"wass786" wrote:

Quote:

I can't seem to wrap my head around the Qur'an's account - it seems to be something you have to string together from various different places in the Qur'an

thats the point. its about different prophets but with the same message. and stories about what happend when they delieverd the message and how the disbelievers keep disbelieving (no offense aye)

lol very well, no offense taken.

So is there any particular point in the Qur'an that speaks more on the topic of Adam and Eve than elsewhere?

And where does it speak about the creation of the world? The bible is extremely specific on the topic of how the universe and world was made - yet admin yet the Qur'an doesn't commit to such detail. Thus I am curious.

Just forgot, when you were on holidays, Omrow conveniently set up a topic quoting the quran I think... I told someone to remind me after your return as you had asked about the subject...

I'll try to dig it up.

"Augustus" wrote:

"Dawud" wrote:

To me The Adam and Eve AS story from the Islamic perspective makes perfect sense.

Hadhrat Adam AS was 60 cubic feet tall, the earlier people live for hundreds and thousands of years.

People are now smaller, manifold, and rarely live longer than one hundred years.

To me this says a very broad and magnificent gene pool eventually began to become too similar in people and so people got smaller, and live shorter lives.

Only a theory though.

I can't seem to wrap my head around the Qur'an's account - it seems to be something you have to string together from various different places in the Qur'an, rather than any one particular spot... making it difficult for me to read.

Precisely were - if anywhere, does Darwinism run afoul in Islam?

Firstly I don't take directly from the Quraan, I take from rightly guided scholars RA.

Secondly, Darwinism says man came from apes.

Islam says [some or all] apes came from man.

dunno why not.

I have removed my edit, as for some reason it did not amke it a link... Its stretching the page...

"Augustus" wrote:

"*DUST*" wrote:

if they were simply 'self-declared' and hadnt bothered doing their homework, do u think they'd be in a position to debate (and usually win)?

Demonstrating what about their knowledge of comparative religion?

The problem lies especially with the evangelical belief in a literal bible - it aligns to Islamic understandings of the Qur'an and is familiar terrain to them. The fact is there is no support for such an interpretation, and it doesn't conform to the faith and confessions of the major established churchs.

Thus when people ask questions like "How do you explain humanity from two people" or "why isn't there evidence of a great flood elsewhere in the world" or "How come the Pharoah's son has his skull bashed in when he supposedly died with all the first borns" it naturally collapses.

It doesn't take a doctorate to do that. Nor does it mean they are debating points of Christian theology - rather they are debating points of evangelical theology.

This stuff is for the most part debate i've already read from the good old Moody-Lipscomb days but continues into the present world in the flurry of paperwork generated by Timothy Tow and James R. White over the King James only debate.

The only difference is now these guys go out claiming to speak for Christianity, to debate other religions with flawed unrepresentative views.

It's not a reflection of the knowledge of Zakir, but the ignorance of men like Campbell.

hmm, fair enuf. lets hope Dr. Naik gets the opportunity to debate with a more mainstream christian sometime soon then...

Doubtful, it's the evangelists who are more into interfaith "debates."

You won't find a doctorate in Canon law or professor at a mainstream university Divinity school doing that sort of thing.

Usually their interfaith dialogue is restricted to symposiums with their peers on a specific topic rather than 'whose religion is better' debates. That doesn't mean that important issues like the Trinity or Biblical accuracy aren't weighed, it's just takes several years longer than an hour to discuss, and for the most part there isn't much debate since their Islamic counterparts actually hold degrees in comparative religions and don't make misjudgements or mistakes - no need to explain. There are lots of reasons for this - largely accurate representation. Especially with the Catholic Church everything that is represented to the non-Christian must go through a channel to recieve doctrinal sanction, as is the same with their Islamic counterparts. In the end we may find the [url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/dialogue/documents/articles/monotheis... letters[/url] or [url=http://www.ochs.org.uk/news/monotheism04.html]results[/url] of the mission/dialogue but to condense all that work into a soundbyte more easily floated around the internet is impossible. Thus they sacrifice brevity for quality.

I don't know if you know who Dr. Qamar-ul Huda (a sufi) is but coming from Boston I run into his name a lot. He's a professor of Islamic Studies at Boston College - a brilliant man. He does a lot of [url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/dialogue/events/response/5_Huda.html]... symposia and work. Again it's very difficult to find published transcripts or videos of him "debating" people, for the most part these discussions take place either over the course of years of correspondence or at large meetings which generate paperwork that only gets around in high scholarly circles. I think i've also read some letters by Matiniah Yahya (from either Al-Azhar or Cordoba University) involved in comparative religion and interreligiuos dialogue.

The star of the muslim world and a guy I really though was fascinating died when I was two. His name was Ismail al-Faruqi and i'm sure you've heard of him. The man had accredations everywhere and a really fascinating life (which is why I liked him). He was a palestinian who's father was some sort of official in the government before the Israeli State, when he left Palestine he moved around all over the place, taught at Harvard (I think got his first PhD there too) later went to Al-Azhar for a second PhD, and wrote a number of famous books. He wrote a really interesting article about the life of Wahabb - before anybody really knew or cared who the man was (he died in 86), and if you are interested he wrote a book on Islam, Christianity and Judaism which is so good it's still required reading in most mainstream academic divinity schools simple called "Trialogue of the abrahamic Faiths" and a very good one on Christianity called "Christian Ethics: the systematic and Historcal analysis of it's Dominant Ideas"

Here is a [url=http://www.masnet.org/prof_personality.asp?id=924]biography[/url] of him.

He might have had a brief exchange with Francis X. Clooney like Huda did but i'm not terribly sure. As for Protestantism there is Stephen W. Plunkett, Shirley C Guthrie (it's hard to find anything other than his book Christian Doctrine though since it's so famous) and Daniel Cohn-Newbok who I think might actually be Jewish but wrote an impressive but dated book on world religions and liberation theology (a catholic born theology from the 60s -80s).

Anyway - my point is these people are out there, but they are working on a waaaaaay different level than Deedat, Naik, Campbell or his crew at "Answering Islam.com." Their dialogue is over the course of decades and the ultimate goal is to explore some particular vein or common interest which may or may not lead to disagreement and argument rather than the extremely general topic of "which is better X or Y" which self declared experts seem to focus on. The problem is nobody wants to go back and wrestle these lengthy often technical letters and papers from these very brilliant people, instead they want a 1 hour video somebody "beating" somebody else because it's far more fun.

The real gems in this sort of discussion are brushed aside because they can't sell tickets.

[img]http://www.pointshop.com/id-1343/ImgUpload/P_321350_1017314.JPG[/img]

lol Sherbok... Daniel Cohn-Sherbok

Not newbok

where's my head today :roll:

"*DUST*" wrote:

hmm, fair enuf. lets hope Dr. Naik gets the opportunity to debate with a more mainstream christian sometime soon then...

Islam is open to all criticism, objection, opinion ..provided it be done intellectually, not mere conjecture.

[b]2:78 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. [/b]

[b]6:116 Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.[/b]

[b]53:28 But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth.[/b]

For criticism is healthy, and a means of elevation, but criticise with proof.

[b]2:111 Say, 'Bring your proof if you are truthful[/b].'

Good? He's the best. He is the man, no doubt.

Dr Naik wrote a book 'Answers to non-muslims common questions About Islam'... i have a ebook version which doesnt have the section on 'Is the Quran God's Word'.... does anyone have a copy of this section???

Or know where this can be viewed.??

"wass786" wrote:

Quote:

seraphim - Dr Naik wrote a book 'Answers to non-muslims common questions About Islam'... i have a ebook version which doesnt have the section on 'Is the Quran God's Word'.... does anyone have a copy of this section???

do you mean the video?

video or text wud be good

reading what Augustus has to say it has finally put my mind at rest on the issue of Dr Zakir Naik. He in short is a 'showman'. in Islam there should be no room for such showmanship.

valid inter faith discussions have been and should indeed be discussed with much thought and sincerity between learned and well respected theologians

the stage is no place for such discussions in my opinion it degrades the subject and all who participate. i feel religious discussions on a high level demand respect and the stage is not a respectable vehicle

"laila" wrote:

reading what Augustus has to say it has finally put my mind at rest on the issue of Dr Zakir Naik. He in short is a 'showman'. in Islam there should be no room for such showmanship.

Showman?

So he has allot of personality he is Indian after all, it the message and evidence, which he provides- that what I’m interested in.

sorry bro you think showman is a good thing?!

to me showmen whilst having personality are essentially hollow. you know you can be a good speaker as many are without exhibiting the rather what can i say shoddy or cheap qualities of a showman

to me showman is definately a lowly person hungry for crowd pleasing always trying to amaze with new tricks - only Dr Naiks tricks have become rather old now

having said that i dont think i've ever missed any of his speeches - in fact i've heard them all and i couldnt put my finger on what i found off about them until now

"laila" wrote:

sorry bro you think showman is a good thing?!

to me showmen whilst having personality are essentially hollow. you know you can be a good speaker as many are without exhibiting the rather what can i say shoddy or cheap qualities of a showman

to me showman is definately a lowly person hungry for crowd pleasing always trying to amaze with new tricks - only Dr Naiks tricks have become rather old now

Thank you for your reply, but he is indeed an eloquent speaker- I couldn’t care less if showmanship is a bad quality according to your scorecard. He far more knowledgeable then anyone here.

"(*_Shazan" wrote:

He far more knowledgeable then anyone here.

what does that prove? i'm confused what a ridiculous thing to say!

"laila" wrote:

"(*_Shazan" wrote:

He far more knowledgeable then anyone here.

what does that prove? i'm confused what a ridiculous thing to say!

I'm not typing in a foreign dialect.

Your point about showmanship is even more outlandish

shazan bro dont get down its only my opinion - in the larger scale of things it makes no difference to anyone esp not to Dr Naik. i'm gonna leave it now - peace

"laila" wrote:

shazan bro dont get down its only my opinion - in the larger scale of things it makes no difference to anyone esp not to Dr Naik. i'm gonna leave it now - peace

You are entitle to your opinion and me likewise – I just don’t agree with your comment- we’re not going to reach any conclusion over it.

Thank you

Shazan offers Laila a cup of tea

Respect the man. He is extremely knowledgable and his talks are very interesting. he makes Islam very appealing and he also is renowned for his excellent on-the-spot answers. Thats why they call him Deedat-Plus.

I respect him but i think he's overated. He never claimed to be a scholar but a student of the faith.

I don't mean it as any disrespect but i think he's far from a Deedat plus. Deedat is in a league of his own.

His talks don't seem to hold my attention, i think the accent doesn't help. I'm not ridiculing it, but honestly i can't always understand him. I often have to ask my brothers what did he say?

I wouldn't say he's a showman. But i too think the stage is not the best place to be discussing our sacred religion, or any religion. A hall, or place of worship seems more appropriate, and respectful. But you can't blame Dr Zakir Naik for that alone, many interfaith scholars use the stage, for the convenience it offers. You can accomodate a very large audience, mosques can't always do this.

It reminds me of the way Christian preachers took to the stage. Ditched their priestly robes for armani suits. Their pulpits for a stage, their voices for microphones, their small churches for concert halls, free admission to expensive box office tickets. It's like they're selling you religion. You ever seen them on tv? I almost expect them to say call this number today for your free introduction to God, money back guarantee. So distasteful

Muslim preachers are going in the same direction, perhaps they don't realise?

P.S Dave wasn't Swagat destroyed over adultery charges? I never liked Swagat. Not coz of his faith or anything like that he seemed soo arrogant and smug. He really was a salesman. I could never trust a word he said. How did he manage such a large following :?

Deedat even said himself: "brother, what you have done in 2 years, took me 20 years to achieve". Straight from the horses mouth.