it doesn't explain how they would form into proteins and more advanced organisms. Then he gives the example of shaking a Lego box and expecting pieces to join together to make a working model. i.e. in this case of an organism.
Summary Conclusion
So Miller's study, nor science answer some BIG questions on how life really originated. Yes, it explains that an extremely small amount of amino acids could have formed in the early atmosphere, but that isn't enough. Why?
Amino Acids:
- Because Amino Acids being produced in a small quantity (2%), by themselves are not sufficient to prove that life actually came from them. Furthermore, they were surrounded by harmful substances (tar and harmful carboxylic acids) which could actually destroy the amino acids produced and prevent them from advancing on to become proteins. And one step further, how did these amino acids become proteins? There is no answer for this in science, nor in the study, so its hypothesis only - therefore not fact, and therefore not proved science.
DNA, Proteins & the Cell Membrane;
- DNA and Proteins can't form without the aid of the other. So which one came first? Proteins can't be made without DNA, and DNA can't be copied without proteins [organelles within a cell to allow it to reproduce itself]. If someone was to argue that they were made independently, thats even more exaggerated and even more unlikely because of their extreme complexity - even on the smallest scale.
- Even if the DNA, organelles [which have not been produced by scientists], and cell membrane (which has been made by scientists) were produced for the sake of argument - how would they [the DNA, organelles] enter the cell which has no receptors to allow anything good (i.e. organelles, DNA) or even anything harmful to enter it?
Left Handed Isomers are only common in biology
Right handed isomers/amino acids can't get involved in the makeup of the proteins, otherwise the whole organism will be destroyed. Since Stanley Miller produced both right and left handed isomers in his early environment, and only left handed isomers are used in biology for living beings, the probability of only left handed beings being produced is extremely low, since right amino acids will always get involved - and therefore destroy anything which could potentially be produced.
Electrodes & Lightning;
Electrodes were placed in the original mixture to take the place of lightning which would charge the mixture for some days continuously. But the reality is that lightning doesn't hit the same spot continuously for a whole week. So this questions the experiments validity, since real life is not really like this.
Time doesn't matter if the right conditions are met for it to take place;
If abiogenesis can occur within a certain environment with the right conditions, but it doesn't - the amount of time doesn't matter. The fact that it doesn't happen - when it can - questions its validity.
There are much more valid points and questions raised within the original article But the above is sufficient insha Allah.
Its already self explanatory, but it can get abit complicated for someone who doesn't know too much about the topic. So its aimed at people who don't have much knowledge on science (and might fear to get in debate). Insha Allah it'll help you on replying to people who might themselves not know the weaknesses in their own arguments.
the full article can be accessed here;
http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm
Lets Start
First of all - abiogenesis is more closer to hypothesis than real scientific proof.
Hypothesis is;
- a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in ...
- guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So this theory is not really scientific FACT. It's a concept which scientists are trying to prove, but it isn't yet proven [as we will see below insha Allah.]
Intro to Miller's Study
The famous study which is always stated to prove that life can come from non life is Miller's Study, the brother summarises the study in three sentences;
In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids.
Miller tried to imitate the early earths atmosphere, and like he said - a small amount [2%] of amino acids (which are building blocks for proteins, which are building blocks for life) were produced. But harmful substances were also produced in the experiment; tar and carboxylic acids.
Tar is harmful to organic matter [amino acids are organic] because; Tar contains hosts of poly nuclear aromatics, toxic heavy metals, naphthenic acids, benzene and fused benzenoid type materials which are declared toxic by EPA-USA(Google it). Tar is a carcinogen which can damage genes (and therefore could destroy any DNA produced.) Also Tar can coat organic matter stopping light and water getting to the organic matter..as the carboxy groups above - therefore stopping life.
Harmful carboxylic acids are dangerous for amino acids because they react with the amino groups on the amino acids. So amino acids react with the Carboxylic acids, forming it into amides and amino carboxylates. So in this case, the amino acids can't be used to form into proteins, since they've reacted and become amides and amino carboxylates.
But since a small amount of amino acids were produced in the experiment, lets say for arguments sake that they survived the harmful substances, and lets move forward.
Amino acids are the building blocks of life - but the experiment doesn't show how they formed into Proteins
What are amino acids? Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins , which if formed together in the right way - will form proteins, and proteins form into tissues, and tissues can become muscles, muscles wrap around bone and nerves to become organs (i.e. an arm, heart etc.), and lots of functioning/working organs become an organism (a being i.e. an animal.)
So one question which we already get in our mind is that if amino acids do form through the experiment, how do they later on form in the correct way to become useful proteins? The experiment doesn't answer that question. So already, this experiment does not explain how life originates. You are justified to deny abiogenesis and are not going against science if you do so, because science has not proved its reality yet.
DNA & Proteins need each other for reproduction, so which one came first?
First, for a 'living' cell to exist, or pass its genes on to future generations - it needs DNA. Without DNA, it can't pass on its 'genes' to the future generation. Your DNA contains ALL your body information, such as your physical attributes (i.e. hair colour, eye colour etc. to how tall you would be.) That's why you share your DNA to your parents, since its their genes which pass onto you - which make up your DNA. If they never had DNA, they wouldn't exist, therefore they wouldn't be able to pass any genes onto you - so you wouldn't exist.
RNA is similar to DNA, except that its one strand (of nucleotides) instead of two strands (of nucleotides) coiled together (which is DNA).
[DNA is usually in animals, and RNA is usually in viruses etc.]
Anyway;
The biggest challenge to the [abiogenesis] theory is DNA or RNA. And without it, there can be no evolution, without it no progress of previous life can be past down. And without passing down information, you cannot build up something, you cannot have an evolution. Since all living things have RNA or DNA, abiogenesists would expect the very first alive being to have it as well..Those molecules however are immensely complex. So the biggest challenge to abiogenesis is explaining how it could have formed spontaneously out of lifeless matter.
Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids; in their RNA or DNA. This information is then used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. So these proteins are required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox.
So the brother is explaining that;Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids; in their RNA or DNA. This information is then used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. So these proteins are required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox.
DNA cannot come into existence by itself because it's made up of nucleic acids (which are made with the help of proteins). But proteins can't be made except with the DNA telling the amino acids to be in the correct sequence to form into useful proteins.
DNA cannot be reproduced unless it has a cell membrane that it can reside in and other organelles [which are made of proteins] enter this cell, which aid it in reproducing itself [like a factory holding together the workers and the boss (DNA) telling the cell what to do]. The cell relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. The problem is though, that proteins can only be made with DNA.
So what came first? DNA or Proteins? Since the proteins [organelles] are required to reproduce the DNA in a cell, and DNA is required to produce proteins.
That's a Paradox, one cannot be produced without the other. So this is a BIG question mark on the study of abiogenesis, since both DNA and Proteins are extremely complex to have formed by themselves.
If someone was to argue that they did form together or independently, then they need to provide scientific studies to show that this is possible. As of now, there has been no scientific studies or results to prove this to be a reality (with Miller only showing that a small amount of amino acids can be made).
Life 'could' have originated through abiogenesis, but its too complicated to be a certainty.
In the near past people would argue against abiogenesis by saying that cells are way too complicated (with small organelles within it and a nucleus - like a working factory which allows the cell to function in its role well and make copies of itself). So scientists put forward the idea that the first cell probably never had organelles with it, but rather - organelles formed on the planet [through abiogenesis] and moved into a cell membrane, the DNA also got into the cell - and the cell was able to make copies of itself and evolve into more advanced organisms over time.
Note: Scientists have been able to produce Cell Membranes lately (cell membranes are made up of fat/lipids) and the procedure isn't too complicated, and is scientifically possible [this is what you usually see in the big science headlines when they argue they're getting closer to making 'life'.]. But the production of cell membranes isn't the biggest problem for them, since the complexity of Design is in support of a believer in God more than an atheist. Due to this, some atheists have explained that we cannot be certain of how life really originated, but they are trying to find out how it could have possibly originated. But can't a theist then argue that life could originate the way their scripture states? i.e. both depend on faith since both are events which science has not proved yet.
Left Handed Isomers are only useful in biology
There are two types of amino acids, left handed and right handed (isomers) [Imagine your left hand and right hand - they're the same - but the total mirror opposite of each other]. In biology, only left handed ones are present from the most simple of biological organisms to the most complex [for plants and animals]. There are no right handed amino acids which can be used, and if they were to get involved - they wouldn't just be unuseful, but they would destroy the organism itself.
[img]http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/199-1.jpg[/img]
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/199-1.jpg
So since amino acids are required to produce proteins, and atheists say they formed coincidentally into the correct sequences and formed into useful proteins (for life), that 'coincidence' isn't enough, but there cannot even be ONE right handed amino acid which gets involved in this sequencing - otherwise the whole organism will be destroyed.
But someone can argue that yes, left handed ones were only present and this is why there was no harm in amino acids coming together to form into the correct proteins. The problem is though that in Millers Study, there were BOTH left handed AND right handed (amino acids/isomers) produced equally. (Search Racemic mixture)
So the 'coincidence' of the amino acids being left handed only, without allowing even one right handed amino acid [isomer] to get involved in its sequencing is impossible. There is not even one natural selection mechanism which will allow any right handed amino acids to be removed - if it was to find any in its sequencing - instead it would be totally destroyed and the whole process of abiogenesis would have to start all over again to 'create' life, but again - the same problems would arise on this issue..
In other words, its like tossing a coin thousands of times and only getting heads (or left handed isomers only.) It's simply impossible unless someone was to control it purposelly this way.
Nucleotides of DNA can only be right handed isomers
If you're surprised about this, then you should also know that the nucleotides which make up the DNA can only be made up of right handed isomers, and no left handed isomers. Otherwise, if a left handed isomer nucleotide got involved in the make up of DNA, it would be destroyed altogether in a similar way.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
Organelles Entering a 'Closed' cell?
But lets say that cell membranes could form in the early earth atmosphere - as science has shown. And lets - for arguments sake - accept that the complex protein organelles are formed on the planet [although the first point about DNA & Proteins complexity and its paradox refutes this claim]. The question still comes up; how did this cell membrane open up to allow DNA, and even the organelles to enter it? Remember that the cell membrane is just made up of fat/lipids. It doesn't have anything extra special about it to know what to do. It can't say to itself 'open up' because it doesn't have anything to tell it to do that.
So how did these organelles or even the DNA enter into this cell membrane? The cell membrane is required because this is the location where the DNA, and the organelles work together to allow the cell to function. The cell membrane is what protects all these organelles and DNA together and keeps them in place so they don't spill or move away somewhere else outside the cell.
The only way the cell could allow other things to enter it is if it had 'receptors' - which could recognise to accept good things to enter it [i.e. organelles] and to leave the harmful things out (which could potentially destroy the cell). But scientists have not produced any cells which have receptors [they've only made cells which are closed and don't let anything to go in/out of them.] The cell membrane wouldn't even have anything to tell it to open or close since fats by themselves cannot do such a thing. The only reasons cells can do this today is because they have organelles within them which do allow this to occur. A fatty/lipid membrane by itself can't do such a thing.
So how was the first cell able to reproduce itself when all the different required components (cell membrane, organelles & DNA) were separate from each other? And furthermore, they couldn't enter a cell membrane - which is required for the cell to function & make copies of itself [cell division.]
People sometimes argue that earlier cells were much more simple and less complicated than the cells today, but even then - that does not answer how DNA and organelles entered into the cell membrane in the first place to allow it to make copies of itself and advance onto a more advanced organism.
Lightning strikes the same spot continuously for a whole week?
This is what happened in Miller's study, he placed electrodes in his mixture to charge up the mixture for a few days to a week. These electrodes were taking the place of lightning in the early earth atmosphere, with the lightning striking the location where the abiogenesis would be occurring.
So the question is; is this is really possible? Can lightning really hit the same spot continuously for days upon days? I believe its impossible. There's a famous saying that 'lightning doesn't hit the same spot twice'. But for a whole week continuously?
Another angle to looking at it -panspermia-* is even more far fetched. Rather then only suggesting lightning struck at the exact same spot for a whole week, it also suggest that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But these peptides are short chains of amino acids, not the long proteins necessary for life. Furthermore it's even more unlikely considering not just any meteor would fit the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up in the atmosphere destroying the amino acids, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive either. At the same time delivering enough energy for the chemical process to take place. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply avoids the problem of having to explain how these molecules were formed trough natural processes.
*The hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Time doesn't matter if the right components (and conditions) are met for it to take place
Now, often people reply that this experiment only lasted a couple of days or a week, whereas the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true.
But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would run a stretch of 100m on a track of 200m or 300m or even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run those 100m of that track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance because the additional length has no bearing on the likeliness of the performance. Likewise; the many years that the universe existed, and the many planets that were suitable for this process to occur does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. The amount of time available, as long as it is enough, doesn't make the chemically impossible into probable. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.
The last two sentences also clarify that even if small amounts of amino acids are produced, it doesn't explain how they would form into proteins and more advanced organisms. Then he gives the example of shaking a Lego box and expecting pieces to join together to make a working model. i.e. in this case of an organism.
Summary Conclusion
Amino Acids:
- Because Amino Acids being produced in a small quantity (2%), by themselves are not sufficient to prove that life actually came from them. Furthermore, they were surrounded by harmful substances (tar and harmful carboxylic acids) which could actually destroy the amino acids produced and prevent them from advancing on to become proteins. And one step further, how did these amino acids become proteins? There is no answer for this in science, nor in the study, so its hypothesis only - therefore not fact, and therefore not proved science.
DNA, Proteins & the Cell Membrane;
- DNA and Proteins can't form without the aid of the other. So which one came first? Proteins can't be made without DNA, and DNA can't be copied without proteins [organelles within a cell to allow it to reproduce itself]. If someone was to argue that they were made independently, thats even more exaggerated and even more unlikely because of their extreme complexity - even on the smallest scale.
- Even if the DNA, organelles [which have not been produced by scientists], and cell membrane (which has been made by scientists) were produced for the sake of argument - how would they [the DNA, organelles] enter the cell which has no receptors to allow anything good (i.e. organelles, DNA) or even anything harmful to enter it?
Left Handed Isomers are only common in biology
Right handed isomers/amino acids can't get involved in the makeup of the proteins, otherwise the whole organism will be destroyed. Since Stanley Miller produced both right and left handed isomers in his early environment, and only left handed isomers are used in biology for living beings, the probability of only left handed beings being produced is extremely low, since right amino acids will always get involved - and therefore destroy anything which could potentially be produced.
Electrodes & Lightning;
Electrodes were placed in the original mixture to take the place of lightning which would charge the mixture for some days continuously. But the reality is that lightning doesn't hit the same spot continuously for a whole week. So this questions the experiments validity, since real life is not really like this.
Time doesn't matter if the right conditions are met for it to take place;
If abiogenesis can occur within a certain environment with the right conditions, but it doesn't - the amount of time doesn't matter. The fact that it doesn't happen - when it can - questions its validity.
There are much more valid points and questions raised within the original article But the above is sufficient insha Allah.
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Isn't Science really Proving God today?
Many atheists today try to say that science is disproving God's existence, simply because we are understanding how the universe works. i.e. in the past people thought that the Sun only rised because 'God did it', and now people know that its because the sun is rotating on its axis using science.
In Islam, we know that God/Allah tells us to reflect on the creation and to understand how it functions in harmony with each other - as a sign that it is controlled and designed by God. Wasn't it the Muslims who revived science into Europe, finally causing the Rennaissance?
Atheists can't answer with scientific proof the most crucial points which support their beliefs;
What occurred before the Big Bang.
Theists do really and sincerely want to know who caused the beginning of all matter, but atheists will tell us to accept that 'they dont know' - so why should we prefer their belief over ours? The Big Bang infact proves God more than disproves God, because in the past philosophers argued the universe was eternal [in the state it is in today] forever, but the Big Bang proved that it had a beginning point and therefore more lenient towards an Originator. why should we believe that something which does not have an intellect controls the different forces to form things which could have only been formed by control and one with an intellect? Chaos by itself cannot cause control or a greater harmony - a harmony which is prevalent in the universe we live in today.
they might argue that there are eternal crunches and big bangs to allow this universe to come into existence, and the planet earth allows life to survive within it due to this 'chance' - but we say that you have no proof for this claim that there have been eternal crunches and big bangs, so why should we believe this claim without any evidence on your part? [something u claim to depend upon].
Furthermore, the idea of the big bangs' has to have an ending point due to laws of Entropy,
The First Cause
We know that anything which begins to exist, has a cause. Allah says (translation of meaning):
Some examples of this include the earth being in the EXACT location to sustain life, for millions of years. There are mentions in the Qur'an of the earth being dead, and Allah/God sends rain from the skies and suddenly fruits of all colours and tastes grow from this earth for our benefit and use, this is further emphasised to show that the same way God gives life to the dead earth - He will bring humans back to life for the ressurection on Judgment Day in a similar way.
People may disagree with such a point by stating that it was just by chance that this planet sustains life, and that there are millions of others which do not. To argue against this, one can simply say that scientists are still unsure of whether life exists on Mars (the closest planet to us), so how can we be so confident in claiming that other planets do not also support life by God's control? If the person replies that this should be mentioned by God in your book sent by God, you can explain that the book is sent for guidance to be successful in this life and the next, and God/Allah has given us our senses to use them to advance in science to make more discoveries. It does not increase or decrease us in faith to believe that there are also other life forms existent on other planets and solar systems.
Some people may argue that we cannot see God, however - theists can say that they believe this based on logical reasoning. Scientists have never seen the atom, electrons, and gravity, however - based on their reasoning and theories - they have come to the conclusion that they exist. So why should you be criticised for believing in God based on reasoning?
Abiogenesis (life from non life)
How the first cell came into existence. One cell contains over 1000 pages of information*[i.e. the DNA (within each cell) contains ALL the information of the body's makeup, from the colour eyes you will have to how tall you can be]. So to claim that it was formed by chance is a lie. Otherwise it can easily be said that an encyclopedia was written correctly by chance, which is false.
*Lee M. Spetner, Not by Chance, 1998, p. 30
National Geographic, a well-known scientific magazine, wrote as follows:
This is why theists believe in Intelligent Design.
Prophecies which convince me Islam is the truth;
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/42701-prophecies.html
Many atheists today try to say that science is disproving God's existence, simply because we are understanding how the universe works. i.e. in the past people thought that the Sun only rised because 'God did it', and now people know that its because the sun is rotating on its axis using science.
In Islam, we know that God/Allah tells us to reflect on the creation and to understand how it functions in harmony with each other - as a sign that it is controlled and designed by God. Wasn't it the Muslims who revived science into Europe, finally causing the Rennaissance?
Atheists can't answer with scientific proof the most crucial points which support their beliefs;
What occurred before the Big Bang.
Theists do really and sincerely want to know who caused the beginning of all matter, but atheists will tell us to accept that 'they dont know' - so why should we prefer their belief over ours? The Big Bang infact proves God more than disproves God, because in the past philosophers argued the universe was eternal [in the state it is in today] forever, but the Big Bang proved that it had a beginning point and therefore more lenient towards an Originator. why should we believe that something which does not have an intellect controls the different forces to form things which could have only been formed by control and one with an intellect? Chaos by itself cannot cause control or a greater harmony - a harmony which is prevalent in the universe we live in today.
they might argue that there are eternal crunches and big bangs to allow this universe to come into existence, and the planet earth allows life to survive within it due to this 'chance' - but we say that you have no proof for this claim that there have been eternal crunches and big bangs, so why should we believe this claim without any evidence on your part? [something u claim to depend upon].
Furthermore, the idea of the big bangs' has to have an ending point due to laws of Entropy,
Which means that the universes' big bangs will again, need a starting source of energy to begin the cycles once all over again. So this refutes the claims of eternal Big Bangs'.
Refuting the Oscillating Model Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed.
Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy* to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every "opening" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing.
*entropy: For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. (i.e. which isn't useful.) Thus, every process occurring in the world results in an overall increase in entropy (thermodynamic heat which isn't useful) and a corresponding degradation in energy. entropy: Definition from Answers.com
source: 1) William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19
Powerpoint by Bassam Zawadi; 3 Atheism And Materialism - refutations - SlideShare
The First Cause
We know that anything which begins to exist, has a cause. Allah says (translation of meaning):
The thing which caused the universe has to be a being with freewill and knowledge, or no freewill and no knowledge [to do what he wished.] If he was to have no freewill and no knowledge, there would be no universe or matter created because he wouldn't have the will to do so. So it could only have been an agent with freewill and knowledge who caused matter to come into existence, and controlled it in a way to produce and sustain life. The evidence for this is well known and apparent.
Were they created by nothing? Or were they“ themselves the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create the heaven and earth? Nay, but they are not sure.” (Quran 52: 35-36)
Some examples of this include the earth being in the EXACT location to sustain life, for millions of years. There are mentions in the Qur'an of the earth being dead, and Allah/God sends rain from the skies and suddenly fruits of all colours and tastes grow from this earth for our benefit and use, this is further emphasised to show that the same way God gives life to the dead earth - He will bring humans back to life for the ressurection on Judgment Day in a similar way.
People may disagree with such a point by stating that it was just by chance that this planet sustains life, and that there are millions of others which do not. To argue against this, one can simply say that scientists are still unsure of whether life exists on Mars (the closest planet to us), so how can we be so confident in claiming that other planets do not also support life by God's control? If the person replies that this should be mentioned by God in your book sent by God, you can explain that the book is sent for guidance to be successful in this life and the next, and God/Allah has given us our senses to use them to advance in science to make more discoveries. It does not increase or decrease us in faith to believe that there are also other life forms existent on other planets and solar systems.
Some people may argue that we cannot see God, however - theists can say that they believe this based on logical reasoning. Scientists have never seen the atom, electrons, and gravity, however - based on their reasoning and theories - they have come to the conclusion that they exist. So why should you be criticised for believing in God based on reasoning?
Abiogenesis (life from non life)
How the first cell came into existence. One cell contains over 1000 pages of information*[i.e. the DNA (within each cell) contains ALL the information of the body's makeup, from the colour eyes you will have to how tall you can be]. So to claim that it was formed by chance is a lie. Otherwise it can easily be said that an encyclopedia was written correctly by chance, which is false.
*Lee M. Spetner, Not by Chance, 1998, p. 30
Those who claim that abiogenesis occurred may quote Miller's Study, however - its well known that Miller was mistaken in the environment that he performed the experiment in.
W.H.Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist acknowledges that "the most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man." [W.R.Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, pp.298-99.]
National Geographic, a well-known scientific magazine, wrote as follows:
Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry (hardly any) amount of organic molecules. [organic molecules are what make up life i.e. proteins, fats, carbohydrates etc.]
"The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998
In 1995, Jon Cohen gave an enlightening interpretation in an historic article in Science magazine, saying that scientists researching the origins of life did not take the "Miller Experiment"' into account. He outlines the reasons for this as follows: "the [real] early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.Lately, scientists have tried to produce cell proteins i.e. cell membranes to try to prove that abiogenesis (life from non life) can occur. However, they are unable to produce the DNA/RNA of the cell - which is the most important part of the cell! (as explained above, the DNA of the cell contains ALL the information of the body i.e. what colour eyes the person will have, the hair colour, the persons height etc. - all the characteristics of the being) Like mentioned before, even the most basic of cells (i.e. bacteria) cannot have come into existence by chance, simply because they contain so much information within them and are "more complex than any machine thought up by man." So if man himself can't imagine a greater machine than the cell, how can he think it came into existence by chance?
Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 21
This is why theists believe in Intelligent Design.
Prophecies which convince me Islam is the truth;
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/42701-prophecies.html
Humans evolved from monkeys? 'common ancestor'? because we have similar dna?
Asalaam alaikum
Some Monkey's which evolved into Humans?
Here's a discussion on some examples of skulls scientists have found, and how they thought they were monkeys evolved into humans, and how it was found out that these weren't really evolved; but simply humans or monkeys. He says:
The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another. That is off course uncertain. Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. The similarity does not prove one belief to be more likely than the other. Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:
Are monkeys related to humans because they have a similar immune system?
The atheists then argue that some monkeys have similar immune systems to humans, and this might be a link to how they're related to each other. But the response given by the same brother is:
Yeah there are some interesting things to say there. For example, humans are more vulnerable to pig diseases as opposed to monkey diseases, so are we closer to pigs than to monkeys on the alleged tree of evolution or is their a flaw in their argument?
read; [to understand how scientists are using pigs genes to find cures for humans]
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-4/1123203757326970.xml&storylist=national
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2210306.stm
Also immune system is only partially DNA-Dependant, part of the immune grows as we develop based on our environment. So any similarities could just as well be environment-based as opposed to DNA based. This shows again you cannot really debate evolution unless you're looking at DNA. Problem is though, we still haven't figured out DNA, we might have already decoded it, but there's so many genes we don't know the function of, so many things we haven't figured out. The science is way to immature to have this debate.
Is there any scientific proof behind the claim that ALL beings evolved off a 'common ancestor'?
No. There is no proof for that in science. It's just hypothetical and not based on fact.
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/monkeys-evolved-humans-1193.html
Some Monkey's which evolved into Humans?
Here's a discussion on some examples of skulls scientists have found, and how they thought they were monkeys evolved into humans, and how it was found out that these weren't really evolved; but simply humans or monkeys. He says:
The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another. That is off course uncertain. Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. The similarity does not prove one belief to be more likely than the other. Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:
* Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years agoNow I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these unfound missing links that they start to see things that aren't there.
* Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
* Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
* Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
The false claims from Richard leakey and Donald C Johanson that the australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and it seems the Australopithecus is closely related with urangutans which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then the one mankind origenated from.* Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erecte and used tools). New discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus habilis. So it's just another extinct african ape.
* Homo rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago. It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenia. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus habilis.
* Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago. Although this skeleton is exactly the same as human, evolutionists have classified it as a transendiery specie, based on the small skullcontents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skullcontents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aborigenals)! So there is no reason to assume these skelletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excelent article of how Homo erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.
* Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago. Again there's no reason to assu?me they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aborigenals. They even found skeletons of them showing that they lived up to recently in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hary human-like apes you found in schoolhandbooks are just indulgance into imagenation, remmeber we've only found skelletons.
* Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago. Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of mexico writes: detailed study of the skelleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intelect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.
http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm
Are monkeys related to humans because they have a similar immune system?
The atheists then argue that some monkeys have similar immune systems to humans, and this might be a link to how they're related to each other. But the response given by the same brother is:
Yeah there are some interesting things to say there. For example, humans are more vulnerable to pig diseases as opposed to monkey diseases, so are we closer to pigs than to monkeys on the alleged tree of evolution or is their a flaw in their argument?
read; [to understand how scientists are using pigs genes to find cures for humans]
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-4/1123203757326970.xml&storylist=national
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2210306.stm
Also immune system is only partially DNA-Dependant, part of the immune grows as we develop based on our environment. So any similarities could just as well be environment-based as opposed to DNA based. This shows again you cannot really debate evolution unless you're looking at DNA. Problem is though, we still haven't figured out DNA, we might have already decoded it, but there's so many genes we don't know the function of, so many things we haven't figured out. The science is way to immature to have this debate.
Is there any scientific proof behind the claim that ALL beings evolved off a 'common ancestor'?
No. There is no proof for that in science. It's just hypothetical and not based on fact.
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/monkeys-evolved-humans-1193.html
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Islam was NOT spread by the sword
"He (Muhammad) said: "Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn't it time that you recognize that I am God's apostle?" He answered, "As to that I still have some doubt." I (Abbas) said to him, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head," so he did so. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 547)
The Response:
The Muslims came in the fath of makkah [opening of makkah] because the quraysh broke the treaty of al hudaiybiyah which implied that they and their allies shouldn't fight each other - but the Quraysh did (by supporting the Bakr [Quraysh's allies] against the Khuza'ah [Muslims allies].)
Since fath al makkah never had still occured [the muslims still encamped outside Makkah, they were still in a state of war. So when Abu Sufyan came out to see which army had settled outside Makkah, he found out it was the Muslims. Since they never had no peace treaty now, he could be killed - since they were in a state of war against each other. Furthermore due to his continuous warfare against the Muslims [with him being the commander of Quraysh in the battles of Uhud, Ahzab, and many more.]
So his death would be justified, and he only wasn't killed because he became Muslim (so his past errors were forgiven.) If they did kill him, it wouldn't be because he rejected Islam, but because of his war crimes and him still being in a state of war with the Muslims. [the war ended when the Muslims opened Makkah, not before this.]
The Hadeeth you mentioned is weak, as Imam al-Haithami said in, Majma` az-Zawa-id (5/186). One of the narrators, Esa Ibn Sulaiman, is weak, while Esa Ibn Atiyyah, another narrator, is unknown.
Abu Bakr said: "You asked me for the best advice that I could give you, and I will tell you. God sent Muhammad with this religion and he strove for it until men accepted it voluntary or by force." (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 668-669)
Even if the Hadeeth is held as authentic, it is not what the enemies of Islam wish it means. All what the Hadeeth says is that some people became Muslim on their own, meaning they did not fight against Islam and Muslims before accepting Islam. Some others, meanwhile, became Muslim after they were defeated in battle. Thus, they accepted Islam ‘Kurhan’. It is well-known that Mu`awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, may Allah be pleased with him and with his father, accepted Islam willingly. Yet, another unsubstantiated Hadeeth claims that Sa`d Ibn Qais said to Mu’awiyah that he and his father became Muslim ‘Kurhan’; [Siyaru A`lami an-Nubalaa, by adh-Dhahabi].
This word, ‘Kurhan’, does not mean by force, but it pertains to ‘dislike; hatred; discomfort’. Obviously, one can dislike Islam but still become Muslim for different reasons, such as seeking financial compensation or to be hypocrite, or for simply knowing Islam is the truth and wishing to practice it so that they may love it later on. There is another meaning found in another Hadeeth collected by al-Haithami in, Majma az-Zawa-id (9/77), which states that Abdullah Ibn Abbas said to Umar Ibn al-Khattab, “The Messenger of Allah died while he was pleased with you. You then supported the Caliph after him, following the way of Allah’s Messenger. You then used those who came willingly against those who turned away, until people entered Islam willingly or Kurhan.” Obviously, this Hadeeth, which is Hasan, is in reference to fighting reverts from Islam during Abu Bakr’s Khilafah. Proof: Ibn Abbas said next, “Then, the Caliph (Abu Bakr) died while he was pleased with you.” It is well-known historically that Abu Bakr’s Khilafah was almost entirely spent fighting reverts from Islam (al-Murtaddun). These are people who entered Islam outwardly but their hearts did not enter Islam completely. When the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, died, they reverted from Islam thus committing a major crime for which they were fought and forced to reenter Islam or be killed for committing the crime of reversion from Islam.
Dear Brothers: always challenge those who claim that Islam supports forced mass-conversion to it to bring real evidence to one incident in which the Prophet of Allah, salla allahu alaihi wa-sallam, or the Four Khulafaa forced any nation or tribe to become Muslim under threat of death. ‘Kurhan’ does not only pertain to physical force, it also applies to dislike and discomfort. If ‘Kurhan’ only means being forced under threat of physical pain or death, then what meaning would that give to Allah’s Statement, {We commanded man to be kind to his parents, his mother carried him Kurhan and gave birth to him Kurhan}.
As-salamu alaikum warahmatullah
Jalal Abualrub
http://www.islamlife.com/forum/viewt...&thread_id=370
... When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination. Someone said to him. "The messenger of Allah's Apostle is present here and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck." One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, "Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. (Bukhari: volume 5, book 59, number 643, Khan) "
if we see the hadith - we come to realise that Jarir (radhiAllahu anhu) actually warned this fortune teller once not to carry on with his evil or he would be killed - then he was left alone, but again he continued - thats why the 2nd time he was actually going to be killed, unless he repented [by becoming Muslim].
So the man was warned against this evil practise, since magicians and witches also face the death penalty in Islam. The hadith also shows that he never got killed straightaway. But when he continued, then he had to repent or face the death penalty. Because we know soothsayers do spoil peoples lives and make them doubt their faith, like magicians and witches cause evil.
http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?p=18108#post18108
Saturday, 1 November 2008
arab dress clothes 7th century + miswak / siwak / siwaak
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/200px-PLATE8CX.jpg
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/200px-PLATE8DX_foruth_sixth.jpg
7th century arab clothes / dress
islam spread by sword?
This response, by a non muslim (christian evangelist i think) further strengthens a muslims stance [which might be useful for copying and pasting in debates inshaAllah]:
In this formulation the claim was that jihad was better than secular conquest. Unlike Alexander the Great, Mohammed incorporated people in a polity in which they had the option of being saved, in which they had the ability to see for themselves, in which they could choose to become true believers. But it left inner conviction as something over which the individual had full control.
This argument ought to be easy for modern people to understand, or at least Americans, for they also tend to think that war can be legitimated by a high moral purpose - as long as that purpose hasn’t got anything to do with individual faith. The moral purposes they have in mind are wholly secular, not the lower level of religion, and the salvation they talk about is in this world. But they too tend to be eager to rescue other people by enabling them to become more like themselves: richer, freer, more democratic.
What do you do when your fingers are itching to intervene, when you have the power to do it, when you are sure you are right and you are convinced that the victims will be grateful - quite apart from all the advantages that may redound to yourself from intervening? Aren’t you allowed to use force? Indeed, aren’t you obliged to use it? Is it right to save people against their will? Should you force them to be free? If you say yes to these questions, you are in effect a believer in jihad.
“Jihad”: idea and history - Patricia Crone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)