Topic: Important warnings:

[As-Sunni]

Beware of those who claim matters contrary to the truth of Islam.

Adam was not the first creation, and all human beings originate from him.

Moreover, Prophet Muhammad descended from Prophet Adam.

 Prophet Muhammad was not the first creation, as some people claim.

Also, beware of those who claim the first creation is the light of our Prophet.

This is also invalid.

There is no sahih hadith from the Prophet claiming such.

There is, however, a fabricated hadith that the Prophet addressed Jabir by saying: "The first creation is the light of your Prophet, O Jabir."

The hafidh, Ahmad al-Ghumariyy, mentioned this hadith was fabricated in his book entitled, Al-Mughir ^Ala-l-Jami^ is-Saghir and the hafidh, as-Suyutiyy, said this hadith is not confirmed.

He mentioned it in two (2) of his books: Al-Fatawaand The Explanation of at-Tirmidhiyy.

What was confirmed from the Prophet was that the first creation was the original water, which exists now underneath the ^Arsh.


Beware of theories which say human beings descended from apes or that Adam was a primitive caveman.

Adam was the first man and the first human to receive the Revelation of prophethood.

He was the first messenger of Allah and he is the ancestor of every member of the humankind.

He taught the first people how to live and how to worship Allah correctly.

He was an honored and blessed creation of Allah.

He was created from soil. In Surat al-Hajj Ayah 6, Allah said: which means: [O you people, if you doubt about the matter of the Resurrection, then think about the matter that Adam was created from soil.]

That is, should one have difficulty conceptualizing that a person can be resurrected--considering this matter is unlikely, a weak possibility, or one that does not occur--then remember that Allah created Adam from soil.

Know that the One Who created Adam from soil has the Power to resurrect you after you turn back into soil.

This is the truth about Prophet Adam.

[Sami Yusuf Islam]

Great Post Brother....

tell me please, is there a special sect somewhere that claims that the first creation is the Light of the prophet

who says that ??

[Devoted]

Unfortunetly there is.

We find some people from the east with such beliefs, places in india and pakistan and others,,, they came with affirming hadith jabir and they use it to prove that the Prophet was inhuman!!


Prophet Muhammad was a human from a mother and a father.

[Milk]

baraka-Llahu feek

[Carlos Spinoza]

Beware of theories which say human beings descended from apes or that Adam was a primitive caveman.

Why? Why should we beware of the truth? It is obvious that we descended from primates. The evidence for such evolution of the species is more than abundant. Isn't it time to finally abandon superstitious fairytales and our wishful thinking, and to accept what stares us right in the face?

[AICP-FLORIDA]

since i knooooooow that you are not an expert i shall post a refutation to your claim that is designed for beginners.  it is as follows: someone might say....Today, such branches of science as paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life to come about as a result of chance and to emerge by itself from natural conditions. The living cell, it is commonly agreed by the world of science, is the most complex structure that mankind has so far encountered. Modern science has revealed that just one living cell has a much more complex structure and mutually interconnected complicated systems than a large city. Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate parts emerge at the same time and in full working order. Otherwise, it will serve no purpose, and will fall apart over time and disappear. We cannot expect that its parts developed by chance over millions of years as claimed by the theory of evolution. For that reason, the complex design in just one cell clearly shows that God created life.

It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.

Not only could the cell, the smallest unit of life, never have come about by chance in the primitive and uncontrolled conditions in the early days of the Earth, as evolutionists would have us believe, it cannot even be synthesized in the most advanced laboratories of the twentieth century. Amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins that make up the living cell, cannot of themselves build such organelles in the cell as mitochondria, ribosomes, cell membranes, or the endoplasmic reticulum, let alone a whole cell. For this reason, the claim that evolution brought about the first cell by chance remains the product of a fantasy based entirely on imagination.

Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, makes the following admission regarding how impossible it is for life to have come about by chance:
Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance… 3

The fossil record represents another crushing defeat for the theory of evolution. Among all the fossils discovered over the years, there is not one trace of the intermediate forms that would be necessary if living things were to have evolved stage by stage from simple species to more complex ones, as the theory of evolution claims. If such creatures had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. If these intermediate forms had ever really existed, their numbers would be even greater than the number of animal species we know today, and everywhere the world should be full of their fossil remains. Evolutionists look for these intermediate forms in all the feverish fossil research that has been carried out since the nineteenth century. However, there has been no trace of these intermediate forms, despite all the eager searching for the last 150 years.

In short, the fossil record shows that living species emerged suddenly and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms to advanced ones as evolution claims.
Evolutionists have tried very hard to find evidence for their theory or so, but have actually proved by their own hand that no evolutionary process could have been possible. In conclusion, modern science reveals the following indisputable fact: Living things did not emerge as the result of blind chance, but God created them.

[AICP-FLORIDA]

not only can the claim of evolutionists and darwinists and atheists be refuted using science as we can see from my previous post, we refute them by using the judgements of the sound mind as well.

in short, the sound mind does not accept that a building built itself or that a book wrote it self.

EVERY BOOK HAS AN AUTHOR AND EVERY BUILDING HAS A BUILDER; THEREFORE, BY PRIORITY  BY CONSEQUENCE THIS WORLD, THIS UNIVERSE, WHICH IS BY FAR MORE COMPLICATED THAN A BOOK OR A BUILDING, HAS A CREATOR.

i advise you to read thoroughly thru the scientific post.  i guarentee that you will not find any proof to refute it, as you will not find any proof to refute the aforementioned.  we are here to invite people to the truth, not to have baseless spats and get nowhere in the process.
walhamdulillah

[Carlos Spinoza]

Insults deleted.

Please take note of the rules of the forum. Thanks.

-Milk

[Carlos Spinoza]

Milk. I didn't insult anybody. I merely described the objections of the individual as laughable and amateurish. And that much, they were.

Here's the bottom line. Mr or Mrs Florida assumed that I am a beginner on the topic. The fact of the matter is that I am not. The poster, on the other hand, exhibited their own rudimentary knowledge of the matter by quoting famous and long-ago refuted arguments of the Christian fundamentalist fanatic pseudo-scientists known as the "creationists".

Note, I have not insulted ANYBODY. I am criticizing. There IS a difference. If criticism warrants having a post deleted, then I advise the owner to post that in the rules.

Now, to Mr or Mrs Florida: if you really want to have an honest discussion of the matter, then I am more than willing. But such a discussion CANNOT and MUST NOT be based on fifty different issues at the same time. If you want to discuss paleontology, we can do so. If you want to discuss the origins of the first organisms, we can do so. But, like I said, NOT fifty things at once. That is a waste of our collective time.

Before you open an issue, I'll also take the liberty to remind you, if you were already aware, that the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists on the earth today totally support the theory of evolution at least in a general sense, if not in all its details. This means that whatever objections you may bring up have all been answered in abundance, and to assume otherwise is just plain naivety. "Creationist" writings are geared precisely towards trying to make the reader feel as if what they are saying is conclusive, unrivaled, fact. Reality tells a different tale. Their method is simply to exploit the ignorance of the masses in matters of biology in order to help them believe in Biblical superstitions and ancient creation myths which are of absolutely no benefit to modern man whatsoever.

Again, all the above is my opinion. I would appreciate if it were not deleted, otherwise what is the point of a discussion forum?

Peace.

[Ihab]

Carlos, people who commit blasphemy by claiming that you and your mother's origin is a monkey and that you were not created by Allah are not scientists they are ignorant blasphemers. Their words that are against religion have no weight and we don't want to hear them.
This forum is to spread learning about matters of the religion. Scientists who are against Darwin refuted him, go do a search online and read about their responses if you're seeking to know. If you only want to argue but you don't want to listen with your mind and heart don't waste our time with an incorrect "theory".

   I found this for example online, a scientist said
:"While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either.

With the re-discovery of Mendel's genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creating new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species.

The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly, experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene is likely to destroy functioning completely and is also extremely unlikely to enhance functioning, presented another serious problem for evolution. This problem was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for the complete transformation of a species, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes.

With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species transformation totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random. "