God did not come from anywhere. He was always there.
Then first came Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Imam Ali. They are God's first creation.
But people are more concerned about chickens.
I think God made the loads of eggs.
One type hatched into hens. The other type hatched into their husbands.
They all got married to each other. It was probably mutah. They had loads of babies.
Today Alhmadolilah we have loads of nice dishes to eat.
malikGod did not come from anywhere. He was always there.
Then first came Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Imam Ali. They are God's first creation.
But people are more concerned about chickens.
And evidence for that is...Adam pbuh was first human creation....?
I think God made the loads of eggs.
One type hatched into hens. The other type hatched into their husbands.
They all got married to each other. It was probably mutah. They had loads of babies.
Today Alhmadolilah we have loads of nice dishes to eat.
St786And evidence for that is...Adam pbuh was first human creation....?
I am not too sure, but I think there is a mention of a "covenant" made between God and all souls that we are being held to, so all humans/people existed before birth.
(Is it kind of unfair, since we cannot remember signing the dotted line?)
Even if you guys somehow magically came up with the answers to the questions you're asking, what effect would it have on your lives? How would it make you be a better person? What does the Qur'an say about people talking about things of which they have no knowledge?
Even if you guys somehow magically came up with the answers to the questions you're asking, what effect would it have on your lives? How would it make you be a better person? What does the Qur'an say about people talking about things of which they have no knowledge?
Even if you guys somehow magically came up with the answers to the questions you're asking, what effect would it have on your lives? How would it make you be a better person? What does the Qur'an say about people talking about things of which they have no knowledge?
I think this is a bit odd too :/ It seems moot to me.
But, neither do you make sense to me. You said that the conversation was ridiculous and it wasn't worth asking these questions and then that you shouldn't talk about things of which you have no knowledge.
Unless you go about acquiring it, you'll never have knowledge. But if you're going to have a go at people for not having knowledge, Surely you shouldn't also have a go at them for asking questions? And vice versa.
Unless you go about acquiring it, you'll never have knowledge. But if you're going to have a go at people for not having knowledge, Surely you shouldn't also have a go at them for asking questions? And vice versa.
I didn't see many questions being asked, more ppl saying 'this is how it is.... OMG didn't you know that?!?!?!'
well ya'qub people are trying to be clever and are too busy answering the question to ask any of there own questions...
any way this thread was supposed to be there to answer the question
ALZ_007well ya'qub people are trying to be clever and are too busy answering the question to ask any of there own questions...
any way this thread was supposed to be there to answer the question
The question survives because of the inadequacy of the word "chicken" or "hen" to describe its egg-laying antecedents. Still something self-replicating existed first, before it started laying its eggs, although these proto-birds were laying eggs long before they evolved to look especially like hens. If we come into the fossils (and maybe we have, I don't know) and the jargon for all the proto-hens and proto-eggs we then have a definitive answer, but until then it just depends how you look at it.
*Edit: NB The question can be applied to the DNA and the cells, and to any parts of any system, and however hard the question is to answer, they are true questions that have answers! But as Yaq'ub points out, the answers cannot be reached by philosophy alone.
Joie de VivreThe question survives because of the inadequacy of the word "chicken" or "hen" to describe its egg-laying antecedents. Still something self-replicating existed first, before it started laying its eggs, although these proto-birds were laying eggs long before they evolved to look especially like hens. If we come into the fossils (and maybe we have, I don't know) and the jargon for all the proto-hens and proto-eggs we then have a definitive answer, but until then it just depends how you look at it.
36 comments
ALZ_007 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 - 19:21
Re: wat came first?
the hen obviously
Allah (SWT) created 2 pairs of every type of animal...
and he created 2 chickens....
Alllah (SWT) couldn't have created a pair of eggs ... :roll:
You Thu, 17 Dec 2009 - 19:26
Re: wat came first?
why couldn't he?
TPOS Thu, 17 Dec 2009 - 19:55
Re: wat came first?
My argument exactly!
well not couldnt but didnt, i dont think
ALZ_007 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 - 22:10
Re: wat came first?
yah well thats what i really meant,
he simply decided not to as they couldn't have possibly have survived on their own...
You Thu, 17 Dec 2009 - 22:11
Re: wat came first?
Or a turkey had an egg that was a little off..
Ya'qub Thu, 24 Dec 2009 - 17:48
Re: wat came first?
:roll:
malik Fri, 25 Dec 2009 - 13:22
Re: wat came first?
God did not come from anywhere. He was always there.
Then first came Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Imam Ali. They are God's first creation.
But people are more concerned about chickens.
You Fri, 25 Dec 2009 - 14:04
Re: wat came first?
Someone should hit you with a clue stick.
Here's a hint: lets leave the shia/sunni issues to such topics where they are relevant. All other such posts will be deleted.
The question is not about God, the prophet ﷺ or Imam Ali (ra). It is about the chicken and the egg.
malik Fri, 25 Dec 2009 - 14:35
Re: wat came first?
What came first, chicken or the egg?
I think God made the loads of eggs.
One type hatched into hens. The other type hatched into their husbands.
They all got married to each other. It was probably mutah. They had loads of babies.
Today Alhmadolilah we have loads of nice dishes to eat.
Noor Fri, 25 Dec 2009 - 14:39
Re: wat came first?
are you trying to be funny?
Suhail (not verified) Fri, 25 Dec 2009 - 14:46
Re: wat came first?
And evidence for that is...Adam pbuh was first human creation....?
sephy (not verified) Fri, 25 Dec 2009 - 15:25
Re: wat came first?
😂
ALZ_007 Fri, 25 Dec 2009 - 15:57
Re: wat came first?
exactly the prophet Adam pbuh was the first HUMAN creation..
I think wat Malik means is that the first creation of a soul...
You Fri, 25 Dec 2009 - 22:44
Re: wat came first?
I am not too sure, but I think there is a mention of a "covenant" made between God and all souls that we are being held to, so all humans/people existed before birth.
(Is it kind of unfair, since we cannot remember signing the dotted line?)
Noor Fri, 25 Dec 2009 - 23:52
Re: wat came first?
i think he meant nabi Adam alayhisalaam being the first human in physical form.
Suhail (not verified) Fri, 25 Dec 2009 - 23:54
Re: wat came first?
source for first creation of soul?
Ya'qub Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 00:55
Re: wat came first?
This conversation is ridiculous!!
Even if you guys somehow magically came up with the answers to the questions you're asking, what effect would it have on your lives? How would it make you be a better person? What does the Qur'an say about people talking about things of which they have no knowledge?
Suhail (not verified) Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 01:17
Re: wat came first?
True ... i can forget that sometimes. thnx
RI_RS Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 15:44
Re: wat came first?
I think this is a bit odd too :/ It seems moot to me.
But, neither do you make sense to me. You said that the conversation was ridiculous and it wasn't worth asking these questions and then that you shouldn't talk about things of which you have no knowledge.
Unless you go about acquiring it, you'll never have knowledge. But if you're going to have a go at people for not having knowledge, Surely you shouldn't also have a go at them for asking questions? And vice versa.
You Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 15:54
Re: wat came first?
I doubt this thread was intended as a serious theological debate.
Ya'qub Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 17:22
Re: wat came first?
I didn't see many questions being asked, more ppl saying 'this is how it is.... OMG didn't you know that?!?!?!'
which is just pants
ALZ_007 Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 17:33
Re: wat came first?
well ya'qub people are trying to be clever and are too busy answering the question to ask any of there own questions...
any way this thread was supposed to be there to answer the question
Ya'qub Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 17:42
Re: wat came first?
'clever'. I see.
ALZ_007 Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 17:47
Re: wat came first?
'clever'. I see.
:?:
Joie de Vivre Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 18:04
Re: wat came first?
The question survives because of the inadequacy of the word "chicken" or "hen" to describe its egg-laying antecedents. Still something self-replicating existed first, before it started laying its eggs, although these proto-birds were laying eggs long before they evolved to look especially like hens. If we come into the fossils (and maybe we have, I don't know) and the jargon for all the proto-hens and proto-eggs we then have a definitive answer, but until then it just depends how you look at it.
*Edit: NB The question can be applied to the DNA and the cells, and to any parts of any system, and however hard the question is to answer, they are true questions that have answers! But as Yaq'ub points out, the answers cannot be reached by philosophy alone.
ALZ_007 Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 18:02
Re: wat came first?
:roll:
You Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 18:05
Re: wat came first?
can this in any way be taken as a serious debate?
I had always considered it a joke question.
RI_RS Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 18:12
Re: wat came first?
Why does it have to be either a serious debate or a joke? :roll:
You Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 18:17
Re: wat came first?
are you calling me extreme?
(if everyone is joking in here, my humour metre is faulty. I cannot tell.)
RI_RS Sat, 26 Dec 2009 - 23:36
Re: wat came first?
Yes.
And if i am? :p
Pagination
Comments are closed on this post.