English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Consider the fact that the doctrines of Islam are all plagerized from other religions BEFORE its birth. Pagan and monotheistic traditions are ramshakled throughout the haddiths and quran.

In the day and place of Muhammad, religion was everything. Evolution is simply the process of adaption to changes in the climate over time. Socially, the climate was all religion, and you had two choices "compete of conform".

Imagine that you wanted to compete with the pagan and monotheistic religions of Muhammad's day...that is, you wanted to trump the order of the day, overtake it, impose a new paradigm...rule the world...how would you do it?

You might start by contrasting your faith with the dominate one (Christianty). The surest way to do this would be to articulate the opposite of "turn the other cheek". Wouldnt that be the proper evolutionary step?

Remember people, evolution doesnt mean "better", it means better able to survive in an particular climate within a particular time.

2006-10-06 10:33:07 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

16 answers

No. Islam is in violation to the rules of evolution because it inhibits the advancement of every society that it dominates. This is why sick "palestinians" must go to Israeli hospitals for medical treatment. Rock throwing never cured anything...

2006-10-06 10:42:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Multiple issues are in this question.

First, is evolution a specific scientific term that is limited to biological development? If so, then the question may be defective.

Second, you assume that people can create a religion and tailor the religion to compete with other religions. This means that religion is merely a man made marketing scheme that can be tweaked however desired to achieve the desired result. Religious types will vehemently oppose this premise.

Assuming that evolution applies to social organizations and that religion is nothing more than a man made set of proclamations, it is questionable whether there is an advantage in opposing the strongest religion. If Christianity is the dominant religion, then diametrically opposing Christianity should lead to the challenger's demise since Christianity is the stronger religion. Rather, the new religion should seek to occupy an area that does not have a strong Christian presence so that it doesn't need to compete against Christianity. Only after the new religion is strong enough to go head to head with Christianity should such a challenge be mounted.

2006-10-06 10:51:06 · answer #2 · answered by eddygordo19 6 · 0 0

If as you say Islam plagarized parts from other religions of the Prophet Mohammeds (pbuh) time, then why does the Koran have things in it that were not known until recently? Things like embryology, the Koran tells how cells divide, it talks about how the earth and sun are round at a time when popular belief said that the world was flat, it says that there are two types of seas with a barrier in between, it talks of the role of mountains in stabilizing the earths crusts and the location of pain receptors in the body. How could anyone have known these things, there were no microscopes to know how a cell divides. The Koran has never been disproven by Science, in fact it can be proven by scientific method and much of what is in todays textbooks is in the Koran. None of the other holy books can say that.
Secondly, the climate was not all religion in Arabia, they worshipped idols, when the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was born the Kaa'ba was full of pagan idols. The Prophet (pbuh) and the early Muslims had to literally fight for their lives and left Mecca for Medinah when the Prophet (pbuh) was about 52. This is not exactly conforming or competing, being the Prophet did not make Mohammed (pbuh) rich or give him an easy life, he continued to work throughout his life and lived a very poor life, his wife once said that from the time he became the prophet until his death he did not once eat bread made from fine flour. They lived on dates and water. So it was not for wealth.
And as far as evolution is concerned, do you think that religion should change because of the people or that religion should change people? I believe that it is the latter and that Islam has the power to change lives for the better. Read about it, I challenge you.

2006-10-06 11:13:57 · answer #3 · answered by brendagho 4 · 1 1

Statistically and in practice evolution actually does mean getting better and more able and likely to pass on more of your own genes to subsequent generations. Anyone might survive, the process of evolution involves producing offspring that are constantly mutating and throwing up adaptions that become better able to survive than the original archetypes from which they came. Social and religious evolution are abstractions driven by concepts not biology.

2006-10-06 10:52:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Wow. You are very prejudiced.
I hold people like you up to the KKK, and I cannot tell the difference, except that one super-right-wing-"Christian", and the other is... Wait! You are the same!
Anyways, at the time of Muhammad, Europe was in what scholars call the "Dark Ages." Yes, Christianity was the major EUROPEAN religion of the day, yes, it was a tool for priests to get ultimate power (much like those fundamentalist Christians" are today). If they believe in the same God as you, which they do, (just a different name and a different prophet) why not accept their aid? Stop alienating them. They are just like you, only with a different religion. Respect them, as you would like to be respected. That is the Golden Rule of Christianity. Live it.
Signed,
A Freethinking Christian

2006-10-06 10:40:44 · answer #5 · answered by Zachary J 3 · 3 1

Yes. As well as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, & Buddaism. By the way Christianity is not the dominate one Hinduism is. The name of the game is survival. How can any religion not be predatory?

2006-10-06 10:45:19 · answer #6 · answered by patblock1 1 · 0 0

Las Vegas Steve, you are so arrogant! I can't believe you've read the Quran, and still reject, and try to degrade Islam. Amazing. Allah says it, though, that most people refuse to believe. Even after clear signs have been shown to them, they go on rejecting. You'll probably be even more upset to know that this "superbug" you're referring to is the fastest growing religion in the world. We have 100,000 newly converted muslims every year in America. Sorry if you don't like it, but it looks like you'll just have to live with it!

2006-10-06 21:53:32 · answer #7 · answered by Safiyah 3 · 0 1

Islam is not plagiarized, it was revealed from the one and only God to confirm the prior revelations.

The Quran: Impossible to Imitate

[11:13] If they say, "He fabricated (the Quran)," tell them, "Then produce ten suras like these, fabricated, and invite whomever you can, other than GOD, if you are truthful."


[11:14] If they fail to meet your challenge, then know that this is revealed with GOD's knowledge, and that there is no god except He. Will you then submit?

[11:15] Those who pursue this worldly life and its material vanities, we will pay them for their works in this life, without the least reduction.

[11:16] It is they who gave up their share in the Hereafter, and, consequently, Hell is their lot. All their works are in vain; everything they have done is nullified.

If you pray sincerely, Allah will remove the anger from your heart.

2006-10-06 10:40:50 · answer #8 · answered by Muse 4 · 2 2

Aren't you feeling bore from offensing Islam? Don't you have anything better to do in your life?

Islam is the true religion and it is not copy and paste from other religions as you claim..evolution?

Prove this first before talking about it like "fact".

2006-10-06 10:41:33 · answer #9 · answered by mido 4 · 1 1

a lotta words to ask if recent changes are for the purpose of gaining control which it is, but there is that long term oppression they have been going through for a long long time and if a people is to escape oppression then is it not reasonable to use violence to do so?? My own thoughts are that Gandhi had the better way but violence has such a traditional appeal.

2006-10-06 10:41:04 · answer #10 · answered by icheeknows 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers