Readers’ Responses to Our Question (151)

WITH ADDITION AND CORRECTION:

MODREN SCIENCE AND QURAN (ISLAMIC DIVINE BOOK)

Quran is not a book of science BUT a book of signs. It has more than 6000 verses out of which more than 1000 verses giving CLEAR signs about the modern scientific proven facts in recent couple of hundred years.

- For some people ONE sign is enough to believe.
- For some people 10 signs are enough.
- But some people don't come to believe after more than 1000 miraculous signs.

Not now but in couple of days I will quote all the verses I'm referring below. I only remember few so I'll quote later.

Verses about:

1- Big bang theory (in a nut shell).
2- Ostrich egg shaped earth (which is the exact shape)
3- Cosmic dust (referred more perfectly as smoke).
4- How water seep into the earth and rain cycle through AIR.
5- Sweet and salt water of oceans and barrier between them.
6-Expanding sun, solar system and universe for given period of time
7- Earth, sun and stars revolving on their axis and path (orbits).
8- Sun and moon have different paths (orbits).
9- Sun and stars consuming there energy.
10- Reflected sun light of moon. In Arabic mooneer (moon) it self means reflected light.
11- Upper thin layer of earth, which is hold by mountains as nails (bigger in size deep in earth) from shacking.
12- Perfect shape and stages of human embryo.

AND MANY MORE............

MODREN SCIENCE AND QURAN (ISLAMIC DIVINE BOOK)

Quran is not a book of science BUT a book of signs. It has more than 6000 verses out of which more than 1000 verses giving CLEAR signs about the modern scientific proven facts in recent couple of hundred years.

- For some people ONE sign is enough to believe.
- For some people 10 sings are enough.
- But some people don't come to believe after more than 1000 miraculous signs.

Not now but in couple of days I will quote all the verses I'm referring below. I only remember few so I'll quote later.

Verses about:

1- Big bang theory.
2- Ostrich egg shaped earth (which is the exact shape)
3- Cosmic dust (referred as smoke)
4- How water seep into the earth and rain cycle through AIR.
5- Sweet and salt water of oceans and barrier between them.
6-Expanding sun, solar system and universe for given period of time
7- Sun and stars consuming there energy.
8- Reflected sun light of moon. In Arabic mooneer (moon) it self means reflected light.
9- Upper thin layer of earth, which is hold by mountains as nails (bigger in size deep in earth) from shacking.
10- Perfect shape and stages of human embryo.

AND MANY MORE............

so i wonder, perhaps one day science will be regarded as a faith (as it is by millions of people) in the larger sense.....

perhaps it will be banned in public schools no?

haha

Victoria-

thank you for your advice. I was born to a Muslim family and have a healthy appreciation for the beauty, wisdom and insights contained within it. I am starting school soon, my biggest hurdle is what to study.....

I need something with a solid objective foundation such as neurobiology and psychology
so it looks like my hands will be full. or a partner in crime with similar aspirations for uraveling the mystery of truth.

looks like my hands are full!

OMS-

I could not agree more friend. The only issue i have with sceince is that i feel it is our duty to gradually improve upon it.

I believe that ultimatley a strong objective AND subjective (working in conjunction) base are paramount to us potentially understanding greater truths which are outside the realm of objective endeavor.

Our limitations do serve us in a remarkable way, because it offers us the ability to continually improve.....

so while i believe withought a doubt a vast majority of truths are simply beyond our grasp,

a unity in the effort towards understanding is of utmost importance.

love, peace and chicken grease.

Krahman,

I applaud your efforts to seek knowledge by your own efforts. With all due respect, however, I do believe that you are operating under a misconception of the Scientific Method and its application.

The natural world, with its infinite forms (if I may borrow that phrase), is far beyond our capacity to understand in its entirety. If a prominent scientist or even the entire academy were to proclaim that we are close to "completing" our knowledge of the natural universe, it would not change the stark truth of our inadequacy.

We abstract not to conceal the truth of nature, but to simplify nature to a level where we can grasp it. Too little abstraction, and the details overwhelm us; too much abstraction, and we lose sight of what was essential or interesting in the first place.

Within this framework of abstraction, it is in fact possible to test gravitation, relativity, causality, and yes, even evolutionary theory, in consistent, scientific ways. Pseudoscience need not be invoked here.

krahman- extraordinary post you have there-
me - i choose truth-

but im a muslim and artist type-

get a higher education so you can dismatle the lie makers at their source-

and keep a notebook on what infuriates you when its said-

use your scientific mind to be a proponent of truth (you already are, but in a societally empowered way)

peace

On science, God, Athiesm, Religion

I do not personally claim a religion, although i have a healthy respect for all in pure form, not tainted by men. I consider myself a true scientist. Truth is the very essence of my life pursuit.

by the way i dont spell check, my apologies...

Here is the big problem with science. Derived from the latin term sciencia or truth, knowledge. I have always looked for the truth myself, far and wide from quantum physics, to religion, to epigenetics you name it.

in fact at 26 years old i have yet to attend college because of the dogmatic approach to knowledge.

ie, knowledge is hunger for me, and i am not spoon fed.

So in my search here is what i have found.
all i ask, i emplore of you, is please ask yourself, what do you have a higher regard for, Truth or belief systems? in order to honest in the pursuit you would find it helpful to answer this question for yourself, no body else. Furthermore, what i have stated i encourge researching for yourself. Some are very hard to find.

There is no experimentally viable proof of evolution. None. Please reference for yourself, it is a great idea, but the only evidence we have is for adaptation, that includes our own fossil records.

In fact, our current predominent theory of evolution bares very very little semblance to Darwins orginal theory, that theory in which he himself was skeptical of in his dying days...

In fact we have thousands of examples of adaptation. We have ZERO examples of species transformation.

showing a picture of ancient primates to human biengs and everything in between is a fascinating picture.

But showing pictures of ink feathers to pens, chinese calculators to super computers, two feet to BMWs, with everything in between and a timeline.....see the similarity? Evolution? sure. Darwins theory of Evolution based on random mutation and survival of the fittest? no.

We have yet to verify, (in 200 years) the makeup of the "primordial stew" im sorry, stew? We have theories, yet we have no experimental evidence.

this is by definition psuedoscience. Take this literrally.

This also is the case with the string theory and the M theory. Absolutely NO experimental evidence.

This is also the case with the big bang, black holes and various other observations.

Many will argue these statements, so i ask once again where does your personal loyalty lay?

Neither of these are supported under the Scientific Method.

Einsteins theoris regarding relativity, thermodynamics etc. etc.

many have been proven false. Of course his methods will give you answers, but if your looking for accuracy, my friend look elsewhere.

Mathematical Abstractions are not a substitute for verifiable objective empircal observation and analysis of phenomenon.

When you exhale, the sun rotates. This quite literrally could be "proven" mathematically.

God as a term has been misused. It has been humanized. Human beings by nature are limited. God represents that which is devoid of limitation. Again i say i am not a religious man, but for those people who honestly seek truth, the answers will be self evident.

You know to put how backwards modern science is, let me put this into perspective.

There is currently a serious effort by those of the "hard sciences" to make psychology classified as a psuedoscience.

Look around you. Look at the computer, look at a car, look at your shoes, shirt, the tv show you watched last night.

Absolutely every creation of mankind. Every single one. To include all the sciences, maths, philosphies etc etc. are based on frames of reference, in the mind, i say again in the conceptual ability of consciousness. Each was FIRST concieved by the intellect. Through manipulation of our physical environment we have created.

That means our very own SCIENTIFIC METHOD was first a product OF CONSCIOUSNESS. Again, our mind, our conceptual ability ALLOWED us to create it. Withough the mind ABSOLUTELY NO CREATIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS WOULD EXIST. ZERO.

so to relegate that wich has given us the ability to create to an abstract status is beyond counterproductive.

there is absolutely nothing intelligent about that.

someone said to me once, well the study of it doesnt fall within the scientific method.

so seeing as how our intellect CREATED the scientific method, well it seems it is not longer doing the job, so perhaps, like every other phenomenon of human creation we should CHANGE IT SO THAT IT MAY BETTER SUIT ITS PURPOSE.

so to put your belief in science....

in 1900 science claimed "our understanding of the universe is nearly complete, all that is left is filling in the details...."

in 2000 a world renowned crippled scientist made a similar claim .

While we have created much, human beings have not changed one iota.

and we further from the truth then we were in 1900. Scientists looking for answers by attempting to understand and mastering our environment, when they as indididuals have yet to master the physical and mental aggregates of THEMSELVES.

A man once said to me in anger "dont tell me what i know, i know my own mind!"

no, people dont know theyre very own minds, on the contrary they are OWNED by their minds..

Scientists, they are in a race for truth, they have studied the tracks, they have studied cars, but they dont even know how to drive thier own ....

if you want to know the truth? about God, existance, creation etc etc. i wont tell you, i wont show you, what i can do is show you how to come about the answers yourself.

the truth is within, not withought. Contact me if you have the desire, self discipline and intestinal fortitude.

let me say this again. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW YOU CAN. as you read that line, it denotes choice.

choose.

nfbew ydbcug rbvmeog nysdlo ilndmyw cpehj sbghzlv

nfbew ydbcug rbvmeog nysdlo ilndmyw cpehj sbghzlv

nfbew ydbcug rbvmeog nysdlo ilndmyw cpehj sbghzlv

Victoria, Rick, Sumalitarde, Akhtar and all others,

Asalam-u-alakum & Walakum-u-asalam,

I agree with you all and hope that this link should be left ON AT FRONT for debate!!!!!!

It is sad to see people arguing over the Ishmael / Isaac debate as they are arguing over myth and too blind to see. Anyone who has read The Epic of Gilgamesh knows the myths of the Abrahamic tradition are not even original, no less authentic, but a rewrite of myths that date to approx 4000BC.

www.psyche.com/psyche/lex/qbl/abraham_cycle.html

How the Jews switched the two names.

Genesis 17:10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Genesis 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Genesis 16:16 "and Abram [is] a son of eighty and six years in Hagar's bearing Ishmael to Abram."
Genesis 17:24 "Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin."
That makes Abraham's son Ishmael 13,
how old is Isaac at this time? Genesis 21:5 "Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him."

that means during the circumcision/sacrifice, Abraham's only "begotten" son is Ishmael and not Isaac as the Bible says.

KJV Hebrews 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,"
Therefore we see that Isaac was not the only son, as a matter of fact, Isaac was not even born yet and Abraham's Only begotten son was Ishmael. Therefore further confirming the Legitimacy of Prophet Muhammad which God says I will make great Nations from Ishmael.

If you want to prove the bible unscientific, use the following:

Use logic to deduce.

1. Genesis 17:10: covenant between God and Abraham's seeds.
2. Genesis 17:13 covenant shall be in your flesh (circumcision)
3. Genesis 16:16 Abraham's was 86 when he got Ismael
4. Genesis 17:24 Abraham was 99 when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin
5. conclusion of above facts: Abraham's son Ishmael was 13 when Abraham was circumcised.
6. Genesis 21:5 Abraham was 100 when his son Isaac was born.

CONCLUSION During the circumcision/sacrifice, Abraham's only "begotten" son is Ishmael and not Isaac as the Bible says.

The crooks changed KJV Hebrews 11:17 from Ismael to Issac!!!!

Did you see PBS’s News Hour yesterday? Here’s the link to the transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/iran_10-29.html

“JUDY WOODRUFF: And the debate goes on outside Congress with perhaps even more intensity. Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz wrote in June that military force was "required" to stop Iran from getting a bomb and offered this description of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Quote, "Like Hitler, he is a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism," end quote.”...

...“Gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us.

Norman Podhoretz, let me begin with you. You wrote over the summer that, if Iran is to be prevented from going ahead with a nuclear program, then the United States has "no alternative" but to strike against Iran. Do you still believe that? And if so, why?”

“NORMAN PODHORETZ, Foreign Policy Adviser, Rudy Giuliani: Very much so. It seems to me that most people in the world, at least until recently, agreed that it would be catastrophic to allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear capability. The only debate was over what the best means to prevent this from happening might be.

Well, for over four years, diplomacy has been tried, first by the Europeans and then with some American participation, and all they've accomplished, these negotiations, is to buy the Iranians more time with which to move forward inexorably toward a nuclear capability...

...So that leaves us with only one terrible choice, which is either to bomb those facilities and retard their program or even cut it off altogether or allow them to go nuclear. And I agree with what Senator McCain has said in the past: The only thing worse than bombing Iran is to allow Iran to get the bomb.”

“JUDY WOODRUFF: Fareed Zakaria, the choice, either strike Iran or allow them to go nuclear, are those the only two choices?”

FAREED ZAKARIA, Editor, Newsweek International: Well, there is a third choice, Judy, which is the choice we have used for pretty much every other country that has developed nuclear weapons, and that is deterrence.”...

... “This would be the third invasion of a Muslim country that the United States would have undertaken in the last five years; that seems to me a pretty serious business. And we've seen deterrence work against all these other countries...

...Let us even assume that Iran gets the bomb, and it's not clear that it will. Why are they more crazy than Kim Jong Il, a man who let two million of his own people starve in the last decade?”

“JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you pose several points that I want to bring to Norman Podhoretz, but, number one, this question of deterrence. If these other countries Mr. Zakaria is listing have listened to the argument to use nuclear weapons they be destroying themselves, why do you think that argument doesn't work with Iran?”

“NORMAN PODHORETZ: Well, I'll tell you why. First, I want to say that I think the attitude expressed by Fareed Zakaria represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early '30s of the intentions of Hitler that led to what Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions and millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough...

...The reason deterrence can't work with Iran is that there's a different element involved here than was involved with either Mao or even Kim Jong Il or Stalin, and that is the element of religious fanaticism.

The fact of the matter is that, with a religious fanatic like Ahmadinejad and the "mullahcracy" ruling Iran generally, there's no assurance that self-preservation or the protection, preservation of the nation, will deter them.

And let me tell you why. Here is what the Ayatollah Khomeini, of whom Ahmadinejad is a devoted disciple, once said. He said: We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah, for patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land of Iran burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

Well, you can't deter a nation that is led by people with that kind of attitude...”

FAREED ZAKARIA: “You know, I had a feeling Norman would bring up that one quotation that he's used before, so I have one from now. "If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed from the ground." This is what Mao said.

And it wasn't just his words. It was his actions. He was actively aiding revolutionary movements and killing Americans all over the world.

So the question about Iran's rationality rests on this: They've been in power for 30 years. What have they done? Iran has followed a pretty rational, national interest-oriented foreign policy.

If you look at the way in which they opposed al-Qaida and the Taliban, this was another Islamic revolutionary movement. You'd think that they would find them sympathetic, but, no, they were the sworn enemies of al-Qaida and they helped the United States depose the Taliban.

By and large, over the last 30 years they've been fairly calculating, they have followed their national interest. When it has bumped up against the United States, they have worked against us. When they have thought that our interests were in common, as in Afghanistan, they've worked with us.”...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, we would love to have this go on for an hour. Unfortunately, we have only a minute or less left, so I have one final question...

I do want to ask you both, because I think it's important. Mr. Podhoretz, do you think that, as you wrote a few months ago, this administration, this president intends before he leaves office to strike Iran?”

NORMAN PODHORETZ: “Yes, I do believe he will, because he has said many times -- or at least two times that I know of in public -- that, if we allow Iran to get the bomb, people 50 years from now will look back at us the way we look back at the men who made the Munich pact with Hitler in 1938 and say, "How could they have let this happen?"

Well, unlike Fareed Zakaria and the foreign policy establishment that is complacent and irresponsible, in my opinion, I think the president recognizes the danger. I think he knows that time is short, that time is not on our side. And I think he will take military action, not an invasion, but air strikes before he leaves office.”

JUDY WOODRUFF: “And, Fareed Zakaria, if you would, a brief response.”

FAREED ZAKARIA: “Oh, I would doubt it. Look, in the early 1980s, Norman Podhoretz and the neoconservatives believed the Soviet Union was going to take over the world and Finlandize Europe. When Reagan started talking to the Soviets, started talking to Gorbachev, Mr. Podhoretz excoriated him, called it the "Reagan road to detente" and such.

It turned out he was wrong. It turned out that the Soviets were not that powerful, and that history was on our side, and that things were going to work out as long as we kept our cool.

I believe in just the way that we have deterred the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Kim Jong Il, history will prove that we can use deterrence and containment to contain the problem of Iran and that we do not need to launch a third unilateral invasion just to do that.”

NORMAN PODHORETZ: “God help us if we follow that counsel.”

JUDY WOODRUFF: “Norman Podhoretz, we thank you. Fareed Zakaria, gentlemen, we thank you both very much.”

The inmates are in charge of the insane asylum.

Why do Americans irrationally support Israel unconditionally against our own best interests?

See this link for answers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy[1] (a condensed version used the title The Israel Lobby[2]) is the title of a work by John Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, The Robert and Rene Belfer Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, that has gone through several versions from 2002 to 2007. The most recent version is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a New York Times Best Seller, published in September 2007 by Farrah, Strauss, and Giroux.

The work claims that "the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state [Israel]", and further that U.S. Middle East policy is driven primarily by the "Israel Lobby," defined as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction."[2]

The authors state that the "core of the Lobby" is "American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel's interests." They note that "not all Jewish-Americans are part of the Lobby," and that "Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies."

The paper was originally commissioned in 2002 by The Atlantic Monthly, which then rejected it.[3] It became available as a working paper at the Kennedy School's website in 2006. The paper was finally published in March 2006 by the London Review of Books. Philip Weiss discusses some of the background to the creation of the paper in an article in The Nation.[4] A third, revised version addressing some of the criticism was published in the Fall 2006 issue of Middle East Policy. The authors state that "In terms of its core claims, however, this revised version does not depart from the original Working Paper."[5] In late August 2007 an enlarged version was published as a book.[6][7]

Thanks Victoria for the nice words. I actually worry about these people as they are completed blind-sided by the church teachings. Two verses from sura 17 come to my mind:

71. (And remember) the Day when We shall call together all human beings with their (respective) Imam [their Prophets, or their records of good and bad deeds, or their Holy Books like the Qur'an, the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel), etc.]. So whosoever is given his record in his right hand, such will read their records, and they will not be dealt with unjustly in the least.

72. And whoever is blind in this world (i.e., does not see Allah's Signs and believes not in Him), will be blind in the Hereafter, and more astray from the Path.

a salaamu alaikum moody and somalitrade-

it is kind of funny how this thread,on science, after the question has been replaced(usually the death knoll for a thread ive noticed) ends up being a forum for strong, unapologetic muslim voices.

your post reminded me deeply of what led me to islam to begin with- ill give a quick cap-
i was catholic as a child dad atheist mom agnostic- was reborn at 11 and stayed thru my teens- explored MANY different faiths- came back to catholicism-

aww i apologize, i have to do something now.
i promise to come back and relate some of how i became muslim, as ive never discussed it on these boards- although ive been demanded confrontationally and rudely that i say why-

but i dont respond to negative bullying as i dont reward bad behavior with repsonsive attention, it only encourages more bad behavior.

ill be back when i have some time, insha'allah

peace
and that was beautiful somalitrade

I have a real and a sincere advice to my christian friends. I noticed that christian scholars look at the scientific references in the bible shamelessly and instead of trying to really understand them, they actually avoid them alltogether. The result of this action is that christians never really had any useful debate on science and therefore they continously look for some kind of "verbal agreement" with scientists in order to avoid opening the subject.

My advice to you is this: dis-engage the church and the priests from this issue. Open up the bible itself and try to understand everything in it as accurately as you can. The secret in the accurate interpretation of the bible is that you need to read it as a jew who knows the jewish metaphores. For instance, does the words "son of God" actually means that literally or is it just a jewish metaphore that was commonly used among jews to describe rightous persons? I promise you that the scientific statements in the bible will make sense. The danger of accurately interpreting the bible though is that the christian articles of faith, such as Jesus is god, will fall on its face in front of you. You will see things with a different eye. So you have to chose between being comfortable with the scientific statement in the bible and accept Jesus as another one of God's prophets or insist that Jesus is god and lose any hope of scientifcally reconciling the bible with science. This what I call guidance from God, which He will give to those who are sincere and really want to know the truth. Afterall, I am only asking you to read the book you believe in (without a priest telling you what the church think it means).

Think, think, and think again when you read the bible. Bring along a jewish friend and ask him/her whenever you come across something that you take as an article of faith but suspect it might mean something else based on the jewish tradition. Do it and you will see wonders.

Let's cut to the chase here. Christians HATE science because science tries to find tangible evidence of God's existence, and their only rebuttal is to quote scripture, which still doesn't prove his existence.

Science is only accepted by Christians when it helps to further their opinions. Otherwise it is conveniently "flawed" and "erroneous" and all that other BS they use to invalidate other theories.

If Christians completely controlled this nation, we'd be suffering through another Inquisition. I want them in their pews, not my government.

If Jesus had said "the Earth is flat", then even NASA Space Shuttle photos from orbit wouldn't convince Christians it was round.

it doesnt matter tonio-
your theory is incorrect.
becuase you are not familiar with the qu'ran, youre using the bibile and christian behavior and history to gauge muslims.

yes, fundamentalist christianity

just use the qu'ran and muslims to gauge muslims
and youre using your own biased already formed opinion as a starting point

that is not how science works
if you have a theory you want to develop you have to find some supporting evidence

i posted several links, if you read any of the info you would have come to a conclusion that even fundamentalists in islam are and have been scientifically gung ho because the religion itself
encourages scientific enquiry.

our own society is not even getting kids graduated from high school-

that would be a counter proof to your theory

but the onus is on you to prove your own theory

"It is He who sends down water from the sky. From it you drink and from it come the shrubs among which you graze your herds. And by it He makes crops grow for you and olives and dates and grapes and fruit of every kind. . There is certainly a sign in that for people who reflect. He has made the night and the day subservient to you, and the sun, the moon and the stars, all subject to His command. There are certainly signs in that for people who use their intellect. And also the things of varying colors He has created for you in the earth. There is certainly a sign in that for people who pay heed. It is He who made the sea subservient to you so that you can eat fresh flesh from it and bring out from it ornaments to wear. And you see the ships cleaving through it so that you can seek His bounty, and so that perhaps you may show thanks. He cast firmly embedded mountains on the earth so it would not move under you, and rivers and pathways so that perhaps you might be guided, and landmarks. And they are guided by the stars. Is He Who creates like him who does not create? So will you not pay heed? (Surat an-Nahl: 10-17)"

"In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are Signs for people of intelligence: those who remember God standing, sitting and lying on their sides, and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth: "Our Lord, You did not create this for nothing. Glory be to You! So guard us from the punishment of the Fire. (Surah Ali-'Imran: 190-191)"

statements like these in the qu'ran have encourage muslims to pursue science and demand that we use our intelligence-

even the most fundamental literalist in islam understands that man is given intelligence to use and explore the world around him.

Tonio,

Somewhere you talked about Qur'an and Bibles co- relation. Following is the essence of Muslim point of view about Jesus (A.S.)---Bible and Qur'an. Just remember before reading this and following mail that according to Muslism's Allah has choosen Mohammad(PBUH) who don't know how to read and write at the time of prophet hood, that is 40 years of age. AND THEN ANALYSE WHAT IS WRITTEN AND SAID, KEEPING THAT IN MIND.

HOLY BIBLE:

To all fella’s no offense and with all due respect, in Bible word trinity is not even mentioned. Even name BIBLE is not mentioned inside book. In Roman Latin language Bible means book. The closest explanation saying that Holly Ghost, Spirit and Father is one is taken out/removed from the Bible in its latest versions/new additions explained by more than 50 High Priests of Church that it was not mentioned in the most ancient scripts and was a concoction, addition, fabrication in the translations.
More than 50% of the Bible is written by Paul who hardly met once to the Jesus (A.S.) in his life time. Then written by Luke, Mathew and John. And very small part of it is said by Jesus (A.S.) him self. (You can refer to red Bible).
Where Qur’an is the word that Mohammed (P.B.U.H.) only heard and not every thing he said. (Refer to my mail Jesus in Islam)
-What Mohammed (PBUH) said other than what he HEARS is called HADITH and is not part of Quran (Muslim Bible). And we also found concoctions in hadith but thousands are preserved and original.
-And what disciples of Mohammad(PBUH) said is even not considered as religious scripture or part of it unlike Christian Bible. It is kept totally separate for other references. I’m not saying Muslims don’t believe in Juses(A.S), they do, and also believe in Original Bible, if there are any proofs of original scriptures of Bible which were in Nazarian language and not in Greek or Latin.

I'm not claiming any thing, I'm just QUOTING references, if you know the difference between two?

About Bible and TRINITY you can see your self,
Is it a word of
Paul more than 50%, John, Mathew, Luke
OR JESUS (Alah-i-Aslam) ????
Is word Trinity or name Bible mentioned any where inside the book it self.

As there are countless FALSE Hadith also in circulation, AS PROPOGANDA ACTIVIITES against Islam.by Present day Media and
::WHO CONTROLS IT :: (J C)::
AND WHO PROVIDE COMMERCIALS/ FUNDS to it.

Muslims knows which are the only authentic sources of Hadith and what is the procedure of evaluation.
Allah (God) in Quran Chapter 15 verse 9 Says, that He Himself will guard the Quran.

AS PREVIOUS MESSAGES GIVEN TO HUMANS WERE EITHER MUNIPULATED OR HIDED. AS ONE IS UNABLE TO SEPARATE RIGHT FROM WRONG.

Allah didn't asure guarding Hadith.
1400 years is the PROOF of Allah's promise with all the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and OTHER ASPECTS of Human life.

JESUS(A.S.) IN ISLAM:

Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming
by Mufti A.H. Elias
I. Jesus (A.S.) In Islam
Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, AS GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE IT TILL THE LAST DAY FOR ALL OF HUMANKIND, UNLIKE SACRED TEXTS OF OTHER RELIGIONS WHICH HAVE MULITPLE VERSIONS AND ARE "REVISED" PERIODICALLY BY MAN. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.
What the Holy Qur'an says about Jesus:
They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157)
Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) himself told of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In the Bible, Jesus (A.S.) says,
IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. AND I WILL PRAY TO THE FATHER AND HE SHALL GIVE YOU ANOTHER COMFORTER THAT HE MAY ABIDE WITH YOU FOREVER.
(Bible, John 14-15/16)

BUT WHEN THE COMFORTER IS COME, WHOM I WILL SEND UNTO YOU FROM THE FATHER, EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHICH PROCEEDETH FROM THE FATHER, HE SHALL TESTIFY OF ME, AND HE ALSO SHALL BEAR WITNESS, BECAUSE YE HAVE BEEN WITH ME FROM THE BEGINNING.
(Bible, John 15-26/27)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, FOR HE SHALL SPEAK NOT OF HIMSELF, BUT WHATSOEVER HE SHALL HEAR, that he shall speak, AND HE WILL SHOW YOU THINGS TO COME. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you.
(Bible, John 16-12/14)
Ulema (learned scholars in Islam) have said that the person who is described by Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) to come after him - in the above verse - does not comply with any other person but Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).
In this case, the "comforter" he mentions is none other than Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his laws and way of life (Shariah) and Book (Holy Qur'an) are those that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) asks his followers to abide by.
THE "PERSON" WHOM JESUS (A.S.) PROPHECISED WILL COME AFTER HIM, IS CALLED PARGALEETA IN THE BIBLE . THIS WORD WAS DELETED BY INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS AND CHANGED AT TIMES TO "SPIRIT OF TRUTH" AND AT OTHER TIMES, TO "COMFORTER" AND SOMETIMES "HOLY SPIRIT." THE ORIGINAL GREEK AND ITS MEANING IS "ONE WHOM PEOPLE PRAISE EXCEEDINGLY." THE SENSE OF THE WORD, THEN, IS APPLICABLE TO THE WORD MUHAMMAD IN ARABIC, SINCE MUHAMMAD MEANS "THE PRAISED ONE."
Jesus (A.S.) also says in the Bible,
... AND A LITTLE WHILE AND YOU SHALL NOT SEE ME; AND AGAIN A LITTLE WHILE, YOU SHALL SEE ME BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER.
(Bible, John 16:16)
... and the Holy Qur'an says,
And surely they slew him not. But Allah (God) raised him unto Himself.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157-158)
As such, Muslims believe that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) was raised to heaven. According to Hadith, he is on the second heaven. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam=Peace be upon him) mentioned, "During the Meraj (Ascension), I met Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) on the second heaven. I found him of medium stature, reddish white. His body was so clean and clear, that it appeared as though he had just performed ghusal (ablution, cleansing of the entire body) and come." In another Hadith, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned to the Jews that, " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) is not dead, he will most surely return to you before Qiyamat (the Day of Judgement)."
May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen

Tonio

Being a muslim I'm posting following mail for your reference again. Because this post has the essence of Islam.

PROOF OF GOD: (Scientific Evidence)

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. AND AS A FACT MUSLIMS KNOW THEY WERE REVEALED BEFORE DISCOVERED AND FURTHER ON TOP OF IT THAT NOT A SINGLE VERSE OF THEIR HOLY BOOK IS IN CONFLICT WITH ANY LOGICAL/SCIENTIFIC APPROACH (INFECT EVERY TIME SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES PROVIDING PROOF IN FAVOR OF THE LAST REVELATIONS), MAKE THEM MORE FOCUSED / PRACTICING /FUNDAMENTALIST OR WHAT EVER OTHERS THINK ABOUT THEM and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...SIMPLY APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC RULE OF PROBABILITY....What if 80% of Qur’an is in conformation with 100% of Science and 20% of it is beyond humans comprehension then logic says it would be also correct, if not now then in future...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
-Mentioning that the world is expanding. (it is also said in Qur’an I guess in Sura Nisa)
-In Sura Qayyama mentioning of dead humans raised on day of judgment and even their FINGER TIPS/PRINTS will be made. Today’s modern science accepts each and every human have different finger tip/prints from Adam till last child born today.
-Mentioning of human embryo perfect shapes and stages. Back there 1400 years ago their was no scanning machines or any subject “Embryology” was studied.
-Mentioning of mountains nailed to hold the earth. No “Geology” was studied then telling mountains are made on the tectonic plates of the earth, raise weaker plate to become mountain when pushed against the stronger opposite plate. And mountains works exactly like nails upon the two earth plate holding them together.
- Mentioning of Air causes the rain. Just recently scientifically proven correct. Other wise your brilliant scientist believe according to their ultimate scientific knowledge rain was caused due to sun.

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

PLEASE COMMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARY WITHOUT VARIFICATION / RESEARCH OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT AND AUTHENTIC TRANSLATIONS BY ONLY MUSLIM SCHOLARS TO AVOID ANY TWISTING AND DECEPTIVE TECHNIQUES IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

"saudi isnt a theocracy- its a kingdom"

I had understood that its laws are based completely in Wahhabist doctrine. Is that the case? If so, Saudi Arabia would definitely qualify as a theocracy, even though its rulers are kings and not priests.

"i guess you were attempting to make a parallel between secular societies and the advancement of science- but it didnt pan out."

The term "secular society" is somewhat misleading. I was trying to describe the difference between moderate religion and fundamentalist religion. The first places much more value on reason and experience than the latter, which makes decisions almost entirely according to scripture and tradition. I'm saying that fundamentalism is incompatible with science. My theory is that science flourishes under both Christianity and Islam only when scientists are allowed the freedom to value reason and experience.

To reiterate, the issue isn't about Islam or Christianity but about fundamentalism and literalism, the root ideas behind theocracy. Science and reason cannot survive when scripture is regarded as the first and last word about the physical universe.

In the middle of all this, I'd like to speak to the software developers who produce this sight.
Download the prototype.js library, use it.
When one of these posters presses the Post button you can asynchronously POST the form, at the same time you can disable the Preview and Post buttons, when the POST returns you can redirect self to the GET page - the users's stuff will show up, we won't get any repeated posts.

You can even be cute, don't disable the Post button, instead attach an event handler that pops up a little dhtml box informing the user that their message is being processed.

BTW, why does it take so long to process the POST anyway?

Thank you Jihadist, my most yakety yak, my most "wishy wash" (correctly wishy-washy), my most rambling, my most happily moronic and stubborn believer, my most irrational defender of faith and my most illogical defender of God!

We love you,

Rick

To the attention of all CHRISTIANS all the signs of the approaching days of judgement,as foretold by JESUS be in place.Final sign which closed as to open the "Book of Life" took place in the UK some weeks ago.At present the oppossing powers. One side THE DRAGON & THE BEAST commanding many legions.On other be few the number,yet of such character,they the envy of,Hollywood, Bollywood, Rollywood,enough leading persona for the making of many an box office wonder.

Yes. It is all about what the reality is. Platonism speaks about a universe of ideas where also the virtue lives. Neo-platonism is able to migrate that universe nearer the soul but far from the the earthly body. Materialism claims for an unique universe of souls, ideas and bodies. Finally empirism talk about what was called bodies.

Hello Rick,

A fast one.

Population control or family planning is not an ulema problem but a personal one and choice.

Muslim ulema have no fatwas against family planning, including not using the pill, condoms or other measures. Was practiced since the Prophet's time in ways prevalent and acceptable during that time.

Abortion is allowed under certain conditions - to save the mother's life specifically and up to certain trimester, the first for many. Abortion varies from Muslim state to Muslim state. It can be on demand as in Turkey, or for medical and life threatening reasons as in Malaysia.

The only problem is, for the poor, condoms and pills are not readily accessible, available or affordable, unless distributed free by NGOs or governments.

Muslim governments do encourage their populations to practice family planning to ease socio-economic burdens for themself and their family's future.

As for Catholics, I have nothing to say, though my Catholic friends and contacts in Latin America and the Philippines have plenty to say about the pill, condoms or methods and family planning.

It is a well known fact that international organisations such as UN's UNDP, UNICEF and WHO advocate and promote family planning to all in developing countries to alleviate the socio-economic burden amongst the poor. They do factor in the cultural and religious particularities of their target groups on family planning.

But, of course, Muslims do have a high mistrust of whatever the US is doing in their countries, and as in Nigeria, even the belief that the US or the west is trying to control Muslim population. This is heightened by demographics (Muslims and Christians almost equal in number of adherents)and the fact that both are socially, politically and economically competitive, and conflict ridden for too many years now.

Muslim Nigerians believe that the west is partial to, sypathetic with, and supportive of Christians in Nigeria, regardless of what they do. There are also many Christian evangelical groups in Nigeria, offering schools, clinics and other social services to the populations. What they said about Islam and Muslims to Christian Nigerians and potential converts, and Muslim reactions do make matter worse.

As in other Muslim states where there are Christian populations, Muslims do observe that Catholics are left not to practice family planning due to their specific religious values on family planning, but others are encouraged to do so. This paranoia or mistrust, I've heard from Muslims in Southern Philippines too. Worse there, with Muslims accusing Catholics taking over their historical and traditional lands as the population pressure on their own islands up north in the Philippines forced them to move to the less populated Muslim islands in the south.

Of all the current and future religious theological and social differences and conflicts, the one between Catholics/Vatican and Muslims are the one that is going to be the most testy, or potentially the most collaborative on social issues. For better or for worse.

Not on theology or creed, which some aspects will never get anywhere as they constitute articles of faith or creed for Catholics and Muslims, but on values. Conservative Muslims share the same family values as conservative Catholics. Never mind the small print in Islam that the Trinity dogma is not something Muslim subscribe to, that monasteries is formally discouraged, that Muslim clerics can have up to four wives etc among others:)

Personally speaking, from what I've read on the Vatican's "policies" and the Pope's pronouncements, it seems to be less supportive of science and family planning than one is led to believe, no matter what the Pope said on "reason in faith." Only lay Catholics can say for certain.

It is just too bad that family planning and population control has become one area of politicisation in the wider religious, political and economic objectives for one's own ends for the group.

I got to go.

Thank you and best regards

"J"

Let me put it in this way. Science has its own main rules. All them are related to empirism. You can say anything but it can be true only if all and any present sensible events agree with. If not then they are absolutly invalid, false and regretable. So easy. Empirism is totally inmiscible with the neo-platonism or neo-aristhotelism of any religion.

Let me put it in this way. Science has its own main rules. All them are related to empirism. You can say anything but it can be true only if all and any present sensible events agree with. If not then they are absolutly invalid, false and regretable. So easy. Empirism is totally inmiscible with the neo-platonism or neo-aristhotelism of any religion.

Let me put it in this way. Science has its own main rules. All them are related to empirism. You can say anything but it can be true only if all and any present sensible events agree with. If not then they are absolutly invalid, false and regretable. So easy. Empirism is totally inmiscible with the neo-platonism or neo-aristhotelism of any religion.

Let me put it in this way. Science has its own main rules. All them are related to empirism. You can say anything but it can be true only if all and any present sensible events agree with. If not then they are absolutly invalid, false and regretable. So easy. Empirism is totally inmiscible with the neo-platonism or neo-aristhotelism of any religion.

Let me put it in this way. Science has its own main rules. All them are related to empirism. You can say anything but it can be true only if all and any present sensible events agree with. If not then they are absolutly invalid, false and regretable. So easy. Empirism is totally inmiscible with the neo-platonism or neo-aristhotelism of any religion.

ENDER..,as genetic structure,it also that each individual has an spiritual account,an account that only ending with enlightenment. Spiritual development can only be carried out when in the human form.Via brain heart,brains understanding balanced with hearts experience,will reveal the essence of creation.Those playing leading parts throughout history,in many cases be same, soul, as spirit going by another name.They benefit all humanity, being more the advanced, in spiritual.

Let me put it in this way. Science has its own main rules. All them are related to empirism. You can say anything but it can be true only if all and any present sensible events agree with. If not then they are absolutly invalid, false and regretable. So easy. Empirism is totally inmiscible with the neo-platonism or neo-aristhotelism of any religion.

Let me put it in this way. Science has its own main rules. All them are related to empirism. You can say anything but it can be true only if all and any present sensible events agree with. If not then they are absolutly invalid, false and regretable. So easy. Empirism is totally inmiscible with the neo-platonism or neo-aristhotelism of any religion.

Let me put it in this way. Science has its own main rules. All them are related to empirism. You can say anything but it can be true only if all and any present sensible events agree with. If not then they are absolutly invalid, false and regretable. So easy. Empirism is totally inmiscible with the neo-platonism or neo-aristhotelism of any religion.

Jihadist and Victoria,

Greetings and welcome back Jihadist from your journeys.

Victoria linked us to the Mission Islam site, which led me then to find this page on the same site:

http://www.missionislam.com/conissues/popcontrol.htm

What do you make of this article on population control? It seems to be arguing that the U.S. is attacking Muslims via population control.

“Population Control: Centrepiece of Imperialist Aggression Against the Muslim World”

“One of the most politically explosive incidents in this history of American foreign aid took place in Nigeria in early 1991. That was when a group of researchers uncovered a plot to plant fake Islamic teaching manuals in religious institutions in northern Nigeria.”

“Worse yet, the author of the "Islamic" booklets had participated in the preparation of a long-term "threat assessment" for the U.S. Department of Defence which recommended that population control be placed by western policy planners at the top of the International security agenda.”

Is this attitude characteristic of this Mission Islam organization? Do they view the west as out to subjugate the Muslim world via population control?

This is of interest because we have been discussing on another thread the critical importance of getting the world’s population growth under control. The current population is 6.6 billion world-wide, the growth rate is 1.167%, so the population will double to 13.2 billion at that growth rate in just 66 years. This will place a real strain on resources: energy, water, food, etc, and could result in catastrophic wars being fought over remaining resources.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/10/cooperate_or_die/all_comments.html

How do you view the attitude of Muslims in general toward population control? Is this forbidden in the Qur’an, as in the case of Catholicism?

Thank you and best regards,

Rick

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:)

What now pussycat? Leave Victoria alone. Come to mama.

Concy Christy Libby asked - "And exactly what kind of "science" are these women learning if they are required to believe in flying chariots, flying camels and a hallucinating fortune teller??"

Flying chariots?
You must have confused that with the Bhagavad Gita or Erich Von Donikken's "Chariot of the Gods".

Flying camels?
You must have forgotten it was the flying carpet as in the Arabian Nights/1001 Nights.

Hallucinating fortune teller?
Perhaps you are referring to Madame Zathura Jumanji who works in a carnival along a boardwalk somewhere on the New Jersey coast looking into a crystal while she's on bong.

Go easy on you medications. Or have some more. Whichever is best for you.

Need any invasive procedure? There's one Saudi lady really good at it, and an innovator of it too.

"J"

tonio- theres only one theocratic country in the worold (as far as muslims go) and thats iran.

saudi isnt a theocracy- its a kingdom

"I strongly suspect that most or all of the nations in your first list have largely secular societies, at least as compared with Saudi Arabia and Iran."

i guess you were attempting to make a parallel between secular societies and the advancement of science- but it didnt pan out.

since there is only one that falls into that category- its a pretty

ill now draw a parallel between islamic philosophy
DESPITE incongruous political circumstances-
IN THE PRESENT (as opposed to some dim dark ages history) STILL promotes scientific enquiry by the importance of investigation and scholarship rpomoted in the qu'ran, and how it's manifested insocieites.

scientific method itself was invented and developed by muslims.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Hmmm, you cite a Muslim information webpage as an authority about Muslim women in science. Considering the abundant flaws in Islam, one does not put much credence in the accuracy in said webpages.

Hmmm, and what does Islam science say about "pwtfft"s? And exactly what kind of "science" are these women learning if they are required to believe in flying chariots, flying camels and a hallucinating fortune teller??

KURT CANNON...It being the natural process for humanity,the brain still in early development. Unable to control so much power,thus bring own downfall.The more developed (come) shorter our span in the material realm.Problems come in not seeing bigger picture,being an ongoing journey of spiritual development,thus eventual spiritual enlightenment.It difficult for many in present chapter of development, we be on course for an major breakthrough in our spiritual development.

Victoria,

I was saying that none of the countries in your first list appeared to be theocracies, and the information you posted appeared to confirm that.

I agree that science is compatible with Islam. Muslim societies were ahead of European ones in science during the Dark Ages. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was saying that theocratic societies of any religion are incompatible with not only science but also equality of opportunity for the genders. That is by no means coincidental - those societies make the mistake of treating doctrines and scriptures as more important than either empirical inquiry or human morality.

The Greatest Islam Science.

The Muslims will land on the Sun.
Yes,yes the muslims will conquer the Sun.
They will land on the Sun AT NIGHT.

also the mantle of government was never on the shoulders of Jesus(ata)- one of the reasons he was rejected by the sanhedrin- he wasnt the political rescuer of jews from romes oppression they were expecting-

Dear Pablo,

You wrote:
""
Who is the child born who is God in Isaiah 9:6?

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).
""

I say who called Jesus in his life "Mighty God"? Can you find me a quote where someone, desciple or not, stood in front of Jesus and called him that? According to your quote, someone somewhere must've called him that. Who and where?

Then you say:

""
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions” (Hebrews 1:8-9).

What did God call the other person in the verses above?
""

The Jews worshipped God, the Almighty, not Jesus! What makes you think that Jesus is involved in this confusing quote? Are you basing your belief on whimps and desires. It is amazing how far christians would go to proof their halucination by quoting unrelated texts all over the scripture. Even the church will tell you that they only came to the "understanding" of Jesus divine nature through deduction and NOT directly from the bible. Whom are you kidding!?

Jesus had plenty of time to say what he wanted to say and he was blunt in his teachings. He never claimed divinity and never asked people to kneel in front of him and pray to him as God. Only cowards and traitors would wait for him to leave this earth and then claim stuff he never preached!

look at the LINKS tonio- the stats were just backup affrimation

why doesnt anyobody ever read links here?
i always read links- even if theyre trying to prove ridiculous contentions-
to try to understand thinking processes

you'd think people posting about sicence would give MORE credence to links and references

if someone puts a link in- it means they took a few minutes to research something instead of kjust making opinions

i respect researching- and efforts expended-
maybe its a muslim thing :)

sorry- those sources were all wikipedia- ususally i eschew wikipedia, but for basics like this- its ok- also there was no questioning of the sources

sorry- those sources were all wikipedia- ususally i eschew wikipedia, but for basics lie this- its ok- also there was no questioning of the sources

bahrain and qatar-
reliable references).

Manama, Bahrain's capital.Bahrain, officially the Kingdom of Bahrain (Arabic: مملكة البحرين Mamlakat al-Baḥrayn), is a borderless island country in the Persian Gulf and is the smallest Arab state. Saudi Arabia lies to the west and is connected to Bahrain by the King Fahd Causeway (officially opened on November 25, 1986), and Qatar is to the south across the Gulf of Bahrain. The Qatar–Bahrain Friendship Bridge being planned will link Bahrain to Qatar as the longest fixed link in the world.

BRUNEI DARUSALAM
Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei, whose title has passed within the same dynasty since the fifteenth century, is the head of state and head of government in Brunei. The Sultan is advised by several councils and a cabinet of ministers although he is effectively the supreme ruler. The media is extremely pro-government and the Royal family retains a venerated status within the country. There is no elected legislative body.

KYRGYZSTAN

In October 1991, Akayev ran unopposed and was elected president of the new independent Republic by direct ballot, receiving 95% of the votes cast. Together with the representatives of seven other Republics that same month, he signed the Treaty of the New Economic Community. Finally, on December 21, 1991, Kyrgyzstan joined with the other four Central Asian Republics to formally enter the new Commonwealth of Independent States. In 1992, Kyrgyzstan joined the UN and the CSCE.

The "Tulip Revolution," after the parliamentary elections in March 2005, forced President Akayev's resignation on April 4, 2005. Opposition leaders formed a coalition and a new government was formed under President Kurmanbek Bakiyev and Prime Minister Feliks Kulov. The nation's capital was also looted during the protests

LEBANON-Lebanon (IPA: /ˈlɛbənɒn/) (Arabic: لبنان Lubnān) (French: Liban), officially the Lebanese Republic (الجمهورية اللبنانية) ( La République Libanaise), is a small, largely mountainous country located in the Middle East, located at the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered by Syria to the north and east, and Israel to the south. Due to its sectarian diversity, Lebanon follows a special political system, known as confessionalism, meant to distribute power as evenly as possible among different sects.[1]

AND TURKEY- as we all hopefully know by now, voted the militant secularists out in july- but it is a democracy (run by muslims)

well- tonio- despite your suspicions proving completely wrong-

it still has no bearing whatsoever on the question-

" "An alliance between science and religion, forged in an atomosphere of mutual respect, may be the only way to protect life on earth." Is such an alliance necessary? Possible?"

clearly and irrefutably, it has been compatible with the religion of islam throughout it's histroy.

so to answer- the 3 largest groups are sultnates- decidedly NOT secualris countries

but i still fail to see the relevance of the political systems in a discussion of religion and science

Whoops, my sentence should read, "The questions you describe do not, and should not, require claims about supernatural beings for answers."

Victoria,

I strongly suspect that most or all of the nations in your first list have largely secular societies, at least as compared with Saudi Arabia and Iran. I do know that in America, defenders of patriarchy have historically drawn their ideas from the Bible. Less often, they have claimed that patriarchy is "nature's plan."