To Raqiq: Why no reply forthcoming

Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), Dec 26, 2006 at 04:11

Brother Raqib you had raised several important points in yours posts and I tried show how they were not supported by facts, logic or reason. Please go through them again. I would like to hear from you about them.

In your post of Nov. 9, 2006 you say: '

You have not answered the contradiction of the number of days for the creation of the universe. Unless like, Zakir Naik, you think that contemplating such a question is blasphemy.

In your post of December 1,2006 you brought up the names of Deedat, Zakir Naik and Bucaille. I replied on Dec 3 and showed you the kind "scholars" Deedat and Zakir Naik were. I also showed you how the Koran stresses that it is meant for Arabs and that is why it is revealed in Arabic, not only that but it is meant for people in and around Mecca. You have not answered that. Nor have you anything to say why Allah is prejudiced against the vast majority of humankind. Why did Allah turn his back on one set of chosen people, the Israelis, and bestow fresh blessings on the Arabs alone.

Not being a scientist I cannot really say much about Bucaille. But he was probably the first one who started off this game of discovering science in the Koran. There have been many more since. All of them have been shot so full of holes by experts in their field that there is practically nothing left of the arguments. If you insist I can do a search of the web and point you to them.

In my post of Dec. 19, I showed you how your statement "Thanks to Allah, He has revealed the Qur'an in Arabic. Allah knew that if the Qur'an was revealed in other language then the corruptors would have defiled it just the way it was done to Holy Bible." demonstrates that Allah's powers are limited. You have been silent about this too.

In the same post I also showed you the mumbo-jumbo science you have indulged in trying to show the sun to be simultaneously resting and moving at the same time.

In another post of mine dated Dec.19 I also asked you to number the defensive as against the offensive battles (nearly 2 to 65)fought by the Muslims of the Prophet's time. You have remained mum.

You also stated that the Prophet did not denounce the People of the Book and I quoted verses from the Koran where that is exactly what is done. No contradiction from you yet.

You make a big thing out of a misplaced question mark in the word Surah and come to the conclusion that I am a Muslim hater. Why this trigger happy sensitivity I asked.

About the Banu Quraiza incident, I hope you are trying to source Ibn Ishaaq and will show me where I am wrong after you have studied his Sira.

You also say that in war trees are not to be cut down , helpless people not be be harmed, women and children not to be harmed. I showed the Koran itself permitting cutting down of trees. The sira reporting the BanuQuraiza women and children being sold into slavery. The ball is in your court.

In my Dec.23 mail I have shown you what a capricious god you believe in. He himself closes the minds of some to revelation and then punishes them for it. He wants people to believe in the unseen ie be blind and then berates them as blind, deaf and dumb. Unfathomable divine behaviour.

In another Dec. 23 mail I ask you why it is dismaying for you to discover that French children are taught that Muhammad was the author of the Koran and would you be equally dismayed by the hatred that is sought to be inlculated in Pakistani children by the government. How does it compare with what the French children are taught. Is it designed to create hatred of anyone as against the Pakistani textbooks?

warm regards

Plato

As I have mentioned earlier that Qur?an is not a book of science,..." So it is not. You are trying to prove that nothing in the Koran goes against proven science. But a sun which is both moving and at rest, a sun which sets in a pool near which some people live, the moon and sun racing each other and one being unable to catch up with the other cannot come from a god who claims to have given clear and easily understood revelations.

---

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".