Is human evolution compatible with the quran?

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl

The truth is that a single cell is so complex that it cannot create itself even under the best circumstances, like chemicals, energy etc . My pile of scrap turning into a Ferrari is more likely to happen. Believe it or not.

I agree with you in your opinion that a self cannot create itself, but that's obvious when you think about it
It would have to be itself in order to to create anything, and if it created something, the created thing wouldn't be itself, because only itself is itself.

أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ {35
052:035
:
Were they created from nothing, or were they themselves the creators?

------

The answer that Allah is eternal and able to create is the only rational answer

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl

You are obviously a Bolshevik, as this is a Muslim Forum and Allah created everything, please do not peddle the false science of evolution here.

Lol at obviously a bolshevik, i'm sure he's giving his genuine opinion in this instance and that he's not peddling something which he doesn't accept.
How do you know it's a false science? According to your logic, i'll ask you: did you witness the process?
Does Allah deny that He brought this universe and it's inhabitants about by a process? Do the Quran and other signs not point to the fact that creatures and tribes evolve? Is our common ancestor Adam not the father of the people who dwell in china, Africa, the middle east, south east asia, europe etc? Are they all carbon copies of Adam and eve? Do children not inherit appearance and other traits from their fathers' side and their mothers' side? Does this continuous mutation not take place in front of our eyes?

I do believe that monkeys and pigs are branches of the mammalian race and i don't think that they are ancestors of human beings, and at the same time i don't know how Adam arrived on planet earth, or whether there was an ancestry not categorised by Allah as human beings before him which wiped each other out of existence out of tribal and selfish warfare, but i do know that the brains, blood, bones, eyes, noses, and most other internal organs of mammals are similar to those of human beings, but i also believe that the superior intellect of human beings is above all the other creatures on this planet, and that all non humans have been subjected to human beings by Allah, even to the extent that we enslave them, use some of them for irrigation of fields, carrying of loads, and raise some of them for slaughter as food, it's quite nasty when you think about it, but that's our humble situation, where we survive off cells carrying energy similar to ours, but not the same species, and slowly other restrictions have come into place through the ages including restrictions on marriage, making humans who live by Allah'screvelation and guidance more civilized.

After all those observations, one of the things that does leave room for thought and uncertainty is that Adam's son was shown how to dig a grave by a crow, so the crow knew, but why hadn't Adam taught his sons how to bury him after his tenure on earth would be ended....since, if there were other ancestors before him not categorized as humans, they would likely have had a lot more intelligence than a crow....unless Adam just hadn't got around to teaching them about all that depressing stuff so there is room for lawful (halal) research and humble pondering. One thingcwe can be certain of though is that the description "human beings" (al-Insaan) applies only to Banee Aadam, the offspring of Adam

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl

To be scientific you must witness the process not speculate from limited data. And Newton's law of gravity is specific to one place and one time. He has no knowledge of inter dimensional and trans dimensional space, let alone hyperspace interspace drive. DNA, RNA, or whatever, cannot create itself.

To be scientific you must be sincere, truthful, and just. A human being cannot know everything. It is only Allah who knows everything.

The problem with "Human Evolution" and as such "Darwinism" is that it was concocted and used as a means to elevate the "white" / Caucasian traits to a higher stature. People still continue to thrive on Darwinism mentalities to legitimate their efforts at "educating" people who are seen as physically / culturally / etc. inferior to the those attributes seen as "evolved". In Islam, there is no "race", and people shouldn't judge or base each other on the differences in physical looks, but rather understand that we're all part of a great ecosystem, diverse and from diversity we can learn to be better.

format_quote Originally Posted by Bhabha

The problem with "Human Evolution" and as such "Darwinism" is that it was concocted and used as a means to elevate the "white" / Caucasian traits to a higher stature. People still continue to thrive on Darwinism mentalities to legitimate their efforts at "educating" people who are seen as physically / culturally / etc. inferior to the those attributes seen as "evolved". In Islam, there is no "race", and people shouldn't judge or base each other on the differences in physical looks, but rather understand that we're all part of a great ecosystem, diverse and from diversity we can learn to be better.

If it was really put forward to elevate the status of people who are light skinned, then the people who first put their observations out to the public were going about it the wrong way, the true effect shows that biological organisms have a nature of dropping traits and immune system defences which they don't need for a long time for the sake of efficiency faster than they pick up new traits - and this can span over a few generations, thus the high cancer rates in the sun due to melanin deficiency etc. Especially with all these sudden high temperature rises we are witnessing in the previously coldest of countries, the sun bursts are more threatening to some than others, in terms of technology dependence too.
Some gambles pay off whereas others don't, those who are more cautious and take their time in any endeavour risk less but also risk being overtaken or dominated, especially if they're too late in a just and lawful endeavour, so theres a balance that it is wise to refrain from transgressing.
I still remember when I was little and used to play cards with my brother and cousin (I think it was pontoon 21) I'd always call small numbers and usually win, though sometimes I didn't get the time due to the quick success of their high calls.
One thing to remember though is that it has been historically demonstrated that injustice doesn't pay off even in this world. Injustice is unstable, comes to be despised by the masses, and Allah tips the balance when the petitions going up to him become powerful enough as long as those who call do their reasonable best with justice in the circumstances.

Those who read and ponder carefully on the Quran and abide by it sincerely according to their reasonable best will continue to increase in wisdom since the Quran itself is a training manual in clarity of thought and excercises in wisdom (it is called al-hakeem and li-ad-dhikr rather than 'aleem) whilst others will choose to be ignorant of it and fall short, whereas others who discard wisdom and justice whilst focusing on increasing knowledge and the strength of their own arm will inevitably be dealt with with a heavy hand unless they repent before it's too late.

Qad aflah al Mu-minoon.
Fa basshir al Mu-minoon.

And Allah swt knows best.

IMF Survey online

October 4, 2010

Islamic banks fared differently from conventional banks during global crisis
Weaknesses in risk management hurt Islamic bank profitability in 2009
Crisis revealed important regulatory and supervisory challenges
A new IMF study compares the performance of Islamic banks and conventional banks during the recent financial crisis, and finds that Islamic banks, on average, showed stronger resilience during the global financial crisis.


But the study also finds that Islamic banks faced larger losses than their conventional peers when the crisis hit the real economy.

In “The Effects of the Global Crisis on Islamic and Conventional Banks: A Comparative Study,” economists Jemma Dridi of the IMF’s Middle East and Central Asia Department and Maher Hasan of the IMF’s Monetary and Capital Market Department look at the effects of the crisis on bank profitability, credit, and asset growth in countries where both types of banks have a significant market share. The new working paper adds an empirical dimension to the debate on the relationship between Islamic banking and financial stability, a topic that has generated renewed interest since the global crisis.

Too big to ignore

Islamic finance is one of the fastest growing segments of the global financial industry. In some countries, it has become systemically important and, in many others, it is too big to be ignored. It is estimated that the size of the Islamic banking industry at the global level was close to $820 billion at end-2008. The largest Islamic banks are located in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates).

While Islamic banks play roles similar to conventional banks, fundamental differences exist between the two models. The main difference between Islamic and conventional banks is that the former operate in accordance with the rules of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. The central concept in Islamic banking and finance is justice, which is achieved mainly through the sharing of risk. Stakeholders are supposed to share profits and losses, and charging interest is prohibited.

There are also differences in terms of financial intermediation, the paper notes. While conventional intermediation is largely debt based, and allows for risk transfer, Islamic intermediation, by contrast, is asset based, and centers on risk sharing. One key difference between conventional banks and Islamic banks is that the latter’s model does not allow investing in or financing the kind of instruments that have adversely affected their conventional competitors and triggered the global financial crisis. These include toxic assets, derivatives, and conventional financial institution securities ......

Although the authors failed to state the fact that the usury based banks only survived by plundering the public treasuries, and also the fact that the price of precious metals was manipulated via virtual precious metals exchange, so the above article only displays a small part of the overall picture.


Anyways, it all intertwines.

No, it is not compatible.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

What do you think/know about this ayah?

76:1 "There surely came over man a period of time when he was a thing not worth mentioning."

al-‘Allaamah al-Taahir Ibn ‘Ashoor (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:


What this means is: Does every man who exists realize that he was non-existent for a long time, and he was not a thing worth mentioning, i.e., he had no name and he was not spoken of.

format_quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez

No, it is not compatible.

- - - Updated - - -



al-‘Allaamah al-Taahir Ibn ‘Ashoor (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:


What this means is: Does every man who exists realize that he was non-existent for a long time, and he was not a thing worth mentioning, i.e., he had no name and he was not spoken of.

The ayah have a generalization of man(human). It doesnt refer to individuals I believe. And uses past tense came over man a period of time not present tense as comes over men a period of time . It specifically refers to a past event which came over. What kind of an event? An event in which man was a thing not worth mentioning.

Now I'm reminded of the old debates about whether the Quran was created or eternal.

https://islam.stackexchange.com/ques...what-does-this

Issue that some of us appear to be having is that there are a bunch of wolves hoping to create a sargon type controversy in the background, and some of us therefore tailor our opinions in order to suit the situation.
I personally think it's better to just reseach and ponder and speak truth with justice whilst following the most just and truthful way available through life - since Allah best sorts out what is beyond our control.

Take a look at bush and his dad then wonder if there's such a thing as genetic mutation.

Allah knows better and we humans will always continue to find that we know hardly anything.

bushs.jpg bushs~01.jpg images.jpg

format_quote Originally Posted by STN

...

The meaning of the term "evolution" seems to be getting obscured.
What do you understand as "evolution of species", and "mutation", do you accept that dna from parents provides data to offspring, and that this process continues to change the appearance and many other traits of offspring through the generations?

I believe that offspring get dna from both parents, and the offspring of those offspring vary depending much on the spouses their parents chose, that this is a form of mutation along with all the other mutations which occur through interaction with other elements and experiences which cause chemical reactions within the body, and that no mutation is random.
I believe that monkeys are a totally different species to human beings and are not the parents, nor are pigs, but I also believe that it may be possible that all creatures on earth evolved from base primordial matter and that the creatures with dna resembling that of humans most may possibly have a common ancestor which no longer exists.

I believe that Jesus who's creation is like that of Adam did not appear on earth in full human form, and was made by Allah to go through a process in the womb of his mother, similar to the long process described by some who propound the theory of the evolution of species ie, from liquid to leech like clot to fleshy clot to bones to skin to fully formed human with many stages in between, and that he demonstrated how Allah created Adam before, by breathing life into a clay bird by Allah's leave.
Though Allah knows best.

I have no problem discussing or debating in a civilized manner unless I find I'm being trolled or abused so feel free to argue points which you genuinely believe to be true.

format_quote Originally Posted by STN

Before you guys post anything next, please do yourself a favor and go to your nearest university and ask the microbiologist or science professor what science thinks of darwin theory now.

They think that Darwin's theory had missing points but just like every scientific theory this doesnt neccesarily mean the theory was wrong at all. There is evolution theory and Darwin's contribution to it was a milestone. Today we have "modern" evolution theory which is heavily supported by modern genetics and micro-biology which was not the case 150 years ago. However, Darwin's opinions are still influencing the biologists. You can't find any respected biologist in any respected university to deny the ToE as a whole. So yes, we come from something else which were not human beings once upon a time..And I believe this does not contradict with Islam.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Bhabha

The problem with "Human Evolution" and as such "Darwinism" is that it was concocted and used as a means to elevate the "white" / Caucasian traits to a higher stature. People still continue to thrive on Darwinism mentalities to legitimate their efforts at "educating" people who are seen as physically / culturally / etc. inferior to the those attributes seen as "evolved". In Islam, there is no "race", and people shouldn't judge or base each other on the differences in physical looks, but rather understand that we're all part of a great ecosystem, diverse and from diversity we can learn to be better.

Yes but the problem arises when we confuse science with "religion" or ideology or philosophy etc. It is true that ET was used as a means to promote the white supremacy by many people including Darwin's himself. He said that the European white race is more evolved so superior to other races. He was even an anti-Turkist and supported the idea that Turks as a sub evolved people must be eliminated from Europe. Of course this was because of his political views. Nazis used a similar agenda for their Germanic supremacy. But we cant deny the reality just because people confuse scientific theories with other things, even though they are the ones who invented the theory.

format_quote Originally Posted by STN

Oh i love James Watson. He says

"If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her" and my favorite

"stupidity is a disease and the "really stupid" bottom 10% of people should be cured"

But i realize how futile this is to argue with "internet scientists"- you say one thing and they understand another. Like this

I noticed that most questions to you were respectful and logical but went unanswered,
You c'n do better'n a single hit piece with no opinions of your own......


Regarding what this so called watson said about physically removing sexual genes, I think it's a matter that requires healing, and that human understanding of complex genetics still has far to go, and that attempted lobotomy of genes like they foolishly tried with brains in the past runs a high risk of damage and destruction within a few generations.
The medical establishment only began to admit that mercury is dangerous to the brain after decades of pushing and cajoling people to take injections containing high amounts in the past, so it is stupid and unjust to tell people it's ok to have genetic lobotomy for non-life threatening illnesses, and then try to pretend you want to help by fixing the bottom 10% once the brains and bodies of millions are damaged to below 10% health.

I believe leanings towards homosexuality and other sexual perversions begin in the brain matrix, and once accepted, cause chemical reactions in the body which in turn make a slight change in dna, which is passed on to an extent to offspring, who then have to work harder to suppress perversions, and if they add to the perversion and make it worse, they make it even more difficult for the next generation in their tree.
So yes, I believe healing must come through psychological and emotional support, and a community which is slightly better in adherence to Islam than the person. If you place a very corrupted person into a pious community with very high discipline and moral standards, the person is likely to rebel and be alienated or even imprisoned, such rehabilitation and choice of placement would be for those in authority in a genuine Islamic caliphate to decide based on feedback and statistical analysis from different governorates and regions.

Stupidity is healed not by pop music, alcohol, drugs, and dance, but by exercises in wisdom over generations.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

The ayah have a generalization of man(human). It doesnt refer to individuals I believe.

Given that you do not have any credentials in the Religious sciences it does not matter what you believe.

And uses past tense came over man a period of time not present tense as comes over men a period of time It specifically refers to a past event which came over. What kind of an event? An event in which man was a thing not worth mentioning.

Ibn Aashuur was a master of the Arabic language. His Tafsiir is a gem which contains explanation of grammatical aspects of the Qur'aan.

You seem ignorant of the different grammatical possibilities of lam yakun shai'am madhkoora.

Since you have brought up the Arabic Grammar of the Qur'aan, explain to us what Ibn Aashuur has said below? If you cannot then I suggest you stop twisting the Qur'aanic Verses to try to fit in the materialistic secularist ideology of the kufr better known as evolution.

وجملة { لم يكن شيئاً مذكوراً } يجوز أن تكون نعتاً ل { حين } بتقدير ضمير رابط بمحذوف لدلالة لفظ { حين } على أن العائد مجرور بحرف الظرفية حذف مع جاره كقوله تعالى : { واتقوا يوماً لا تجزي نفس عن نفس شيئاً } [ البقرة : 48 ] إذ التقدير : لا تجزي فيه نفس عن نفس شيئاً ، فالتقدير هنا : لم يكن فيه الإِنسان شيئاً مذكوراً ، أي كان معدوماً في زمن سبق .
ويجوز أن تكون الجملة حالاً من { الإنسان } ، وحذف العائد كحذفه في تقدير النعت .
والشيء : اسم للموجود

This is an edit of my post since my premise was wrong. The verse in question was mistranslated in a manner more concerning than the difference of understanding by translators regarding ataa and yakun.

Originally Posted by anatolian
What do you think/know about this ayah?

76:1 "There surely came over man a period of time when he was a thing not worth mentioning."

I'm editing this after going back and reading your original post.

The verse is not a statement but a question, a call to ponder.
It doesn't say "inna" but "hal".

It's clearly wrong without even a shadow of doubt, .


Re: ataa

There are other statements in the book of Allah such as
ataa amr Allah
Hal ataaka hadeeth
Hattaa ataana al yaqeen.


The translations of the first example vary widely depending on the understanding of the sentence.

أَتَى أَمْرُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَسْتَعْجِلُوهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ {1
016:001 Khan
:
The Event (the Hour or the punishment of disbelievers and polytheists or the Islamic laws or commandments), ordained by Allah will come to pass, so seek not to hasten it. Glorified and Exalted be He above all that they associate as partners with Him.
016:001 Maulana
:
Allah's commandment will come to pass, so seek not to hasten it. Glory be to Him, and highly exalted be He above what they associate (with Him)!
016:001 Pickthal
:
The commandment of Allah will come to pass, so seek not ye to hasten it. Glorified and Exalted be He above all that they associate (with Him).
016:001 Rashad
:
GOD's command has already been issued (and everything has already been written), so do not rush it. Be He glorified; the Most High, far above any idols they set up.
016:001 Sarwar
:
God's help will certainly support (the believers), so pagans do not (seek) to hasten it. God is too Glorious and Exalted to be considered equal to idols.
016:001 Shakir
:
Allah's commandment has come, therefore do not desire to hasten it; glory be to Him, and highly exalted be He above what they associate (with Him).
016:001 Sherali
:
The decree of ALLAH is at hand, so seek ye not to hasten it. Holy is HE and exalted far above all that which they associate with HIM.
016:001 Yusufali
:
(Inevitable) cometh (to pass) the Command of Allah: seek ye not then to hasten it: Glory to Him, and far is He above having the partners they ascribe unto Him!


Allah knows best what the verse from al insaan means, when I first read it, it read as a soothing to the prophet and a reminder of Allah's mercy and favour to man, however, the verses of Quran do tend to question the mind of the reader through different angles depending upon their circumstances, just as the verses revealed directly addressing the prophet also make us think when we read them or hear them in salaah.
Although I am human and could possibly be mistaken in my understanding (though I have a duty to read it in the language I understand best) and I am required to be sincere in my interpretation.....otherwise I will be the first to go astray. And Allah knows best.


I don't think understanding a language is a sign of understanding Allah and possesing 'aql or taqwa, although it is certainly useful to understand Arabic since it makes understanding the original texts easy without having to rely on and trust the readings of others as a blind mufti or illiterate man would despite his high intellect.
The story reported about imaam Abu Haneefa who was said to have been sitting in halaqah when a scholar of hadeeth narrated a hadith he didn't know is more appropriate, when a woman came and asked a question which the others couldn't answer, Abu haneefa answered it, when the scholar of hadeeth asked him how he had arrived at the answer (he may have had a feeling from the sequence of events) Abu Haneefa is reported to have said: from the hadeeth you just narrated earlier.
The knowledge of the topic was with one person whereas the 'aql to interpret it was with another.

(I found this interesting article as I was searching for a quote on the above which I couldn't find:
https://sunnahmuakada.wordpress.com/...d-its-sources/ )


So the argument that the individual lacked Arabic and relied on testimony of individuals whom he trusted (if he was being sincere) doesn't refute his answer - but the facts might.



See also:

So Ibn Atheer (rahimahullah) says these 'Ulema ran away when they heard of
the numbers; and because he is an 'Alim he is going to find an excuse for it as
well as daleel - he will know how to twist ayaat or ahadith and make it sound
that this is the Shari'ah thing to do. He will not admit that he's afraid by
saying, 'Sorry I'm a coward, so I can't go ahead with this,' rather he will say
that to go ahead with fighting is not hikmah and that there is no hikmah in it, or
that Salahuddin is insane and we told him not to go ahead with the fighting
yet he still did, or that Salahuddin does not have 'Ilm or he does not speak
Arabic right or know it so who is he to give a fatwa and take this Ummah to
this trouble and bring upon them this disaster by taking on this huge army.
'He needs to go to the 'Ulema and take the fatwa from us but he did not so let
him go and die.' So they ran away; what happened? It is a test from Allah

From the lecture: Allah is preparing us for victory by Imam Anwar al Awlaki (may Allah grant him a high staus amongst the martyrs and revivers).

Regarding the claim that the theory is kufr, what do you base it on, and would you also hand over the hypothesis that the earth was a rough sphere to kufr maybe a thousand years ago or a little less if someone (Such as ibn Taymiyyah - labelled "the heretic from Harran" by some of his numerous detractors) stated it?
What makes you believe that the earth is spherical?

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاء لِلّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالأَقْرَبِينَ إِن يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقَيرًا فَاللّهُ أَوْلَى بِهِمَا فَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ الْهَوَى أَن تَعْدِلُواْ وَإِن تَلْوُواْ أَوْ تُعْرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا {135
004:135
:
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice and fairness as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin (and or close ones), be they rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both. So follow not the lusts and vain desires lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort (your witness) or refuse to give it, then (know that) certainly Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do

format_quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez

Given that you do not have any credentials in the Religious sciences it does not matter what you believe.

Salam. Of course what I believe matters to me and people who think like me not you or people who think like you.

format_quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez

Ibn Aashuur was a master of the Arabic language. His Tafsiir is a gem which contains explanation of grammatical aspects of the Qur'aan.

You seem ignorant of the different grammatical possibilities of lam yakun shai'am madhkoora.

Since you have brought up the Arabic Grammar of the Qur'aan, explain to us what Ibn Aashuur has said below? If you cannot then I suggest you stop twisting the Qur'aanic Verses to try to fit in the materialistic secularist ideology of the kufr better known as evolution.

وجملة { لم يكن شيئاً مذكوراً } يجوز أن تكون نعتاً ل { حين } بتقدير ضمير رابط بمحذوف لدلالة لفظ { حين } على أن العائد مجرور بحرف الظرفية حذف مع جاره كقوله تعالى : { واتقوا يوماً لا تجزي نفس عن نفس شيئاً } [ البقرة : 48 ] إذ التقدير : لا تجزي فيه نفس عن نفس شيئاً ، فالتقدير هنا : لم يكن فيه الإِنسان شيئاً مذكوراً ، أي كان معدوماً في زمن سبق .
ويجوز أن تكون الجملة حالاً من { الإنسان } ، وحذف العائد كحذفه في تقدير النعت .
والشيء : اسم للموجود

I agree I am not a Quran expert. I don't speak even Arabic. However, I am not in a postion to be tested by you. Let's focus on the topic.

76.1 "هَلْ أَتَى عَلَى الْإِنسَانِ حِينٌ مِّنَ الدَّهْرِ لَمْ يَكُن شَيْئاً مَّذْكُور"
(hal 'ataa ealaa al'iinsan hin mmin alddahr lam yakun shayyaan mmadhkur)
(Has there not been over Man a long period of Time, when he was nothing - (not even) mentioned?) ( BY A. YUSUF ALI )
(There surely came over man a period of time when he was a thing not worth mentioning.) ( BY M.H. SHAKIR )
(HAS THERE [not] been an endless span of time (1) before man [appeared - a time] when he was not yet a thing to be thought of? (2)

1 - Implying, according to all the classical commentators, "there has indeed been an immensely long [or "endless"] span of time" - the interrogative particle hal having here the positive meaning of qad. However, this meaning can be brought out equally well by interpolating the word "not".

2 - Lit., "a thing mentioned" or "mentionable" - i.e., non-existent even as a hypothetical concept. The purport of this statement is a refutation of the blasphemous "anthropocentric" world-view, which postulates man as he exists - and not any Supreme Being - as the centre and ultimate reality of all life.) (COMMENTARY BY MUHAMMED ESED)

The question is a "rhetorical" question. Quran has many examples of this. Quran asks these questions to imply that they really is or was. And all these three translations give us the impression that this (has) happened in the past. I am not saying anything against Ibn Aashuur. I even didn't know him before you mentioned. I am just requesting your answer. So, you are saying it has nothing to do with past but it is only for present?

Btw, I don't regard ToE as a materialistic secularist ideology of the kufr. It is just a scientific theory which is accepted by the majortiy of the scientific enviroment. Rejecting the ToE is just like rejecting the idea that World is round or it is orbitting around the Sun.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000

This is an edit of my post since my premise was wrong. The verse in question was mistranslated in a manner more concerning than the difference of understanding by translators regarding ataa and yakun.



I'm editing this after going back and reading your original post.

The verse is not a statement but a question, a call to ponder.
It doesn't say "inna" but "hal".

It's clearly wrong without even a shadow of doubt, .


Re: ataa

There are other statements in the book of Allah such as
ataa amr Allah
Hal ataaka hadeeth
Hattaa ataana al yaqeen.


The translations of the first example vary widely depending on the understanding of the sentence.

أَتَى أَمْرُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَسْتَعْجِلُوهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ {1
016:001 Khan
:
The Event (the Hour or the punishment of disbelievers and polytheists or the Islamic laws or commandments), ordained by Allah will come to pass, so seek not to hasten it. Glorified and Exalted be He above all that they associate as partners with Him.
016:001 Maulana
:
Allah's commandment will come to pass, so seek not to hasten it. Glory be to Him, and highly exalted be He above what they associate (with Him)!
016:001 Pickthal
:
The commandment of Allah will come to pass, so seek not ye to hasten it. Glorified and Exalted be He above all that they associate (with Him).
016:001 Rashad
:
GOD's command has already been issued (and everything has already been written), so do not rush it. Be He glorified; the Most High, far above any idols they set up.
016:001 Sarwar
:
God's help will certainly support (the believers), so pagans do not (seek) to hasten it. God is too Glorious and Exalted to be considered equal to idols.
016:001 Shakir
:
Allah's commandment has come, therefore do not desire to hasten it; glory be to Him, and highly exalted be He above what they associate (with Him).
016:001 Sherali
:
The decree of ALLAH is at hand, so seek ye not to hasten it. Holy is HE and exalted far above all that which they associate with HIM.
016:001 Yusufali
:
(Inevitable) cometh (to pass) the Command of Allah: seek ye not then to hasten it: Glory to Him, and far is He above having the partners they ascribe unto Him!


Allah knows best what the verse from al insaan means, when I first read it, it read as a soothing to the prophet and a reminder of Allah's mercy and favour to man, however, the verses of Quran do tend to question the mind of the reader through different angles depending upon their circumstances, just as the verses revealed directly addressing the prophet also make us think when we read them or hear them in salaah.
Although I am human and could possibly be mistaken in my understanding (though I have a duty to read it in the language I understand best) and I am required to be sincere in my interpretation.....otherwise I will be the first to go astray. And Allah knows best.


I don't think understanding a language is a sign of understanding Allah and possesing 'aql or taqwa, although it is certainly useful to understand Arabic since it makes understanding the original texts easy without having to rely on and trust the readings of others as a blind mufti or illiterate man would despite his high intellect.
The story reported about imaam Abu Haneefa who was said to have been sitting in halaqah when a scholar of hadeeth narrated a hadith he didn't know is more appropriate, when a woman came and asked a question which the others couldn't answer, Abu haneefa answered it, when the scholar of hadeeth asked him how he had arrived at the answer (he may have had a feeling from the sequence of events) Abu Haneefa is reported to have said: from the hadeeth you just narrated earlier.
The knowledge of the topic was with one person whereas the 'aql to interpret it was with another.

(I found this interesting article as I was searching for a quote on the above which I couldn't find:
https://sunnahmuakada.wordpress.com/...d-its-sources/ )


So the argument that the individual lacked Arabic and relied on testimony of individuals whom he trusted (if he was being sincere) doesn't refute his answer - but the facts might.



See also:



Regarding the claim that the theory is kufr, what do you base it on, and would you also hand over the hypothesis that the earth was a rough sphere to kufr maybe a thousand years ago or a little less if someone (Such as ibn Taymiyyah - labelled "the heretic from Harran" by some of his numerous detractors) stated it?
What makes you believe that the earth is spherical?

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاء لِلّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالأَقْرَبِينَ إِن يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقَيرًا فَاللّهُ أَوْلَى بِهِمَا فَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ الْهَوَى أَن تَعْدِلُواْ وَإِن تَلْوُواْ أَوْ تُعْرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا {135
004:135
:
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice and fairness as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin (and or close ones), be they rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both. So follow not the lusts and vain desires lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort (your witness) or refuse to give it, then (know that) certainly Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do

It is a "rhetorical" question. A question asked to imply that it surely happened. And "al insaan" means "the man" and it refers to all mankind not a specific man or men. Just as in this ayah.

103:2 (إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ)
('inn al'iinsan lafi khusr)
(Most surely man is in loss) ( BY M.H. SHAKIR )

It means all mankind in the substance of "man"

It is a "rhetorical" question. A question asked to imply that it surely happened. And "al insaan" means "the man" and it refers to all mankind not a specific man or men. Just as in this ayah.

103:2 (إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ)
('inn al'iinsan lafi khusr)
(Most surely man is in loss) ( BY M.H. SHAKIR )

It means all mankind in the substance of "man"

It appears to be asking reader from amongst humankind, "al-insaan" usually means "the human" in contrast to "an-Naas" "humankind".

As we've seen with the numerous translations, the understanding of the verse is limited, and each person seems to get puzzled at some verses and stop and think for a while.
What if it's a question that asks: "has there ever come upon man a time when he wasn't anything of mention?" As a way of making the reader wonder "actually there never has" or "there certainly was" depending upon the context the reader thinks of.

Yusuf 'Ali's "has there not" just isn't there in literal translation and there doesn't seem to be a valid reason to add that "not" in translation. You'll notice there's only one "not" and it comes later in the verse.


And Allah knows best.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

Salam. Of course what I believe matters to me and people who think like me not you or people who think like you.





I agree I am not a Quran expert. I don't speak even Arabic.

Case closed. The rest of what you say, given that, has no merit.

format_quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez

Case closed. The rest of what you say, given that, has no merit.

What are you talking about?
Answer valid questions and explain your position and refrain from attempting to discredit without basis.
Have you studied the lives of the sahabah?
Are you aware that a significant number and possibly the majority of people out there defending the truth with their tongue and providing verses from translations do not speak arabic as a first language?

Does the good that they do and teach "have no merit"?
Keep the illiteracy and limited knowledge of some sahabah in mind as you respond, and the fact that Abu Dharr turned the hearts of the majority of his whole tribe ghifaar towards Allah with a few days of knowledge, mainly testimony based. And that there are more than a few small bunches of trolls (with not much more knowledge than islam for dummies) being paid by the zionist neocon secularits to sit at computers and spout hatred against islam and turn people away from the faith like the poets of ukaz were hired by abu lahab and co., will you take the responsibility of training and hiring scholars of the highest eminence to refute every single falsehood?

Here's an example of a person who understands Islam to an extent reasonable enough to give dawah and to refute falsehood, who was able to patiently refute a hysterical troll despite the undue vilification, my comment appears below part 1:
His level of Arabic appears to be irrelevant here and he's using a translation that he appears to trust as truthful: