Story of Jesus and The Third Loaf of Bread

This is one of my favorite stories.

You would want to listen to it by clicking here:

Jesus and The Third Loaf of Bread ( Voice: Yusuf Estes )

Or read it here…

—–

Once upon a time, Jesus (peace be upon him) gave some money to one of his companions and he told him to go into town and get some food for everybody. And the man took the money, he went into town close by, bought the food. There wasn’t much money and all he was able to buy was three loafs of bread. And he was very-very hungry. And he realized that there was just these three loafs of bread.

So he decided to eat one loaf of the bread himself and then when he got back he just handed the bread over to Jesus asking, “Who ate the third loaf of bread?” And immediately the man said, “But there are only two loafs of bread.”

And Jesus (Peace and Blessings Upon him) didn’t say anything else but they continued on their journey with their companions.

Later on, the companions succeeded in hunting a deer, and they killed the deer, cooked it, and ate it. Then Jesus (PBUH) stood up and asked Allah to bring the deer back to life. And in less than a second the deer jumped back up and ran away. The people were amazed.

So then Jesus looked at the man who had gone after the bread and he said, “I’m asking you by the One who brought this deer back to life: Who ate the third loaf of bread?”

And immediately the man said, “There were only two loafs of bread.”

Again, Jesus (PBUH) didn’t say anything and they continued on the journey.

While they were walking they came across a river that has been flooded up. Jesus (PBUH) asked them to hold his hand so everyone joined hands with him and they were able to walk on top of the river and walk all the way to the side. When they got to the side the people were amazed.

Jesus then said to the same man, “I’m asking you, by the One who made it for us to be able to cross this river (by walking from on top of it): Who ate the third loaf of bread?”

And immediately he (the man) said, “Listen, there were only two loafs of bread.”

So Jesus didn’t say anything again and they went on.

Then they came to a dessert and Jesus (PBUH) took three big piles of sand, then he asked Allah to change it into gold. Suddenly the piles of sand became piles of gold, and he said, “One pile is for me, and one pile is for you, and the third pile is gonna be for the one who ate the third loaf of bread!”

The man quickly said, “I’m the one who ate the third loaf of bread.”

So Jesus said, “Then all three piles of gold are for you but do not accompany us anymore.”

But the man didn’t care, he was so happy and started dreaming about what he was going to do with it. Suddenly three thieves came and saw a man sitting alone with this huge pile of gold. First thing they did, they killed him, then they divided the gold.

They sent one of them to go to town to get something to eat then plan out their future. So one of the thieves went to town and bought some food. This guy poisoned the food so that when he comes back, his friend will die of the poisoned food and he can have all the gold for himself.

But his friend that he left behind were also plotting against him and decided that when this man comes back they will kill him, then divided his share of the gold.

When the man came back, the two killed him, then they ate the food he brought and both died of poison.

When Jesus (PBUH) came back with his companions, they passed by the very same spot, and there they saw their former companion lying on the ground and the other three thieves lying on the ground too, with all the three piles of gold.

And he pointed to this and said, “This is the life of this world (al-hayat ad-dunia) and this is what would do for those who seek after it.”

—————————————————————————————————–

End quote from the prophet about this story:

“Whoever chases after this world then Allah will make it so that all that he is going to do is keep being aware of how poor he is and let his affairs become falling apart; nothing will come to this man of this world accept what is destined for him.”

—–

Related quote:
Rasul Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “By Allah, I am not afraid that you will be poor, but I fear that worldly wealth will be bestowed upon you as it was bestowed upon those who lived before you. So you will compete amongst yourselves for it, as they competed for it, and it will destroy you as it did them.”
[Bukhari]

An Apple a Day – Nutritional Therapy in History

The history of science is the history of struggle against entrenched error. Many of the world’s greatest discoveries initially were rejected by the scientific community. And those who pioneered those discoveries often were ridiculed and condemned as quacks or charlatans.

Columbus was bitterly attacked for believing the Earth was round. Bruno was burned at the stake for claiming that Earth was not the center of the Universe. Galileo was imprisoned for teaching that the Earth moved around the Sun. Even the Wright Brothers were ridiculed for claiming that a machine could fly.

In the field of medicine, in the year 130 A.D., the physician Galen announced certain anatomic theories that later proved to be correct, but at the time he was bitterly opposed and actually forced to flee from Rome to escape the frenzy of the mob. In the Sixteenth Century, the physician Andreas Vesalius was denounced as an impostor and heretic because of his discoveries in the field of human anatomy. His theories were accepted after his death but, at the time, his career was ruined, and he was forced to flee from Italy. William Harvey was disgraced as a physician for believing that blood was pumped by the heart and moved around the body through arteries. William Roentgen, the discoverer of X-rays, at first was called a quack and then condemned out of fear that his “ray” would invade the privacy of the bedroom. William Jenner, when he first developed a vaccine against smallpox. Also was called a quack and was strongly criticized as a physician for his supposedly cruel and inhuman experiments on children. And Ignaz Semmelweis was fired from his Vienna hospital post for requiring his maternity staff to wash their hands.

Centuries ago it was not unusual for entire naval expeditions to be wiped out by scurvy. Between 1600 and 1800 the casualty list of the British Navy alone was over one million sailors. Medical experts of the time were baffled as they searched in vain for some kind of strange bacterium, virus, or toxin that supposedly lurked in the dark holds of the ships. And yet, for hundreds of years, the cure was already known and written in the record.

In the winter of 1535, when the French explorer Jacques Cartier found his ships frozen in the ice off the St. Lawrence River, scurvy began to take its deadly toll. Out of a crew of one hundred and ten, twenty-five already had died, and most of the others were so ill they weren’t expected to recover.

And then a friendly Indian showed them the simple remedy. Tree bark and needles from the white pine—both rich in ascorbic acid, or vitamin C—were stirred into a drink which produced immediate improvement and swift recovery.

Upon returning to Europe, Cartier reported this incident to the medical authorities. But they were amused by such “witch –doctor cures of ignorant savages” and did nothing to follow it up.[1]

Yes, the cure for scurvy was known. But, because scientific arrogance, it took over two hundred years and cost hundreds of thousands of lives before the medical experts began to accept and apply this knowledge.

“An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

Finally, in 1747, John Lind, a young surgeon’s mate in the British Navy discovered that oranges and lemons produced relief from scurvy and recommended that the Royal Navy include citrus fruits in the stores of all its ships. And yet, it still took forty-eight more years before his recommendation was put into effect. When it was, of course, the British were able to surpass all other sea-fearing nations, and the “Limeys” (so-called because they carried limes aboard ship) soon became the rulers of the Seven Seas. It is no exaggeration to say that the greatness of the British Empire in large measure was the direct result of overcoming scientific prejudice against vitamin therapy.

The twentieth century has proven to be no exception to this pattern. Only two generations ago large portions of the American Southeast were decimated by the dread disease of pellagra. The well-known physician Sir William Osler, in his Principles and Practice of Medicine, explained that in one institution for the insane in Leonard, North Carolina, one-third of the inmates died of this disease during winter months. This proved, he said, that pellagra was contagious and caused probably by an as yet undiscovered virus. As far back as 1914, however, Dr. Joseph Goldberger had proven that this condition was related to diet, and later showed that it could be prevented simply by eating liver or yeast. But it wasn’t until the 1940’s—almost thirty years later—that the “modern” medical world fully accepted pellagra as a vitamin B deficiency.[2]

The story behind pernicious anemia is almost exactly the same. The reason that these diseases were so reluctantly accepted as vitamin deficiencies is because men tend to look for positive cause-and-effect relationships in which something causes something else. They find it more difficult to comprehend the negative relationship in which nothing or the lack of something can cause an effect. But perhaps of even more importance is the realy of intellectual pride. A man who has spent his life acquiring scientific knowledge far beyond the grasp of his fellow human beings is not usually inclined to listen with patience to someone who lacks that knowledge—especially if that person suggests that the solution the scientist’s most puzzling medical problem is to be found in a simple back-woods or near-primitive concoction of herbs and foods. The scientist is trained to search for complex answers and tends to look with smug amusement upon solutions that are not dependent upon his hard-earned skills.

(World Without Cancer, G. Edward Griffin, 1^st edition 1974, p. 53-55)

[1] See Virgil J. Vogel’s American Indian Medicine (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970)

[2] See Edwin H. Ackerknecht, History and Geography of the Most Important Diseases (New York: Hafner Publishing Co., Inc., 1972) pp. 148-149

Reverent Attitude Towards nature as a Creation of God

The Indians called the white settlers, “the long knives” on account of their notorious reputation for cutting down trees and whole forests. In many parts of the old World, the same land which has been continuously cultivated by farmers for thousands of years is still fertile today but when the white colonists settled in America, the virgin soil was so badly abused that within less than a decade, it would become sterile, the pioneer would simply abandon it without any regrets and move on. In constrast, the primitive man, and especially the American Indian, had a tremendous reverence for the natural world as sacred which is why the white man found the New World an unspoiled and virgin content. Not only primitive man, but the higher religions also share this same reverence for the natural world. Islam means literally “peace”, not only between men but also includes peace with animals and plants. The Qur’an reminds believers that “every animal of the earth and every creature flying on two wings are like peoples unto you and then unto Allah they shall be gathered.” Once a man carelessly plucked some leaves from a tree and the Prophet Muhammad rebuked him saying: “Every leaf glorifies Allah.” Another follower came to the Prophet Muhammad and confessed that he had burnt down an ant-hill because one of the ants had stung him. The Prophet Muhammad scolded him, saying that he had destroyed a community which glorifies Allah. To the modern mind this may seem sentimental but such a reverent attitude towards nature as a creation of God—not arbitrary legislation imposed from above—is the only remedy to stop air and water pollution by greedy industrialists who seek short-term commercial profit at the expense of long-range public welfare.

(Islam and Western Society, Maryam Jameelah, Adam Publishers, New Delhi, 1982, p. 95-96)

Islamic View of Progress

On account of their Westernized education, they are unable to understand the fact that the Islamic view of life differs from modern Western ideals not only in providing different answers but even more, in asking entirely different questions. Even many of those who regard themselves as genuine Muslims who wish to promote the cause of Islam, can only think in Western terms.

Those who strive for Islamic regeneration must appeal to the nobler self in man which is as universal as his baser inclinations. Today almost everyone living in the giant urban counters subconsciously feels an intuitive emptiness in his days, a lack of purpose, direction and meaning in his existence which no amount of material goods and the frantic chase after “happiness” or enjoyment of sensual pleasures can satisfy. This is the province of religion and entirely beyond the sphere of science, at least in its present form.

The present century can rightly be described as the age of the predominance of Western philosophical thought and learning. This materialistic point of view, supported and propagated by the educational system and the mass-media in almost every country in the East and West without exception, has become global. All the influential people in positions of power and authority in the political, economic, social, educational and cultural spheres are all adhering to this viewpoint. The dominance of Western culture and philosophical thought is so pervasive and universal that even many sincere Muslims who are struggling against it in contemporary Islamic revivalist movements, turn out on closer examination to be greatly influenced by Western thought in their approach, methods and interpretation m  ,/s so that they lose most of their effectiveness.

The central ideas in the Western view of life repudiate all theological and transcendental concepts, insisting instead that physical phenomena and concrete matter should become the most important objectives of human scrutiny and any quest after God, soul, absolute morality and salvation in the Hereafter would find no place. The political, economic and cultural domination of the West afflicted all non-European peoples with acute inferiority-complexes. A host of modernizers arose simultaneously in all these lands to re-interpret their traditional religions and philosophies in a secular, materialistic way. We Muslims have fallen just as easy prey to these same fallacies.

As a result, the average modern-educated Muslim fears above all else to be stigmatized as “backward.” He is far more terrified of being labeled as “backward” than becoming sinful. He longs far more for “progress” than any moral or spiritual virtue. Such modernists among us shout from the rooftops that Islam must be the symbol of “advancement” and “progress”, that “backward” Muslim is a de-Muslimized Muslim. They are so ashamed of Muslim history, traditional Islamic institutions and culture that they are, in fact, far more harshly critical of their religious heritage than the Westerners they strive so frantically to imitate.

On account of their Westernized education, they are unable to understand the fact that the Islamic view life differs from modern Western ideals not only in providing different answers but even more, in asking entirely different questions. Even many of those who regard themselves as genuine Muslims who wish to promote the cause of Islam, can only think in Western terms.

The question of “backward” versus “progressive” of even “primitive” versus “civilized”, is just as irrelevant to the Islamic view of life as the “equality” of women or the right to absolute “freedom” of thought and action. Although all useful knowledge and positive achievements of the West and other non-Islamic peoples may be appropriated by us, provided we use this creatively and adapt it to our own needs and requirements and not mere slavish imitation out of feelings of inferiority, it is entirely wrong to suppose (as our modernists have done) that the Islamic mission cannot succeed in the world until we are materially equal or superior to our adversaries. Islamic history provides the most effective refutation of this wide-spread fallacy.
To the sophisticated Persians and Romans of the days of the Holy Prophet and the Sahabah or Companions, the early Muslims of Arabia must have appeared hopelessly “backward” and “primitive.” Though grossly inferior in numbers and poorly equipped, often ragged and half-starved, they successfully vanquished infinitely more “civilized” foes. They were never ashamed of their material poverty nor did they regard it as any obstacle for the propagation of their mission. The following Hadith is elopuent testimony to the contempt of the Holy Prophet for worldly advantages:

Umar Ibn Khattab said: When I entered the room, I saw the Holy Prophet lying on a date palm mat on the floor. There was no bedding between it and him. The marks of the matting were imprinted on his body. He had a leather bag filled with the bark of the date-palm as his pillow. I noticed that the contents of his room comprised of only three pieces of tanned skin and a handful of barley lying in a corner. I looked about but failed to find anything else. I began to weep. “Oh Prophet of Allah!” I cried. “Pray that Allah may grant ample provisions for us. The Persians and the Romans, who have no faith in Allah, enjoy abundance and prosperity. Then why should the chosen Prophet of Allah live in such dire poverty?” The Holy Prophet was resting on his hard pillow but when he heard me talk like this, he quickly sat up and rebuked me. “Oh Umar! Why do you envy their ease and comfort? Are you not satisfied that for them is this world and for us the Hereafter?” I implored: “O Prophet of Allah, forgive me! I was in error.”

(Islam and Western Society, M. Jameelah, 1982, p. 56-59)

Autobiographical Except from Burzuyah, an Eminent Persian Physician

Science as it developed under Muslim rule was far more humane than the science we know today. Here is an autobiographical except from an eminent Persian physician—Burzuyah—who although originally of the Parsi faith, influenced through his association with the great medical research centre at Jundishapur, Muslim doctors by practicing his healing profession in strict conformity with Islamic ethical ideals:

My father belonged to the soldier class; my mother was the daughter of a family of distinguished priests. One of the favours that God gave to me was that I was the favourite child and that I received a better education than my brothers. My parents sent me when I was seven years old to an elementary school. As soon as I could read and write well, I returned to my parents. Then I decided to study Science. The first brach of Science that attracted me was Medicine. It interested me so much because I knew how excellent it was. The more I learnt, of it, the more I liked it and the more eagerly I studied it.

As soon as I had reached such a degree of proficiency in medicine that I could think of diagnosing and treating patients, I began to deliberate within myself, for I observed that there were four things to which men aspire. Which of these ought I to aim at—money, prosperity, fame, or a heavenly reward? What decided my choice was the observation that all intelligent, educated people praise medicine and that no religion condemns it. I also used to read in the medical books at Jundisapur that the best doctor is the one who sacrifices his personal gain for the welfare of his patients and seeks only a reward from God in the Hereafter. So I was determined to follow this lead and to aim at no earthly gain lest I be like a merchant who sells for a valueless bauble a ruby by which he might have gained all the riches of the world.

I also read in the medical works of the ancients that if a physician aspires to gain through his profession a reward in the Hereafter, he will not lose his share in this world’s goods. Thus he resembles a sower who carefully scatters his barley grain in his field and for whom there springs up together with his harvest of barley, all sorts of useful herbs.

So with the hope of reward in the Hereafter, I set out to treat the sick. I exerted myself in the treatment of patients whom I expected to cure. And no less did I strive in those cases where I could not hope to effect a cure. In such cases, I tried at least to make their sufferings more bearable. Whenever I could, I used to attend to my cases in person. When this was not possible, I would write out for them the necessary prescriptions and give them medicines. From no one do I ever demand any fee or other reward. And none of my fellow physician did I envy who equaled me in skill or surpassed me in fame or fortune if he were lax in his standards of honesty in word or deed.

(Science and Civilization in Islam, Syed Hossein Nasr, New American Library, New York, 1968, p. 189-190; as quoted in Islam and Western Society, M. Jameelah, 1982, p. 185-186)

Hazrat Rabi’a bin Haisham was a slave. After having been set free, he engaged himself in acquiring knowledge and in the course of time became the Imam and leader of the Muslims of Basra where he had settled. He used to undertake work only for the sake of Allah. One day he asked his wife to prepare a special dish. Since he was not in the habit of making demands for himself, his wife prepared the dish with great care and attention. Hazrat Rabi’a took the food when ready to a neighbor who was insane and not in possession of his senses and fed him with his own hands. The saliva was dripping profusely from the mouth of the afflicted man but Hazrat Rabi’a continued to feed him with pleasure. When Hazrat Rabi’a returned home, his wife complained bitterly that he had given the food which she had prepared with so much labour to a person who did not know at all what it was. Hazrat Rab’a replied, “But Almighty Allah knows it full well and that is all I care for.”

(“Picture of Loyalty to Faith,” Yaqeen International, Karachi, February 7 & 22, 1974, p. 228; in “Islam and Western Society,” M. Jameelah, p. 310)

The Question of Women-Men Equality in Islam

“From the Islamic point of view, the question of the equality of men and women is meaningless. It is like discussing the equality of a rose and a jasmine. Each has its own perfume, colour, shape, and beauty. Men and women are not the same. Each has particular features and characteristics. Women are not equal to men. But neither are men equal to women. Islam envisages their roles in society not as competing but as complimentary. Each has certain duties and functions in accordance with his or her nature and constitution.

“Man possesses certain privileges such as social authority and mobility against which he has to perform many heavy duties. First of all, he bears all economic responsibility. It is his duty to support his family completely even if his wife is rich and despite the fact that she is economically independent. A woman in traditional Islamic society does not have to worry about earning a living. There is always the larger family structure in which she can find a place and take refuge from social and economic pressures even if she has no husband or father. In the extended family system, a man often supports not only his wife and children but also his mother, sister, aunts, in-laws and sometimes even cousins and more distant relatives. Therefore in city life, the necessity of having to find a job at all costs and having to bear the economic pressure of life is lifted from the shoulders of women. As for the countryside, the  family is itself the economic unit and the work is achieved by the larger family or tribal unit together.

“Secondly, a woman does not have to find a husband for herself. She does not have to display her charms and make the thousand and one plans through which she hopes to attract a future mate. The terrible anxiety of having to find a husband and of missing the opportunity if one does not try hard enough at the right moment is spared the Muslim woman. Being able to remain true to her nature, she can afford to sit at home and wait for her parents or guardian to choose a suitable match. This usually leads to a marriage which, being based on the sense of religious duty and enduring family and social bonds between the two sides, is more lasting and ends much more rarely in divorce than the marrieages which are based on the sentiments of the moment that often do not develop into more permanent relationships.

“Thirdly, the Muslim woman is spared direct military and political responsibility although in rare cases there have been women warriors. This point may appear as a deprivation to some but in the light of the real needs of feminine nature, it is easy to see that for most women, such duties weigh heavily upon them. Even in modern societies which through the equalitarian process have tried to equate men and women as if there were no difference in the two sexes, women are usually spared the military draft except in extreme circumstances.

“In return for these privileges which the woman receives, she has also certain responsibilities of which the most important is to provide a home for her family and to bring up her children properly. In the home the woman rules as queen and a Muslim man is in a sense the guest of his wife at home. The home and the larger family structure in which she lives are for the Muslim woman her world. To be cut off from it would be like being cut off from the world or like dying. She finds the meaning of her existence in this extended family structure which is constructed so as to give her the maximum possibility of realizing her basic needs and fulfilling herself.

“The Shariah therefore envisages the role of men and women according to their nature which is complimentary. It gives the man the privilege of social and political authority and movement for which he has to pay by bearing heavy responsibilities, by protecting his family from all the forces and pressures of society, economic and otherwise. Although a master in the world at larege and the head of his own family, the man acts in his home as one who recognize the rule of his wife in this domain and respects it. Through mutual understanding and the realization of the responsibilities that God has placed on each other’s shoulders, the Muslim man and woman are able to fulfil their personalities and create a firm family unit which is the basic structure of Muslim society.”

(Ideals and Realities of Islam, Syed Hossein Nasr, 1966, p. 110-113; quoted in Islam and Western Society, M. Jameelah, 1982, p 109-112)

Religions are Back (A GOOD NEWS OR BAD NEWS?!)

Umma-nya Tsabita

This notes was taken from ORSAM seminars presented by Prof. DR. Şaban Ali Düzgün from Ankara University, Theology Faculty, Turkey focused on the topic: “Theology and Question of Violence”. Through this paper, perhaps the readers could test the knowledge and prejudice on religions properly. Some sentences had to be modifiedly developed to get proper insight—happy reading.

In recent days, easily people mind become ruined by disinformation caused by media or social life. People become disoriented or more—phobia. Disinformation channels and islamophobia created by some institutions, for instance: Donors Capital Fund, Fox news channel, David Horowitz freedom center, Washington times, the national review, Christian broadcast netwok and Clarion fund.

Let me bring you flash back to the ancient civilization, this description declared by Carly Fiorina, CEO of Hewlett-Packard when she delivered her speech tied to Islam Civilization. There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world…

View original post 1,906 more words

Man in the Quran

The Quran[1] is explicit that although Adam committed a mistake, he was, nevertheless, not arrogant. When he was reminded by God, he admitted his mistake and transgression. In return God bestowed upon him His Words and taught him how to repent. Adam’s repentance was then accepted[2], which thereafter left upon him no scars of sin.

Speaking in general terms about man the Qur’an says that he is created out of the best stock[3].  He is the viceroy of God upon earth[4]. By birth he is neither evil nor good in the ethical sense, but he is given a just bias towards good, and a bias against evil has been put into his nature[5]. He has also been endowed with the freedom to choose between right and wrong[6]. Man is, however, by nature weak and constantly needs divine help and guidance[7]. The story of Adam, if it teaches anything, teaches that man can never be self-sufficient. In history and society, the forces of good and evil work side by side, and man is continually tested, but in the end judgment will be according to each one’s own capacity[8].

The idea of incarnation is strongly opposed and rejected by the Qur’an[9]. Christ was only a prophet and messenger of God[10]. His message, like that of all other messengers of God, was “to serve God and avoid unrighteousness.”[11]

The idea of transference of the punishment of sins or vicarious punishment is not accepted by the Qur’an[12]. But it must also be noted that, according to the Qur’an, the punishment is not the necessary and unavoidable consequence of sin. If there is repentance than any sin, however grave it may be, can be forgiven by the mercy of God[13]. God is not bound to punish[14]. Contrary to Augustinian understanding of justice, Divine justice in the Qur’an means that God does not punish anyone without reason, or beyond that which is necessary. Justice also means that no good of man is left by God unrecognized and unrewarded[15]. It does not mean that God is not allowed to leave any sin unpunished.

Words like fidaa, fidyah, kaffara and kaffaarah (as in Hebrew paadaa and kaapar) are used in the Qur’an. In the case of sickness or journey or some other incapacities one is allowed to make expiation (fidyah) if one had failed to perform one’s obligations[16]. Kaffaarah or ransom is made when a violation of religious duties or rituals is commited[17]. However, the Qur’an says explicitly that “repentance” (tawbah) is always needed, and when one repents and acts in faith God does the act of kaffaarah[18]. As in the Old Testament, so in the Qur’an only God is the subject of kaffara and only He can wipe out sins, not by paying a ransom—which is alien both to the Old Testament and to the Islamic tradition—or by accepting a price[19], but simply by His grace and mercy.

---

[1] Quoted from an essay titled “The Doctrine of Redemption: A Critical Study”, Part IV, in “Islamic Perspectives: Studies in Honor of Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi”, 1980, The Islamic Foundation, pp 99-100.

[2] The Qur’an, 2: 35-37 [http://quran.com/2/35-37]

[3] Ibid., 95: 4 [http://quran.com/95/4]

[4] Ibid., 2: 30 [http://quran.com/2/30]

[5] Ibid., 91: 8 [http://quran.com/91/8]

[6] Ibdi., 91: 9-10 [http://quran.com/91/9-10]

[7] Ibid., 4: 28 [http://quran.com/4/28]

[8] Ibid., 2: 286 [http://quran.com/2/286]

[9] Ibid., 5: 17, 72 [http://quran.com/5/17; http://quran.com/5/72%5D

[10] Ibid., 5: 75 [http://quran.com/5/75]

[11] Ibid., 16: 36 [http://quran.com/16/36]

[12] Ibid., 6: 164; 17: 15; 35: 18; 39: 7; 53: 38 [http://quran.com/6/164; http://quran.com/17/15; http://quran.com/35/18; http://quran.com/39/7; http://quran.com/53/38%5D

[13] Ibid., 39: 53 [http://quran.com/39/53]

[14] Ibid., 4: 147 [http://quran.com/4/147]

[15] Ibid., 2: 281; 4: 124; 19: 60; 46: 19 [http://quran.com/2/281; http://quran.com/4/124; http://quran.com/19/60; http://quran.com/46/19%5D

[16] Ibid., 2: 184, 196 [http://quran.com/2/184; http://quran.com/2/196%5D

[17] Ibid., 5: 45, 89, 95 [http://quran.com/5/45; http://quran.com/5/89; http://quran.com/5/95%5D

[18] Ibid., 2: 271; 4: 31; 5: 12; 8: 29; 64: 9; 66: 8 [http://quran.com/2/271; http://quran.com/4/31; http://quran.com/5/12; http://quran.com/8/29; http://quran.com/64/9; http://quran.com/66/8%5D

[19] Ibid., 3: 91; 10: 54; 39: 47; 70: 11; 57: 15 [http://quran.com/3/91; http://quran.com/10/54; http://quran.com/39/47; http://quran.com/70/11; http://quran.com/57/15%5D

The Man who Challenged the Quran – Gary Miller , Later became Muslim

Beauty of ISLAM

Gary Miller

In 1977, Professor Gary Miller, the active Canadian preacher and mathematics and logic lecturer at Toronto University, decided to provide a great service to Christianity through exposing scientific and historical errors in the Noble Quran in such a way that would be beneficial to him and his fellow preachers in calling Muslims to Christianity. However, the result was completely to the contrary. Miller’s writings were fair and his study and comments were positive, even better than many Muslims would write about the Noble Quran. He considered the Noble Quran, as it should be and reached the conclusion that it cannot be a work of a human being.

The first surprising issue for Professor Miller was the challenging tone in many ayahs1 such as the ayahs that can be translated as “Will they not then contemplate the Quran? And if it had been from (anywhere) other than the Providence…

View original post 1,336 more words