Does Allah exist?

[d-tox.ed]

Is there a GOD?
by Rafi Ahmed (Ph.D)

*Eternal Universe *

Consider the possibility of an eternal universe, a universe that existed for ever. But the Second of Law of Thermodynamics and the theory of entropy preclude this possibility. If the universe really had existed for an infinitely long period of time, its entropy, the 2 measure of its molecular disorder, would have reached its maximal value; that is, the universe would have suffered a „heat death‟ [9]. The fact that the universe has not yet died in this fashion implies that it cannot have endured for all eternity.

[9]Paul Davies,"The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World" Touchstone Books, New York, 1993.

*Origin of the Universe *

As long as the universe could be conveniently thought of without an end and without a beginning, it remained easy to see its existence as a self-explanatory brute fact and perhaps there was not much need to postulate something else that produced it. But the big-bang theory radically changed the situation. The big bang [5, 11] is a widely-accepted theory of the origin of the universe. According to this theory, more than fourteen billions years ago, the universe emerged from a highly compressed and extremely hot state and then it rapidly cooled down and expanded. The big bang theory is considered a cornerstone of modern cosmology. The big bang theory provides a moment at the origin of the universe when creation could have occurred. At the origin, we encounter a point that physicists call a singularity, at which neither space nor time exists – and at that point the laws of physics break down. If the universe had a beginning, it became entirely sensible, almost inevitable, to ask what produced this beginning. Therefore the idea of the origin of the universe with a singularity implying a role of God in its creation did not sit well with many atheistic scientists [14]. Bondi and Hoyle came up with a steady state theory, in an attempt to explain the expansion of the universe in a way that would not require the universe to have had a beginning. But this theory was readily discarded, as it did not correspond to the observational data. Stephen Hawking, professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, and James Hartle proposed a theory, where the universe has no boundary either in space or in time, that is, it has neither beginning nor end. In his book *A Brief History of Time *[12], Hawking then asked if there was any place for a creator any more. There are several problems with Hawking‟s theory. Hawking's solution uses imaginary time, which is invoked to stipulate imaginary universes. It remains an extremely speculative theory with little chance of experimental verification.

[5.] Owen Gingerich, "God’s Universe", Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
[11.] Steven Weinberg, "The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe", *Basic Books, New York, 1993.
[14.] K. Ferguson, "*The Fire in the Equations: Science Religion and the Search for God", Templeton Foundation Press, Philadelphia, 1994.
[12.] Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Bantam, New York, 1996.

*Fine Tuning of the Universe *

The universe with all its laws appears to be delicately balanced and fine-tuned [9, 17] to produce human life. Physicists call this finding the anthropic principle. Many of the basic features of the universe are, in essence, determined by the values that are assigned to the fundamental constants and the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe.

Hawking [12] wrote that if the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand trillion, the universe would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. If the rate of expansion has been slightly higher, then the galaxies would have never formed. In the anthropic principle, the theist sees a purposeful design, the handiwork of God. The atheist looks upon it as a very lucky coincidence where humans exist in a universe with the right parameters to ponder over the mystery of their existence. But the odds of life appearing in the universe are so infinitesimal, so incredibly small that we need a rational explanation of how something this unlikely could take place.

[9.] Paul Davies, "The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World", Touchstone Books, New York, 1993.
[12.] Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Bantam, New York, 1996.
[17.] Allan J. Tobin and Jennie Dusheck, "Asking About Life", Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2004.

[d-tox.ed]

*Multiple Universes *

Consequently, many atheists, in desperation, have fled to the second explanation: multiple universes [9, 15] – actually, infinity of universes. The uniqueness and fine tuning of our universe is dismissed by claiming that it is but one among countless universes. In one version of this phantasmagoric theory, universes are springing up, as if there was no tomorrow. But please don't ask where and how. So what is the empirical evidence for oscillating and parallel and multiple universes? There is none. Steven Weinberg shared the Nobel Prize with Dr. Abdus Salam. Weinberg is one of the greatest physicists of our time and he is also a prominent atheist. Even he admits that the theories of multiple universes "are very speculative ideas ... without any experimental support" [15]. In my view, the atheists have invented a complicated set of circumstances to circumvent a much more obvious solution. They seem to abolish one seemingly unobservable God by making up an infinite number of unobservable substitutes, which rightfully belong to the Hollywood genre of science fantasy movies.

[9.] Paul Davies, "The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World", Touchstone Books, New York, 1993.
15. Steven Weinberg, "*Dreams of a Final Theory: the Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature",*Vintage, New York, 1993.

*Laws of Nature *

All these models of multi-universes or Hawking‟s boundary-less universe originating out of a collapsing black hole require pre-existing laws of physics. And no one has an explanation [14] for how these grand laws of physics came into existence. Who devised the code? Who wrote the majestic multi-variable differential equations? And who provided the solutions to the equations? Indeed the question can be posed in a deeper way. How can inanimate fundamental particles obey instructions or abide by grand mathematical rules? How can the universe operate without a sustainer?

The atheist viewpoint cannot explain the profound lawfulness of nature itself. Paul Davies, a mathematical physicist, writes [9], "If the divine underpinning of the laws is removed, their existence becomes a deep mystery."

[9.] Paul Davies, "The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World", Touchstone Books, New York, 1993.
[14.] K. Ferguson, "The Fire in the Equations: Science Religion and the Search for God", Templeton Foundation Press, Philadelphia, 1994.

[d-tox.ed]

*Creation of the Creator *

---

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and professor of public understanding of science at Oxford, in his recent book, The God Delusion *[1], makes a concerted attack against theism and asks if the universe needed a creator, then what about God? Who created God? Dawkins presents this question as if it was the mother of all arguments against the theistic position. Let us examine this question a little more deeply. We find that it points to the limitation of inductive reasoning. The question simply does not apply to the Prime Cause, which is, by definition, uncreated. The atheists are reduced to denying the first proposition – that is, everything that has a *beginning *does not necessarily have a cause and thus the universe simply *is. Now either an immeasurably intelligent mind, an all-powerful being, an agent that exists beyond time and space created the universe or the universe, with neither mind nor consciousness, with neither will nor intelligence, first devised the grand laws of nature and then created itself out of absolute nothingness. Take your pick: God or universe. Which is the better candidate to be the Prime Cause? Which is the more rational and intellectually satisfying alternative?

1. Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion”, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 2006.

[d-tox.ed]

*The Unity of Source *

Another argument in favor of God‟s existence is the establishment of the unity of source – that is, the fact that the authors of the Holy Quran and the universe are the same. The Quran says: **Do not the disbelievers see that the skies and the earth were a closed-up mass, and then We clove them asunder? And we made every living thing from water. Will they not believe? [21:31] **This verse alludes to the origin of the universe as envisioned by the big bang theory. Creation of life from water is also a well-established scientific fact. What is quite striking about this verse is that it challenges the disbelievers or atheists and raises the fundamental questions of the origins of the universe and of life – which happen to be the two of the most hotly debated topics today [1,2,4,5,6].

1. Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion”, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 2006.
2. Victor Stenger, “God: The Failed Hypothesis”, Prometheus Books, 2007. .
3. Antony Flew, “There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”, Harper Collins, 2007.
4. Owen Gingerich, “God’s Universe”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
5. Francis Collins, “The Language of Gods”, Free Press, New York, 2006.

[d-tox.ed]

*Darwinian Evolution *

Let me briefly talk about the theory of Darwinian evolution, which is erroneously seen by many as evidence against the existence of God. Dawkins, in his book *The Blind Watchmaker *[3] noted that it was very difficult to be an atheist before Darwinian Theory of evolution came along. It should be emphasized that the Darwinian Theory [6,16,17] presupposes the existence of the molecular machinery of cell and the genetic material of RNA and DNA for it to work upon. The theory of evolution cannot provide any explanation for the origin of life or for the genetic material. We recognize [10] the fact that fossils show emergence of life forms over a period of millions of years in a progressive manner from relatively simple to the increasingly complex. But linked to these observations is a hypothesis of common descent with modification and of the Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, which is seen as the only creative force behind life in all its myriad variety. That is where we tend to be skeptical, since definite evolutionary pathways of any organism are still missing [16]. The scientists who question Darwinism are still in a minority, but there is a growing scientific dissent. Recently, one hundred eminent religious and non-religious scientists from diverse fields made a public declaration [19] that they "are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" and that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

[d-tox.ed]

*God of the Gaps *

Allow me to comment upon a common misconception. The atheists say that theists often use "God of the gap" strategy [1,2,3] and invoke God to explain the remaining gaps in the scientific knowledge. If a gap in the current knowledge is found, it is assumed that a God, by default, must fill in. But gaps shrink as science advances and the God of the gaps is threatened with eventually having nowhere to live.
But is that really true? Let me give you one example. Ernst Haeckel was a renowned 19th century evolutionary biologist. He, like many of his contemporaries, believed that a cell was a "simple little lump of protoplasm" [16] and advocated the theory of spontaneous generation of life. In the last fifty years, the science of molecular biology has made 6
tremendous progress. Now we understand that the cell is a molecular machine far more complex in its structure and functionality than anything yet devised by the human mind [6]. A spontaneous generation of the cell is thus considered inconceivable. These advancements have not deposed God from anywhere. Quite the contrary, many of the greatest discoveries of the twentieth century have established God more firmly in the intellectual discourse [5,6].

[d-tox.ed]

*Reason for the Rejection of God *

Let me talk briefly about the reason behind atheism. Most atheists are intelligent, thoughtful and sincere people. This poses the nagging question as to why there is such disbelief and such persistent rejection on the part of those who should know better. In my view, their rejection of the existence of God has very little to do with scientific enterprise, although scientific enterprise remains essentially agnostic. The things that make people reject God arise from the human condition: Free will under divine omniscience, creation of evil by a God of virtue, belief in eternal damnation, human suffering inflicted by a God of Mercy [1,2,15]. Perhaps the primary reason for rejecting God and religion is religion itself. The atheistic scientist is justified in despising religious dogmas and scriptures that imply a God whose grandeur does not match up to the grandeur of the universe he knows. When superstitious folktales, seclusion and marginalization of women, arcane theology, inane ritualism, and dogmas of intolerance and irrationality are attributed to the author of this grand and lofty universe, atheism is a natural consequence. Examples of diabolic acts committed by Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of religion abound. But in a *lighter *vein, Steven Weinberg captured the problem succinctly; he writes, "Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." [13]

[d-tox.ed]

*Experiencing God *

---

Perhaps the final and ultimate evidence for the existence of God comes from the personal experience of divine signs. The Promised Messiah, on whom be peace, says [20]:
“Search for God is a difficult matter. Observation of the heavens and the earth and reflection of the perfect orderliness of the universe only leads to the conclusion that the universe should have a creator, yet it is not a proof that such a Creator exists. There is a difference between ought to be and is. The first duty of a person, therefore, is to acquire certainty with regard to the existence of God … How can this certainty be acquired? It cannot be acquired through mere stories. It cannot be acquired through mere arguments. The only way to acquiring certainty is to experience God by having conversation with Him or by witnessing His extraordinary signs.”

*Conclusion *

I would like to conclude this speech by reiterating a simple truth that is part of our deepest conviction. Advancement of science reveals the intricacy of the universe and the grandeur of the divine design and reinforces the fact that in the workings of the universe there is sign for those who reflect. The Holy Quran says: He is Allah, the Originator, the Creator, the Designer. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the Heavens and the earth glorifies Him. And He is the Mighty, the Wise. [59:25] *In the end, as is in the beginning, all true praise is for Allah alone.*

[Gujjar_Badshah]

Re: Does Allah exist?

Its useless to tell him all this ..... if he is muslim or have faith in Allah SWT he might have not asked this question..

[BanTaleban]

The matter of fact is the emphasis on 'unseen'..now how the hell do u prove unseen?

why is that difficult? that you see is the 'seen' and that you don't see is the unseen.

A judge never sees a crime but is able to judge on it through rules of evidence and procedure. Here the crime is unseen to him but yet with proper stems he is convinced by the prosecutor that teh crime 'existed' ie happened or was committed.

You can ofcourse understand 'unseen' as either literally associated with the one sense (sight) or encompassing all senses (smell, touch, hearing etc).

That's why I said a long time ago - the best proof of God to any individual, including those who don't believe in God, is their own thought. They can have a thought but cannot prove to anyone else that they had that thought except circumstantially.

[Arleitter]

Re: Does Allah exist?

God exists ..............

[d-tox.ed]

Its useless to tell him all this ..... if he is muslim or have faith in Allah SWT he might have not asked this question..

well I am just trying to show him what science says in this regards.

[Mirch]

This is one of the reason why i kind of dont like Zakir's way of explaining. His reasoning is very childish as i personally think.

Here is why:

First of all, La ilaaha alone is not what makes kalma taiyabba. It is La ilaaha illallah which is. Similarly, just in Quran when it is said to NOT READ NAMAAZ, one can argue that this is written in Quran and hence no reason of reading the namaaz, however, the sentence is not completed until and unless you complete it as it says.. Do not read Namaaz under such and such circumstances. If one says Dont read namaaz, it doesnt make them half muslim because they're saying something from Quran..

La ilaaha is to make other followers of religion realize that there is NO OTHER GOD, and ilallah following it makes it clear that there is no God BUT Allah. Atheist on other hand say there is no God, it should not be taken as their agreement to Muslim's kalima taiyaaba.

Secondly, it is not the kalima taiyyaba which is the islamic creed but kalima shaahada , which is that i testify that theres none worthy of worship But Allah and Muhammad PBUH is His messenger.

There is no reason to believe that if atheist say there is no God, we as muslim take it as if He has become half muslim by testifying to the kalima taiyaba which says there is no God. No need to congratulate an atheist either, congratulate when he accepts the whole sentence of kalima taiyyaba.

Thirdly, i see no reason of his duty being half completed. His job still remains, which is to prove the existence of God. hence giving explanation to the full kalima taiyabba and not just on the second part of kalma.

Your reason for not liking Zakir Naik is also superficial. When an atheist denies all the Gods surely he/she is agreeing to the half of kalima tayabba. which says that there is no deity worthy of worship. so an atheist is rejecting all the Gods. That person is atleast is never going to be a Mushrik. He is just one step away from being Muslim. We do not have to put our energies to clean his slate and prove to him the existance of Just one Allah. His mind is 99.99 percent clean of all the other beliefs it makes our job easy to prove to him that yes There is no other God but Allah.

[IntelliPhant]

@Mirch

When an atheist denies all the Gods surely he/she is agreeing to the half of kalima tayabba. which says that there is no deity worthy of worship. so an atheist is rejecting all the Gods. That person is atleast is never going to be a Mushrik.

Technically above statement is rather flawed.

[Mirch]

@IntelliPhant

Technically above statement is rather flawed.

How so ? Please correct the flaw of my reasoning and thinking. I am very open to criticism and willing to correct myself.

[psyah]

Re: Does Allah exist?

^ Peace Mirch bro

It is because the definition of Shirk is not only those who associate partnership with Allah (SWT) but also those people who endow power into that which does not deserve that power. To deny God altogether is the same as putting trust and belief in those people who devised those theories of Godlessness. Atheism is allegedly a religious order with the absence of Deity, but in real terms they remove the concept of supernatural diety and replace it with their perception of what has caused things to be, be it energy, entropy, or some other phenomenon that is actually from the subset of the creation of Allah (SWT), inadvertently making their own minds creations as gods over themselves. This is shirk.

[jaanaan]

FULFILLED PROPHECIES OF THE HOLY QURAN

[/INDENT]In modern era atheists put the religions on trial by presenting criteria to check the genuine-ness or otherwise of the prophecies mentioned in the religious scriptures. Mr. Douglas E. Krueger, an atheist, on Pages 96-98 of his book, “WHAT IS ATHEISM – A Short Introduction” has presented the following five criteria to judge a prophecy. He wrote:

"Some criteria are needed in order to distinguish cases of lucky guesses from those of true prophecy. Let us define a genuine prophecy as one that satisfies the following five criteria:

1. The prophecy must be clear, and it must contain sufficient detail to make its fulfillment by a wide variety of possible events unlikely.
2. The event that can fulfill the prophecy must be unusual or unique.
3. The prophecy must be known to have been made before the event that is supposed to be its fulfillment.
4. The event foretold must not be of the sort that could be the result of an educated guess.
5. The event that fulfills the prophecy cannot be staged, or the relevant circumstances manipulated, by those aware of the prophecy in such a way as to intentionally cause the prophecy to be fulfilled."

lets see all this material in the light of the criteria you have mentioned. so we look at the first prophesy.

[quote]

FINGER PRINTS
[INDENT]"Their skins will bear witness against them as to what they have been doing" (41:21)
The finger prints system at borders, criminal investigation cells and immigration centres prove the fulfillment of this Quranic prophecy.
[/quote]

i have my doubts about this prophesy. first, it is not clear cut. your skin, as you might know, is spread over all your body. you dont need a dermatologist to tell you that. so why should you limit your fulfilment to the fingerprinting? if it had been so clear cut, it would have specifically mentioned finger printing, or the skin on your fingers or something like that. it just mentions skin, which could be any part of the body.
I dont have the Quran with me at the moment, otherwise i would have looked at it myself. but the wording seems to be that it is for the day of Qiyamat. you can not apply it here. i think this ayah has been taken out of context.

[QUOTE]

POLLUTION
"Corruption has spread on land and sea because of what men’s hands have wrought" (30:42)
One of the interpretations of the above verse of the Holy Quran is the environmental pollution, caused by human being. And that is spread both in land and sea due to our own inventions, i.e., fumes from chimneys of factories, chemical and nuclear waste, huge traffic in the cities, noise and creation of ozone hole are manifest testimonies of the fulfillment of this prophecy.

[/QUOTE]

this again is not very clear cut. corruption? what kind of corruption? sure you can twist the words to give it any meaning but if it had been a little clear cut, shouldnt it have mentioned fossil fuels, or earth being corrupted by things being taken out of it or something like that.

[QUOTE]

ESTABLISHMENT OF ISRAEL
And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people." (17:105)
Creation of Israel and gathering of Sephardic, Ashkenazi and the Jews of many other different races in Israel proves the authenticity of this prophecy and hence Quran.

[/QUOTE]

if it is God's plan to create Israel, why are all of us against it. Muslims should be first and foremost to welcome it. are we just trying to denied God's word through our actions?

[QUOTE]

ROADS IN MOUNTAINS
"And when the mountains are made to move." (81:4)
Centuries before the invention of dynamite, the holy Quran prophesied the blowing up and moving of the mountains.
[/QUOTE]

if you knew what it means to "move" then you would not be saying all this. moving something is taking something and placing it somewhere else in its original place. when people are blown up in pieces by a bomb blast, we dont say they have "moved". i think the same is true of the moutains. your rationale does not cut it.

[QUOTE]

NEW TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
"And when the she-camels, ten months pregnant are abandoned." (81:5) "And He has created horses and mules and asses that you may ride them, and as a source of beauty. And He will create what you do not yet know." (16:9)
As we know people, specially those living in deserts, have now abandoned camels and other animals for travelling. But this prophecy of invention and emergence of new transport systems is on-going as we witness new and faster modes of transportation emerging all the time.
[/QUOTE]

i think anyone who thinks mules and asses are a new form of transport is an ass. that is all i can say.

ZOO
*"And when the wild beasts are gathered together." *(81:6)
Nobody could ever imagine that one day wild beasts shall be captured, tamed and put together in closed and open parks. The establishment of zoo have fulfilled this prophecy.

[QUOTE]

MODERN COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
"And when various people are brought together." (81:8)
Fast transport systems, telephone, satellite systems and internet have brought so close to each other proving the truthfulness of the holy Quran.
[/QUOTE]

again, how many people would agree with me that bringing people together has a thousand meaning.

[QUOTE]

AIDS
*"It never happens that permissiveness overwhelms a people to the extent that they display their acts of sex shamelessly and they are not uniquely punished by God. Among them, invariably, pestilence is made to spread and such other diseases, the like of which have never been witnessed by their forefathers." *(Ibn-e-Majah, Kitab-ul-Fitan)* see footnote
You need at least a doctor of medicine and an expert of social behaviour at the same time to talk about such behaviours and their fatal consequence. Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was neither of them, but a Prophet of God who didn’t copy from the Bible and paste in the Quran and foretell the same fate of perverts of Sodom and Gomorrah for the future perverts, but a unique disease never heard or known by earlier people, AIDS! The medical scientists are unanimous that this disease is never recorded in the annals of history.
[/INDENT]
[/QUOTE]

now this is the classic one. so a person is a sinner who gets AIDS from an infected mother, or is injected with it through syringe, or through blood transplant.
that is brilliant. I just feel sorry for a mind that thinks like that.

[d-tox.ed]

@jaanaan

ESTABLISHMENT OF ISRAEL
And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people." (17:105)
Creation of Israel and gathering of Sephardic, Ashkenazi and the Jews of many other different races in Israel proves the authenticity of this prophecy and hence Quran.

if it is God’s plan to create Israel, why are all of us against it. Muslims should be first and foremost to welcome it. are we just trying to denied God’s word through our actions?

Let me start the easy one first.

(Also let me be clear that I am also in doubt of some of the Prophecies I wrote and I am reading about them)

Chapter 17 Verse 104 reads as:

104. And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.

Source of Translation

---

Then I went to search what Tafsir says about this verse.

{ وَقُلْنَا مِن بَعْدِهِ لِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ ٱسْكُنُواْ ٱلأَرْضَ فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعْدُ ٱلآخِرَةِ جِئْنَا بِكُمْ لَفِيفاً](http://javascript:Open_Menu()) }

(And We said unto the Children of Israel after him) after his destruction: (Dwell in the land) the land of Jordan and Palestine; (but when the promise of the Hereafter) when resurrection after death; and it is also said that this means: when Jesus son of Mary descends (cometh to pass we shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.)

Source of Tafsir (Sunni Tafsir)

---

You asked why are we all against it? I think we are not against state of Israel and Jews but we are against the attrocities they are causing to our fellow Muslim brothers in Palestine. We are against the un just rule. We are against their evil thoughts and minds. However dont forget they were also the chosen people as well.

Your second point that “are we denying God’s words through our actions” perhaps yes and no. It depends on one thought of mind. Everyone doesnt have same thinking.

[d-tox.ed]

AIDS "It never happens that permissiveness overwhelms a people to the extent that they display their acts of sex shamelessly and they are not uniquely punished by God. Among them, invariably, pestilence is made to spread and such other diseases, the like of which have never been witnessed by their forefathers." (Ibn-e-Majah, Kitab-ul-Fitan)* see footnote now this is the classic one. so a person is a sinner who gets AIDS from an infected mother, or is injected with it through syringe, or through blood transplant. that is brilliant. I just feel sorry for a mind that thinks like that.

The Hadith mentioned is as follows:
"It never happens that permissiveness overwhelms a people to the extent that they display their acts of sex shamelessly and they are not uniquely punished by God. Among them, invariably, pestilence is made to spread and such other diseases, the like of which have never been witnessed by their forefathers."
(Ibn-e-Majah, Kitab-ul-Fitan) * see footnote
You need at least a doctor of medicine and an expert of social behaviour at the same time to talk about such behaviours and their fatal consequence. Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was neither of them, but a Prophet of God who didn’t copy from the Bible and paste in the Quran and foretell the same fate of perverts of Sodom and Gomorrah for the future perverts, but a unique disease never heard or known by earlier people, AIDS! The medical scientists are unanimous that this disease is never recorded in the annals of history.

I forgot to mention the foot note in original post. Please read:

*. Hadith alongwith Sunnah is the secondary source of Islamic Sharia consisted of the deeds and sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and his progeny). The Holy Quran emphatically describes the position and status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as an ideal and best exampler (33:22) and not a mere post man who just delivers the message. The Muslims are enjoined to follow the way of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Allah says, "And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain from that."(59:8). The holy Quran states that his assertions are not based upon his own desires but on the revelations from God. (53:4,5)

---

You said "so a person is a sinner who gets AIDS from an infected mother". Well this is a good point you raised. My personal opinion on this would be "collateral damage". I would not comment on Hadith or try to mould its meaning for my purpose.

You said "or is injected with it through syringe, or through blood transplant." Well again Evolution does exist. New diseases do come up. However there is no cure for Aids and it is spread through shameful acts of sex. (this is the starting point now if it further spreads with use of infected syringes or child birth then tough)

You said "that is brilliant. I just feel sorry for a mind that thinks like that." Well dont know what to comment on this.

[d-tox.ed]

@jaanaan

ROADS IN MOUNTAINS
“And when the mountains are made to move.” (81:4)
Centuries before the invention of dynamite, the holy Quran prophesied the blowing up and moving of the mountains.

if you knew what it means to “move” then you would not be saying all this. moving something is taking something and placing it somewhere else in its original place. when people are blown up in pieces by a bomb blast, we dont say they have “moved”. i think the same is true of the moutains. your rationale does not cut it.

Perhaps Roads in Mountains heading is misleading. Infact I agree its misleading.

Please view translations of the ayat presented from various sources:

081.003
YUSUFALI: When the mountains vanish (like a mirage);
PICKTHAL: And when the hills are moved,
SHAKIR: And when the mountains are made to pass away,

Source

---

Also view the tafsir of this ayat;

وَإِذَا ٱلْجِبَالُ سُيِّرَتْ](http://javascript:Open_Menu())

and when the mountains are set in motion, [when] they are blown away from the face of the earth, becoming as scattered dust,

Source Tafsir Aljalalayn

---

I guess above writings are an open book.