My Thoughts On Islam

[Aractus]

The biggest difference is that Jesus tells Allah that he never told the people to worship him or that he was the Son of God. I forget the exact verse but it's clear that Jesus was a forerunner to Muhammad, much the same way the Christian version of John the Baptist was to Jesus. I understand that Muslims regard Jesus as a "great prophet" but not as the divine Son of God.

What you said about John the Baptist is not entirely true. John was six months older than Jesus, and accordingly began his ministry before Jesus, however he is not the "forerunner" to Jesus. His ministry was quite different, however his messianic message is what was important.

If I WERE to choose between Islam and Christianity, it comes down to who is right about Jesus. Why should I not go with the people who are part of the established church that Jesus supposedly founded? Why would I believe the man who came along six centuries later to say the only people he could have heard about Jesus from were the ones who got it all wrong? This is beyond special pleading.

Correct, and also who is right about the Old Testament. I have exactly the same contempt towards the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics who claim that the Masoretic Text is corrupt and the LXX is authentic. Since 1966 the Catholics have at least accepted the MT a bit more, however there is abundant evidence that the MT is a well preserved copy of the Hebrew scriptures. The Orthodox still claim that the MT is corrupt, and I'll explain why they're wrong.

There are six bodies of text that scholars consult for the Old Testament:
1. Masoretic Text
2. Qumran Text (Dead Sea scrolls) - discovered in 1947 contains extensive OT text from all but 1 book, however the only complete biblical book is Isaiah
3. Samaritan Pentateuch
4. LXX/Septuagint (greek)
5. The Peshitta (syriac)
6. Vulgate (latin)

If the MT is corrupt then why do the DSS that date to 1,000 years prior agree so much with it? Why does the Samaritan Pentateuch also largely agree with the MT? The SP is well known to be textually corrupt, however the structure and general content is the same, it's just some details have been intentionally modified in antiquity - since these details were changed around 200 BC the same timeframe as when the DSS were written it proves the corruption doesn't pre-date it. If the LXX is correct, as is claimed by the Eastern Orthodox church, how do they explain that the DSS agrees with the MT which they claim was corrupted after the LXX was written?

There is no evidence for intentional modification of the OT as preserved in the MT, as is claimed by Orthodox and Muslims. Ever since we discovered the DSS in 1947 that theory has been conclusively disproven.

Now on to the NT. Muslims claim that the NT has also been corrupted since it was written - well it's one thing to claim that in the 6th-7th century when we had but a few hundred greek manuscripts and probably none from the 2nd or 3rd centuries - but since that time we've accumulated 5,800 ancient Greek manuscripts including second and third century manuscripts which we call the "early manuscripts" and they prove the quality of the later manuscript - not 100% perfect, but certainly not anywhere near as corrupted as is claimed by Muslims.

As to the idea that Paul came and taught a different doctrine, this is demonstrably false since I can point to two creeds in his undisputed epistles that predate Paul.

The trinity, FYI, is monotheistic. Ever asked a JW what the "Holy Spirit" is? They will give you one of two answers: 1. "it's a force" used by Jehovah or 2. that the HS and the Father are one and the same person. The Nicene Creed is what we believe.

---

So one of the things that the Quran did was to rectify everyone who Jesus really was.

Rayaan, I have proven that Islam is incorrect about the OT and the NT being significantly textually incorrect to the point that the meaning has been altered. Countless others have also proven this. Even critics like Bart Ehram admit that there are no textual corruptions to be found which would alter a Christian doctrine as it is taught today. Likewise Paul didn't invent the doctrines he taught - especially the two creeds that we know he "received" and then wrote down and passed on. Here is one of them (1 Cor 15:1-11):

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Paul didn't invent that creed, it was taught to him. You want to claim otherwise? Prove it.

In fact, while we're at it, here's the other one:

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:6-11)

[DeistPaladin]

What you need to understand is that there is a concept of Orignal Sin in Christianity.

Where as in Islam,We Muslims believe Man is born free from any sins.

Nobody shall bear the sins of one another but only ownself.

If I make a mistake or broke any law.I should be held accountable and not anyone else.

Similarly is this not enough for you to understand why the concept of Orignal Sin fails for this very own reason.

Very much agreed. This is one of the fundamentally absurd things about Christianity, that God would punish me for the crimes of my ancestors. Human morality has long since evolved to understand that it is a moral no-brainer that you can't punish one man or woman for the crimes done by another. How can human morality be superior or more evolved than God's?

Christians may argue that "original sin" refers not just to Adam's sin but also to our inherent nature to commit sins, that Adam's actions but brought sin and corruption into the world. As Hitchens observed, this means that God has created us sick and commands us to be well.

Be sure to argue with them that not only does it make no sense that God should simply command sick people to be well and that the only solution offered was a blood sacrifice (!?) of his own son who was also himself (!?) , but also that the amoral tradition of punishing children for the crimes of their parents is written into the very 10 Commandments so revered by Christians.

The second commandment (bold emphasis added):

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

A god that would punish children for the iniquity of the fathers is a morally bankrupt god and one who does not deserve worship.

God is Most Merciful.Would he really need to send his begotten son to pay for the sins of Mankind??

Also agreed. Another fundamental concept in morality, justice and proper punishment is that one man can't "take the place" of someone's punishment, even if that man were willing to do so. Just as I can't be held responsible for someone else's crime, so to someone else can't take my punishment for a crime I did commit. This defeats the whole purpose of punishment, which should seek to correct bad behavior, discourage future bad behavior from the criminal and from others and perhaps even change the criminal. Human morality has again evolved to a point where we understand such a simple concept. Once again, would human morality be really so superior to God's?

The idea that Jesus could die for our sins is morally bankrupt. Then when you add on top of that Jesus is supposed to be God incarnate, we have barking madness on top of immorality (as an aside, I find a lot of overlap between morality and logic; can anything be morally right which is logically absurd?). So God has sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself as it was the only means to convince himself to forgive us for crimes done by our ancestors?

I'm going to skip around a bit on your post to address some other points of agreement:

Also you say about Trinity.Can you point out this word in the Bible ?

Doesn't exist and even the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) seem to argue against this point of Christian theology. In these Gospels, Jesus is clearly a separate being from his father god and subordinate in will and authority.

Here are a few examples from scripture that underscore this point:

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

So Jesus doesn't know what his father knows. Inferior knowledge would imply that Jesus is a separate being. Beware that some translations of the Bible drop "neither the son" from the translation. *Tsk, tsk* this kind of editing of "holy scripture" shows they knew and tried to cover their tracks. Liars!

Here's another:

Matthew 26:39 And he (Jesus) went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

So Jesus clearly has a separate will from his father. This suggests that Jesus was a separate person. The fact that Jesus submits to the will of his father says he was both separate and subordinate.

And another (one from Luke so he doesn't feel left out):

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son;in thee I am well pleased.

So the booming voice from above, presumably God's, is speaking to Jesus in second person. Throughout the first three Gospels, Jesus and his father speak (or, in Jesus' case, pray) to each other in second person and of each other in third person. This suggests that Jesus and his father are separate beings.

The only justification Christians can muster for the Trinity in the early Gospels is one verse from Matthew which is itself an embarrassingly mistranslated understanding of Isaiah chapter 7 (showing Matthew relied on the Greek Septuagint and therefore wasn't the Matthew that followed Jesus and therefore the whole Gospel of his is a forgery):

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Christians will eagerly jump on "God with us" and assume this means that God has assumed a human form as a baby. !??!?! As an aside, does this mean Mary had to change God's diapers? Did Mary have to awake in the middle of the night for God's feedings? Did Mary breast feed God? Sorry, I digress.

Read Isaiah chapter 7 to understand both the verse and its context. Isaiah, who wrote several hundred years prior, was not writing about any future messiah or even a present one. He was trying to reassure his then king that the Syrian invasion would not prevail. To find a sign, he produced a woman who was with child and said her son would be a sign that God was on the side of Judea. The context of the verse is that "God is with us" and the Syrians wold not prevail.

As an aside, the Syrians did prevail, proving Isaiah was a false prophet.

Christians will, at this point, babble about how Isaiah 7 was a double meaning prophecy. They will offer squat for evidence that this was a double prophecy, that Isaiah was speaking at all of the subject of the future messiah or that such double prophecies are to be found anywhere in the Bible. This is a pure bare assertion.

The real reason for "The Trinity" is Christians needed this theological conundrum, consisting of the incoherent babble about "three separate persons in one substance god" is it was the only escape clause to reconcile an OT god that was not only strictly monotheistic but forbade an intercessor with the NT that required an intercessor.

OT god said "I forbid you to have an intercessor" in...

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Isaiah 43:11-12 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

The NT god said "I require you to have an intercessor" in...

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So how can we be both required and forbidden to have an intercessor?

The answer is The Trinity, a not only absurd but clearly contrived device that allows the Christian god to flip-flop between two roles depending on the needs of the moment, who can have an intercessor and yet be consistently monotheistic since he is his own intercessor (!?) with himself. Because as Jesus said, "no one comes to me except through me".

Pure...
Barking...
Madness.

Now the one problem of your argument about The Bible I would advice you on because a Christian will have a good answer:

Also can you point out any single unequivocal statement where Jesus Christ himself Says I am God and Worship me???

Actually, yes.

Not surprisingly, scripture is written by religion to promote itself. By the time the Gospel of John was penned, it was done to provide justification for a Jesus-is-God theology. This proves the Gospel of John was a late addition and its Jesus is wholly different from the Jesus of the earlier Gospels (and the story is completely different too). This Jesus is a much more bombastic character who might be played by Samuel Jackson. However,

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

So on the surface, it does seem that Islam corrects Christianity, like a 3.0 version that replaces a buggy software program, like Windows 7 replaced Vista.

The bugs fixed in this new software package includes:
1. Monotheism subroutine patched
2. Glitchy "Trinity" feature which never worked right is omitted
3. Theological problems of God being a baby, or physical being, replaced
4. Moral and justice features updated to other modern software applications. Compatibility issues don't crop up as much.
5. New virtue features focus less on proper faith and more on tangible applications, such as charity for the poor. However, new virtue features also include many ritualistic subroutines that have no practical application (praying 5 times a day, for example) and should be omitted in future 4.0 versions.
6. Obsolete blood-sacrifice-for-atonement function written out

Bugs not addressed in Abrahamic 3.0, aka "Islam", are:
1. Eternal Hell as a punishment. Hell is eternal so it has no remedial value for rehabilitating criminals not does it discourage wrong behavior since its existence and the rules for who goes there comes as a surprise after death.
2. Software distribution is still uneven, largely unavailable in certain markets. Users of this software determined by who is raised in a household of families who already are consumers. Said software distribution relies on human efforts. Divinely composed software should have better and more effective means of wide distribution all over the world.
3. Concepts of "evil" are still largely focused on victim-less crimes as idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy. The new user manual (Quran) for the software focuses on these three far too much in its rules against misuse, as if they deserve any attention at all.
4. Demonstrations that the program actually works is still absent and largely the owner's manual is still used to prove itself.

On that last point:

Also Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H)1400 years ago.The same Quran is read and memorised by millions of Muslims worldwide.

...and?

Whereas for the Bible,No Orignal Manuscripts exist till date.

This is a problem for the Bible. And don't forget that problems of pseudo-epigraphy (nice way of saying "forgery") and interpolation (changes inserted over time, either through copyist errors or deliberate re-writes, such as dropping "neither the son" from Mark 13:32) were rife during the time and place where the Gospels were penned.

However, while contradictions and changes prove a story false, the lack of them do not prove a story true.

Prophet Muhammed and all other Prophets which came before him came with only one message.

"To believe and worship Only One True God"

...and?

Again, consistency does not prove truth.

This is where Islam proves itself a buggy software program. I've never heard a Muslim apologist offer any proof that doesn't involve what the Quran says (i.e. using the story book to prove the story is true). The arguments I've heard are:

1. The Quran is so beautifully written as to allow only a divine origin.
2. The Quran is faithfully translated over the years to allow no alterations.
3. The Quran has knowledge that could only allow a divine origin.

Please feel free to offer anything that doesn't fall under these three, or elaborations and defenses of these three arguments.

The first is, at best, a subjective opinion. The second fails for reasons I've mentioned. The third would be interesting if it were true but that's a more lengthy discussion. The larger point for now is nothing outside the Quran can be offered to prove Islam true.

It all boils down to seven words: "Some guy claimed God spoke to him".

[DeistPaladin]

What you said about John the Baptist is not entirely true. John was six months older than Jesus, and accordingly began his ministry before Jesus, however he is not the "forerunner" to Jesus. His ministry was quite different, however his messianic message is what was important.

First of all, can we nail down in scripture that John the Baptist was six months older? Because I read Luke which states that:

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luke 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, ...
Luke 1:26-27 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1:41-42 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Ah, it seems you're right that John the Baptist was conceived six months before Jesus' conception so I guess that would mean... oh wait, we have to judge that by when they were born.

Luke 2:1-2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

King Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, somewhere around late March or early April. Cyrenius or Quirinius came to be governor of Syria around 6 CE.

Therefore, Mary's pregnancy with Jesus lasted 10 years. So John the Baptist was 10 years older than Jesus.

As for the issue of being a forerunner, what do you make of these verses:

John 1:20-27 And he (John the Baptist) confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. ...He said,I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. ...John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose

This seems clear to me. John is taking an extremely submissive role to Jesus, that he is the warm-up act for the main event to come.

[Mystic]

1. The Quran is so beautifully written as to allow only a divine origin.
2. The Quran is faithfully translated over the years to allow no alterations.
3. The Quran has knowledge that could only allow a divine origin.

As for 1, it's somewhat of a different argument. The argument is that the style of Quran is so much different and unique, at the same time, being very eloquent, in a way that humans cannot and have not been able to replicate.

The style of Quran is indeed a unique style. I don't know why, but no one has been able to replicate the style of Quran.

By this, I don't mean the content. I mean the semi-poetry and semi-prose mix, but better then both, way of Quran speaking.

The Arabs were bewildered how this was a completely new style that none of their best poets could replicate.

And to this day, no one is able to replicate the style. And what's more then that, Mohammad was confident that no one could do it, and used it as proof of his claims.

So it's a little more then that.

There is also the linguistic signs in Quran that add up which is another argument.

[rhn2704]

Again, consistency does not prove truth.

This is where Islam proves itself a buggy software program. I've never heard a Muslim apologist offer any proof that doesn't involve what the Quran says (i.e. using the story book to prove the story is true). The arguments I've heard are:

1. The Quran is so beautifully written as to allow only a divine origin.
2. The Quran is faithfully translated over the years to allow no alterations.
3. The Quran has knowledge that could only allow a divine origin.

Please feel free to offer anything that doesn't fall under these three, or elaborations and defenses of these three arguments.

The first is, at best, a subjective opinion. The second fails for reasons I've mentioned. The third would be interesting if it were true but that's a more lengthy discussion. The larger point for now is nothing outside the Quran can be offered to prove Islam true.

It all boils down to seven words: "Some guy claimed God spoke to him".

I really appreciate that you have some open mind unlike some people on this forum who just blindly say something without any thoughts.

The verse which you said "I and father are one" Is in no way close to prove that Jesus christ himself said Verily I am God or worship me.

I and Father are one.My question is at what ??

I can also say You and I are one.In the sense that we both speak English.

In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One."

These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything. In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...," in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.

Now as for what Muslim believe that Quran is a verbatim word of God.

Now you will not believe me just because I said so.So what you have to see is whether Quran the message what it offers to and the way the message is delivered stands the test of time or not.

Ok Consider this,Lets just say today we just remove all the scriptures which exists today in the world.All the holy scriptures which are present whether from internet,the books,media etc.

Just think which will be the only scripture which can be brought back how it was word by word as it was revealed at their respective times?

Its The Holy Quran because millions of muslims have memorised it and can re-write it with millions of people to verify it.

Quran roughly means "Which is recited a lot".Muslims from all over the world recite it in their five daily prayers round the clock since 1400 years and will go on till the end of times.

Today there are about 1.5 billion Muslims.But When the Quran was revealed 1400 years ago.Just Imagine a person who you knew is a good man and is your neighbor, On one fine day knocks at your door and tells you that He is a messenger of God and his job is only to deliver the message of Islam.

How would you feel that time after listening to him???

So Even that time there was an open challenge from the Quran to the pagans who were listening to the Prophet when he was reciting the verses to them at that time.

Quran 2:23 "And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true."

That time was the Age of literature and Poetry.The Arab pagans embraced Islam because of the strong poetry and stylistic miracle of the Noble Quran.

Prophet Muhammad did not convert sticks to snakes, or split the sea in half, or raise the dead, or cure the blind, or perform any of the Miracles that God's Messengers did in the past (Peace be upon all of them)

All of the miracles that the Messengers before Prophet Muhammad had performed died when they died.

The miracle that Prophet Muhammad brought to earth lived after his death, and will live until the Day of Judgment.

Many can try to produce chapters that have similar literature that of the Noble Quran, as some already done so, but non of these man-made books can convert a single sincere person.This is the Miracle of the Noble Quran, and the Miracle of Islam.

Today is the Age of Science.So just tell me how is it possible that there are many established scientific facts in the Quran which were only discovered some decades back and Quran has already mentioned it 1400 years ago ???

There has to be something about the Quran which you or I can't competely neglect.

[paulpablo]

Which scientific things has the quran predicted?

[Minimalist]

1. The Quran is so beautifully written as to allow only a divine origin.

Robert Spencer refers to it as 20% unintelligible...this because the original language was Syriac not Arabic and it doesn't work so well when you try to shoehorn it in.

Spencer's book indicates much of the Koran is made up of reworked Christian tracts originally written in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic and the primary literary language in the region at the time. He also said a lack of evidence of a written Koran until decades after Muhammad's death indicates the book itself was put together by Arabic empire-builders who wanted to unite their multinational conquests through religion.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/09/0...z2zSaoorLT

[Rahul]

Today is the Age of Science.So just tell me how is it possible that there are many established scientific facts in the Quran which were only discovered some decades back and Quran has already mentioned it 1400 years ago ???

There has to be something about the Quran which you or I can't competely neglect.

This is something that gets regurgitated a lot by Muslims without a single shred of evidence. I guess they just think it sounds good so they spit it out hoping no one asks for proof.

This IS the age of science so we're going to ask for hard, factual evidence for this bullshit statement.

What ya got?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

they usually cite where the Quran says the Earth is a sphere, despite the fact it isn't.

[rhn2704]

Which scientific things has the quran predicted?

1. Mountains

The Quran draws our attention to a very important characteristic of mountains:

Did We not make the earth a resting place? And the mountains as stakes? [78:6-7]

The Quran indicates that mountains have deep roots by using the word stakes to describe them.

In fact mountains do have deep roots, and the word stakes is an accurate description for them. A book titled ‘Earth’ by Geophysicist Frank Press explains that mountains are like stakes, and are buried deep under the surface of the earth.

The fact that mountains have deep ‘stake’ like roots was not known, until after the development of the theory of plate tectonics in the beginning of the 20th century.

2. Expansion of Universe

At a time when the science of Astronomy was still primitive, the expansion of the universe was described in Quran:

And it is We who have built the Universe with [Our creative] power and keep expanding it. [51:47]

The fact that the universe is expanding was discovered in the last century. The physicist Stephen Hawking in his book ‘A Brief History of Time’ writes, “The discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the 20th century.”

3. Sun’s Orbit

In 1512 the astronomer Nicholas Copernicus put forward his theory that the Sun is motionless at the centre of the solar system, and that the planets revolve around it. The belief that the Sun is stationary was widespread amongst astronomers until the 20th century. It is now a well-established scientific fact that the Sun is not stationary, but is moving in an orbit around the centre of our Milky Way galaxy.

The Quran mentions the orbit of the Sun:

It is He who created night and day, the Sun and the Moon, each floating in its orbit. [21:33]

The Quran would have been wrong according to astronomers just a couple of decades ago. But we now know that the Quranic account of the Sun’s motion is consistent with modern Astronomy.

4. Pain Receptors

For a long time it was thought that the sense of feeling and pain was dependent on the brain. However it has been discovered that there are pain receptors present in the skin.

Without these pain receptors, a person would not be able to feel pain.

Consider the following verse on pain:

We shall send those who reject Our revelations to the (Hell) Fire. When their skins have been burned away, We shall replace them with new ones so that they may continue to feel the pain: God is Almighty, All-Wise. [4:56]

God tells the people who reject his message that when they are in Hell and their skins are burnt off (so they can’t feel any pain), he will give them new skins so that they continue to feel the pain.

The Quran makes it clear that pain is dependent upon on the skin. The discovery of pain receptors in the skin is a fairly recent discovery for Biology.

5 . Embryology


"Proclaim! (or Read!) In the name Of thy Lord and Cherisher, WHO created---Created man, out of A (mere) clot of congealed blood." [AL-QUR'AN 96:1-2]

The word 'alaq' besides meaning a congealed clot of blood also means something that clings, a leech-like substance.

Dr. Keith Moore had no knowledge whether an embryo in the initial stages appears like a leech. To check this out he studied the initial stage of the embryo under a very powerful microscope in his laboratory and compared what he observed with a diagram of a leech and he was astonished at the striking resemblance between the two! In the same manner, he acquired more information on embryology, that was hitherto not known to him, from the QUR'AN.

At a conference in Cairo Dr Keith Moore presented a research paper and stated:

"It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'an about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because most of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God, or Allah."

Dr. Moore was a former President of the Canadian Association of Anatomists, and of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists. He was honoured by the Canadian Association of Anatomists with the prestigious J.C.B. Grant Award and in 1994 he received the Honoured Member Award of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists "for outstanding contributions to the field of clinical anatomy."