69 million page views

Our dear Esq is quoting a corrupted book to prove a point! Go figure! part deux

Reader comment on item: Q&A: Remaking a Religion
in response to reader comment: Comparing Islam with Christianity

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Feb 5, 2011 at 08:43

Our dear Esq whose Hindu ancestors were brutalized by islam and muslims and who sounds like a tablighee and is a tablighee in another "cut and paste" job without quoting his source he wrote

>"How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

you are quoting a book that your Arabian Allah says that it is a corrupted book so did they teach in in Esq school or in your glorious madrassa to quote a corrupted book? What do you think our dear Esq?

>The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimension of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

gobbledygook. So "If Allah created this creation then who really created Allah?" Any guesses?

Hint: If you are curious to know the answer from the islamic sources that you cannot read in Arabic then read the answer in Ibn Ishaq's al-Sira al-Nabawiyya

Oh darn it i forgot that you do not know any Arabic

>When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation (i.e., the Big Bang).3 In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time (see The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning). Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe.

These are all kuffar sources so you are using kuffar sources sources to prove that Allah has no mama or papa right ? poor Allah inahu kana yatiman! And this is sarcasm

>God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

Oh the bogus surat al-ikhlas

Let us see what it says:

qul huwa allahu ahad allahu al-samad blah....blah....blah

Let me translate it for you

1. qul means say

2. huwa means he

3. Allah means Allah and it is (and what a scandal) a loan word from Syriac Alaha or Allaha

4. Ahad means one of so your Allah is one of so who are the other ones any guesses? If he would have said wahid or one you would be right

So who are the others? So much for islamic tawheed

4. allah means Allah

5. al-samad is a word that has no meaning so why would you have a word that has no meaning our dear Esq any guesses?

For the readers: It is very clear that the word ahad here is not an Arabic word but a laon word from Syriac and hebrew where the word one means ahad! What a joke and what a fadiha that a book that claims to be written in Arabic we find Syriac and Hebrew words

And do you know what? In the sira we are told that the jews asked your so called prophet

"If Allah created this creation then who really created Allah" The very profound Aristotelian problem and Muhammad had a hissy firt as usual and went for help from and you guessed Gabriel and we are told that Surat al-ikhlas was revealed but again we know that with the word ahad we are not talking about One but one of so who are the other ones?

Here is the rest of the story; The jews realized that Muhammad 's answer was illogical (it is ciruclar reasoning) and even if we read the word ahad as one and not one of then it does not make any sense as it is only a claim that cannot be supported by logic then the Jews were not impressed by the answer and they came back to him with the following question:

How did Allah do it and which limb did he use?

And as usual Muhammad had another hissy fit and had to call Gabriel for more help! and this is why Q39:67 was revelaed! And as excepted Muhammad with his poor logic believed that he won such little debate but the smart Jewish Rabbis left realizing that Muhammad and his Allah are no match to Aristotetlian logic and that islamic tawheed is bogus

How come you did not quote this story our dear Esq al-tablighee could it be because you did not know?

Oh I urge you to abandon islam and get a grip on reality

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Our dear Esq is quoting a corrupted book to prove a point! Go figure! part deux by dhimmi no more

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2023 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)