True Religion

My first post had all the answers to your questions and I have already said I am not going to repeat what I have repeated several time just to make sure you understand it but you are stuck in your own biases. I don't have to tell you what your biases are as you are well aware of those. If you don't know them then do a deep soul searching and you will know for sure.

I think you are making the same mistake as our ignorant politicians.

You think the Muslims of ISIS and similar groups are not as sincere as you in their beliefs of Islam. This is idiocy.

I think gender is spot on.

The Nobel committee is primarily composed of white men and Nobel recipients are primarily white men too.

Your attempt to test his claim is way too blunt.

It could be said with some justification that the reason there are so few Muslim Nobel laureates is institutional racism.

(You're a traditional scientist venturing into the realms of social science with x amount of variables.

So much so that many scientists don't even consider them sciences.

I bet you feel dirty, but in a nice way.)

I don't know if the claim can be tested, although there is only one true religion and that's cargo cultism.

FACT#8 EMBRYLOGY-FORMATION OF HUMAN FETUS

Ever since Aristotle observed the prevailing theories of his time concerning the formation of the fetus, there had been a continuous argument between the supporters of the theory (who contended that there is a completely-formed minuscule human in the spermatozoon) and supporters of the theory that a complete human minuscule is formed from the coagulation of a woman's menstrual blood. Most of the people of that time believed that a tiny, but complete human was present in a compact form in a spermatozoon. The scholars of that time pictured the fetus as a tiny, fully formed human that dwelled in a spermatozoon and gradually grew in the womb like a small tree.
None of these two groups ever noticed that the fetus is formed by a combination of the male spermatozoon and female ovum. This was the opinion of the Italian scholar, Spallanzani in 1775. In 1783, Van Beneden was able to establish this idea. This was how humanity was able to do away with the erroneous idea of the “miniscule human".
Between 1888 and 1901, Boveri discovered that chromosomes vary and carry different genes. In 1912, Morgan was able to define the roles that genes play and their existence in special places in chromosomes.
That was how it became clear that mankind discovered that a fetus consists of a male spermatozoon and female ovum only in the 18th century and that the discovery was only confirmed at the beginning of the 20th century.

Whereas we find that the Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah have clearly established that in a perfectly detailed scientific manner that man is created from a mixture of drops. The Quran calls it, “drops of mixed semen" (nutfah amshaj).


Equally, the following noble Hadith confirmed this. Imam Ahmad recorded in his Musnad on the authority of 'Abdullah Ibn Masood -may Allah be pleased with him - who narrated that:



FACT#9-HUMAN EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT

The miracle of embryonic development is mentioned in the Quran in such minute detail, much of which was unknown to scientists until only recently. It mentions the first stages of life after conception, the second stage of life after conception, and witnesses of scientists about these scientific facts of the Quran.

In the Holy Quran, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:



Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings:
1. Leech
2. suspended thing
3. blood clot.
In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.


The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.




The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage (see figure 4).



Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week. Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.
So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage.

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.” (See figures 5 and 6).




How could Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time? Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad). They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract.

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages. This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person. Dr. Keith Moore is Professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. There, he was Associate Dean of Basic Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and for 8 years was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy. In 1984, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists. He has directed many international associations, such as the Canadian and American Association of Anatomists and the Council of the Union of Biological Sciences.
In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said:



During one conference, Professor Moore stated:



Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question:

He replied:


Link below for the video of his commentary on stages of human embryonic development in Quran:
https://youtu.be/CFq6E0l2J4U

That's quite broad in itself, I'm not talking about beliefs, I'm talking about knowledge.

The leadership knows quite a lot but the foot soldiers remain largely ignorant. A lot are disaffected young men with a background in petty crime and or drugs.

Like lots of young men they want to make a difference and are easily moulded by the unscrupulous.

There was an interview with an ex Al Qaida man on the BBC a few years back. He joined during the war in Bosnia and for a long time had Western backing. He became disillusioned after the Kenyan embassy bombings where lots of innocents died.

When he questioned this with the Imam he was directed to a fatwa that said it was acceptable to kill innocents for the greater good.

Now a lot would have left it there because most were very ignorant of the Quran, they knew what they were told and that was it.

When he did a bit of digging he found out this fatwa dated to the Mongol invasion when the invaders tied Muslims to siege towers. What the fatwa is saying is that if you have to kill innocents to take down a siege tower it's acceptable. Many more innocents will die if they break in.

It's not about blowing up things that aren't an imminent threat.

Sorry for being a bit long winded, but the term IS Muslim is misleading, the rank and file are pig ignorant. You and I probably know as much as they do.

I agree with everything you said in that post.
My point is that no matter how those boys and girls were mislead, most were motivated by their inner drive to find meaning in their existence. Of course there are some who wanted only revenge.

But my comment was mainly directed at the leadership who are not just a 'bunch of thugs' as Dick Chaney called them. They ******* Believe in their version of Islam as deeply as Habib believes in his. And both claim the authority of the Qur'an.

Islam asks us not to believe in anything blindly. Islam teaches us to reflect and if something is stated against Quran, a Muslim should be asking for an evidence (Daleel, proof from Quran and hadith). Islamic sources of knowledge have been written down and preserved so meticulously that if someone one needs to find the truth, he/she can go back to the sources and find it out for him/herself.

With that said, I know that some Muslims rely heavily on the interpretation of their religion on others simply because they don't put enough time into religion to learn at their own. Majority of Muslims are non-Arabs and even though Arabic is one of the easiest language to learn but some never give a try to learn it. I am not saying it is necessary to learn Arabic to know Islam but it definitely helps a lot.

There are several sects within Islam and each one thinks they are right, why? Because their forefathers thought so which is nothing worse than following something blindly. If one reads Quran and hadiths, it is very clear what Islam teaches, it is against all sects and groups. Allah only says to follow Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad PBUH.

Quran 5:53 says:


I know there are verses in Quran for fighting against those who drive Muslims out of their land or who oppress them or who spread corruption in socity but Prophet Muhammad PBUH have clearly laid down the rules of war even at the time of war in self defence. Muslims are not allowed to start the war; Muslims are not allowed to start the war without a warning; Muslims are not allowed to kill children, old people, and those who surrender in the war; Muslims are not allowed to fight against people who take shelter in places of worship such as churches, mosques etc.; Muslims are not allowed to cut down supply of food or natural resources during war; Muslims are not allowed to destroy trees or crops during war.

If someone blows himself to kill innocent people considering that he is doing Jihad, then he should know that thats not Islamic teaching. Anyways, read the sources of Islam and dont look at Muslims because many of them follow the version of Islam which is no where to find in Quran.

I can only comment based on my experience and I could be wrong. Allah knows the best!

It's absolutism, it's backwards thinking. It's looking at imagined Medieval borders and conceiving a Caliphate that never really existed in the first place.

One huge problem is Saudi money especially the money that flows into Western mosques promoting their own extreme Wahhabist form of Islam.

You have a point about 'follow the money'.
Hiring a Hitman is murder too.

Still. I think they justify their support because they do worship the same one true God whose name is Allah.

So then, by this metric Judaism is the true religion. Um, what?

This reminds me of supremacist claims by some Zionists who justify their oppression of the Palestinian people because Jews have won more Nobel Prizes relative to their numbers than Gentiles. They're worthier of Palestine than the Palestinians.

The only thing I've done is ask that you to respond within the context of the 'logic' of your contested quote. You can't repeat yourself with this, as you have yet to do that (respond within the context of your quoted logic), despite repeated requests.

And your later avoidance of the issue of circularity of your 'logic' regarding whether or not Mohammed is central to your beliefs relating to Islam being the one true religion, is just that - avoidance. Your beliefs can't exist without him , it would be a religion by another name without him (eg. Christianity or Judaism), you wouldn't believe your version of the 'totality of guidance' (coming from your version of 'Islam') without him...but you want to claim he isn't related to your quoted 'logic' that Islam is the one true religion. This is just plain avoidance. And not logical.

You won't articulate what those alleged biases are, because you can't articulate what they are. Nor have you anything to evidence any. What you have is my insistence that you answer within the context of your 'logic', which you don't do.

These are examples of conversational dishonesty. They are behaviours of yours that I am very disappointed in - after your claims of the need to dispassionate logic, having searched for the truth (which requires honest assessment), and taking responsibility for your actions (which includes what you say and write).

Given your behaviour in this this thread - you are welcome to throw accusations of bias, but we both know, of the two of us, which one has more formed their beliefs through a process of honest assessment, without avoiding contradictions or difficulties related to their beliefs. You may have plenty of wonderful beliefs - that doesn't excuse this behaviour while claiming dispassionate logic etc.

To an atheist the 'truest religion' argument is merely barber shop banter about the best 'monotheistic mental hotel'.

Since religion is also an expression of conditioned tribalism, I merely tried to raise the level of argument from the psychological to the social level i.e. from the subjective to the objective, and from the medieval to the modern. I could have cited comparative levels of 'strife' or 'equality' etc., but I was focussing on the 'guidance' claim.

What you make of the 'data' depends on your perceptual set.

I acknowledge the gender bias issue re Nobel prizes. However on the Islam issue this is worth reading.
https://blog.oup.com/2009/01/islam-nobel-prize/

It's all over the place.

Primarily the author seems to be attacking Muslims for not applauding the subjugation of the Palestinian people.

Why should they?

His other target are political leaders, a lot who govern with Western support who manipulate Islam to control the population.

Your article doesn't even begin to address why so few Muslims are nominated in the first place.

Not my article ! and the only salient point with respect to my thesis is the first part where an Islamic scientist himself supports it !

I repeat, quantitative Nobel data is only one possible angle on that thesis. You only need to look at Islamic inter- nicene strife , or the male chauvinism issue ( in which you are interested) for more data.

Or you could ask yourself why the Islamic world sees the Nobel prize as just another aspect of Western neo colonialism.

Or maybe why the questioner has decided to live in the West !

.....I rest my case.

Because it's all down to religion, not opportunity or politics, or the result of hundreds of years of European colonialism.

For a really smart bloke you use really crude examples to make your point. And I shouldn't have to tell you it's not as simple as that.

Have I missed it or has no one pointed out the reversal of Jewish and Islamic Nobel totals on the pie chart and the summary text below?

I don't think most people really evaluate posts here.

Oh, you present this metric as equally fallacious in regard to the arrogance of claiming superiority for one of the multitude of belief systems which abound, but it doesn't reflect your particular perceptual set, and tribalism, then. Right?