Comparative religion for all human: By TM Kamal Pasha

 Comparative Religion For all Human: 


By TM Kamal Pasha   

News letter 31: Did Mohammad(SAW) performed miracle?


During the time of Mohammad SAW they asked him why don't Allah(SWT) show us miracle give us sign so that we can put faith on you and be among you, but when the sign came down they turned around their back.

Holy Quran 28:48

But when the truth came to them from Us, they said, "Why was he not given like that which was given to Moses?" Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses before? They said, "[They are but] two works of magic supporting each other, and indeed we are, in both, disbelievers."

Today many hypocrite are still asking the same question, Moses performed miracle, Jesus performed miracle (pbut) why Mohammad (pbuh) did not performed any miracle so Mohammad(pbuh) cannot be a prophet.

Yes Mohammad (pbuh) did performed miracle which is stated in the Hadith but this is not the subject for now to discuss.

Let us look on the time factor against the prophets (pbut) which God send down with power of performing miracle. Moses and Jesus (pbut) performed miracle it was from now 3600 years and 2000 years before. Miracle was needed to prove that there is God and the  prophets is from the God to establish God's kingdom and let mankind knows why He created mankind.

A verse from the Bible will clear that God revealed different sets of information depending on the capabilities of the mankind during that paticular time.

Holy Bible: Gospel of John 16:12-14

New King James Version (NKJV)

12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

What these verses is telling us? Jesus(pbuh) clearly saying that, whatever God still to reveal to mankind through him, was not appropriate time to reveal because at that time mankind was in still semi-light age, not light age yet, people may not grasp the message, so God preserve the message for the next prophet (Holy spirit in Bible) to reveal.

An instant miacle was needed to impress those old time people to prove god's presence, but Quran is the last and final book of God which has to stand till the judgment day and it has to satisfy every age group in future.


This Quran is the miracle of all miracle, it contain countless of miracle, many still to unveil from it, every different age group scientist will unveil different science/miracle from it and it will be the instant proof for that age group of people. Imagine 1000 or 10,000 years later people may ask "why should I believe Moses, Jesus, Mohammad (pbut) performed miracle, those are written in the book are all myth?"

Who will answer this question to them? That is the reason God preserved Quran as a biggest scientific/miracoulous book to convince every age group people to have faith oh His(God) presence. And in this glorious Quran Allah SWT said...


Holy Quran 41:53

We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and inside their selves, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?

Why Allah SWT said this? I give just two example for you to understand what is hidden inside the quran.

1. In the complete Quran Land mentioned 13 times and Sea 32 times total of them is 45 which is full earth.

If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today.

2. In the complete Quran man and woman mentioned equally 23 times each which altogether 46 which represent 46 chromosome in humans body half are male and half are femal.

All these miracle will prove God's presence in far future and hold Mohammad (SAW) as the last and final messenger of God and prove his miracle. Quran is the miracle of the past, present and future, it is not going to get lost. Quran is the miracle infront of every one's eyes so that people may believe in every age to come as it is the last and final revelation from the God. Allah SWT says in holy Quran..

Holy Quran 28:49
Say, "Then bring a scripture from Allah which is more guiding than either of them that I may follow it, if you should be truthful."
Allah SWT knows the best!!!
News letter 32: 9/11 terrorist attack on America was an inseder job.
US professors claim 9/11 an inside job.
The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.

Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.
The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday.
But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated. Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.
He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.
Prof Jones said: "We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.
"We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."
They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.

Statement of Indian Strait Time:
AGENCIES Sep 7, 2006, 12.05pm IST

WASHINGTON: Seventy-five leading academics have stunned America by claiming the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by warmongers inside the White House. The professors and scientists believe the attacks on New York and Washington were an "inside job' ' carried out to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich countries.

Their claims have caused outrage in the US ahead of the fifth anniversary, on Monday, of the raids, which left almost 3,000 dead.

Allah(SWT) knows the best!!!

News letter 33: What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

9/11 Blogger
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

An analysis of contradictions in statements by Building Designer Leslie Robertson

By Arabesque[1]


Before 9/11

“A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”[2]

(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):

“However, O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[3]



“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”[4]

“The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[5]



“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[6]

[Leslie Robertson:] “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[7]

[Frank A. Demartini:] “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[8]


Sept 3-7, 2001—just before 9/11

“The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.”[9]


After 9/11

“The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. ‘We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,’ said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. ‘We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.’”[10]

“The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”[11]

“[The] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in 2005 state that it has been ‘unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.’”[12]

“In 2002, Leslie Robertson wrote: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.[13]

“[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report… The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it… Yes there was a red hot metal seen [in the WTC rubble] by engineers. Molten—Molten means flowing—I’ve never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was.” Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson [MP3] by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006


Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.

· Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph. Interestingly he made this claim only a few days before 9/11.[14] A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that “A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.[15] Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. It is a very suspicious statement given the fact that it would be reasonable to consider the maximum speed of a plane flying into the Twin Towers. Is it possible that Robertson was asked to leak this “deliberately misleading information” just before 9/11? However, this is just speculation. Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.[16]

· Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire”. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[17] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?

· NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no “evidence to indicate consideration of… thousands of gallons of jet fuel”. This statement is clearly false. See John Skilling’s statement: “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire… The building structure would still be there.”[18]

· In an interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had “never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal.” This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: “Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.[19]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[20]

· Robertson is also incorrect when he says that “if they had seen [Molten Steel, they had not] performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was. This statement is false. FEMA analyzed samples of the molten steel.[21] However, NIST did not even mention the molten steel and called it “irrelevant to [their] investigation.”[22] This could have simply been a mistake by Robertson.

Is Robertson being pressured to lie and make false statements? Was he asked to leak a false statement just before 9/11 about the speed of the planes having an impact on their destruction? Are these contradictions by accident or mistake?

A news report stated that he wanted to give his opinion to the FBI before making his comments public. This in itself is not overly suspicious—but his contradictions are. No clear answers to these and similar questions can be obtained through speculation alone—Leslie Robertson must account for these himself. If another 9/11 investigation is obtained, it is clear that Leslie Robertson will have to answer these and other relevant questions.



[2] Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline: (see February 27, 1993)


See here: [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]

[4] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

[5] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71]

[6] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001]

[7] [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]


[9] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139, 366]

[10] “Believed to Be Safe, the Towers Proved Vulnerable to Jet Fuel Fire”


[11] [US Congress, 3/6/2002; Associated Press, 3/7/2002]

[12] [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13]

[13] [Robertson, 3/2002]

[14] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001] These articles the day after 9/11 make clear the fact that this statement was made before 9/11: “Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany”.

[15] Complete 9/11 Timeline: (see February 27, 1993)]


See here: [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]

[17] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

[18] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

[19] [SEAU News, 10/2001] This fact was observed by David Ray Griffin and Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline.


[21] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel:

“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.”

“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”

Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:

“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:

Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.

[22] See here:

Allah(SWT) knows the best !!!

News letter 34: Did Jesus's (pbuh) blood wiped out our sin?


Our Christian brothers believe Jesus paid for their sin, Jesus blood wipe out their sin and whoever accepts him shall have eternal life. If we know Bible as whole, weather this doctrine will contradict with many verses or it will not make any sense compare to some other verses.

The Ten Commandments is the key believe in Christianity. OK, let us agree that Jesus paid blood for their sin. Now we read few commandments out of ten.

5. Respect your father and mother.

6. You must not kill.

7. You must not commit adultery.

8. You must not steal.

9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbor.

10. You must not be envious of your neighbor’s goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.

No matter what, if you accept Jesus as your savior, then you are already saved by Jesus blood, it also means that you can do whatever you want. You are safe if you kill, steal, do adultery, give false evidence against your neighbor, be envious of your neighbor’s goods. But all are forbidden in the key commandment.

So it is completely nonsense to say Jesus paid blood for our sin. Jesus didn’t paid blood for anyone.

  • Did He used knife and cut his throat and died, that we can say He paid it? No, He didn’t.
  • Did He willingly hang on the cross? No, Jews forcibly hang Him on cross.
  • If he didn’t do it willingly so how can we say that He paid for us?

A verse from bible will prove that He wanted not to die but to live.

Matthew 26:39                                                                                                                                                      

And He went a little farther, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.

Allah (SWT) knows the best !!!

New letter 35: Circumcision - Why the Foreskin Increases Infection Risk ?

As a prelude to this, one needs to first understand the anatomy. The foreskin is composed of an outer layer that is keratinized (as is skin generally), and an inner lining that is a mucosal surface. The inner lining thus resembles other mucosal epithelia such as constitute the cervix, nasal passages and rectum. It had been suggested that the foreskin protected the glans from drying out and becoming keratinized. However, histological examination has shown the same amount of keratin in the skin of the head of the penis irrespective of circumcision status [Szabo & Short, 2000]. Interestingly, whereas most consider the inner foreskin to be thinner, one study has reported there is no difference between the keratinization of the inner and outer foreskin [[Dinh et al., 2010]. This study was, however, flawed because (1) the foreskins studied were from men circumcised for a medical indication, where balanitis, infections and phimosis could have made the keratin layer of the inner foreskin thicker, and (2) the authors do not indicate what part of the foreskin they studied, where inner foreskin is thinner close to the base at the coronal sulcus than at the distal end [R.H. Gray and R.C. Bailey, personal communication].

The inner layer of the foreskin lines a ‘preputial sac’, which becomes a repository for shed cells, secretions, and urinary residue that accumulates [Parkash et al., 1973; Cold & Taylor, 1999]. It is also a hospitable environment for the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms.

During an erection the head and shaft of the penis extend so that the inner layer becomes exteriorized along the distal half of the shaft. This exposes it to infectious agents during sexual intercourse.

It has been speculated that the foreskin is a source of secretions, pheromones, etc, but given the dubious authorship of these reports and the absence of any research support, such suggestions should be regarded as fanciful. In fact, for references that cite evidence to the contrary see [Waskett & Morris, 2008].

It has been suggested [Caldwell & Caldwell, 1996] that the increased risk of infection in the uncircumcised may be a consequence of the following:

• The foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area.

• It has been suggested that the moist inner lining of the foreskin represents a thinner epidermal barrier than the more cornified outer surface of the foreskin and the rest of the penis, including the glans. It should be noted that the glans of a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis have the same amount of keratin (i.e., similar skin thickness and protection from invasion of microorganisms) [Szabo & Short, 2000]. Although the keratin thickness of the inner and outer foreskin was suggested to be similar [[Dinh et al., 2010], the samples used were from men with pathology that could have increased keratin thickness, and could have been from the thicker distal end of the foreskin. The thin, moist inner lining may be a potential entry point into the body for viruses and bacteria, but more information is needed on how this occurs. (A photograph of a histological section that illustrates the much thinner inner than outer foreskin can be found later, in the section on the AIDS virus.)

• The presence of a prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual intercourse, thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream for infectious agents.

• The warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms (discussed in detail later). The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a 'cesspool for infection' [Weiss, 1997], as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in the accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria as referred to above. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants, which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection [Wiswell, 1997a; Wiswell, 1997b]. Rather, the foreskin tends to trap and transmit micro-organisms, both to the man himself, and his sexual partners.

Comparative Religion