Ex-Muslim, now Atheist - ASK ME ANYTHING!
Scroll to see replies
What was it specifically that made you leave Islam?
Im sure there are many reasons.
Im sure there are many reasons.
Original post by Kutta
Right, anyway back to watching the BBC
Original post by Bill_Gates
Right, anyway back to watching the BBC
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
You get a lot of Christians with that name , and Abdul-esque names are just common across the world, even amongst non-muslims.
I'm Daniel for example..but I am not a Jew, nor am I a Lion of God.
I agree though he probably is.
I'm Daniel for example..but I am not a Jew, nor am I a Lion of God.
I agree though he probably is.
i am
Original post by abdulahi
i am
In that case
Posts like the ones I quoted are the reason the Muslim community is looked upon like we are all a bunch of throbbing dicks.
Pack it in, or I will throw a tantrum like a three year old, and it will not be pretty.
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
In that case
Posts like the ones I quoted are the reason the Muslim community is looked upon like we are all a bunch of throbbing dicks.
Pack it in, or I will throw a tantrum like a three year old, and it will not be pretty.
Posts like the ones I quoted are the reason the Muslim community is looked upon like we are all a bunch of throbbing dicks.
Pack it in, or I will throw a tantrum like a three year old, and it will not be pretty.
you cant say i didnt speak the truth though
Original post by abdulahi
you cant say i didnt speak the truth though
You could have couched it much better.
However to laugh about it?
That's just you being vindictive.
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
You could have couched it much better.
However to laugh about it?
That's just you being vindictive.
However to laugh about it?
That's just you being vindictive.
once again, you cant say i didnt speak the truth.
EDIT: i didnt actually laugh it was a "pfftt" kind of lmao
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by abdulahi
once again, you cant say i didnt speak the truth.
EDIT: i didnt actually laugh it was a "pfftt" kind of lmao
EDIT: i didnt actually laugh it was a "pfftt" kind of lmao
You can speak the truth and still be a cock about it.
It's always better to be nice.
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
You can speak the truth and still be a cock about it.
It's always better to be nice.
It's always better to be nice.
how would you reword what i said
Original post by abdulahi
how would you reword what i said
"So you know brother , the Qur'an and the Hadith of the Prophet(pbuh) is very clear that the punishment for one who willingly engages in homosexual activities is that of hellfire, you probbably are aware of this but I just think that engendering such a punishment for an act of the flesh might not be the best decision for you, either way I wish you the best with the struggles you are obviously having and may you be guided by the Allmighty in this regard".
Or something like that.
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
"So you know brother , the Qur'an and the Hadith of the Prophet(pbuh) is very clear that the punishment for one who willingly engages in homosexual activities is that of hellfire, you probbably are aware of this but I just think that engendering such a punishment for an act of the flesh might not be the best decision for you, either way I wish you the best with the struggles you are obviously having and may you be guided by the Allmighty in this regard".
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
firstly, i didnt know he was gay, eww
secondly what i wrote is way more effective than what you wrote, get straight to the point
Original post by abdulahi
firstly, i didnt know he was gay, eww
He's not...holy **** I am confusing this with the Muslim who was battling his Homosexuality thread, my bad...it's late..I am tired.
Just replace Gay with Atheist.
Yours might have got straight to the point, but do you know what it did?
It alienated him and it's aggressive nature would ensure that he would ignore your point.
Friendliness and politeness always wins over, aggression and rudeness.
Why else do you think Dawah teams call people to Islam through polite debate, lively events, friendship and inclusion and don't just stand there shouting "CONVERT TO ISLAM OR GO TO HELL!!!"*
So when a brother leaves Islam, we as Muslims need to be sympathetic and supportive to him, not blunt and condemning.
Especially in this month.
*Actually some people do do that....they don't take many Shahaddahs.
Original post by BullViagra
how was this irrelevant to anything i've said? and to the other post, i wouldnt call that a debate either since her arguments completely disintegrated within like 2-3 replies. you're currently showing similar incompetence.
lol i've looked at this much more than you, a muslim, has done. dont assume things that i may know or may not know.
yeah you're pretty simple. regarding your last sentence, i say instead of copying links you haven't properly looked into, why dont you argue why it is incorrect or not factual.
the qurans strongest scientific miracle claim, embryology, is bs vague poetic verses construed as a scientific miracle. what you don't know is that those verses are much more suitable to the scientific knowledge already available in the time of the quran. in particular, greek embryology. aristotle wrote that bones develop then the flesh over it. infact if you actually see both cases of embryology in the quran and by aristotle, it becomes apparent that they all use the similar vocabulary in similar order: sperm, menstrual blood and flesh moulding over bones. thereby, it is very very unlikely one can credibly construe alaqah, nutfah or whatever to fit modern science and not aristotles greek science. but then you're also talking about your special leech like clot, based on the term 'alaqah', a leech like substance or a clinging substance - according to your modern day muslim apologists.
but the term easily refers to a 'blood clot', especially according to most trusted translators including Yusuf Ali and Pickthall, and many others. Of course someone like you would just say they are wrong. the term blood clot, as mentioned before, also lucidly corresponds with science of the hellenic perioid, which was amply available to them at the time. further furthermore, arabian scholars around the time also explain embryology in a similair fashion to the quran and the hellenic period, that we form from sperm and menstrual blood, im not going to spend too much time and itemise them, in the age of information you go do that yourself, but some names (among others) such as al-tabari and al-razi support that alaqah refers to blood clot, not a clinging substance. so use your brain to see what term 'alaqah' is most likely to refer to. if this isn't enough, just google on your own time. plenty have debunked this claim much more extensively and thoroughly, that it is impossible to still stand by this claim without being an narrow minded stupid idiot.
i thought the embryology claim is unbeatable too at first, arguably the qurans strongest miracle claim (the rest are weak), yet it completely falls apart with some common sense and being open-minded a little. but im sure you've already assumed im wrong before even reading what i've wrote, which is but a fraction of the argument debunking the embryology claim. in fact, it was this claim in particular that finally made me leave islam.
lol i've looked at this much more than you, a muslim, has done. dont assume things that i may know or may not know.
yeah you're pretty simple. regarding your last sentence, i say instead of copying links you haven't properly looked into, why dont you argue why it is incorrect or not factual.
the qurans strongest scientific miracle claim, embryology, is bs vague poetic verses construed as a scientific miracle. what you don't know is that those verses are much more suitable to the scientific knowledge already available in the time of the quran. in particular, greek embryology. aristotle wrote that bones develop then the flesh over it. infact if you actually see both cases of embryology in the quran and by aristotle, it becomes apparent that they all use the similar vocabulary in similar order: sperm, menstrual blood and flesh moulding over bones. thereby, it is very very unlikely one can credibly construe alaqah, nutfah or whatever to fit modern science and not aristotles greek science. but then you're also talking about your special leech like clot, based on the term 'alaqah', a leech like substance or a clinging substance - according to your modern day muslim apologists.
but the term easily refers to a 'blood clot', especially according to most trusted translators including Yusuf Ali and Pickthall, and many others. Of course someone like you would just say they are wrong. the term blood clot, as mentioned before, also lucidly corresponds with science of the hellenic perioid, which was amply available to them at the time. further furthermore, arabian scholars around the time also explain embryology in a similair fashion to the quran and the hellenic period, that we form from sperm and menstrual blood, im not going to spend too much time and itemise them, in the age of information you go do that yourself, but some names (among others) such as al-tabari and al-razi support that alaqah refers to blood clot, not a clinging substance. so use your brain to see what term 'alaqah' is most likely to refer to. if this isn't enough, just google on your own time. plenty have debunked this claim much more extensively and thoroughly, that it is impossible to still stand by this claim without being an narrow minded stupid idiot.
i thought the embryology claim is unbeatable too at first, arguably the qurans strongest miracle claim (the rest are weak), yet it completely falls apart with some common sense and being open-minded a little. but im sure you've already assumed im wrong before even reading what i've wrote, which is but a fraction of the argument debunking the embryology claim. in fact, it was this claim in particular that finally made me leave islam.
The same Aristotle that claimed the concept of the menstrual blood coagulating to form the embryo.
I rest my case
."but the term easily refers to a 'blood clot', especially according to most trusted translators including Yusuf Ali and Pickthall, and many others. Of course someone like you would just say they are wrong."
They are correct but you ignore the fact it has two other meanings which both relate to embryology.
"Professor Abdul Haleem OBE mentions that "′alaq can also mean anything that clings: a clot of blood, a leech, even a lump of mud. All these meanings involve the basic idea of clinging or sticking.""
Also:
"Arabic words are generally based on a “root” which uses three consonants to define the underlying meaning of the word. Various vowels, prefixes and suffixes are used with the root letters to create the desired inflection of meaning.
The root word from which the word “alaqah” is derived is the word “Aa-la-qa.” It has the general meaning of “to cling” or “to suspend.” By employing various grammatical manipulations on this root you can come up with many derivations, each of which is closely associated with the concept of “clinging or suspending.”"
Also about the prophet plagarising from Aristole:
"Firstly, Aristotle believed that only the male produces fluid (the genetic material) responsible for the creation of the embryo. In his book “On The Generation of Animals” he supposes the male semen to be the active form and the female ovum as providing only the passive element for fertilization [6]. This is an idea contradictory to modern embryology and even Prophetic tradition, as Muhammad (pbuh) explained in a hadith (narration of his as recorded by his close companions) that the materials of fertilisation are a combination of fluids “from a male and from a female” [7].
In fact, Aristotle was of the opinion that semen mixed with women’s menstrual blood, coagulating to form the embryo. Aristotelian accounts of human development are evidently incompatible with both the Qur’an and modern embryology.
Secondly, Aristotelian views on human development include that male embryos are generated on the left side of the womb, and female embryos on the right side of the womb [8]. This is an incorrect concept that the Qur’an does not mention.
Thirdly, Aristotle held the belief that the upper body is formed before the lower body [9]. Again, this incorrect idea does not exist in the Qur’an." "
6 – Aristotle. Generation of Animals. English trans. A. L. Peck, Heinemann. 1942 edition, page 111, 729a.
7 – Ahmad, vol 1 page 465.
8 – Aristotle. Generation of Animals. Translated by A. L. Peck. Heinemann. 1942 edition.
9 – Aristotle. Generation of Animals. Translated by A. L. Peck. Heinemann. 1942 edition.
If he did copy him, why did he only copy the correct parts??. People who scrutinise these ayah's claim he copied what was already known. Yet you don't take into consider the fact that they weren't correct and had major inaccuracies to modern day embryology. Yet the Qur'an did not copy those mistakes so either this happened:
-The prophet was a scientific genius. Unlikely seeing as he had no education.
-He plagiarised it but some how knew which parts were wrong and didn't include them.
-Or it came from God. The only viable one.
"lol i've looked at this much more than you, a muslim, has done. dont assume things that i may know or may not know."
Which you have done. Hypocrite much
The Qur'an is not a scientific book and never claimed to be, it merely tries to explain things in the hope it will inspire us to turn to the correct path.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by BullViagra
to a muslim, your faith is stronger than real world facts. you regard faith very highly.
read that slowly and absorb it in properly. if you lack basic reading comprehension skills, then don't write.
read that slowly and absorb it in properly. if you lack basic reading comprehension skills, then don't write.
Grow up silly child.
Original post by ridwan12
The same Aristotle that claimed the concept of the menstrual blood coagulating to form the embryo.
I rest my case.
"but the term easily refers to a 'blood clot', especially according to most trusted translators including Yusuf Ali and Pickthall, and many others. Of course someone like you would just say they are wrong."
They are correct but you ignore the fact it has two other meanings which both relate to embryology.
"Professor Abdul Haleem OBE mentions that "′alaq can also mean anything that clings: a clot of blood, a leech, even a lump of mud. All these meanings involve the basic idea of clinging or sticking.""
Also:
"Arabic words are generally based on a “root” which uses three consonants to define the underlying meaning of the word. Various vowels, prefixes and suffixes are used with the root letters to create the desired inflection of meaning.
The root word from which the word “alaqah” is derived is the word “Aa-la-qa.” It has the general meaning of “to cling” or “to suspend.” By employing various grammatical manipulations on this root you can come up with many derivations, each of which is closely associated with the concept of “clinging or suspending.”"
Also about the prophet plagarising from Aristole:
"Firstly, Aristotle believed that only the male produces fluid (the genetic material) responsible for the creation of the embryo. In his book “On The Generation of Animals” he supposes the male semen to be the active form and the female ovum as providing only the passive element for fertilization [6]. This is an idea contradictory to modern embryology and even Prophetic tradition, as Muhammad (pbuh) explained in a hadith (narration of his as recorded by his close companions) that the materials of fertilisation are a combination of fluids “from a male and from a female” [7].
In fact, Aristotle was of the opinion that semen mixed with women’s menstrual blood, coagulating to form the embryo. Aristotelian accounts of human development are evidently incompatible with both the Qur’an and modern embryology.
Secondly, Aristotelian views on human development include that male embryos are generated on the left side of the womb, and female embryos on the right side of the womb [8]. This is an incorrect concept that the Qur’an does not mention.
Thirdly, Aristotle held the belief that the upper body is formed before the lower body [9]. Again, this incorrect idea does not exist in the Qur’an." "
6 – Aristotle. Generation of Animals. English trans. A. L. Peck, Heinemann. 1942 edition, page 111, 729a.
7 – Ahmad, vol 1 page 465.
8 – Aristotle. Generation of Animals. Translated by A. L. Peck. Heinemann. 1942 edition.
9 – Aristotle. Generation of Animals. Translated by A. L. Peck. Heinemann. 1942 edition.
If he did copy him, why did he only copy the correct parts??. People who scrutinise these ayah's claim he copied what was already known. Yet you don't take into consider the fact that they weren't correct and had major inaccuracies to modern day embryology. Yet the Qur'an did not copy those mistakes so either this happened:
-The prophet was a scientific genius. Unlikely seeing as he had no education.
-He plagiarised it but some how knew which parts were wrong and didn't include them.
-Or it came from God. The only viable one.
"lol i've looked at this much more than you, a muslim, has done. dont assume things that i may know or may not know."
Which you have done. Hypocrite much
The Qur'an is not a scientific book and never claimed to be, it merely tries to explain things in the hope it will inspire us to turn to the correct path.
I rest my case
."but the term easily refers to a 'blood clot', especially according to most trusted translators including Yusuf Ali and Pickthall, and many others. Of course someone like you would just say they are wrong."
They are correct but you ignore the fact it has two other meanings which both relate to embryology.
"Professor Abdul Haleem OBE mentions that "′alaq can also mean anything that clings: a clot of blood, a leech, even a lump of mud. All these meanings involve the basic idea of clinging or sticking.""
Also:
"Arabic words are generally based on a “root” which uses three consonants to define the underlying meaning of the word. Various vowels, prefixes and suffixes are used with the root letters to create the desired inflection of meaning.
The root word from which the word “alaqah” is derived is the word “Aa-la-qa.” It has the general meaning of “to cling” or “to suspend.” By employing various grammatical manipulations on this root you can come up with many derivations, each of which is closely associated with the concept of “clinging or suspending.”"
Also about the prophet plagarising from Aristole:
"Firstly, Aristotle believed that only the male produces fluid (the genetic material) responsible for the creation of the embryo. In his book “On The Generation of Animals” he supposes the male semen to be the active form and the female ovum as providing only the passive element for fertilization [6]. This is an idea contradictory to modern embryology and even Prophetic tradition, as Muhammad (pbuh) explained in a hadith (narration of his as recorded by his close companions) that the materials of fertilisation are a combination of fluids “from a male and from a female” [7].
In fact, Aristotle was of the opinion that semen mixed with women’s menstrual blood, coagulating to form the embryo. Aristotelian accounts of human development are evidently incompatible with both the Qur’an and modern embryology.
Secondly, Aristotelian views on human development include that male embryos are generated on the left side of the womb, and female embryos on the right side of the womb [8]. This is an incorrect concept that the Qur’an does not mention.
Thirdly, Aristotle held the belief that the upper body is formed before the lower body [9]. Again, this incorrect idea does not exist in the Qur’an." "
6 – Aristotle. Generation of Animals. English trans. A. L. Peck, Heinemann. 1942 edition, page 111, 729a.
7 – Ahmad, vol 1 page 465.
8 – Aristotle. Generation of Animals. Translated by A. L. Peck. Heinemann. 1942 edition.
9 – Aristotle. Generation of Animals. Translated by A. L. Peck. Heinemann. 1942 edition.
If he did copy him, why did he only copy the correct parts??. People who scrutinise these ayah's claim he copied what was already known. Yet you don't take into consider the fact that they weren't correct and had major inaccuracies to modern day embryology. Yet the Qur'an did not copy those mistakes so either this happened:
-The prophet was a scientific genius. Unlikely seeing as he had no education.
-He plagiarised it but some how knew which parts were wrong and didn't include them.
-Or it came from God. The only viable one.
"lol i've looked at this much more than you, a muslim, has done. dont assume things that i may know or may not know."
Which you have done. Hypocrite much
The Qur'an is not a scientific book and never claimed to be, it merely tries to explain things in the hope it will inspire us to turn to the correct path.
I assumed well seeing as you lacked the integrity to learn and write yourself, as I've done, but instead copy pasted everything. I could easily reply in the same fashion or as I did before, but I won't waste much time arguing with someone who initially lacked any knowledge in the topic and spent a day or more catching up on it.
-The quran is not a book of science, thereby embryology was explained succinctly with omissions, why on earth should it write on everything Aristotle mentioned? Its explanation of embryology is not incongruous with Aristotle's simply because it did not mention everything Aristotle did. What a silly thing to say.
-Google translate. Really.
-Abdel Haleem translated the Quran recently. As a muslim, he can write clinging form in the Quran as he pleases if it seems to him a scientific miracle.
-Even if it did refer to clinging, which is unlikely, how is this miraculous because a leech looks wiggly like an embryo? One line in the entire Quran can convey many things with this magic word Alaqah? Or just a perfectly plausible coincidence. Is this about clinging, blood clot or a leech? Choose whichever (or how many) to construe to your liking - if common sense isn't part of the factor.
-Again, what are you even talking about 'copied only correct parts'? Lol, I did not say Aristotle was correct, but his views were the general scientific knowledge at the time (that was amply available to the arabs). Both him and the Quran are wrong. The prophet did not have any way of knowing what was right because none of it was strictly correct.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by LickySplitty
is that meant to 'shock' me?
i grew out of 4chan way before you discovered it, little grasshopper.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by LickySplitty
Shush, babes. <3 I'm sending you these because I love you and I want to seduce you.
kl
keep it up, you'll get to the level of ultimate degeneracy one day
have fun
Original post by BullViagra
I assumed well seeing as you lacked the integrity to learn and write yourself, as I've done, but instead copy pasted everything. I could easily reply in the same fashion or as I did before, but I won't waste much time arguing with someone who initially lacked any knowledge in the topic and spent a day or more catching up on it.
-The quran is not a book of science, thereby embryology was explained succinctly with omissions, why on earth should it write on everything Aristotle mentioned? Its explanation of embryology is not incongruous with Aristotle's simply because it did not mention everything Aristotle did. What a silly thing to say.
-Google translate. Really.
-Abdel Haleem translated the Quran recently. As a muslim, he can write clinging form in the Quran as he pleases if it seems to him a scientific miracle.
-Even if it did refer to clinging, which is unlikely, how is this miraculous because a leech looks wiggly like an embryo? One line in the entire Quran can convey many things with this magic word Alaqah? Or just a perfectly plausible coincidence. Is this about clinging, blood clot or a leech? Choose whichever (or how many) to construe to your liking - if common sense isn't part of the factor.
-Again, what are you even talking about 'copied only correct parts'? Lol, I did not say Aristotle was correct, but his views were the general scientific knowledge at the time (that was amply available to the arabs). Both him and the Quran are wrong. The prophet did not have any way of knowing what was right because none of it was strictly correct.
-The quran is not a book of science, thereby embryology was explained succinctly with omissions, why on earth should it write on everything Aristotle mentioned? Its explanation of embryology is not incongruous with Aristotle's simply because it did not mention everything Aristotle did. What a silly thing to say.
-Google translate. Really.
-Abdel Haleem translated the Quran recently. As a muslim, he can write clinging form in the Quran as he pleases if it seems to him a scientific miracle.
-Even if it did refer to clinging, which is unlikely, how is this miraculous because a leech looks wiggly like an embryo? One line in the entire Quran can convey many things with this magic word Alaqah? Or just a perfectly plausible coincidence. Is this about clinging, blood clot or a leech? Choose whichever (or how many) to construe to your liking - if common sense isn't part of the factor.
-Again, what are you even talking about 'copied only correct parts'? Lol, I did not say Aristotle was correct, but his views were the general scientific knowledge at the time (that was amply available to the arabs). Both him and the Quran are wrong. The prophet did not have any way of knowing what was right because none of it was strictly correct.
"I assumed well seeing as you lacked the integrity to learn and write yourself, as I've done, but instead copy pasted everything. I could easily reply in the same fashion or as I did before, but I won't waste much time arguing with someone who initially lacked any knowledge in the topic and spent a day or more catching up on it."
•
Your assumption that I "initially lacked any knowledge", is so off the mark. Just because I posted a video does not mean I lack knowledge.
•
This is just a cop out.
•
Also I work and don't check TSR all the time.
1) Your right the Qur'an is not a book of science. But as you have claimed Aristotle's embryology was well known. The fact of the matter is Aristotle's well known view is that only the male produces fluid responsible for the creation of the embryo go against what is written in the Qur'an and hadith which is identical to modern embryology that both male and female genetic materials are used.
Aristotle embryology contradicts what is written in Qur'an and hadith.
You have not provided one shred of evidence that Aristotle's embryology is even similar to what is in the Qur'an.
2) I used Google translate to show you that alaqah has different meaning than just blood clot.
3) Your so ignorant dismissing a well qualified individual due to his religion.
4) The miracle is that it is unlikely that someone in 7th century Arabia would have known this. It could not have bee a coincidence.
5) "Both him and the Quran are wrong. The prophet did not have any way of knowing what was right because none of it was strictly correct"
The Quranic verses are correct................
Things such as the fact that both parents genetic material are used only ever appear in Qur'an and is contradictory to aristole and other well known thinkers.
Was he a scientific genius now?.
Original post by Secretnerd123
How are you suddenly 'free' without islam? I honestly feel so sorry for OP. Disbelievers (and especially those who were given the privelege to be born into the religion then turned away) get the worst punishment on the day of judgement.
Edit: i've deleted the don't quote me bit because I actually want to prove those who have misconceptions about Islam (including OP himself) wrong
Edit: i've deleted the don't quote me bit because I actually want to prove those who have misconceptions about Islam (including OP himself) wrong
Haven't you realised that is what they tell you because they don't want people leaving Islam? OP is an extremely intellectual individual who realised he was following a lie and is now no longer restrained by religion.
Being born into Islam is the only reason it still flourishes today - very few adults convert to Islam because as adults our minds cannot be easily manipulated whereas a child can be brought up believing absolutely anything. I think the soul reason Muslims or any religious followers believe what they believe is because they desperately want it to be true, they don't want to let go of something they have been taught to believe all their life.
I feel sorry for Muslims, they waste their time praying to a God who doesn't exist, reading a book full of nonsensical claims with no evidence whatsoever. I am sorry if I have offended you but I am simply stating my beliefs.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Islam and converting...
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Finding myself.
- Muslim marriage divorce
- Is it Haram to do this?
- I've lost islam and I've lost my soul
- I'm an atheist but I like the idea of having a god to believe in
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- Does religion matter
- .
- atheist from muslim background dating someone in a wider secular society
- ✨Lexi's Daily Life Blog ✨❤️😈
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- Is Liverpool Muslim friendly?
- i took off my hijab, family is crazy
- I am a shia muslim . AMA
- I hate being religious and it's making me depressed
- Muslims advice
- Boyfriend told me his ex is better looking?
- my friend stopped talking to me to become a strict muslim
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UKTrending
Last reply 3 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
