Phone for Muslims.....

Fearless said:
Its also a Muslim belief.

In the Quran, Sura 5.21 clearly states that the Jews sole right to what is Israel.

Perhaps Sultan would like to comment.
Click to expand...
It doesnt, its just the Quran telling the story of Moses.
 
Mozza said:
It doesnt, its just the Quran telling the story of Moses.
Click to expand...

How much clearer can a Promised Land be?.......

"O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and
turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own
ruin." Quran 5:21

Furthermore....

Sura 17:4
"And We [Allah] gave (clear) warning to the children of Israel in the Book, that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance (and twice would they be punished)!" The succeeding verses tell us that the punishment referred to was banishment from the land. But "twice" means twice, not three times; hence the Jews, having been banished from the land once by the Babylonians and a second time by Rome, will never again be banished from the land.

According to the Qur'an, Israel is an eternal nation.
 
Fearless said:
How much clearer can a Promised Land be?.......

"O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and
turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own
ruin." Quran 5:21

Furthermore....

Sura 17:4
"And We [Allah] gave (clear) warning to the children of Israel in the Book, that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance (and twice would they be punished)!" The succeeding verses tell us that the punishment referred to was banishment from the land. But "twice" means twice, not three times; hence the Jews, having been banished from the land once by the Babylonians and a second time by Rome, will never again be banished from the land.

According to the Qur'an, Israel is an eternal nation.
Click to expand...
5:21 is part of the story of Moses, not saying Isreal is the land of the Jews.

As for your other quote, its followed by:-
17:5 When the first of the warnings came to pass, We sent against you Our servants given to terrible warfare: They entered the very inmost parts of your homes; and it was a warning (completely) fulfilled.
17:6 Then did We grant you the Return as against them: We gave you increase in resources and sons, and made you the more numerous in man-power.
17:7 If ye did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye did evil, (ye did it) against yourselves. So when the second of the warnings came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to disfigure your faces, and to enter your Temple as they had entered it before, and to visit with destruction all that fell into their power.
17:8 It may be that your Lord may (yet) show Mercy unto you; but if ye revert (to your sins), We shall revert (to Our punishments): And we have made Hell a prison for those who reject (all Faith).

Whoever wrote the commentry for you quote for 17:4 is obviously biased.

PS: Im not a bible basher, this is the forst time Ive read the Quran in ages, just had to prove that prick wrong.
 
Mozza said:
5:21 is part of the story of Moses, not saying Isreal is the land of the Jews.


Then who are the Children of Israel??????????????????? :confused:

Even the most fundermentalist Muslim gladly admits that Jews broke the so called covenant as stated in 5.21 hence losing any rights to Israel.

Read 17:103 for further conveyancing arguements.
Click to expand...
 
Fearless said:
Mozza said:
5:21 is part of the story of Moses, not saying Isreal is the land of the Jews.


Then who are the Children of Israel??????????????????? :confused:

Even the most fundermentalist Muslim gladly admits that Jews broke the so called covenant as stated in 5.21 hence losing any rights to Israel.

Read 17:103 for further conveyancing arguements.
Click to expand...
Why cant you understand? It is the story of Moses, not quranic law

Seeing as you failed to mention it, your use of 17:4 is wrong isnt it?

17:103 another part of the story of Moses, care to take anymore ayats out of context?
Click to expand...
 
Slabber said:
If we'd have followed the "we're right because we say so or someone else did" view of the world we'd still be living in caves.

As it is, thanks to trust in science, we're all on the Caf, which is nice, if a little silly and pointless.
Click to expand...

:lol:

That Zappa bloke genuinely hates Muslims, and should be kicked off the Caf

Despite, to be fair, also being hilarious
 
Plechazunga said:
:lol:

That Zappa bloke genuinely hates Muslims, and should be kicked off the Caf

Despite, to be fair, also being hilarious
Click to expand...

Does he genuinely hate them or is he pretending to hate them?
 
Mozza said:
Fearless said:
17:103 another part of the story of Moses, care to take anymore ayats out of context?
Click to expand...

I'm still in context. Without wanting to dissect each other beliefs, the big picture underscores that Moses led his people to the Promised Land.

Jews celebrate this event in Passover when the angel of death 'passed over' the Hebrews house and picked the Eygptians pre-exodus. The covenants enshrined within both Judaic and Muslim text only serve witness to this.

BTW, I wish you mabrock awasher - happy Ramadam
Click to expand...
 
Wibble said:
But we can ignore things that have zero evidence demonstrating that they exist when people have been trying for so many years. If evidence arises, which it will if it is there since so many people want it to be true, then we can modify our view. I'm pretty confident mind.

At some point you simply have to believe that the garden is fragrent and beautiful without needing to believe that there are faries at the bottom of it.
Click to expand...
Why is the general assumption, in this thread, is that one has to be religious when producing an example where logic fails. The 'bus' example is just another case study of probabilities which I countered with falling asleep behind the wheel. Some readers automatically assumed that it was a 'fate' example.

In regards to 'zero evidence', I find that slightly shortsighted (the statement , not you). The reason why I say that, is from a bonus question that I remember doing in Chemistry 101 back in the day. The question was:

What is 1.1 - 1.1 = ? and why?

If you know the answer to that question, then you'll understand my point of view.
 
Fearless said:
Mozza said:
I'm still in context. Without wanting to dissect each other beliefs, the big picture underscores that Moses led his people to the Promised Land.

Jews celebrate this event in Passover when the angel of death 'passed over' the Hebrews house and picked the Eygptians pre-exodus. The covenants enshrined within both Judaic and Muslim text only serve witness to this.

BTW, I wish you mabrock awasher - happy Ramadam
Click to expand...
Promised then, not now.
Click to expand...
 
Abbsta said:
Why is the general assumption, in this thread, is that one has to be religious when producing an example where logic fails. .
Click to expand...

Becuase it's logical to do so.

And the fact that every big question still hasn't been answered in a laboratory
 
Abbsta said:
Why is the general assumption, in this thread, is that one has to be religious when producing an example where logic fails.

Because logic and associated mystic rubbish is the main area where otherwise logical people remove their brain.

The 'bus' example is just another case study of probabilities which I countered with falling asleep behind the wheel. Some readers automatically assumed that it was a 'fate' example.

Neither were examples of fate. Not sure wht the point of either was.

In regards to 'zero evidence', I find that slightly shortsighted (the statement , not you).

If you suspect (based on observation say) that something is true then it is up to you to set a testable hypothesis to see if you are correct.

When something like religion/god has been around so long and there is still zero evidenece for it there must be at least a suspicion that this is because there is nothing to discover.

If evidence arises for something then our perception of truth and fact can be adjusted. However, simply carrying on believeing something is true simply because some other stuff that hasn't been tested yet may be true strikes me as mental gymnastics at best.

The reason why I say that, is from a bonus question that I remember doing in Chemistry 101 back in the day. The question was:

What is 1.1 - 1.1 = ? and why?

If you know the answer to that question, then you'll understand my point of view.
Click to expand...

I know the answer but I don't understand your point. Or rather I understand it but disagree with what I assume is your point. Zero is simply a number. Even if deciding if it is an odd or even number can send you mad.

It has nothing to do with an absence of evidence.
 
My mate in NY has been looking through our religious debates

my mate said:
religious debates on a football related message board are a sight
to see. The sight has inspired me to have a read on some of the stuff about
creationsim vs evolution. My preliminary conclusion is that it is very
difficult to get a model that fits the data better than one that claims the
world was created by an all powerful being that can do whatever it wants.
Click to expand...
 
Wibble said:
I know the answer but I don't understand your point. Or rather I understand it but disagree with what I assume is your point. Zero is simply a number. Even if deciding if it is an odd or even number can send you mad.

It has nothing to do with an absence of evidence.
Click to expand...
Thanks Wibble for your respectable reply.

Sorry the bus example wasn't relative to you, it was thrown at me by other posters in this thread.

With the regards to the answer of the question, it's not simply zero and that's why it was a bonus question. Bearing in mind it's a chemistry question, the answer is actually 0.0
The .0 represents the impurities that one finds in the lab. The point behind this is that even if the result in the lab shows zero, one can not discount other impurities that may contribute to the subject being studied, no matter how insignifigance they may appear.
 
Plechazunga said:
My mate in NY has been looking through our religious debates
Click to expand...
Thanks for that Plech.

That was one of the reasons why I joined this forum. It's simply to have a chance to discuss other topics with highly intelligent people like yourself, Wibble, FeedingSeagulls, Sultan and others who I have forgot to mention.

Happy days :D
 
Fearless said:
Its also a Muslim belief.

In the Quran, Sura 5.21 clearly states that the Jews sole right to what is Israel.

Perhaps Sultan would like to comment.
Click to expand...

I think I will let youself and Mozza debate the issue, just add that Islam has never denied its Judeo-Christian roots, in fact those people who followed the true teachings of Prophet Moses/Jesus prior too Islam are considered Muslims in our eyes.

And before people start getting confused Muslim literally means, "a person who believes".
 
Sultan said:
I think I will let youself and Mozza debate the issue, just add that Islam has never denied its Judeo-Christian roots, in fact those people who followed the true teachings of Prophet Moses/Jesus prior too Islam are considered Muslims in our eyes.

And before people start getting confused Muslim literally means, "a person who believes".
Click to expand...

Was Jesus Jewish AND Muslim?
 
Fearless said:
Was Jesus Jewish AND Muslim?
Click to expand...

He was a was a believer, so yes he was a Muslim, but had to follow the religious code of Moses (Judaism) until such time revelations were revealed to himself.
 
Sultan said:
He was a was a believer, so yes he was a Muslim, but had to follow the religious code of Moses (Judaism) until such time revelations were revealed to himself.
Click to expand...

Therefore, according to your above deifinition, as well as a Koranic one, Sura 5.21 does indeed reinforce the Promised Land as a Judaic entity, Isalmic enlightenment pending.
 
Fearless said:
Therefore, according to your above deifinition, as well as a Koranic one, Sura 5.21 does indeed reinforce the Promised Land as a Judaic entity, Isalmic enlightenment pending.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you trying to say or prove with Surah 5.21 ? There is no doubt that judaic people have always existed in them lands, many converted to Christianity and then Islam...does that not make them equal partners in the ownership of these lands.?
 
Sultan said:
What exactly are you trying to say or prove with Surah 5.21 ?
Click to expand...

Actually, I was leading on from I'm RED2's post...

It is also a Christian belief that the land where the Jewish people currently claim to be their own actually is their own . Watch events at the temple Mount in the future and see the Bible come to life.
Click to expand...

I find it fascinating to discuss how Islam relates to other religions.
 
I dont see a problem accepting anybody born in these lands claiming it to be theirs, whatever their faith...the problems really started when these lands were forcefully taken to expand the state of Israel, importing people of jewish descent from many parts of the world.


PS...I had edited my previous post whilst you were writing your reply.
 
Abbsta said:
Thanks Wibble for your respectable reply.

Sorry the bus example wasn't relative to you, it was thrown at me by other posters in this thread.

With the regards to the answer of the question, it's not simply zero and that's why it was a bonus question. Bearing in mind it's a chemistry question, the answer is actually 0.0
The .0 represents the impurities that one finds in the lab. The point behind this is that even if the result in the lab shows zero, one can not discount other impurities that may contribute to the subject being studied, no matter how insignifigance they may appear.
Click to expand...

O is exactly the same as 0.0 numerically. A chemist may (apparently) use the 0.0 to symbolise the potential presence of impurityies at a level below the testing criteria but that is field specific convention. The fact that it is used indicates to me that more sensitive tests usually (always) show these impurities exists but that is is a pointless waste of time looking for something that will be there but is irrelevant to the experiment at hand.

Some things for which there is currently no evidence do exist. Science would grind to a halt if there were not. But when something has been purported to exist for so long and there is still zero evidence for its existence then the most logical conclusion is that said thing does not exist.
 
Sorry Sultan. It would make things altogether simpler if you would foam at the mouth and scream "Death to all blasphemers" ;)
 
Sultan said:
I dont see a problem accepting anybody born in these lands claiming it to be theirs, whatever their faith...the problems really started when these lands were forcefully taken to expand the state of Israel, importing people of jewish descent from many parts of the world.


PS...I had edited my previous post whilst you were writing your reply.
Click to expand...

You've got the history a bit mangled there

Jews started coming from all over the world from the very beginning of the state of Israel...due mainly to the fact that people kept gassing and shooting them
 
Sorry for the delay in replying, my girlfriend called and by the time I finished typing, I was automatically logged off and had retype again (2 fingered typist). Cnuts.

Wibble said:
If evidence arises for something then our perception of truth and fact can be adjusted. However, simply carrying on believeing something is true simply because some other stuff that hasn't been tested yet may be true strikes me as mental gymnastics at best.
Click to expand...
How can the evidence arise if we are gonna ignore such impurities. We assuming that we should find a finite 3 or 4 dimensional solution to Nature or whatever you wanna call it.

Wibble said:
O is exactly the same as 0.0 numerically. A chemist may (apparently) use the 0.0 to symbolise the potential presence of impurityies at a level below the testing criteria but that is field specific convention. The fact that it is used indicates to me that more sensitive tests usually (always) show these impurities exists but that is is a pointless waste of time looking for something that will be there but is irrelevant to the experiment at hand.
Click to expand...
How many discovries have been found by accident. If we look at some of them now, before reaching the point of discovery, we could say o venturing down this route is pointless so don't bother but hey...eureka.

Wibble said:
Some things for which there is currently no evidence do exist. Science would grind to a halt if there were not. But when something has been purported to exist for so long and there is still zero evidence for its existence then the most logical conclusion is that said thing does not exist.
Click to expand...
Can we really assume that with our level intelligence today we should already come up with an evidence, just because it's an old concept.
The age of the problem shouldn't be a determining fact to the solution. If anything, it shows that indeed a difficult one.
 
Wibble said:
Sorry Sultan. It would make things altogether simpler if you would foam at the mouth and scream "Death to all blasphemers" ;)
Click to expand...

:nervous:
 
Wibble said:
O is exactly the same as 0.0 numerically. A chemist may (apparently) use the 0.0 to symbolise the potential presence of impurityies at a level below the testing criteria but that is field specific convention. The fact that it is used indicates to me that more sensitive tests usually (always) show these impurities exists but that is is a pointless waste of time looking for something that will be there but is irrelevant to the experiment at hand.
Click to expand...

Significant figures are used in all scientific fields, not just chemistry ;)
 
Abbsta said:
How can the evidence arise if we are gonna ignore such impurities.

I assume that it isn't a case of ignoring impurities. Merely that the impurities are irrlevant for the experiment being conducted. Spending extra time, effort and money getting an answer to however many decimal places are neccesary to quantify these impurities would therefore be silly. A nomenclature such as 0.0 rather than 0 simply acknowledges that these impurities exist but aren't being measured for the purposes of this experiment.

It still says nothing about believeing things are true in the absence of evidence. I assume that the there is evidence of the existence of such impurities which is why this particulalr nomenclature is used.


We assuming that we should find a finite 3 or 4 dimensional solution to Nature or whatever you wanna call it.

Yes. Pretty much.


How many discovries have been found by accident. If we look at some of them now, before reaching the point of discovery, we could say o venturing down this route is pointless so don't bother but hey...eureka.

Not at all. New discoveries are made every day. However, when something has been around for so long and tested time and time again with a complete and utter lack of evidence I think that it it reasonable to assume that there is nothing to discover. If some evidence does ever arise then we can form a testable hypothesis and see where that leads.


Can we really assume that with our level intelligence today we should already come up with an evidence, just because it's an old concept.

Yes.

The age of the problem shouldn't be a determining fact to the solution. If anything, it shows that indeed a difficult one.
Click to expand...

In which case we would never move on. Things are tested and discarded every day. Religion/God is treated differently by many becase they want it to be true so badly. If there was anything to discover then at least a hint would have been found by now - which it hasn't.

If you are religious then it is an act of faith and requires no proof. Which is why the pseudo scientific bullshit of the creationist/intelligent design advocates drives scientists to distraction.

It s the equivalent of a scientists quoting part of a holy book as proof of his hypothesis. Insanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.