• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Quran says the earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the earth.

ChaoPappyPoodle

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
3,162
Points
0
Scientists said earth is billions of year?

But there is no prove for diamonds and coal age?
 
Scientists said earth is billions of year?

But there is no prove for diamonds and coal age?

Cheebye! Stick to the topic you uneducated animal! This is about flat earth cheebye and not about how old your mother's cheebye is!
 
Cheebye! Stick to the topic you uneducated animal! This is about flat earth cheebye and not about how old your mother's cheebye is!

The most convincing and strongest argument I have ever seen! Like that you win leow loh!
 
Last edited:
He must be a Muslim himself to argue like this.

He's Christian. He's defending the Quran because his own Holy Bible also supports the Earth being the centre of the universe, and that Adam was the first man, and that humanity is only 6,000 years old. All these were part of Church doctrine in the early centuries of its reign.

Remember how Gallileo and Copernicus were persecuted by the Church for proclaiming that the Earth revolves round the Sun?
 
Carbon dating is only accurate when you made initial assumptions! If the initial assumptions are false, any objects age's determined by caborn dating fails!
 
Last edited:
He must be a Muslim himself to argue like this.

Spoken like the true Muslim that you are.

otmbmg.jpg

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: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn't Muhammad, but "Allah the Exalted" who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands - which is all the more reason not to think of Islam as being the same as other religions.

Note also that the husbands of these unfortunate victims were obviously alive after battle. This is important because it flatly contradicts those apologists who like to argue that the women Muhammad enslaved were widowed and thus unable to fend for themselves. (Even if the apologists were right, what sort of a moral code is it that forces a widow to choose between being raped and starving?)

There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women - yet he instead offers advice on how to proceed. In one case, his men were reluctant to devalue their new slaves for later resale by getting them pregnant. Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular:

"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 interruptus?" 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.” (Bukhari 34:432)

As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims.

As one might imagine, Muhammad's obvious approval of raping women captured in battle and his own personal participation as recorded in many places is of intense inconvenience to the Muslim apologists of our time. For this reason, some of them attempt to explain away these many episodes and Qur'anic references to sex with captives by pretending that these are cases in which women have fled bad marriages and sought refuge with the Muslims. Some apologists even refer to them as "wives," even though the Qur'an makes a clear distinction between "those whom thy right hand possesses" and true wives (see Sura 33:50).

Beyond the desperation of the 21st century apologist however, there is absolutely nothing in the historical text that supports this rosy revision of Muslim history. The women of the Banu Mustaliq were sold into slavery following their rape:

"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 (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 Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

In fact, female slaves were traded like any other simple commodity by Muhammad and his band of devoted followers:

"Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham/Hisham 693)

Is it Islamic to sell one's wife for horses? Clearly these were not wives!

More importantly, by definition a "captured" woman is not one who is fleeing her husband. She is fleeing her captor (ie. the Muslim slave raider). This hadith describes a typical raid, in which the women and children are captured as they are attempting to flee the attacking Muslims:

“…and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children [escaping in the distance]. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along” (Sahih Muslim 4345)

The Muslim narrator sees the women trying to escape (following the massacre of their men) and cuts off their route by shooting an arrow into their path. These aren't women trying to seek refuge with the Muslims. They are trying to avoid capture by the Muslims.

The same hadith goes on to recount that Muhammad personally demanded one of the captured women for his own use:

I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: “Give me that girl.” (Sahih Muslim 4345)

The prophet of Islam and his companions used war to collect women for personal sexual use and for trading. Unless she was arbitrarily declared as someone's wife, the woman became a sex slave. In no case was her fate tied to anything that she had personally done, nor was she given a choice about her future.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm
 
He's Christian. He's defending the Quran because his own Holy Bible also supports the Earth being the centre of the universe, and that Adam was the first man, and that humanity is only 6,000 years old. All these were part of Church doctrine in the early centuries of its reign.

Remember how Gallileo and Copernicus were persecuted by the Church for proclaiming that the Earth revolves round the Sun?

Moose Limb, you are even more stupid than most of us thought.
 
Moose Limb, you are even more stupid than most of us thought.

You're obviously not familiar with Christian history and the Church's history of persecuting scientific forerunners. What I'm saying is that Islam today is similar to Christianity in the 15th century, brooking no tolerance for any viewpoint other than Church dogma.


Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: Science in a Religious World


By Nicholas P. Leveillee

During most of the 16th and 17th centuries, fear of heretics spreading teachings and opinions that contradicted the Bible dominated the Catholic Church. They persecuted scientists who formed theories the Church deemed heretical and forbade people from reading any books on those subjects by placing the books on the Index of Prohibited Books. A type of war between science and religion was in play but there would be more casualties on the side of science.

Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei were two scientists who printed books that later became banned. Copernicus faced no persecution when he was alive because he died shortly after publishing his book. Galileo, on the other hand, was tried by the Inquisition after his book was published. Both scientists held the same theory that the Earth revolved around the sun, a theory now known to be true. However, the Church disapproved of this theory because the Holy Scriptures state that the Earth is at the center, not the Sun. As the contents of the Bible were taken literally, the publishing of these books proved, to the Church, that Copernicus and Galileo were sinners; they preached, through their writing, that the Bible was wrong.

Nicholas Copernicus (1473 - 1543), mathematician and astronomer, established a model of the universe with the sun, rather than earth, at its center. His most notable book, On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies, was highly controversial when it was published in 1543 but nevertheless became a fundamental turning point in the history of science.

Copernicus published his book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies (hereafter referred to simply as Revolutions) in 1543 shortly before his death.1.) In Revolutions, Copernicus states that the Sun is at the center and the Earth revolves around it while rotating on its axis daily.2.) Like all scholarly authors, Copernicus wrote in Latin, which only educated people could read, effectively minimizing the number of readers to a select few.3.)

The phrasing Copernicus utilized was “that if the earth were in motion then the observed phenomenon would result.”4.) This phrasing is extremely important as it means the Copernicus himself could deny he believed it; he merely fashioned it in such a way that it was a hypothesis that would allow astronomers to correct mathematical errors they came across while observing the heavens. By writing in this fashion, Copernicus would have been able to deny that he himself believed in heliocentrism because he phrased it as nothing more than a hypothesis and as a result, would be able to slip past the Church's dislike of heliocentrism.

Copernicus' theories are not fully formed, meaning there are several flaws that make the heliocentric hypothesis appear weak and ill-contrived. According to Giovanni Tolsani in 1546, a member of the Dominican Order, “almost all the hypotheses of this author Copernicus contain something false”5.) and he “seems unfamiliar with Holy Scripture since he contradicts some of its principles.”6.) Revolutionswas not placed on the Index of Prohibited Books until 1616, seventy-three years after it was first published.7.)

A censored version with some sections changed or omitted was released four years after it was prohibited.8.) It is possible that Revolutions was not banned immediately because of its hypothetical nature and weak arguments. However, Tolsani also wrote, a papal authority “had planned to condemn his [Copernicus'] book. But, prevented at first by illness, then by death, he could not carry out this [plan].”9.) After his death, the Church was heavily involved in the Council of Trent during the years 1545 to 1563 and other matters10.) . Thus, Revolutions escaped prohibition for many years and eventually influenced Galileo Galilei, who read it and wrote on the subject himself.

In 1616, Galileo was issued an injunction not to “hold, defend, or teach” heliocentrism.11.) When he began writing Dialogues in 1624, he intended to present both arguments equally. However, he wrote the arbitrator in such a way that he decided the Copernican speaker had the most points that made logical sense, thus supporting Copernicanism throughout his book.12.)

When Galileo originally tried to print Dialogues in 1630, he was ordered to have it printed in Rome. However, he left Rome because of the outbreak of plague and communicated with the Master of the Sacred Palace, the chief censor, through writing. The Master of the Sacred Palace ordered Galileo to have someone the Master chose review the manuscript to ensure it was fit for publishing.

Father Master Giancito Stefani was chosen to review the manuscript and the publisher followed all instructions from the Father Master.13.) Galileo said, during his trial in 1633, that he did not believe what he wrote, that he let his vanity influence his words and phrasing to make him appear more intelligent to his readers but this plan failed when his readers came to the conclusion that he believed the Copernican hypothesis to be true because of his powerful phrasing.14.)

Galileo wrote and published Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World, Ptolemaic and Copernican (Dialogues) in 1632; Pope Urban VIII issued an order almost immediately to prevent the publisher from printing more copies.15.) It was printed in Italian, not in Latin like Revolutions,so all of Italy was able to read it.16.) The original title had been Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea but it was changed so it would not appear that Galileo was pushing the fact that the tides supported his opinion and the new title also appeared more theoretical.

Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642) made significant contributions to the scientific revolution, specifically by making improvements to the telescope and by making astronomical observations that supported Copernicus's findings.

Also, the title with the sea in it might have made the Church feel threatened that Galileo was supporting heliocentrism, which would have resulted in Galileo being charged with heresy. Dialogues was structured as several conversations between a supporter of Ptolemy, a Copernicus supporter, and a neutral arbitrator. The Copernican supporter spoke Galileo's mind and the Ptolemaic supporter was called Simplicio, simpleton in Italian.17.) Urban was infuriated when he read the book and saw that the phrase he required in order for the book to be published, about God's omnipotence, was said by Simplicio.

In the Pope's mind, Galileo was making a caricature of him by having Simplicio say that phrase. Personal vanity is believed to have led the Pope to cry for a committee to be made to determine if Galileo should be tried by the Inquisition and to determine how the book was published and not censored.18.) Galileo also insulted people who did not believe in Copernicanism; a fact which did not escape the notice of Pope Urban VIII's advisory committee.19.) Because Galileo did not phrase his words as hypothetical, readers thought Galileo held the theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun.20.) The committee created by the Pope also came to the same conclusion: Galileo knew what he was doing and must be disciplined for it.

The committee created to charge Galileo determined that Galileo held heliocentrism as a matter of fact and violated the injunction issued to him.21.) With that decision, it was determined that Galileo would be tried by the Inquisition. The Inquisition did not need to decide if Galileo was innocent or guilty, they already knew he was guilty. The Inquisition wanted to determine what Galileo's intentions were. Galileo tried to delay going to Rome for the trial, most likely due to the Inquisition's infamous methods. He wrote to the Inquisitors and said he would be happy to answer questions by mail. He cited his failing health for his reluctance to take the 200 mile journey and had three doctors write to the Inquisition to say that he was unable to travel without risking his life.

 
What a cheebye you are yellowarse Moose Limb. You cheebye Moose Limbs rape because your cheebye Profit MoreHam raped and you come here to talk about Copernicus. Your mother doesn't even wear knickers you cheebye rapist and your sick Profit of MoreHam!


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: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn't Muhammad, but "Allah the Exalted" who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands - which is all the more reason not to think of Islam as being the same as other religions.

Note also that the husbands of these unfortunate victims were obviously alive after battle. This is important because it flatly contradicts those apologists who like to argue that the women Muhammad enslaved were widowed and thus unable to fend for themselves. (Even if the apologists were right, what sort of a moral code is it that forces a widow to choose between being raped and starving?)

There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women - yet he instead offers advice on how to proceed. In one case, his men were reluctant to devalue their new slaves for later resale by getting them pregnant. Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular:

"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 interruptus?" 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.” (Bukhari 34:432)

As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims.

As one might imagine, Muhammad's obvious approval of raping women captured in battle and his own personal participation as recorded in many places is of intense inconvenience to the Muslim apologists of our time. For this reason, some of them attempt to explain away these many episodes and Qur'anic references to sex with captives by pretending that these are cases in which women have fled bad marriages and sought refuge with the Muslims. Some apologists even refer to them as "wives," even though the Qur'an makes a clear distinction between "those whom thy right hand possesses" and true wives (see Sura 33:50).

Beyond the desperation of the 21st century apologist however, there is absolutely nothing in the historical text that supports this rosy revision of Muslim history. The women of the Banu Mustaliq were sold into slavery following their rape:

"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 (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 Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

In fact, female slaves were traded like any other simple commodity by Muhammad and his band of devoted followers:

"Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham/Hisham 693)

Is it Islamic to sell one's wife for horses? Clearly these were not wives!

More importantly, by definition a "captured" woman is not one who is fleeing her husband. She is fleeing her captor (ie. the Muslim slave raider). This hadith describes a typical raid, in which the women and children are captured as they are attempting to flee the attacking Muslims:

“…and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children [escaping in the distance]. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along” (Sahih Muslim 4345)

The Muslim narrator sees the women trying to escape (following the massacre of their men) and cuts off their route by shooting an arrow into their path. These aren't women trying to seek refuge with the Muslims. They are trying to avoid capture by the Muslims.

The same hadith goes on to recount that Muhammad personally demanded one of the captured women for his own use:

I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: “Give me that girl.” (Sahih Muslim 4345)

The prophet of Islam and his companions used war to collect women for personal sexual use and for trading. Unless she was arbitrarily declared as someone's wife, the woman became a sex slave. In no case was her fate tied to anything that she had personally done, nor was she given a choice about her future.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-rape.htm
 
He's Christian. He's defending the Quran because his own Holy Bible also supports the Earth being the centre of the universe, and that Adam was the first man, and that humanity is only 6,000 years old. All these were part of Church doctrine in the early centuries of its reign.

Remember how Gallileo and Copernicus were persecuted by the Church for proclaiming that the Earth revolves round the Sun?

Cheebye Moose Limb, you have always barge into anti Islam teaching to talk rubbish and spoil the topic. Everyone can check to verify this! You chow cheebye pedo goat fucker!
 
Cheebye Moose Limb, you have always barge into anti Islam teaching to talk rubbish and spoil the topic. Everyone can check to verify this! You chow cheebye pedo goat fucker!

I didn't barge in to 'spoil the topic'. I merely wanted to state my point: religions are all fairy tales, and while some religions, like Christianity, have moved on to embrace scientific evidence, others like Islam haven't.

So I'm not surprised by your post about Muslim scholars believing that the world is flat. That's all. Christianity has been there, done that. Islam is just slower to evolve.
 
I didn't barge in to 'spoil the topic'. I merely wanted to state my point: religions are all fairy tales, and while some religions, like Christianity, have moved on to embrace scientific evidence, others like Islam haven't.

So I'm not surprised by your post about Muslim scholars believing that the world is flat. That's all. Christianity has been there, done that. Islam is just slower to evolve.

Cheebye! Over more than a thousand years the sand niggas have not evolved. They still clamour for halal slaughter and shariah. You can wait another thousand years. I don't have the time to wait while this bastard ideology based on demonic worship and satanic acts continue. In other words, you can fuckoff with your idea that Islam is even a religion. Everything to do with it's religion is fake. Either was borrowed or stolen or changed from so many different religions and not just Judaism and Christianity but Arab pagan and Zoroastrianism religions.

Islam Exposed (Pagan Origin of Islam)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nj25qJw0iQ
 
The seven virgin part already is a very good gauge of whatever the contents is trying to preach..
 
theoretically its possible if the entire solar system is moving along the milky way.
 
Back
Top