Thursday, 18 August 2016

Scientific Error Of Zakir Naik's Qu'ran:The Location of the Moon and the Stars

The Location of the Moon and the Stars

In the Qur'an we find the following statements about the moon and the stars:

He Who created the seven heavens, one above the other ...
And We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps ... (67:3,5)                                  And He completed them seven heavens in two days
and inspired in each heaven its command;
and We adorned the lower heaven with lamps,
and rendered it guarded... (41:12)
We have indeed adorned the lower heaven with the beauty of the stars. (37:6)

Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens
one above the other,

and made the moon a light in their midst,
and made the sun as a lamp? (71:15-16)
The above is Yusuf Ali's translation. Pickthall renders Sura 71:16 as

And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?
The Qur'an seems to teach that there are seven heavens, one above the other, whether it was imagined to be like storeys in a high building (flat layers) or like shells or the layers of an onion.
As a poetic way of expression this is acceptable, even though there are, scientifically speaking, no discernable stages in the universe that would allow us to differentiate between those various heavens.
However, the Qur'an specifically assigns the stars to a lower or even the lowest heaven, while it states the relationship of the moon to the totality of the seven heavens is that it is "in them" (fehinna). This gives the impression that the moon is at least as far away as the stars if not further.
But everyone knows today that the stars are much much further away from the earth than the moon. This is not a small difference, it is an issue of several magnitudes. The average distance from the earth to the moon is 384,400 km, while Proxima Centauri, the closest star to us outside of the solar system, is already about 4.3 light years = 40,682,300,000,000 km (40 trillion kilometers) away, or expressed differently, we need to multiply the distance of the moon by more than 100 million to reach even the nearest of all the stars.
Had the Qur'an formulated "and the moon in the middle of them" then this would have been unambiguously wrong. The formulation "in them" is vague enough to still allow the possibility of the moon to be in the lowest heaven as well. The wording of the Qur'an is certainly less than scientific in this instance and suggesting wrong notions even though it is sufficiently vague to not make it a clear error. It does, however, throw substantial doubt on the claim that God made the Qur'an scientifically as a proof of its divine origin.
Though it seems quite strenuous, one could say that maybe all the stars are in the lowest of the seven heavens (as the Qur'an does) and the moon is on the lowest part of the lowest heaven (which the Qur'an neither says nor implies). The Qur'anic expression relates the location of the moon to the plurality of the heavens and says that the moon is "in them". It does not say it is exactly in the middle, but it does say somewhere "inside" when we look how this word is used elsewhere.
There are a good number of other verses where the Qur'an uses the exact same Arabic word "Fihinna" as in the verse we are talking about. In the verses 9:36 and 2:197 it is used in the phrase "the holy months, IN THEM do not ...", i.e. with the meaning of "during this time". It is used speaking of a temporal "inside".
In the following a list of verses where this word is used for location:

(about the gardens of Paradise)
IN THEM will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, ...
IN THEM will be fair (Companions), good, beautiful;-
This is clearly stating that these beautiful women are inside these gardens, and more or less in the middle or distributed, but not that they are all huddling on the boundaries of it. This will be imporant below.

"Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship God, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt AMONGST THEM; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.
Again, this is about Jesus, and the whole point is that he lived AMONG THEM, not a life at an obscure point at the periphery, not he was in their midst and they have no excuse that they did not hear his message because they didn't know about it.

The seven heavens and the earth, and all beings THEREIN, declare His glory: there is not a thing but celebrates His praise; And yet ye understand not how they declare His glory! Verily He is Oft-Forbear, Most Forgiving!
Again, the totality is meant, not just the beings at the periphery.

If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings THERIN would have been in confusion and corruption! Nay, We have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition.
Again, IN THEM, means 'inside' those living in the earth or in the heavens.
Finally the verse 71:16 that is in question:

Pickthall: And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?Yusuf Ali: And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp?
Clearly "in their midst" is a valid translation and there is no need to understand this as "exactly in the middle heaven" but it is "inside". What does "in" refer to? It is THEM, i.e. the seven heavens, since that is what the Qur'an talks about in the verse before it.

    Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens
    one above the other,
    and made the moon a light in their midst,
    and made the sun as a lamp? (71:15-16)
No indication that the moon is on the boundary of these heavens, or even at the lower boundary of the lowest one of the seven. The natural reading is still "somewhere inside". And clearly, Yusuf Ali thought that was the natural reading.
In distinction to this, we have the very clear statement that the stars are "on the boundary" of the seven heavens since they are in the LOWEST heaven as Sura 67:5 says.
As such, maybe one cannot say that the moon is further away than the stars, but given that the stars are in the lowest and the moon is inside the heavens, the moon is at least as far away as the nearest stars and that is scientifically problematic. If it is not outright wrong what the Qur'an says due to the vagueness of expression, it does nevertheless give a wrong impression.

#Faishal Ahmed (Ex-Muslim)

Monday, 8 August 2016

हिन्दू धर्म 'इस्लाम' से कई गुणा बड़ा और सत्य है|

#फैज़ल अहमद (पूर्व मुस्लिम)
मैं पिछले छः महीने से "हिन्दू धर्म पर रिसर्च कर रहा था , अभी भी कर रहा और मुझे पता चला की मैं ये जन्म तक खोज करता रह जाऊंगा और न जाने कितना जन्म लेना पड़ेगा , हिन्दू धर्म जानने के लिए। वेद ,उपनिषद ,पुराण ,उप-पुराण ,ऋषि कृत्य विज्ञान ग्रन्थ ये सब मिला के लगभग १ लाख से ऊपर ग्रन्थ है। यह १६ भाषाओ में है जिसमे आधा से ज्यादा संस्कृत में है। अब ये ज़ाकिर नाइक जो बोलता है की वह इस्लाम और कम्पेरेटिव रिलिजन का विद्यार्थी है - और हिन्दुओ को ३-४ ग्रन्थ का आधा लाइन पढ़ के बरगलाता  देता है ? इसने सारे ग्रन्थ पढ़ लिए ? और जो भी २-४ पढ़ा -"क्या उसने उसपर कोई रिसर्च किया" ? आज मैं भी बाजार अगर जाता हूँ ग्रन्थ खरीदने तो सबसे पहले ये सोचता हूँ की ये कैसे पता चलेगा की इसका हिंदी या अंग्रेजी अनुवाद सही है ? कैसे पता चलेगा की जिसने भी इसका अनुवाद किया है वो इस ग्रन्थ को कांसेप्ट पढ़ा है और तब अनुवाद किया  है ?
क्योकि वेदों को छोड़ लगभग सारे बड़े -बड़े ग्रंथो में छेरछार की गयी।
जैसे - मनुस्मृति देख ले - विकिपीडिया भी कह रही "(मनुस्मृति) : The Manusmriti translated "Laws of Manu" is as an important work of Hindu law and ancient Indian society. The revised text is largely doctored during the British rule to spread disharmony among the people. ?असली मनुस्मृति जाने के लिए मनुस्मृति की बेसिक कांसेप्ट जानना होगा फिर आप असली और मिलावट की हुई अलग अलग कर सकते है।

वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलं स्मृतिशीले च तद्विदाम् । आचारश्चैव साधूनामात्मनस्तुष्टिरेव च ॥
Translation 1: The whole Veda is the (first) source of the sacred law, next the tradition and the virtuous conduct of those who know the (Veda further), also the customs of holy men, and (finally) self-satisfaction (Atmana santushti).
Translation 2: The root of the religion is the entire Veda, and (then) the tradition and customs of those who know (the Veda), and the conduct of virtuous people, and what is satisfactory to oneself.
— Manusmriti 2.6
इससे पता चलता है की मनुस्मृति "वेदों पर आधारित है" तो वेद के अनुकूल जो मिले वो रख ले और जो वेद विरुद्ध भाष्य /श्लोक मिले उसको हठा ले।

क्या ज़ाकिर नाइक एक सच्चा इंसान है ? वो मनुस्मृति को गलत तरह से प्रस्तुत करता है क्यों ? क्योकि वह मुर्ख है , मूर्खो वाली हरकते ,बाते भी करता  है। ज़ाकिर नाइक को क़ुरान का भी ज्ञान नहीं है और वो दूसरे धर्मो का टूटा फूटा ज्ञान बाटता है।

मैंने ऐसा उपदेशक आज तक नहीं देखा , जो खुलेआम चुनौती देता है अपने बिल से और जब कोई चुनौती कबूल करता है तो ये ज़ाकिर उस बन्दे से १०-१० साल तक भागते रहता है।  जैसे मैंने सुना पंडित महेंद्र पाल आर्य जी से २००४ से भाग रहा। ये एक बार एक ईसाई स्कॉलर को डिबेट के लिए बुलाया था पाकिस्तान में चल रहा था , ये २००२ की बात है , ईसाई स्कॉलर ने कुरान और विज्ञान पर चर्चा शुरू कर दी।  पाकिस्तान टीवी चैनलो ने रिकॉर्ड करना बंद कर दिया और ज़ाकिर से बात कर डिबेट कैंसिल कर दिया और अगले ही दिन अखबार में अपनी जित छपवा के इस्लाम को खतरे में आने से बचा लिया।  ज़ाकिर से डिबेट करने वाले कई स्कॉलर है जो डिबेट करना चाहता और वे सभी लोग का ज्ञान ज़ाकिर से कई गुना ज्यादा है।

ये ज़ाकिर नाइक सिर्फ २०-२० हज़ारो मूर्खो के बिच खड़ा होके आधा सच आधा झूठ आधा अपने हिसाब से मिलावट  कुछ भी बोलता। और मुर्ख लोग तालियां बाजाता रहता है क्योकि मुर्ख है। जो पढ़ाओगे वही पढ़ेगा।
इन इस्लामी मूर्खो को इतना भी ज्ञान नहीं है की "इस्लाम में ताली बजाना हराम है"- ये मैंने कभी एक सुन्नी मोलवियों को कहते सुना था। मतलब की २०-२० हज़ार अरबी मूर्खो को अपना इस्लाम का भी ज्ञान नहीं है।

आज मैं हिन्दू धर्म और इस्लाम महजब का अंतर समझाता हूँ , जितना भी मैंने हिन्दू धर्म जाना। मेरा एक आखरी सवाल अरबी बकरों से -
अल्लाह सातवाँ आसमान में है , अब ये बताओ किधर से किस दिशा में है ,चुकी क़ुरान में धरती चपटी है इसीलिए सीधा ऊपर देख लेता और बीच  में काबा भी रख दिया।  सबलोग चपटी धरती में कही से भी ऊपर देखता है अल्लाह को और काबा की तरफ ५ बार अरबी बोलता है जिसका अर्थ भी इनको नहीं पता।

पृथ्वी गोल है और और अपने अक्ष पर घुमते हुए सूर्य के चारो और चक्कर लगाता है।  अब ये बताओ तुम्हारे ऊपर जो आसमान है , तुमसे 90 डिग्री और घुमा के 180 डिग्री में जो भी देश है उसके लिए तो आसमान ठीक तुम्हारे उल्टा दिशा में होगा , मतलब की पैर के नीचे की तरफ देखो "तुमसे 180 डिग्री पर रहने वाला का आसमान तुम्हारे ७वे आसमान के ठीक उल्टा दिशा में है।  और दोनों बेवकूफ नमाज इधर उधर पढ़ रहा और ७वा आसमान  भी इधर उधर ऊपर नीचे समझ रहा।  exactly बता दो क़ुरान से की नमाज कैसे पढ़े और आसमान ऊपर ताके या नहीं ? किस देश के ऊपर में अल्लाह बैठा है ? और पृथ्वी भी कुरान में ही स्थिर है लेकिन वेदों में तो सूर्य की चक्कर काट रही।  अब बताओ अल्लाह भी अपना कुर्सी लेके पृथ्वी के साथ सूर्य का चक्कर काटता है  क्या ? एकदम सऊदी अरब के ऊपर ही रहना है ?

***** क्यों मुसलमान न बने***** 
१. दुनियां कितना भी विज्ञानमय हो जाएगा , इस्लाम का अकल वही ६००० आयत तक ही सिमट के रहेगा , इसका हलाल -हराम वही १५०० साल पुराना वाला चलते रहेगा। मेरा इनसे सवाल है "१५०० साल पहले न ही हवाईजहाज था न ही बन्दूक गोली फिर आज ये दोनों चीज़ कौन से हदीस से पढ़ के हलाल किये ?
जबकि हिन्दू धर्म समय के साथ हाथ से हाथ मिला के चलते आया है।

२. दुनियां कितना आगे बढ़ गयी - पहनावे,फैशन बदलते गए।  हिन्दू धर्म भी साथ साथ चलता गया। लेकिन ये इस्लाम वाले आज भी सर पे टोपी , नीचे पजामा ,बीच में नारा और बकरा ऐसा ढाढ़ी वो भी बिना मूछ का पहन के घूम रहा। अब इसमें भगवान ये भी डिसाइड करता है की क्या पहनो , कैसा फैशन करो ?

३. इन इस्लामी मूर्खो को इतना भी पता नहीं की "ये बुरखा कोई अल्ला का ज्ञान नहीं है , बल्कि अरब देश की जलवायु के अनुकूल है , वहा धुप ज्यादा रहती और उस समय बालू भी उड़ते रहती थी , इसीलिए महिलाये अपनी सुंदरता बचाने के लिए बुरखा पहन के खुद को तेज़ धुप और बालू से बचाती थी।  और ये मुर्ख ठंडी -गर्मी दुनिया में कही भी बुरखा पहन के घूमते रहता।

४. इस्लाम वाले इसमें बोलते है की इस्लाम में अश्लीलता हराम है इसीलिए बुरखा पहनने का आदेश अल्ला दिया ? अरे मूर्खो तो ये बताओ की ये "अश्लील बेली डांस" किसकी देन है। सुबह बुरखे पहन के घूमने वाली औरते , रात को बुरखे उतार के , आधे कपड़े में "अश्लील बेली डांस"क्यों  किया करती थी? ये सहाबी और इनके प्रधान की अश्लीलता , बलात्कार के १००० लिस्ट मैं सिर्फ क़ुरान और प्रामाणिक ६ हदीसो से निकाल दूंगा।
पता है न हर लूट में सबसे पहले औरते और लौंडिया लूटी जाती थी सहबियों द्वारा , सबसे सुन्दर प्रधान ले जाता था और बाकी को दासी बना के १ रात या २ रात हमेसा के लिए बेचा जाता था। प्रामाणिक हदीसे से दिखाऊ ?
और इतना ही नहीं बेचने वक्त सबके सामने पूरे कपड़े उतार के हाथ से , उंगली से चेक करके बेचा जाता था।
और इस्लामी बकरे कहते है "इस्लाम में औरतो को बहुत सम्मान है" . हमें पता है बाप-बेटी ,भाई -बहन ,चाचा भतीजी ,मामा-भांजी ?? बहुत पवित्र फतवा आता है "हदीसो और क़ुरान का हवाला से" .

५. सबसे बड़ी बात , की भारत में कितनो ने आक्रमण किया ,कितनो ने कई इलाके जीते पर सभी ने सत्ता ही हथियाया किसी ने भी औरत का बलात्कार नही किया  . लेकिन जब मुग़ल आया तो जहा भी राज किया वह पे बलात्कार की बारिश करता गया।  क्यों ? क्योकि ये शिक्षा सिर्फ इस्लाम महजब की ही देन है।  भारत में बलात्कार जैसी कुरीति मुगलो की ही देन रही है।

६. ये बकरे जैसी लंबी ढाढ़ी अरब देश की जलवायु के अनुकूल है , वह पे धूल बालू उड़ते रहती थी , तो दाढ़ी चेहरे का बचाव करता था।  भारत में कौन सी बालू उड़ के चेहरे पे आती है ? यहाँ पे बकरा बनने के पीछे क्या लॉजिक है ?

७. ये इस्लाम वाले कहते है खतना करने के पीछे मेडिकल विज्ञान है ? मेरा सवाल क़ुरान में खतना करने कहा पे कहा गया है ? अल्लाह कहता है क़ुरान में की "मैंने इंसानो को ठीक ठाक बनाया कोई कमी नी किया" . और शैतान कहता अल्लाह से की मैं तेरे बन्दे को गुमराह करूँगा , वो अपने शरीर के अंग से काट छाट करेगा। आज सब इस्लामी बकरे शैतान से गुमराह होके , शैतान का ही बात मान रहा और खतना कर रहा। शैतान अल्लाह से जीत गया।

८. अरे भाई , अरब में पानी की कमी रहती थी। और पेशाब के बाद मूतेंद्रिया को धोने में अधिक पानी बर्बाद होता था।  बस इसीलिए ये खतना की प्रथा चली , ताकि पानी बचे। आगे का थोड़ा काट देने से एक बून्द भी इधर उधर कपड़े में नहीं लगती। इससे कपड़ा भी बचा रहता था।  यही लॉजिक है खतना का। भारत में रहने वालो को खतना का कोई जरुरत नहीं और ये क़ुरान के अल्लाह के इंसान को ठीक ठाक  बनाने के दावे पर संकोच पैदा करता है ।

९. और हिन्दुओ से कहते हो की ये कैसा धर्म है जिसमे कही न कही परिवर्तन होते रहता है और इस्लाम में नहीं तो इसीलिए इस्लाम सही महजब है।
इन अरबी बकरों का इल्म भी उतना ही है "असल में हिन्दू कोई धर्म नहीं है - "Hinduism is a way of Life". धर्म तो सनातन है। जो वेदों पे आधारित है और कहाँ जाता की वेद आदि सृष्टि में आई और उसको बिलकुल भी बदलने का जरुरत नहीं पड़ा क्यों ? क्योकि ईश्वर का ज्ञान पूर्ण है और सबसे बड़ी बात हम कितना भी विज्ञानमय संसार में रहे , हम वेद को अभी भी फॉलो कर सकते और भविष्य में भी। क्योकि वेद खुद एक प्राचीन से लेकर आधुनिक विज्ञान की ग्रन्थ है। संसार कितना भी आगे चले जाए , वैदिक लोग भी साथ साथ चल सकता।

१०. हिन्दू गैर महजब वालो के साथ रह सकता (peacefully) , जैसा देश वैसा भेश-भूशा में बदल सकता। यहाँ हर अच्छे या सामान्य कार्य की आज़ादी है। यही कारण है की विश्व में हिन्दुओ को सम्मान के भाव से देखा जाता।

११. सनातन धर्म की सबसे बड़ी खासियत , इसमें ईश्वर अनंत है ठीक वैसे ही उनका ज्ञान भी अनंत है। इसीलिए इसमें वेदों को देख के ही हर काम करने नहीं कहता। वेद के अनुकूल , मानवता के अनुकूल भी अगर कोई कार्य हो जो वेदों में सीधा वर्णन न हो तो आप अपना दिमाग का उपयोग कर सकते जबकि इस्लाम में दिमाग को अल्ला को सरेंडर करना परता है।

१२. क़ुरान कहता है मुसलमान बनो जबकि वेद कहता "मनुर्भव: अर्थात मनुष्य बनो" . जिस तरह से इंजीनियरिंग का पढाई को नर्सरी के पढाई से कमपेयर नहीं किया जा सकता।  ठीक वैसे ही वेद इंजीनियरिंग की भाति है और क़ुरान नर्सरी की भाति।  कोई कमपेयर नहीं हो सकता।

१३. ज़ाकिर नाइक वेदों से वो सब बताता जो दूर दूर तक वेदों में कही भी नहीं है।  अरे ये इतना बड़ा मुर्ख है की इसको ये भी नहीं पता की वेद को समझने के लिए वैदिक संस्कृत आनी चाहिए और इसके लिए वेदांग पढ़नी पड़ती और वेदांग में भी छः शास्त्र आते है ( जिनमे व्याकरण ,छंद ,निरुक्त etc सब है , बिना अलंकार का तो वेद कुछ भी समझ नहीं आएगा )

१४. एक बार मैंने ज़ाकिर नाइक को वेद मन्त्र पढ़ते सुना , नमूना देखिए
ज़ाकिर नाइक - वासनता + मुरुगाय + मद्य ?
ये मुर्ख को संस्कृत पढ़ने भी नहीं आती , और ये वेद समझाता है।
तबतो इसके लॉजिक से हम इन सब शब्दो का संधि विछेद ऐसे कर सकते।

(१) विद्यालय - विद्या + लय ?
(२) हिमालय - हिमा + लय ?
******** ज़ाकिर - जा +किर ???********

शुद्ध होगा - "वासनताम +उरुगायम + अद्य" (पहले और दूसरे में हलंत भी रहेगा)

जो संस्कृत को ही अशुद्ध पढता वो क्या ख़ाक हिन्दू धर्म समझायेगा ?

Hinduism Is a religion Of real peace ... Follow hindu religion OR Follow Sanatan Dharma.
Choose AnyOne And Be Happy .... A/q to VEDAS There IS No HELL OR HEAVEN .

you all are not the slave of any allah(काल्पनिक चरित्र) . You All are the son of "Ishwar" (Almighty).
A/Q to vedas He is father/friend/teacher everything . Do your Best Karma , nothing will happen to you.

Why I hate Islam- #Faishal Ahmed

“When Islam arrived in India, the Hindus welcomed the Muslims with open arms as brothers. In return Islam destroyed the entire Hindu civilisation.

Over ten centuries the dirty Muslim rogues murdered an estimated 100 million people. It has been said by historians and scholars (both eastern and western) that this is the largest genocide the world has ever witnessed. Muslim religious leaders “educated” Muslim men to rape Hindu women as this was a method to destroy the Hindu progency. Soon raping Hindu women was part of what being a Muslim man was about! Temples were razed to the ground and villages were burned. Those who refused to convert to islam were either murdered (the menfolk) or raped (the womenfolk). All the slutty Mughal leaders made it their goal to wipe Hinduism from the map of the earth! They even openly stated it.
I have no sympathy for Muslims. It seems that today Muslims from all corners of the world are facing hardship and problems. You only need to look at the devastation that Islam has wrecked on Hinduism to ascertain why this is happening. What goes around eventually comes back around and this is why Muslims are suffering. I have no sympathy or feeling for them. What angers me is that even today in India the dirty ugly b a s t a r d s are still sucking the blood of Hindus. If Muslims think that what they are experiencing now is bad, they haven’t seen anything yet. The world is just getting started.
Futher to the above, I disagree that the Muslims unified anything or anyone. Islamic armies marched through the world killing men and raping women. That is the sole reason why they conquered all the lands that they did. There is a sharp distinction between invasion and unification. They instituted islam through coercion and violenceBefore Islam reached India, the latter was a global power. Indian influence and culture as well as exports of knowedlge (science, maths etc) were felt throughout the world.
When the evil, ugly, dirty uneducated Muslims invaded the top half of India, all the power that India commanded was destroyed. The Muslims contributed NOTHING to the Indian culture, intellectual establishment or civilisation. Quite the opposite they stole everything from us. They stole our women, they murdered our menfolk, destroyed temples etc
Also for your information, I am an Indian who was born and bred in London (England) where Muslim atrocities are taught in state schools as a fact. So it is futile for you to say that I am under the influence of any Zionist organisation. If anybody is a slave here it is you. You are a slave of the evil Islamic religion.
You say your religion is a religion of peace. But your religion teaches Muslims that non-Muslims are infidels and that they should be killed. It also teaches them that women who do not “obey” their husbands must be beaten. Most of the terrorist organisations are Muslim. Muslims are renowned as mass murderers and terrorists. Moreover the highest religious leaders in your religion themselves use religious doctrine to justify killings so please do not say that Islam is a religion of peace.
And you talk crap about Palestine and Kashmir. Indians are doing nothing wrong in Kashmir. Kashmir is, was and always will be part of India. Do you even know what the history is behind Kashmir? When India and Pakistan were becoming independent, the leaders of all the states that border what was to become India and Pakistan were offered a choice of whether to become part of Pakistan or part of India. Kashmir had a Muslim population but a Hindu prince, and he wanted to be part of India.It was your beloved Muslim country Pakistan that actually started this whole dispute by attacking India.
At first the Kashmiri Muslims had no problem with becoming part of India. So please check your sources out! And you are quick to say that Kashmiris are oppressed and that they are being killed, but how conveniently do you leave out all the Hindus that were slaughtered in Kashmir in order to tilt the demographic favour towards the Muslims. There are hardly any Hindus now in Kashmir because they have all been killed by your Islamics. It is ok for Kasmiri Muslims to muder and wound hundreds of innocent Hindus every year in terrorist attacks but the moment that the Indian army tries to defend its citizens and crack down on the terrorists we are accused of “oppression” and human rights violations.
Hindus were under oppression from Muslims for ten centuries. In their own country they were treated as second class citizens. The British gave the Hindus their self-respect back. Under the British, Hindus thrived. They felt that finally they were living in their own country again. So why shouldn’t they have co-operated with the British???
It makes me sick when I hear you people justifying terrorism by saying that you are oppressed. Look at South Americans, Look at Africans look at East Europeans. These people have faced much more hardship than you people have yet I do not see them producing terrorist organisations. And anyway, for the all the “Muslim brotherhood” rhetoric and nonsense that I constantly hear about, why aren’t all the rich, oil owning fat Arabic sheikhs helping their impoverished Muslims out? Clearly they have MUCH MUCH MUCH more than enough capital to ensure decent living standards in Palestine. The problem isn’t oppression. The problem is ISLAM.
To hell with Islam!”

#Faishal Ahmed

Sex With Daughters-in-Law:Divinely Ordained in Islam


Sex with daughters in law is a very pious and sacred relationship which is promoted by Quran. 
Our prophet had a beautiful daughter in law Zainab, wife of his adopted son known as Zaid Bin Mohammed. One morning he walked into her room looking for his son and ran into her while she was just waking up and was wearing revealing clothing. He liked what he saw. To make a long story short , she was in his bed within a few days.


In Arab culture a daughter in law was like one’s own daughter, irrespective of whether the son was biological or adopted. The news that the prophet violated his own beloved son’s wife enraged Madinans. They confronted him.
Madinans: “Oh Prophet of Allah , how could you , of all the people an apostle of God, carry out a disgusting and despicable act of sleeping with your own daughter in Law. Your harem is bursting at seams with young and beautiful wives . On top of that you regularly take 20% cut from the crop of infidel captured women as your share of booty .
Rasulullah, your act is an incest which puts the time honored noble arab tradition of “adoption” to shame”..
Prophet: “To me the only noble and honorable act is to follow Allah’s orders . And Allah was the one who ordered me to acquire Zainab. Here is the aya”:
33.37 “We gave her ( Zaid’s wife ) in marriage to thee, so that there should not be any fault in the believers, touching wives of their adopted sons”.
Madinans: “It sounds very strange that Allah is so enthusiastic to get us married to our adopted children. Anyways , if that is what Allah wants so be it. But howcum you never had a marriage ceremony with Zainab before taking her to bed? Wouldn’t that still be called an adultery?”
Prophet: “Not at all , because I am allowed to have sex with my first cousins without marriage and Zainab is the daughter of my aunt. Here is the aya:”
33.50 (continued): O Prophet, We have made lawful for thee the daughters of thy uncles paternal and aunts paternal, thy uncles maternal and aunts maternal, who have emigrated with thee.
Madinans: “Prophet , are you sure that aya 33.50 was not brought to you by Satan like he brought to you the ‘satanic ayas’ in Mecca?”
Prophet: “I don’t get tricked by Satan any more. I am dead sure that Jibraeel brought it to me”..
Madinans: “Rasulullah ,there is another matter which we like to discuss with you. We are told that you have been sleeping with our wives after you send us on Jihad to far off places . Is that true”.
Prophet: “ Yes it is. Believing women offer themselves to me in the hope of salvation and special favours from Allah in the hereafter and Allah has allowed me to fulfill their requests by aya 33.50.
33.50 (continued) and also allowed is any woman believer, if she gives herself to the Prophet and if the Prophet desires her (to have sex) (the word is nikah which means penetrating some one).
” However, as you know I am a very busy man and cannot fulfill all requests. Besides my wives get very antsy and jealous when I am with them ; they also hate to see the long lines of muslimas outside my room daily”.
Madinans: “Actually your wives are the ones who informed us of this matter. They said that you get so drained and tired by the time you come to their rooms, you fall asleep right after prayers. Some of your younger wives looked so jealous and outraged that we could have easily taken advantage of them like Safwan Bin Muattal is rumoured to have done with resentful and angry Ayesha on the way back from Mustaleeq after you dumped her for Juvaria.. You yourself believed she did it and had sent her to her Dad’s house.
Prophet: “Allah is aware of all that. That is why he has ordered my wives to be segregated and veiled from now on. You are not allowed to come to my home without permission any more and are only allowed to talk to them from behind a curtain , if you must (prior to that madina men socialized with them freely without hijab). Here is the revelation”:
33.53: “O you who believe! do not enter the house of the Prophet unless permission is given. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain”.
And Allah has also given stern warning to my misbehaving wives.”
33.30 : “O wives of the prophet! Who ever of you commits an open indecency, the punishment shall be increased to her doubly”.
Madinans: “Can we at least marry them when you are dead and gone because poor girls look so young and unfulfilled while you are old and ready to kick the bucket”.
Prophet: “No way. Nobody should touch them even after I am gone”.
Madinans: “But you have married young widows of jihadis killed in the raids you ordered, Why cant we marry your widows then”
Prophet: “Because Allah said so”.
33.53 (contd). “And ye must not marry his wives, after him, for ever. This would be a grave offence to God”.
Madinans: “Forget about your wives . What about one night stands with our cousins and other muslimas if they offer themselves to us?”..
Prophet: “No one night stands for you. .You can sleep with them only if you marry them “…
Madinans: “Why not?. You do it ”.
Prophet: “Because one night stands is a privilege only for me , not for any one else. Here is the continuation of aya 33.50”.
33.50 (continued)” That is a special privilege for thee, not for other believers. They are only allowed their married wives and their right hands possessions (slave girls and captured women)”
Madinans: “But Prophet of Allah, does not aya 33.21 says you are our role model and aya 3.31 says we are to follow your example if we loved Allah? Then those ayas are really B.S.;because when you indulge in incest and adultery Allah endorses it right away and when we want to follow you and do the same , Allah calls it adultery and calls for flogging and stoning. Why?”
Prophet: “Allah said not to irritate your prophet and you are irritating the hell out of me”.
33.53 (continued): “It is not right for you to annoy and irritate the prophet of God.”
Madinans: “Cant we even ask any questions?”
Prophet: “No. If you ask questions you will end up getting beheaded.”
Madinans: “Where does that say in Quran?”
Prophet: “Sure it does. Ayas 5.101/102 says:
5.101/102 “Don’t ask questions. You lose faith by asking questions”.
“When you lose faith you become apostate and Allah calls for beheading of renegades even before infidels”..
Moral of the above fill in the blanks Quranic story: Your brain is like your donkey , and Islam is like a mosque. You can ride your donkey any where you want, but when you enter the mosque you have to leave the donkey at the gate.

Raping Prisoners of War:Qu'ran

They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah.

"Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad)."Qur'an 2:222-223
Narrated Jabir:Jews used to say: "If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back, then she will deliver a squint-eyed child." So this Verse was revealed:-- 
 "Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will." (Q'ran 2.223) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 51)  
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess. Qur'an 4:3

"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise." Qur'an 4:24

Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
Qur'an 23:5-6

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Qur'an 33:50

"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..." Qur'an 70:22-30

Raping Prisoners of War
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:459

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).
Sahih Muslim 8:3432

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) sent a small army. The rest of the hadith is the same except this that he said: Except what your right hands possessout of them are lawful for you; and he did not mention" when their 'idda period comes to an end". This hadith has been reported on the authority of AbuSa'id (al-Khudri) (Allah be pleased with him) through another chain of transmitters and the words are: They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands. They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse was revealed:" And women already married except those whom you right hands posses" (iv. 24)
Sahih Muslim 8:3433,

"Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Interruptus Coitus - Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born."
Sahih Muslim 8:3371

"Abu Sa’id al-Khudri said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."
Abu Dawud 2:2150

Narrated Ruwayfi' ibn Thabit al-Ansari: Should I tell you what I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) say on the day of Hunayn: It is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the last day to water what another has sown with his water (meaning intercourse with women who are pregnant); it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman till she is free from a menstrual course; and it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to sell spoil till it is divided.
Abu Dawud 11:2153 , See also Abu Dawud vol.2 no.2154

Raping Slaves
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?" Allah's Apostle said, "Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created."
Sahih Bukhari 8:77:600

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
Sahih Bukhari 3:34:432

Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise 'azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said:I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.
Abu Dawud 8:3383

Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: I said: Apostle of Allah, from whom should we conceal our private parts and to whom can we show? He replied: conceal your private parts except from your wife and from whom your right hands possess (slave-girls)...
Abu Dawud 31:4006

#Faishal Ahmed(Ex-Muslim)

Friday, 5 August 2016

Qu'ran:The woman IS A TOY

 Islam views women as possessions for pleasure comes from Muhammad himself:


Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers.

THE TRUTH:-however this translation is not True . Now I'm giving you proof. first, Look The Context Behind These Quranic Verses. ISIS is True Follower Of Islam Becoz They Know The Every Context Behind Every Quranic Verses.They know the actual meaning of quranic verses.

"The woman IS A TOY, whoever takes her let him care for her (or do not lose her)." (Ahmad Zaky Tuffaha, Al-Mar'ah wal- Islam [Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani, Beirut, first edition, 1985], p. 180)
Umar Ibn al-Khattab once told his wife:
"You are a toy, if you are needed we will call you." (Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn 'Abd Allah Ibn Mousa Al-Kanadi, Al-Musanaf, Vol. 1 pt. 2, p. 263- see also Al-Ghazali, Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din, Vol. II,Kitab Adab al-Nikah [Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut], p. 52)
The Caliph 'Amru Bin al-'Aas said:
"Women are toys, so choose." (Kanz-el-'Ummal, Vol. 21, Hadith No. 919)
(Note: The following citations taken and adapted from M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton's The Place of Women in Pure Islam)

To try and justify the claim of Qu'ran  2:223 that women are a tilth, Naik stated that one must read this passage in conjunction with the preceding verse. There, it mentions that men should not come near their wives while they are menstruating. How does this justify women being a tilth is beyond us. Naik also stated:
"Quran is saying don't approach in the time of the menstrual period, otherwise you have to be good to them whenever you like to approach them, whenever they like they can approach you. So what's the harm in that?"
The harm is that Naik cannot produce a single Quranic verse substantiating the claim for his underlined statement. Whereas the Quran does grant men permission to approach their wives whenever they like, there is not a single verse where it says that women can also approach their husbands whenever they like. Naik simply attempted to pull a fast one over the audience. Notice the reason Ibn Kathir gives for the "revelation" of S. 2:223 :
<Your wives are a tilth for you.> 'tilth' is the vagina. <So go to your tilth, when or how you will.> Have sex with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the vagina, as it is confirmed in the Ahadith. Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Jews use to say: 'If we have sex with our wives from behind (but in the vagina), their offspring are born squint-eyed.' Then, the verse <Your wives are a tilth for you. So go to your tilth, when or how you will> was revealed. This Hadith was also narrated by Muslim and Abu Dawud. 
"Quoting Jabir, Ibn Abu Hatim said: The Jews said to the Muslims: 'If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from behind she will deliver a squint-eyed child'. However, their statement is refuted when Allah revealed: <Your wives are tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will.> Ibn Jarih said concerning this Hadith that the Prophet said: 'From the front or from the back as long as it is in th vagina.' There are also several Ahadith on how to have sex with one's wife as long as it is from the vagina. However, is forbidden to have sex with one's wife in the anus." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir-Part 2 Sura Al-Baqarah, ayat 142-252, Abridged By Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rifa'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London 1998], pp. 190-191)
Narrated Jabir:Jews used to say: "If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back, then she will deliver a squint-eyed child." So this Verse was revealed:-- 
 "Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will." (Q'ran 2.223) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 51) 
#Faishal Ahmed

Zakir Naik Prophecy #2:The Stages of an Embryo?

Prophecy #2: The Stages of an Embryo
Dr Maurice Bucaille & Dr Keith L. Moore have popularized the idea that the Qur'ān miraculously foretells our modern understanding that the embryo develops through stages:
Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay); Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create! (Sura Mu'minun 23:12-14)
So we find the following five stages outlined in the Qur'ān :
1. Nutfa (نُطْفَه) – sperm
2. ‘alaqa (عَلَق) - clot
3. Mudagha (مُضْغَه) - piece or lump of flesh
4. ‘adaam (عَظَمَ) – Dressing the bones with muscles.
It is alleged that since these stages were only discovered in the last century, the Qur'ān contains an unexplainable prediction of science. However, since ‘blood clot' cannot describe any embryonic stage, Bucaille reinvented the word ‘alaqa(عَلَق) to mean "that which clings" or "leech-like substance".
There are many problems with this argument:
1. History indicates that these stages were not unknown at Muhammad's time, but were actually fairly common knowledge. The Greek writings of Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen all give the same stages of development: sperm, menstrual blood, flesh, bones, then flesh growth around bones. This Greek science was well known around Arabia, and Muhammad's companion Harith ben Kalada had studied medicine at Jundi-Shapur and was thus intimately acquainted with the medical teaching of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen.
2. Second, the word ‘alaqa (عَلَق) simply does not mean "leech" as any historical translation shows; it means ‘clot', which fits the ancient Greeks' stages but doesn't fit the scientific description. Both Ibn Sina' and Ibn Qayyim understood the ‘alaqa as clotted blood, as have all translators for the past fourteen hundred years until today.
3. Third, modern embryology indicates that muscle mass (stage 5 above) appears before any bones are calcified (stage 4 above). The bones aren't "clothed with flesh"; rather, they start to emerge and solidify within the already-existing muscle mass.
4. A Sahih Hadith from both Bukhari and Muslim expands on the Qur'ānic stages of development, saying that the first three stages all last for forty days. Even Dr Bucaille is forced to admit, "This description of embryonic development does not agree with modern data."
5. Zakir Naik quotes Western obstetrician Dr Joe Leigh Simpson supporting this "miracle". Dr. Simpson later described these out-of-context comments as "silly and embarrassing."

Embryology in the hadith
 Stages of development

According to Muhammad, the embryo spends 40 days as a drop of sperm, 40 days as a clot, and then 40 days as a piece of flesh. In reality by day 56 the fetus is essentially a complete, though tiny, human being with all organ systems in place, and all tissues developed.

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: “Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period.”
Sahih Bukhari 4:54:430, See also: Sahih Bukhari 4:55:549, Sahih Bukhari 8:77:593, Sahih Bukhari 9:93:546, and Sahih Muslim 33:6390

#faishal Ahmed (Ex-Muslim)

Zaki Naik:Prophecy #1: Moonlight is Reflected Light?

Prophecy #1: Moonlight is Reflected Light

Zakir Naik has perfected the art of propaganda. This entails maintaining an edifice of scholarship while frequently using half-truths, out-of-context passages and false statistics. It also involves carefully avoiding debate with any serious debaters that oppose him, like Sam Shamoun or Ali Sina , Pandit Mahendra Pal Arya , David , Agniveer Team etc
Let us begin, then, with the moon prophecy shown above by Zakir Naik.
MOONLIGHT IS REFLECTED LIGHT: It was believed by earlier civilizations that the moon emanates its own light. Science now tells us that the light of the moon is reflected light. However this fact was mentioned in the Qur'ān 1,400 years ago in the following verse:
"Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies,
and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light."
(Al-Qur'ān 25:61)
The Arabic word for the sun in the Qur'ān , is shams. It is also referred to as siraajwhich means a ‘torch' or as wahhaaj meaning ‘a blazing lamp' or as diya which means ‘shining glory'. All three descriptions are appropriate to the sun, since it generates intense heat and light by its internal combustion. The Arabic word for the moon isqamar and it is described in the Qur'ān as muneer which is a body that gives noor i.e. reflected light. Again, the Qur'ānic description matches perfectly with the true nature of the moon which does not give off light by itself and is an inactive body that reflects the light of the sun. Not once in the Qur'ān , is the moon mentioned as siraaj, wahhaajor diya nor the sun as noor or muneer. This implies that the Qur'ān recognizes the difference between the nature of sunlight and moonlight.
The key problem with Naik's argument is that nūr (نُور) simply means "light"; there is absolutely no sense of "reflected" in the meaning of the word in any Arabic dictionary or lexicon. If, for the sake of argument, we adopt Naik's re-definitions, then Allah, bearing the title an-Nūr, must be merely "reflected light," while Muhammad, called "a lamp (sirāj) spreading light" in Sura 33:46 is the original source of light. It all begins to sound rather blasphemous.
In addition, it was known at least a thousand years before Muhammad that the moon's light is reflected light. When Aristotle (384-322BC) discussed the earth's shape, he proved the earth's sphericity by arguing that during a lunar eclipse the earth's shadow on the moon is seen. Centuries before Muhammad , the Jews knew that the moon is "borrowing its light" from the sun (Philo, 1st century) and, "the light of the moon must be derived from the light of the sun" (Midrash Hagadol, mid-1st century).

Naik has attempted to evade this conclusion by dividing God into two parts:
1) a siraaj light, and 2) a ‘reflector’ niche which reflects ‘Allah part #1’ and produces nūr (nauzubillah!).
He builds this bizarre idea on a reinterpretation of the lamp verse (24:35). His interpretation utterly contradicts the interpretation of all the sahaba (Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy bin Ka’b, etc), who all correctly interpreted the niche and glass as the believer’s heart in which the light of faith burns. None of the sahaba ever had the audacity of dividing Allah into two separate parts, one part of Allah a burning wick and the other part the reflecting niche. Zakir Naik's tafsir is wrong and his idea is blasphemous.

The moon does not emit its own light but simply reflects light coming from the Sun. The Arabic word for reflected (in`ikaas) does not appear in this Qur'anic verse that says the Moon is a "light". It instead uses the word "Noor" which is used to denote an entity that emits light.

And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?
Qur'an 71:16

The word "Noor" is also used in this verse to show that Allah is the "light" of the universe. Clearly the author is not implying that Allah reflects light from another source but is the source of the light.

Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.
Qur'an 24:35

#Faishal Ahmed (ex-muslim)

25 Mistakes Of Zakir Liar On The Theory Of Evolution

Zakir Naik And His Blind Follower statement of zakir naik
25 mistakes in 5 minute

Now here are the mistakes:
1. There is no such island as "Keletropist" anywhere. It was the Galapagos Islands that Darwin visited where he found the finches that sparked his theories.
2. These finches do not "peck at niches" as Naik says. They lived in separate ecological niches, meaning environments. Dr Naik seems to have some vague awareness of the story.

3. No, Darwin's observations of varying beaks were made on fourteen different species of finches, not just one species as Naik claims. The beak length actually did not vary within the species. Look it up in any textbook.

4. The differences Darwin observed between these finches were far more than simply beak length, they included differences in color, size, mating behavior, songs, and preferred food. In fact they were so different that Darwin did not even realize they were all finches.

5. All of Darwin's published correspondence is printed and even available electronically online, and it contains no record of anyone named Thomas Thromtan, nor any record of such a letter. Darwin could not have used the words, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution because I haven't got any proof," since that's exactly what his book two years earlier was intended to provide, whether we believe his theory or not. There was someone named Thompson, but Darwin never wrote a letter to Thompson.

6. Darwin admitted that there were missing links, but that does not mean he disagreed with his own theory—he simply predicted where the missing links would be found.

7. The church was never against science--- almost all the great European scientists of Galileo's time, including Galileo, were devout Christians. People like Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle, Linnaeus, Pascal were all committed believers in the Bible.

8. Galileo, a devout Catholic, was never sentenced to death. Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment on June 22, 1633 and then that sentence was commuted to house arrest. He died more than eight years later on the evening of January 8, 1642 of old age. Galileo believed that his theories fit with the Bible, and he wrote a book arguing this based on early interpretations of Christians like Augustine. Naik goes on to make the same false statement two more times, but let's only count it as one factual error.

9. Actually, most scientists did not support Darwin's theory for many years, and most of these same scientists revered the Bible. Basically, this account by Dr. Naik is a total fabrication.

10. Basically everything Dr. Naik says here is wrong. There is no such word as "homonites." He must mean hominids.

11. There are not a mere "four" hominids, there are at least fourteen.

12. There is no such hominid as "dosnopytchest." Lucy was an Australopithecus afarensis.

13. The ice age was not 3 1/3 million years ago. It was between 1.6 million years and 10,000 years ago.

14. Homo sapiens did not die out 500 thousand years ago. You and me and even Zakir Naik are homo sapiens, though he is apparently not aware that he belongs to our species.

15. According to evolutionary theory Neanderthal man was not on the direct line to modern man, but an ice-age offshoot.

16. Neanderthal man went extinct 30 thousand years ago, not "a hundred to forty thousand years ago."

17. Cro-Magnon man is the same thing as Homo Sapiens, which Naik had mentioned as a different earlier species.

18. Actually, evolutionary biologists have found many examples of what they claim to be links between these stages, for example between australopithecus afarensis and homo sapiens they claim to have found Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, and Homo heidelbergensis. We may disagree with the clarity of this evidence, but it would be false to entirely deny any link between these stages.

18x. There is no University in Paris or anywhere else called the "Sojerion University." Grasse taught at the University of Paris which is also called the "Sorbonne".

18xx. This out-of-context quote from three decades ago misrepresents the overall opinion of P.P. Grasse, whose research supported evolution completely. He was simply commenting on the scant fossil record at that time, not making a statement against evolution. But we will not count this as an error against Naik.

19. False, nobody named "Sir Albert George" ever won a Nobel Prize. Look it up. He must mean Albert Szent-Györgyi von Nagyrapolt.

20. Györgyi didn't invent Vitamin C, he discovered it. Vitamin C is a naturally occurring substance that didn't need to be invented.

21. Albert Szent-Györgyi's book was not called "The Crazy Ape and Man" but simple The Crazy Ape, and it was not a refutation of evolution but a sociological commentary.18

21x. Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist. And his one great contribution to his own field, the steady state theory of the universe, turned out to be false. But this will not be counted as a factual error.

21xx. Who is Ruperts Albert? I can find no trace of anybody with that name. But, to give Naik the benefit of the doubt, this will not be counted as a factual error.

22. Whether or not evolution is true, it is clearly very thinkable that humans evolved from apes, because most educated specialists do indeed think this! As a statement, this one is very easy to demonstrate as false.

22x. Naik quotes one unknown person after another. Who is Sir Frank Salosbury? Again, vigorous searching can find no trace of anybody with that name. But again, to give Naik the benefit of the doubt, this will not be counted as a factual error.

23. Who is Sir Whitemeat? For the fourth time, no trace can be found of anybody with that name. One would assume that Naik was familiar enough with the authorities he is referencing to actually know their names. But of the six men he references as opposing evolution, he really knows the name of only two of them.

24. There is no such thing as a "paremishia." Perhaps he means paramecium. But the evolutionary change of an amoeba to a paramecium (these belong to entirely separate kingdoms) is far more dramatic biologically than the relatively small biological difference between apes and humans (same family), which is the opposite of what Naik is trying to say.

25. There is no such person as "Henses Crake." Naik probably means Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA. Francis Crick believes fully in evolution.

So we have seen that in a mere 520 words or 25 sentences, Dr Naik has said twenty-five clear false statements, which comes out to one falsehood per sentence. Dr. Zakir Naik is a very charismatic man, as well as a very dynamic speaker. But if this response is characteristic of the content of his speeches, he is a profoundly incompetent scholar. His contentions are so full of errors as to be simply embarrassing. He rarely gets a name correctly, fails to understand the most basic details of the ideas he is critiquing, and can't even get simple, well-known facts of history correct, like whether or not Galileo was sentenced to death.