Posts Tagged ‘religion’

Has a religion ever mentioned the existence of another religion?

July 26, 2017

Has a religion ever mentioned the existence of another religion within its source material? (self.DebateReligion)

submitted a by gothicrain

[–]paarsurrey responded:

Quran not only mentions other revealed religions but mentions that those religions were truthful in their origin, their founders got Word of Revelations from God and that they were truthful persons. It is incumbent on the followers of Quran/Islam/Muhammad to believe in such founders and respect their revelations in whatever positions these are now. One cannot be a Muslim if one does not believe in the truthfulness of such persons and the messages they brought from God. It is for this that the followers of Quran/Islam/Muhammad respect Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Socrates etc. Regards



One may like to join the discussion at or here in this blog please.



Scientific Method is useless in religion?

October 20, 2016

Yesterday at 3:23 PM#1

Paarsurrey wrote:

As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion. Right? Please


Yesterday at 4:40 PM#9

Paarsurrey wrote:

I agree with one.
Comparative study of religions is simply a method . One could say it is an art or equally one could describe it to be science in general terms being rational. For sure it is not a discipline of Science.

The mute scientific method!

April 6, 2016
Post #175


I never said that religion is in subordination to science. I always say that religion and science are in different domains, they don’t necessarily contradict one another. Science deals the material and physical domains, religion deals in moral and spiritual domains.
The science deals the temporary, religion deals the lasting truth.
Science deals the relative, religion deals the absolute truth.
Science did not create any word or any iota/atom in the universe, it only borrowed words and symbols or integers without which it would have been mute and have been incapacitated to do anything.

Thread: “Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?”

Post:  #175

Hot Debate : The contributions of Religion to sciences

November 26, 2015
Post #210

viole said:

violeGnostic Atheism
how can Islam promote illiteracy if it commands to read the Koran?

StopS said:


Excellent question. The Koran itself, the word as such, means “recitation”. It is an oral transmission, which was forced to be written down as the people who memorised it were killed in the various battles.
The Koran does not command anyone to read the Koran. Muhammad was illiterate and was allegedly asked to read by the angel used to transmit the Koran. The book only tells people to reflect, ponder and gain knowledge on the contents of the Koran.
Even today, the hafeez, the one who memorises the Koran is guaranteed a place in heaven. The effect is that the village elders today sit with a Koran and a pointing stick and follow the lines, reciting parts of the Koran. This is considered beneficial, even if nobody in this village can read or write. Only a fraction (~0.001%) of Muslims have studied ancient Arabic, so only very few can actually read the Koran in it’s original form.
So, if you can recite some of it and you know the contents you are eligible to go to heaven, no other education required.
I hope this clarifies it.

paarsurrey said:
[16:99]And when thou recitest the Qur’an, seek refuge with Allah from Satan the rejected.

Paarsurrey wrote:

The triliteral root qāf rā hamza (ق ر أ) occurs 88 times in the Quran, in four derived forms:

  • 16 times as the form I verb qara-a (قَرَأَ)
  • once as the form IV verb nuq’ri-u (نُقْرِئُ)
  • once as the noun qurū (قُرُوٓء)
  • 70 times as the nominal qur’ān (قُرْءَان)

The translations below are brief glosses intended as a guide to meaning. An Arabic word may have arange of meanings depending on context. Click on a word for more linguistic information, or to suggestion a correction.

Verb (form I) – to read, to recite
(7:204:2) quri-a is recited وَإِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْآنُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ وَأَنْصِتُوا لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ
(10:94:10) yaqraūna (have been) reading فَاسْأَلِ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ
(16:98:2) qarata you recite فَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ
(17:14:1) iq’ra Read اقْرَأْ كِتَابَكَ كَفَىٰ بِنَفْسِكَ الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكَ حَسِيبًا
(17:45:2) qarata you recite وَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ جَعَلْنَا بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ حِجَابًا مَسْتُورًا
(17:71:11) yaqraūna will read فَمَنْ أُوتِيَ كِتَابَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ يَقْرَءُونَ كِتَابَهُمْ
(17:93:18) naqra-uhu we could read it وَلَنْ نُؤْمِنَ لِرُقِيِّكَ حَتَّىٰ تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْنَا كِتَابًا نَقْرَؤُهُ
(17:106:3) litaqra-ahu that you might recite it وَقُرْآنًا فَرَقْنَاهُ لِتَقْرَأَهُ عَلَى النَّاسِ عَلَىٰ مُكْثٍ
(26:199:1) faqara-ahu And he (had) recited it فَقَرَأَهُ عَلَيْهِمْ مَا كَانُوا بِهِ مُؤْمِنِينَ
(69:19:8) iq’raū read فَأَمَّا مَنْ أُوتِيَ كِتَابَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ فَيَقُولُ هَاؤُمُ اقْرَءُوا كِتَابِيَهْ
(73:20:26) fa-iq’raū so recite عَلِمَ أَنْ لَنْ تُحْصُوهُ فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ فَاقْرَءُوا مَا تَيَسَّرَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ
(73:20:49) fa-iq’raū So recite وَآخَرُونَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَاقْرَءُوا مَا تَيَسَّرَ مِنْهُ
(75:18:2) qaranāhu We have recited it فَإِذَا قَرَأْنَاهُ فَاتَّبِعْ قُرْآنَهُ
(84:21:2) quri-a is recited وَإِذَا قُرِئَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقُرْآنُ لَا يَسْجُدُونَ
(96:1:1) iq’ra Read اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ
(96:3:1) iq’ra Read اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الْأَكْرَمُ
The triliteral root qāf rā hamza (ق ر أ) has both the meaning to recite and to read.

Point of Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

November 23, 2015

Post #37

Paarsurrey wrote:

Every religion has a core of the teachings, nothing of that belongs to the physical and or material domains of sciences (the temporal realm), so in fact, religion gives a free hand to the people of sciences to explore things for the benefit humans beings. The founders of revealed religion did not speak anything against the scientists, they need not, as they deal the ethical, moral and spiritual realms the source of which is Word of Revelation based on their experiences (not experiments).
If there is an overlapping, if the specific religious system set by the founders of religion is intact , they do accept it, if it is not intact it may take sometime for acceptance.


Post #38

Spiny Norman said:

Spiny Norman
A lot of religious people have quacky views on religion undeniably.

Point of Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

November 23, 2015

Post #35

Paarsurrey wrote:

I like many of your points in the post.

“Science says so” should not be an atheists ‘get out of jail free’ card

July 30, 2015

<>Thread:”A Suggestion: A Science sub-forum”

Post #10

 Red Economist said:

Paarsurrey wrote:

I liked following points in your post:

  • “Science says so” should not be an atheists ‘get out of jail free’ card.
  • “where’s your proof”
  • Science is Atheism’s sacred cow
  • Science, philosophy and religion were not in conflict until very recently in historical time (particularly after Darwin)
  • science, philosophy and religion are intimately connected with one another

You are a keen observer.

Is science against the Revealed Religion?

July 9, 2015

<> Thread:Is science against the Revealed Religion?

Please click the post # below to view,comment and join discussion on the topic.

Post #1

Paarsurrey started the thread:

Topic :Is science against the Revealed Religion?

If so, to prove this, please, quote from :

  • A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
  • From a text book of science
  • Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.

Post #7

Paarsurrey wrote:

Any ideology that people choose as their way of life could be termed as religion but those that are based on Word of Revelation from G-d are revealed religion.

Post #10

Paarsurrey wrote:

I agree with you here.

Post #12
George-Ananda wrote:

Science is not against the concept of revealed religions. It doesn’t contradict any scientific knowledge.

“Is it a sin to seek knowledge?”

June 23, 2015

<> Thread:”Is it a sin to seek knowledge?”

Please click the post # below to view, comment and join discussion on the topic.

Post #112

Paarsurrey wrote”

Topic : Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

For the material,physical and secular matters knowledge of sciences and arts is the source, while for ethical, moral and spiritual matters Word of Revelation is the source.
There is no sin to seek knowledge from both the sources to understand life in its complete picture and perspective.
Truthful Religion encourages one to get benefit from both.


psychoslice likes this.

Do Christians know their own religion?

May 23, 2015

View, comment or join discussion at < > <Thread : Do Christians know their own religion?.>. Please click the post # below.

Post #20

Deathbydefault said:

Do Christians know their own religion?

Paarsurrey wrote:

No; they only know the myth not the religion.


Deathbydefault likes this.