His response in red

I had a skim through your document, thanks for the corrections on the references which ive revised on my blog.

Thankyou very much and I appreciate it. To summarise my thoughts, I found many of them to be similar arguments Ive come across before and in general were along the follow these lines (I wont list everything point by point otherwise well be back to 100 pages) The question is not whether they were old or afresh, the question is, were plausible explanations given, along with strong statistical results and scientific data given or not? If I were a creationist and you were to give me the evidence for micro and macro evolution, and if I were to reject it, the simplest shoot out I could make was to say that yeah, Ive heard it all before -if I pointed to a weird claim of the Quran e.g. the day of judgement after 100 years hadith, you said it was talking about all humans living up to exactly 100 years of age. Not only that, but you expected me to prove that everyone around at the time did not live up to exactly 100 years of age, otherwise my argument was thrown out??? This is the hadith: Sahih Bukhari Vol 1, Bk 3, No 116 Once the Prophet led us in the Isha prayer during the last days of his life and after finishing it he said: "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? [Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night] And this is what you said: [if I pointed to a weird claim of the Quran e.g. the day of judgement after 100 years hadith] Do you realize the mistake you were making now? If not, the read the words in square brackets above again. - if I pointed to a silly sounding miracle, the response was miracles do exist, so whats you argument? No, actually this was unfair. I never said that miracles do happen and that is the explanation. What I tried to demonstrate was that, we have more strong evidence to infer

that he was the prophet of God, and the only things you brought forward were either things that are going to come to happenor things which have already passed out years ago for which we do not have any historical data to verify the incidents. You NEVER brought anything that he said which was shown to be historically wrong, infact on the very contrary, I have given you many hadiths, which were PROVEN to be historically correct if you had a closer look. So, on that note, If I have no evidence for those particular claims, I also do not have any evidence against them. And given that I have more evidence of his truthfulness, his predictions coming true, and my own particular bias, I can believe that what he said about the past (which we do not know independently) is correct. On the same note, you can believe based upon your particular bias(and with no evidence as I demonstrated) that what he said about the past did not happen, but just because the words look funny to you, logically you can not call him a Liar, since you yourself dont know with 100% accuracy whether it happened or not. Now notice, we do not call him truthful on these hadeeths, but on the other hand, you call him a liar on the same hadeeths, so we do not want to produce evidence, you do, because the claim was from your side. Is this understandable or do I have to clarify again?

- or a medicinal cure that Muhammed got wrong, you said he was not a Muhammed was a doctor but an ordinary man. Then when you found some random western scientist justifying one of these claims, you pointed to it as if Muhammed had miraculous knowledge. Your approach should be consistent if you want the reader to empathise with your arguments. No, once again, you did not understand my contentions. See, we believe this: Muhammad (SAW) was an ordinary man, but also a prophet of God. And he was not God, so logically, he had gaps in understanding in his scientific paradigm, and whatever was told to him by God was beyond that only. So having said that, anything we find irreconcilable with todays scientific paradigm, which was in a hadeeth, we can safely say that he was talking based on his current knowledge only. And when we find something that he predicted, and which came out to be true, we say that it was told him by Allah, the assumption is based on the fact that, there are more predictions of his that came true, and there is more evidence to believe that he was a Prophet, therefore, anything which he said was mistaken, was his own error in understanding, and what I said was, that it only happened on trivial issue like such, which by no chance interfere with his prophetic career.. Now notice that you say: Then when you found some random western scientist justifying one of these claimsactually, I did not claim anything, instead you claimed him to be a liar (if youre talking about that fly hadeeth) and I demonstrated that no, modern science do accept what he said back then. I didnt claim he had miraculous knowledge, you said he was mistaken; I only showed that your understanding was not complete. Moreover, if you were following the chain under this post, I did present further evidence that once his companions asked him to cultivate some date palms, and he gave them his advice, but the product after many months was not satisfactory, so the

companions came back and inquired, so he said something like this: Im only the prophet of God, you know better about these worldly matters than me(I cant find the reference, but I promise, this hadeeth does exist)and on the camel urine, my contention was, that those people had some unknown disease, which was actually cured by the urineso because we dont really know which disease it was, we can not experiment that until its done on every single virus that exists today, and Im sure that camel urine has not been used to even test the basic ones, so who knows maybe there lies a cure in it for some unknown disease?...furthermore, I did demonstrate that urine do have hormones which can be used as a cure for some known diseases. But even if no disease can be cured by camel urine(after testing it on every single virus that exists today), I can safely conclude that he was talking about from the knowledge of his own days!...but how are you so sure that it can not cure anything? when discussing gruesome/barbaric nature, the response was look at all the crime you have in the West because you dont carry these punishments ammm, actually NO!...I gave you SOLID statistics, to show that under islam, crime rate is low, and what barbaric? Arent criminals supposed to be punished? Have you ever been to Saudi, how many hand have you seen cut?...I went there, and I hardly saw ANY!...what you dont understand is that Islamic punishments are barbaric, but ONLY for criminals, and the purpose of them is not to just punish, but to rehabilitate the society using the fear factor, and why do I say that, because I have statistics at my back. Not much people are punished in Saudi, yet crime rate is LOW!...talk about rapes, bulgeries, adultery you name itcheck out saudi ffor every single crime that you can think of on the same website, youll always find it in the last lines!...My contention was this: if God exists, and Muhammad(SAW) was his messenger, than logically, he would give us a system best for human kindsomething which works, something which is on human nature, in perfect harmonyand sharia actually is, and statistics speak for themselvesif you didnt understand this, then Im afraid, did you really put your bias on hold when you started reading my document, as I adviced in the very start? - wars & widescale destruction justified on the basis of muslims never being the initial transgressors (using muslim sources of course) and because America does it once again, NO, read it again please. And what wars are you actually talking about? If you wanna talk about the wars fought in the golden age of islam, I can quote valid history of what exemplary societies Muslims initiated, to this day their inhabitants remember their muslim emperors, their justice, their love for humanity. and if you wanna talk about today, then Id say youre already brainwashed by the west. How many initiative wars are being fought today under the name of Islam?...be fair, and you tell mewhos destroying Afghanistan, whos destroying Palestine, whos destroying Iraq?...and dont Muslims even have the right to defend their lands, in your view now? Just because CNN shows you clips of bearded, furious mullahs slaughtering Americans, they become terrorists to you, do you live in Pakistan? Go ask someone whos family has been destroyed by your American drones, go ask the muslim father whos daughters were raped infront of his eyes by your beloved

secular Americans in iraq, go ask the kashmeri mother whos young boy was tortured to death by the Indian armyjesus for Gods sake give me a break!! - some bizarre justifications which would be pointless to counter, like the stone running away with Abrahams clothes hadith, you mentioned that its possible that the stone may have been rolling down an incline, and all the clothes got stuck to the stone. Or your justification as to why maternal uncles looked like kids depending on when the orgasm takes place, which was just a waste of time and to be quite frank, absolutely stupid. I know it was a difficult one to justify, but you really shouldnt have included them in the document, as it made me take the rest of your work (some of it good I might add) less seriously as you lost valuable credence & respect for the rest of your arguments. And I am just not prepared to waste time & energy on reading 100 pages if I believe the author to be disengenuous in his work. And no, you could not prove me wrong, but I do agree that I had no positive evidence for that whole static friction scenario, therefore I take my words back, the best I can say is that it was a miracle, for you to call him a liar based on that, you have to prove evidence that it did not happen. And for me to call him truthful based on that, I have to provide evidence that it did happen, but since it was not my claim, you need to justify your claim as to how does it make him a liar, when you yourself dont know whether the incident took place or not. - biased sources of Muslims with a vested interest were included as evidence of some claims a bit like me using Ali Sinas thoughts, or Israel statistics on Muslim violence You gave me hadeeths, I gave you hadeethyou gave me Quran, I gave you Quran. And no, Ali sina is not a master on Arabic, he has no degrees on the Islamic creed and the rules of fiqh, and he is an ex-muslim determined to to prove islam wrong. If I gave you zakir niak, who is determined to prove islam right, then you could come back with ali sinabut I gave you neutral, sources who werent even defending islam in the first place. They were simply stating what happened to be the case!but If you think they were not authentic or something, please prove to us and then we will see, if you gave me ali sina, I would do the same, and trust me, I have read ali sina, and hes the biggest story maker Ive seen so farbut I know youd think this is biased, so nevermind. - I would advise you on the whole not to blindly use random articles dug out from Muslim forums that were written by anybody within the west with Dr starting of their name ( which is what you used to support claims like drinking camels urine, because one chemical in urine when separated is good for us, or eating flys wings as a fact). You probably already know that science published in a reputable journal constitutes serious science, in particular something in a peer-reviewed one. Its a bit like me pulling out a quotation from the imam at my local mosque & using that to refute one of your arguments.

I never dug out any random article, blindlywhatever I presented was well researched, and well thought out. It should not bother you whether it was a muslim name or an atheiststhe thing which should matter, if youre looking for an honest answer, is what does the material say. If that is incorrect or misquoted, I challenge you, throw it on my face! Just saying something is this or that does not carry any weight. And where did I try to justify any theoretical sciences?...I presented what I did, based on experimental data!...statistics and laboratory information!...is it not the case? And the little bits of theoretical sciences which I did talk about was to show you, that jinns and stuff like that is already in theoretical physics, so its not impossible to imagine entities of other dimensions, and God partical thereof etc etc. do you want evidence? And you seem to undermine the study that was done on the flys wing, I states very clearly that more information can be provided on the readers requestI just reduced the information because you yourself saidreduce the size or I wont bother reading itdo you want me to give you more evidence on that one? -Or if according to you if something contradicted the quran, you conveniently chose to ignored it. If a hadeeth contradicted the Quran, or if Quran contradicted itself?... Im sorry but I didnt get your contention. But if it was the first onethen I would recommend you to read a good book on the sciences of hadeeth to understand the complexities involved, or ask a scholar. Or do you want me to make another document for you? And if thats the second one, then I dont think you gave me something on which Quran contradicted itself, did you? - Ive mentioned this before but I think you could benefit by looking (not for this debate but in general) at the principle of occams razor Occams razor is a well-known philosophical principle that states in order to come to an opinion, or find the closest truth when factual information is limited, we should never make any more assumptions (not supported by fact) than the minimum needed. Occams razor is not very efficient when it comes to immaterial, analogue things. For example, if I were to argue with a hindu, that according to occams razor, there is no need to multiply metaphysical identities when only one can do the whole jobbut do you think he will leave his religion because of this? Ofcourse not. Bias is the only thing which determines what is the best explanation for some phenomenon. Take our own concersation for example, near to you the simplest explanation that of Muhammad(SAW) marrying ayesha could be, that he was a pedophile, when even you can not conclusively show any near symptoms of medical pedophelia in his character to me, can you? On the other hand, the best explanation for this incidence near to me is, that he married her to strengthen ties with his friend abu bakr, taking in account all the valid history that is available to me. But why can not we agree with each other, because both of us come from a different bias, and both of us have their own brand of the best explanation near to us. Occams razor is a fail if you wanna discuss these things with me!

You did a pretty good job, but you might as well have saved yourself the effort of a hundred pages with just one line. All you had to say was all my claims contradicted the Quran because the Qurans says Muhammed was a very good messenger, hence rendering them all false. nope, not so easy mister!, you did not read my document carefully. When he used harsh measures, I showed it to lower the crime rates and make society peaceful, with statistics. When he predicted anything about the future, I showed all of them to be correct, 100% using history, when I talked about war, I presented you views of the most authentic scholars and from hadeeths themselves how merciful he was on the captives, and not a shred of evidence was available to suggest that he raped anyone, or his companions did, he discouraged slavery, he placed much more reward on freeing a slave, and historically proved that slavery was not started by islam, it was there when islam came into beingand Muhammad(SAW)s teachings encouraged to demolish slavery, and jesus btw, have you even read wikipedia on Islamic slaveryit was introduced back, after its rise in the west!!...islam gave the slave the freewill to buy their freedom, and put a very low price on itI showed that whatever your claims were, except 2 of them 1) the camel urine, 2) the black seed one(which I have explained above)was either scientifically correct, or you had no evidence to suggest that it didnt happen, or it was to happen in the future, without any evidence for your claims, you called him a liar, delusional etc etc. you were making the claims, and you yourself didnt produce any evidence whatsoever!...so no, I dont quite think alike now.

Nevertheless I appreciate your attempts at taking the accusations and investing your time to refute them. Thankyou very much, it is much appreciated. And above somewhere I read you saying something on that child resemblance hadeeth that it was such a pure waste of time, well, as I mentioned, I dont have the slightest idea what was it all about, so could you point out the flaws for me please so that I can show them to the relevant person? This was his final statement (im just posting the relevant stuff) and then It was done: No, you dont have to make yourself any clearer - I agree with much of what you wrote. But you misunderstood many of the points I was originally making. Its doesnt

matter anyway, I just thought I owed it to you to read through it, and solic...it my opinions & thoughts given the efforts you made towards the document, that all.