PDA

View Full Version : Attitudes on apostasy softening?



glo
04-21-2008, 03:54 PM
I came across this article, which I thought was interesting.
I am highlighting the parts which particularly struck me:

There's a widespread belief that the penalty for leaving Islam is death - hence, perhaps, the killing of a British teacher last week. But Shiraz Maher believes attitudes may be softening.

Ziya Meral's parents disowned him when he converted from Islam to Christianity.

"They said 'go away, you're not our son.' They told people I died in an accident rather than having the shame of their son leaving Islam."

Born and raised in Turkey, he decided to convert to Christianity after moving to university. He knew telling his parents would be a difficult moment even though they're not particularly observant Muslims, and he planned to break the news to them gently.

In the end, events overtook him. Before heading back to Turkey for the holidays, Ziya briefly visited a Christian summer camp where he was filmed eating a bowl of spaghetti.

The first his parents heard of his conversion was when they saw Ziya on the national news being described as "an evil missionary" intent on "brainwashing" Turkish children.

His parents decided they would rather tell people that he was dead than acknowledge he was a Christian. And Ziya, who now lives in the UK, is not alone in this experience.

Sophia, which is not her real name, faced similar pressures when she decided to become a Christian.

Coming from a Pakistani background but living in east London, 28-year-old Sophia spoke about the extreme cultural pressures her family put her under.

"They kept saying: 'The punishment is death, do you know the punishment is death?'"

In the end, Sophia ran away from home. Her mother tracked her down and turned up at her baptism.

"I got up to get baptised, that's when my mother got up, ran to the front and tried to pull me out of the water.

"My brother was really angry. He reacted and phoned me on my mobile and just said: 'I'm coming down to burn that church.'"

For Sophia and Ziya, a lot of the prejudice they faced seemed to be borne out of cultural ideas, which are particularly ingrained in the South Asian community relating to notions of family honour.

But it's too easy to say this is just a cultural problem. Dig a little deeper and you find that there is a theological argument which advocates the death penalty for apostates, which has serious implications for British society.

Last week, British teacher Daud Hassan Ali, 64, was shot dead in Somalia. His widow, Margaret Ali, said her husband was targeted by Islamists who "believe it is ok to kill any man who was born into Islam and left the faith".

Those renouncing their faith for atheism or agnosticism are viewed in a similar way to those who adopt another faith.

A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy.

Until recently, I would have shared that view, but since personally rejecting extremism myself, I've been re-examining the issues which I once regarded as conclusive.

Discretion

I was staggered to learn that the Quran does not say anything about punishing apostates and that its proponents use two hadiths instead to support their view. Hadiths are the recorded traditions and sayings of the Prophet which, in addition to the Quran, provide an additional source of Islamic law.

The hadiths which relate to apostasy are linguistically ambiguous and open to interpretation. Distinguished scholars told me that the hadiths actually speak about a death penalty for treason, not apostasy. And even then, they stressed the punishment is discretionary.

Dr Hisham Hellyer is a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies at University of Oxford, and has researched classical Islamic law.

He believes the death penalty punishment is no longer applicable and should be suspended under certain circumstances.

Usama Hassan, a Cambridge-educated scientist and an imam, goes further and says the classical scholars were wrong in how they interpreted the Quran. He is unequivocal in denouncing those who advocate the death penalty.

"I believe the classical law of apostasy in Islam is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of the original sources, because the Quran and Hadith don't actually talk about a death penalty for apostasy."

Last year Egypt's Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, unequivocally told the Washington Post that the death penalty for apostasy simply no longer applies. It provoked a flurry of debate in Egypt and the wider Middle East.

Traitor

The idea of killing apostates has become a resurgent theme in recent years, a fact closely-related to the increasing politicisation of Islam since 9/11.

It epitomises the "us and them" mentality felt by many Muslims between themselves and the West. And there's an uncomfortable conclusion to all this.

Muslim attitudes towards apostasy are a metaphor for the wider struggle taking place within Islam
Shiraz Maher

If there is a death penalty for treason, then who defines what treason is?

Earlier this year a group of men from Birmingham pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring to kidnap and behead a British Muslim solider because they regarded him as a traitor. Joining the British army was to them treason against Islam.

So while the debate surrounding one aspect of apostasy continues, it is simultaneously throwing up an entirely new series of challenges around other issues including what should be considered treason against Islam.

When Ziya talked about what happened to him, he was just finishing a report on the experiences of apostates, called No Place to Call Home. He had interviewed 28 apostates in six different countries as part of a year-long research project.

His report found that although the death penalty is rarely applied through the courts, apostates still face gross and wide-ranging human rights abuses at the hands of the state, radical groups and local communities."

It seems that Muslim attitudes towards apostasy are a metaphor for the wider struggle taking place within Islam, between those who argue for a progressive form of Islam and those who argue for more dogmatic interpretations.

Attitudes to apostasy may be a useful barometer for judging where it's headed.
(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7355515.stm)

As always, I am interested to hear how people personally feel about this.
And how they would apply it to their personal circumstances.

How far would you go, if a close member of your family or circle of friends became an apostate?
Would you wish for them to be killed?
Would you cut them out of your life?
Would you threaten them?
Would you pretend they were dead?
Would you continue to socialise with them and talk to them?

Looking forward to your replies. :)

Salaam.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
aamirsaab
04-21-2008, 10:48 PM
Originally Posted by glo
....How far would you go, if a close member of your family or circle of friends became an apostate?
Would you wish for them to be killed?
Nope
Would you cut them out of your life?
Nope
Would you threated them?
Nope
Would you pretend they were dead?
Nope
Would you continue to socialise with them and talk to them?
Yep. See when I view my peers, I do not see creed, colour or religion. I see them as fellow human beings. My neutral mode is being nice to people so that's what I do - regardless of your religion ec.

Salaam.
Walaikum asalam :)
Reply

The_Prince
04-22-2008, 01:15 AM
if i knew someone who became an apostate i wouldnt associate with them, the reason is because i have yet to see ONE apostate who hasnt become an apostate and gone on to insult Islam and the Muslims.

aposates are also arrogant, they think their gods and scholars on Islam, just because they were Muslim they feel they know it all, but too bad their just a bunch of doomed lost souls as Allah says.

and i agree with the scholars quoted, the Quran speaks on apostacy, but gives no worldy punishments, the Quran specifically and explicitly says their punishment awaits them in the here-after, Allah could have easily said their punishment should be death so go kill them.

as for the hadith, the hadith is very vague, and not specific, so we cant really judge by it.
Reply

جوري
04-22-2008, 01:39 AM
Originally Posted by glo
Attitudes on apostasy softening?
No


As always, I am interested to hear how people personally feel about this.
And how they would apply it to their personal circumstances.

How far would you go, if a close member of your family or circle of friends became an apostate?
Talk to them at first, if adamant, then cut them off

Would you wish for them to be killed?
If there were an Islamic state then Yes. Islam isn't just a religion but a full governing system...This is very much treason, no different than the death penalty sought in the U.S for treason.. example: Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg.

Would you cut them out of your life?
Simply not deal with them

Would you threated them?
?

Would you pretend they were dead?
Yes.

Would you continue to socialise with them and talk to them?
No.

Looking forward to your replies. :)

Salaam
cheers
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
islamirama
04-22-2008, 02:05 AM
i think you should visit this link first to better understand this concept of apostasy and punishment of death in islam.

http://www.youtube.com/v/lBJmm-nfEow&rel=1

then we'll talk more :)
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-22-2008, 02:10 AM
My views on this controversial issue of "apostasy" is that the death penalty was ordered by Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) under certain circumstances. Forgive me if I got this context wrong but according to what I know:

Pagan Arabs who hated the Prophet and Muslims would hypocritically embrace Islam and then later publicly renounce it and spread lies about it to weaken the new Muslim flock. This was one of their strategies to fight against Islam. So, therefore when the order of the death penalty was given, they had to change their tactics out of fear of death.

Anyway, I recommend the following very interesting pieces of writings on this issue:-

THE PUNISHMENT OF APOSTASY IN ISLAM
Part I: The Qur`anic Perspective
By Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm


THE PUNISHMENT OF APOSTASY IN ISLAM
Part II: An Examination of the Ahadith on the Subject
By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
http://islamicperspectives.com/Punis...asy_Part2.html
Reply

glo
04-22-2008, 02:31 AM
Originally Posted by islamirama
i think you should visit this link first to better understand this concept of apostasy and punishment of death in islam.

http://www.youtube.com/v/lBJmm-nfEow&rel=1

then we'll talk more :)
Thank you for the link, islamirama.
I enjoyed watching it. And I liked the speaker.

I didn't hear anything which seemed to contradict the notion of the article I posted - reasons for punishment being that of threat to Islam (i.e. treason) rather that the life choice of one individual.
One comment that stood our to me, was that apostates who just turn from their faith quietly, should not require punishment.

I specifically asked my questions on a personal level.
The reason is, that I think it is easy for us to look down on those who do wrong, and to be ready to pass judgment on the and demand that justice be done.

What I am interested in, is whether we would still apply those measures, if the people committing the wrong are people close to us?
Would somebody really throw his son/daughter out of the house, if they became apostates?
Would somebody really never speak to his brother/sister again?
Would somebody really become involved in the killing of a close family member?

Clearly some people do.
Perhaps we cannot answer those questions for ourselves, until we really find ourselves in such situations ...
But it is worth searching our own feelings and conscience.

Peace
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-22-2008, 03:26 AM
Originally Posted by islamirama
i think you should visit this link first to better understand this concept of apostasy and punishment of death in islam.

http://www.youtube.com/v/lBJmm-nfEow&rel=1

then we'll talk more :)
According to this video it were Jews which were hypocritically embracing Islam and then publicly renouncing it and not Pagan Arabs as I always thought. My bad.
Reply

glo
04-22-2008, 03:38 AM
As a side comment, the video link which islamirama posted, indicates the importance in understanding the consequences if entering Islam - once you have committed yourself to Islam, leaving the faith would be a grave sin with grave consequences.

I wonder if that is impressed on people before they say Shadaha?
This attitude of 'once you're in, you cannot leave' seems in stark contrast to the other which says 'Islam is a journey, during which you continue to grow in knowledge and understanding'.

What if during that journey you learn something, which may make you want to leave the religion? :?

Peace
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-22-2008, 03:40 AM
How about the reverse.

Would any of the non-muslims here wish their friend dead or estrange their friend or pretend they were dead if they became a muslim? Personally I would still consider them my friends.

Is if fair of us on either side to negatively judge those who would turn on their former friend, be it a new convert or apostate? I say yes.
Reply

glo
04-22-2008, 04:00 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
How about the reverse.

Would any of the non-muslims here wish their friend dead or estrange their friend or pretend they were dead if they became a muslim? Personally I would still consider them my friends.
I agree.
If somebody close to me became a Muslim, I may strongly disagree with their decision, but I don't think it would stop me from being friendly/caring/loving ... I certainly wouldn't wish them any harm!

Is if fair of us on either side to negatively judge those who would turn on their former friend, be it a new convert or apostate? I say yes.
Man, don't do that double negative thing ... not at 5 in the morning!!!
I had to read that sentence 3 times!
Now I understand it (I think!), I agree with you (I think!) :D
Reply

snakelegs
04-22-2008, 05:01 AM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
My views on this controversial issue of "apostasy" is that the death penalty was ordered by Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) under certain circumstances. Forgive me if I got this context wrong but according to what I know:

Pagan Arabs who hated the Prophet and Muslims would hypocritically embrace Islam and then later publicly renounce it and spread lies about it to weaken the new Muslim flock. This was one of their strategies to fight against Islam. So, therefore when the order of the death penalty was given, they had to change their tactics out of fear of death.

Anyway, I recommend the following very interesting pieces of writings on this issue:-

THE PUNISHMENT OF APOSTASY IN ISLAM
Part I: The Qur`anic Perspective
By Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm


THE PUNISHMENT OF APOSTASY IN ISLAM
Part II: An Examination of the Ahadith on the Subject
By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
http://islamicperspectives.com/Punis...asy_Part2.html
these articles are fairly long, but really worth while reading for those who are interested in the subject.
Reply

Al-Zaara
04-22-2008, 05:41 AM
Originally Posted by glo
How far would you go, if a close member of your family or circle of friends became an apostate?
Family -I'd be tremendously disappointed, I'd try to talk as much as possible, do whatever I can, but in the end, their choice.

Circle of friends - I'd be shocked, try the same as above maybe not as much 'cause quite frankly I'm not as much in contact with Muslim friends as I am with non-Muslim ones, so.

Would you wish for them to be killed?
No.

Would you cut them out of your life?
No.

Would you threaten them?
No.

Would you pretend they were dead?
No.

Would you continue to socialise with them and talk to them?
Yes.


Salaam
Peace!
Reply

barney
04-22-2008, 06:24 AM
Glo. Your artical's author diddnt look very far. Here are the verses.
Sura (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them.

Straightforward;-Kill. (and dont be freinds to those your trying to kill,strangely enough)

9:74 PICKTHAL: They swear by Allah that they said nothing (wrong), yet they did say the word of disbelief, and did disbelieve after their Surrender (to Allah). And they purposed that which they could not attain, and they sought revenge only that Allah by His messenger should enrich them of His bounty. If they repent it will be better for them; and if they turn away, Allah will afflict them with a painful doom in the world and the Hereafter, and they have no protecting friend nor helper in the earth.

(Which reads that Allah will be the one who will get them in this life and the next, muslims role is not to inflict the punishment but certainly not to be a helper or freind. This is relating to some POW's who saved their necks by reverting to Islam, but were quick to apostacise when they thought the coast was clear!)
005.054
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.

009.066
YUSUFALI: Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin
Reply

barney
04-22-2008, 06:32 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
How about the reverse.

Would any of the non-muslims here wish their friend dead or estrange their friend or pretend they were dead if they became a muslim? Personally I would still consider them my friends.

Is if fair of us on either side to negatively judge those who would turn on their former friend, be it a new convert or apostate? I say yes.
I'd be happy for them that they had found their faith.
I'd be concerned for them that they really understood what they were doing because of the one-way-door, but I think Apostate males get a few days to change their mind about going "renegade", and can safely rejoin Islam, I might be wrong on that, but I did read it or hear it somewhere.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-22-2008, 08:06 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Glo. Your artical's author diddnt look very far. Here are the verses.
Sura (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them.

Straightforward;-Kill. (and dont be freinds to those your trying to kill,strangely enough)
Shame on "Barney" for taking verses out of context and spreading falsehood.

Quran 4:89
Verse says:
But if they turn away, catch them and slaughter them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (4:89)

Once again the context is ignored.

They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them. (YUSUF ALI Translation, Quran 4:89-91)

When we read it in context, verse 4:89 is NOT to those “who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people.” This verse is only referring to those “withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands”.

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi says with regards to this verse:

“Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.”

Therefore, it is clear that the verse only allows self-defence against those who “withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands”. Naturally, it would be necessary for the enemies to withdraw and make peace in order to achieve peace. Verse is not referring to “those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people”.

In “…withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands”, it is obviously necessary to give guarantees of peace or form a treaty in addition to stop fighting. Otherwise, anyone can pretend to be “restraining their hands” when they are weak, and when they are strong again they come back and attack again. Thus to make it official Quran says to give you (guarantees) of peace, and not act as two-faced.

Taken from:
http://www.islamic-shield.com/2008/0...nt-verses.html
Reply

north_malaysian
04-22-2008, 08:47 AM
Would you wish for them to be killed?
No.. I'm not an executioner.

Would you cut them out of your life?
Yes...If they insult me of being a Muslim.

Would you threaten them?
No.... I have other zillions of things to be done and more important.

Would you pretend they were dead?
Like Zombies .... Of course not...

Would you continue to socialise with them and talk to them?
Yes... as long as they are not insulting my religion.
Reply

barney
04-22-2008, 10:23 AM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
Shame on "Barney" for taking verses out of context and spreading falsehood.

Quran 4:89
Verse says:
But if they turn away, catch them and slaughter them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (4:89)

Once again the context is ignored.

They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them. (YUSUF ALI Translation, Quran 4:89-91)

When we read it in context, verse 4:89 is NOT to those “who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people.” This verse is only referring to those “withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands”.

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi says with regards to this verse:

“Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.”

Therefore, it is clear that the verse only allows self-defence against those who “withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands”. Naturally, it would be necessary for the enemies to withdraw and make peace in order to achieve peace. Verse is not referring to “those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people”.

In “…withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands”, it is obviously necessary to give guarantees of peace or form a treaty in addition to stop fighting. Otherwise, anyone can pretend to be “restraining their hands” when they are weak, and when they are strong again they come back and attack again. Thus to make it official Quran says to give you (guarantees) of peace, and not act as two-faced.

Taken from:
http://www.islamic-shield.com/2008/0...nt-verses.html
The Context of the Surah was it was revealed following some Apostates joining Mohammeds enemies.
Strange how reading the same peice can give two seperate answers.
Cutting through the awkward grammer the verse says to me:

1)Those who reject Islam and want you to reject it, dont be freinds or take help from them until they fear your God. (come back to Islam)
2)If they turn renegade (apostocise) Kill them wherever they are, unless they join your allies.(now we seem to be talking about war;as indeed the surah was revealed in response to such a situation to Mohammed).
Exceptions are:
If they dont want to fight you and their own people.
If they run away and offer a peace treaty.
If they withdraw not,(keep pestering), they succum to tempation,(keep sinning)and all they are not doing is attacking but dont formalise a treaty,grab em & kill them.
This has been made clear.


Nutshelled; Kill apostates unless you are allied with them or they offer a treaty and are not attacking you.


This thread is about attitudes to apostacism softening. The fact that there are scholars who refuse to interprete the surahs in the true context would show that attitudes are softening.
Reply

Amadeus85
04-22-2008, 01:18 PM
The attitudes on apostaty in muslim world isnt softening. And in Europe there is no such thing as punishent for apostasy,so there shouldnt be a problem.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
04-22-2008, 01:38 PM
Hi Barney
Nutshelled; Kill apostates unless you are allied with them or they offer a treaty and are not attacking you.
Note that there's a difference between:
1. How a muslim should act towards a non moslim.
They should be always tolerant and only fight in self-defense.
2. How a muslim state should act against non-muslims within that state.
The state should provide protection and allow practice of their own religion on the condition that the person follows the law.
3. How a muslim state should act against a non-muslims state. They should always seek peace and treaty's. But if the neighboring countries refuse to give that, then the state should respond to that accordingly.

I guess that should answer any objections anyone could have against this verse. Other then that I'd like to add I'm a firm opponent against death penalty for apostasy. As I see it, the only proof that is used to defend death penalty is for "apostacy + treason" and not for simple apostasy. Add to that there are hadeeth that show people who apostated and weren't killed. Also, for each verse like the ones you quoted, there's many more that suggest a tolerant behavior against non-muslims.

So in a nutshell, it's completely out of context ^_^
Reply

S_87
04-22-2008, 03:34 PM
Would you cut them out of your life?
Yes

Would you threaten them?
like ill kill you or something? No. even though apostasy is a crime punishable by death this cant just be done by anyone. as far as im aware it would need to go through court.

Would you continue to socialise with them and talk to them?
no theyd be cut out of my life...
and i would pray for their guidance or they get what they deserve.
Reply

glo
04-22-2008, 07:22 PM
There is a radio programme on this very article playing right now on BBC4 radio.
Former Muslim radical Shiraz Maher spent his student days campaigning for an Islamic caliphate in which execution for renouncing Islam would be written into the constitution. Now Shiraz is calling for moderation and greater Muslim integration into British life, a stance which has meant he himself is now labelled an apostate by some Muslim radicals, for which the penalty is death. He asks whether such an extreme punishment is really justified by the Qu'ran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad.
Repeated: Sunday 27 April 2008 17:00-17:40 (Radio 4 FM)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/pip/2fcan/
Reply

MSalman
04-22-2008, 07:41 PM
i think the best way to deal with this issue is how some of the great Islamic scholars have advised: I heard in one of the lectures that Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (May Allah have mercy on him) said that instead of immediately putting the apostate to death we should give him dawa'h and encourage him to come back. Here is the view of some of the other scholars (May Allah have mercy on them)

The apostate is not to be put to death immediately after he falls into apostasy, especially if his apostasy happens because of some doubt that arose. Rather he should be asked to repent and he should be offered the opportunity to return to Islam and resolve his doubts, if he has any doubts. Then if he persists in his apostasy after that, he is to be put to death.

Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni, 9/18:

The apostate should not be put to death until he has been asked to repent three times. This is the view of the majority of scholars, including ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Ata’, al-Nakhaii, Maalik, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i, Ishaaq and others. Because apostasy comes about because of doubt, and cannot be dispelled in an instant. Time should be allowed for the person to rethink the matter, and the best length of time is three days.
Source: http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=14231&ln=eng
Reply

glo
04-22-2008, 07:46 PM
In the above mentioned radio programme I heard an Imam make the statement that although the death penalty exists in Islam, it was only ever be intended to be carried out by 'the infallible imaams'.

I don't know what that means, or who the infallible imaams are.

Can somebody help me?

Salaam
Reply

S_87
04-22-2008, 08:52 PM
Originally Posted by glo
In the above mentioned radio programme I heard an Imam make the statement that although the death penalty exists in Islam, it was only ever be intended to be carried out by 'the infallible imaams'.

I don't know what that means, or who the infallible imaams are.

Can somebody help me?

Salaam
Peace

do you have any idea at all if this person was a shia? :?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
04-22-2008, 10:22 PM
I wouldn't put money on it since gambling is haram, but yeah probably shia, since there's no such thing as "infallible imam" in Islam
Reply

islamirama
04-23-2008, 12:57 AM
Originally Posted by glo
Thank you for the link, islamirama.
I enjoyed watching it. And I liked the speaker.

I didn't hear anything which seemed to contradict the notion of the article I posted - reasons for punishment being that of threat to Islam (i.e. treason) rather that the life choice of one individual.
One comment that stood our to me, was that apostates who just turn from their faith quietly, should not require punishment.

I specifically asked my questions on a personal level.
The reason is, that I think it is easy for us to look down on those who do wrong, and to be ready to pass judgment on the and demand that justice be done.

What I am interested in, is whether we would still apply those measures, if the people committing the wrong are people close to us?
Would somebody really throw his son/daughter out of the house, if they became apostates?
Would somebody really never speak to his brother/sister again?
Would somebody really become involved in the killing of a close family member?

Clearly some people do.
Perhaps we cannot answer those questions for ourselves, until we really find ourselves in such situations ...
But it is worth searching our own feelings and conscience.

Peace
I"m glad you found the video illuminating.

There were Muslims who had turned Christians at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and he didn't hunt them down or anything. Clearly salman Rushdie and other anti-islam bigot ex-Muslims would be deserving of this punishment because they are clearly waging a war against Islam. Some Christians even criticized the pope for publicly baptizing this one ex-Muslim when uk's PM Blair was done in private. They questioned the faith of such an ex-Muslim because when someone converts to another religion (be it Islam or Christianity or what not) they do it out of love for that new religion and not hate for the old one, nor go on a hatred anti-religion rampage like a blind lunatic.

As for your questions on a personal level. It really depends from family to family and region to region. Those who are more cultural based will take more aggressive approach then those who are more islamic knowledge based.

As for the speaker. He is an african american convert. he's name is Bilal Phillips. Search him in youtube and you'll see many of his talks uploaded. Look for contemporary issue series to watch similar videos to the one i shared.
Reply

Woodrow
04-23-2008, 01:21 AM
Originally Posted by glo
In the above mentioned radio programme I heard an Imam make the statement that although the death penalty exists in Islam, it was only ever be intended to be carried out by 'the infallible imaams'.

I don't know what that means, or who the infallible imaams are.

Can somebody help me?

Salaam
I may be misreading. But to me it seems that the Imam is stating that while the death penalty exists, it can not be carried out as the only ones who could carry it out would be infallible Imams. In other words there is nobody qualified to carry the penalty out.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-23-2008, 03:20 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Nutshelled; Kill apostates unless you are allied with them or they offer a treaty and are not attacking you.
Qur`an 4:88-91
The four verses, 4:88-91, when carefully examined, also show that the Qur`anic perspective conflicts with the death penalty for apostasy. The first two verses state:

Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two groups regarding the hypocrites? God has cast them backward (arkasa) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom God has made to go astray? And he whom God has made to go astray, you will not find for him any way. They wish that you reject faith as they have done, so that you all become the same. So take not protectors/friends from them till they emigrate in the way of God. But if they turn away, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither protectors/friends from them nor helpers. (4:88-89)

This passage begins by talking about hypocrites, that is, people who had declared themselves Muslims but in their hearts had decided not to believe in the teachings of Islam. The demand that they should do hijrah fi sabil allah (emigrate for the sake of God) shows that they are not the hypocrites of Madinah but are living among non-Muslims in Makkah and possibly elsewhere. Verse 98 of the same surah shows that these people were not doing hijrah despite the fact that they were able to. The reason for their not doing hijrah was their hypocrisy. Makkan non-believers who had persecuted Muslims for years, would not have tolerated in their midst any true Muslims. They would have accepted among them only those “Muslims” who had stopped taking their “islam” seriously and felt more comfortable among non-believers, hostile to Islam, than among Muslims. These hypocrites pretended to be Muslims because they wanted to be secure from both sides (see 4:91). And Makkan non-believers did not force them to publicly renounce their “islam” because they found them useful for gathering information about Muslims or for some other subversive actions against the ummah.

In order to defeat these hypocrites in their game and force them to clearly choose between Islam and kufr, God commanded them to do hijrah. Their obedience to this command meant that they had chosen Islam and their disobedience meant that they had chosen kufr. Those who chose kufr in this way became apostates, since previously they called themselves Muslims. Thus the verses are a source of guidance for us regarding the way the apostates are to be treated.

At first sight the words “seize them and kill them wherever you find them” would suggest that they are to be killed. But this is quickly seen to be wrong if we read the next two verses:

Except those who join a group between you and whom there is a (peace-) treaty or those who approach you with their hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their own people. Had God willed he would have given them power over you and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you but give you (guarantees of) peace, then God has opened no way for you against them.

You will find others that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation they give in to it. If they do not withdraw from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace, nor restrain their hands, seize them and kill them, wherever you find them. In their case We have provided you with a clear warrant against them. (4:90-91).

These verses clarify the command “seize them and kill them”. The apostates who rejected Islam by failing to emigrate as commanded by God are divided into three categories:

1)Those who ally themselves with a group with whom Muslims have a peace treaty;

2)Those who want to keep neutrality, committing themselves to peace with both the Muslims and their own people who had not accepted Islam;

3)Those who provide no real guarantee of peace to Muslims and by all indications ally themselves with non-believers engaged in hostilities towards Islam.

The first two types of apostates are to be left in peace while the third one is to be treated like any non-believers in a state of war: they are to be seized and killed wherever they are found. Notice that the Qur`an uses the words “God has opened no way for you against them” in connection with the apostates of the first two types. This means that the Qur`an actually prohibits killing those apostates who want to live in peaceful terms with the Muslims.

Thus according to the Qur`an the apostates are to be treated like other kuffar: If they want to live in peace with the Muslims, they are to be left in peace and if they assume a hostile attitude, then they are to be treated accordingly.

Reply

glo
04-23-2008, 05:57 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I may be misreading. But to me it seems that the Imam is stating that while the death penalty exists, it can not be carried out as the only ones who could carry it out would be infallible Imams. In other words there is nobody qualified to carry the penalty out.
Thank you, Woodrow. Being a radio programme, it was all too quick for me to find out who the speaker was, and what evidecne he based his statement on.

I don't know anything about the infallible imams (I came away with the impression that he meant an actual group of imams - possibly in the past ... but I might have misheard)
To clarify this I have asked a question about the infallible imams in the Seeking Knowledge section, so I will wait for the thread to be approved there, rather than take the thread off topic here.

Peace
Reply

glo
04-23-2008, 06:03 AM
Originally Posted by islamirama
Some Christians even criticized the pope for publicly baptizing this one ex-Muslim when uk's PM Blair was done in private. They questioned the faith of such an ex-Muslim because when someone converts to another religion (be it Islam or Christianity or what not) they do it out of love for that new religion and not hate for the old one, nor go on a hatred anti-religion rampage like a blind lunatic.
Do you think converting so publically to another religion could be seen as an act of treason?

(On a side note about the baptism, I would like to add that the baptism is meant to be a public and open declaration. Not to show off oneself, but for the glory of God - to demonstrate that one has left behind the 'old life' and entered into a new one with God.)

As for your questions on a personal level. It really depends from family to family and region to region. Those who are more cultural based will take more aggressive approach then those who are more islamic knowledge based.
What are your personal views?

As for the speaker. He is an african american convert. he's name is Bilal Phillips. Search him in youtube and you'll see many of his talks uploaded. Look for contemporary issue series to watch similar videos to the one i shared.
I might just do that. Thank you. I like his measured and calm way of speaking, and his ability to relate to the modern Western world. :)

Peace
Reply

islamirama
04-23-2008, 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by glo
Do you think converting so publically to another religion could be seen as an act of treason?

(On a side note about the baptism, I would like to add that the baptism is meant to be a public and open declaration. Not to show off oneself, but for the glory of God - to demonstrate that one has left behind the 'old life' and entered into a new one with God.)
What i meant was that the christian was stating how come the baptizing of blair was done in private and baptizing of this ex-muslim done in public. It goes on to say one has to question the intention and message pope is trying to send to the Muslim world, especially knowing well how much this ex is an anti-islam bigot. The author also questioned the sincerity of this conversion stating whether if he is convert for love of christianity to further hurt Islam with his actions. So basically the anti-islam trash has an agenda of his own and doesn't really care what religion he converts to, he makes his decisions based on how he think he can hurt islam the most.


What are your personal views?
I think i already gave those in my first post.
Reply

glo
04-23-2008, 05:59 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama

What are your personal views?
I think i already gave those in my first post.
You did?
I must have missed the post ...

Peace
Reply

Izyan
04-24-2008, 05:04 AM
Speaking as an apostate I am completely cut off. The only one i have contact with is my brother and that is vary rare. My mother wept and my father warned me to never come around under threat of violence. It pained me tremendously but as time has passed I have forgiven them.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
04-24-2008, 01:00 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Speaking as an apostate I am completely cut off. The only one i have contact with is my brother and that is vary rare. My mother wept and my father warned me to never come around under threat of violence. It pained me tremendously but as time has passed I have forgiven them.
I'm sorry to hear that, and how big of you to forgive them. Would you mind if I ask some questions out of curiosity?
1. I take it you were born in a Muslim family right? So being muslim yourself must have been the most logical thing at first when growing up, but did you at some time truly believe, or were you just a muslim because your enviroment told you to?
2. If you did believe at some point, what changed in your views that made you apostate?
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-24-2008, 09:28 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Speaking as an apostate I am completely cut off. The only one i have contact with is my brother and that is vary rare. My mother wept and my father warned me to never come around under threat of violence. It pained me tremendously but as time has passed I have forgiven them.
I feel for you.

I can't relate as I was raised by fairly secular people (though my mother is a christian she didn't push it on my dad or myself or my sister at all), but I have heard similar stories from others in similar situations, mostly from fundamentalist christian backgrounds.

It amazes and scares me how people can turn on their loved ones for what to me are entirely irrational beliefs, imaginary gods, etc.

All i can really say is that its probably for the best that you are away from them, so their influence does not effect your own children and continue the cycle of intollerance.
Reply

barney
04-24-2008, 09:37 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Speaking as an apostate I am completely cut off. The only one i have contact with is my brother and that is vary rare. My mother wept and my father warned me to never come around under threat of violence. It pained me tremendously but as time has passed I have forgiven them.
Amazing that you forgive them. A very sad story indeed.
Reply

جوري
04-24-2008, 09:50 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Speaking as an apostate I am completely cut off. The only one i have contact with is my brother and that is vary rare. My mother wept and my father warned me to never come around under threat of violence. It pained me tremendously but as time has passed I have forgiven them.
Why are you on an Islamic forum? personally if I had extirpated myself from any binding 'imaginary beliefs'- I'd look some place else where I can be fostered with like minds, not walking into their den with my own two ..err fingers

Is this a form for you to gain approval from Muslims?
cheers
Reply

Izyan
04-24-2008, 11:17 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
I'm sorry to hear that, and how big of you to forgive them. Would you mind if I ask some questions out of curiosity?
1. I take it you were born in a Muslim family right? So being muslim yourself must have been the most logical thing at first when growing up, but did you at some time truly believe, or were you just a muslim because your enviroment told you to?
2. If you did believe at some point, what changed in your views that made you apostate?
1. I truly believed up until I was a teenager.

2. At around 17 I became curious and started studying other religions from Christians to Wiccans. The more I read about christianity the more it felt right to me. I went to a church a couple of towns over when I was 22 and I was hooked. That being said I do keep an open mind and embrace evreyones beliefs but govern my life as a christian.
Reply

Izyan
04-24-2008, 11:23 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Why are you on an Islamic forum? personally if I had extirpated myself from any binding 'imaginary beliefs'- I'd look some place else where I can be fostered with like minds, not walking into their den with my own two ..err fingers

Is this a form for you to gain approval from Muslims?
cheers
lol I don't seek anyones approval but Gods nor have I labeled anyone beliefs imaginary. I came here because even though I'm an apostate I still miss the debates I had with people in my family.
Reply

جوري
04-24-2008, 11:27 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
lol I don't seek anyones approval but Gods
All three of them?

Originally Posted by Izyan
nor have I labeled anyone beliefs imaginary.
yeah, it was your fellow commiserate.. Sure he'll be glad to learn, that you became an apostate not to atheism but to the dark ages!

Originally Posted by Izyan
I came here because even though I'm an apostate I still miss the debates I had with people in my family.
An unlikely story-- but amusing and virtually appealing..

cheers
Reply

Izyan
04-24-2008, 11:30 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I feel for you.

I can't relate as I was raised by fairly secular people (though my mother is a christian she didn't push it on my dad or myself or my sister at all), but I have heard similar stories from others in similar situations, mostly from fundamentalist christian backgrounds.

It amazes and scares me how people can turn on their loved ones for what to me are entirely irrational beliefs, imaginary gods, etc.

All i can really say is that its probably for the best that you are away from them, so their influence does not effect your own children and continue the cycle of intollerance.
Don't feel sorry for me feel sorry for them. Their close mindeness will hinder them in life. When you shut off any part of society you lose. I've taken away a lot from Islam that I will benefit from. I've taken Hindu and Budhism philosophies and used them too. If people just open up it will enrich their lives. I've learned some pretty nteresting things in my travels.
Reply

Woodrow
04-24-2008, 11:42 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Don't feel sorry for me feel sorry for them. Their close mindeness will hinder them in life. When you shut off any part of society you lose. I've taken away a lot from Islam that I will benefit from. I've taken Hindu and Budhism philosophies and used them too. If people just open up it will enrich their lives. I've learned some pretty nteresting things in my travels.
It is a good thing to seek good in other religions and find that which is in agreement with our own beliefs. But, we can not pick and choose. If we are to follow God(swt) we must follow not just what is easy or what is compatible with our desires. To believe means to accept even that which is difficult and strive to understand why.

I personally found that Islam is the true path to serve Allaah(swt), most of it is a very easy path. But, there are challenges that can be difficult to follow, at those times I do my best to learn more and try to understand why they seem difficult for me. Through study and striving to understand I find that the difficult makes sense and becomes easy.

To believe in God(swt) requires a full desire to serve him, it is not a desire to try to make Allaah(swt) give us what we want. It is for us to serve and to serve because God(swt) is worthy of our service.

For myself, I have only found that in Islam.
Reply

Izyan
04-24-2008, 11:44 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
All three of them?
I like how you used that typo of Gods instead of God's to insult me. I can explain the trinity to you if you are confused. There is only one God Jehovah or Allah be as it may and the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ is a part of him

yeah, it was your fellow commiserate.. Sure he'll be glad to learn, that you became an apostate not to atheism but to the dark ages!
Actually if you think about it wouldn't Islam be going back? In the Old Testament, Koran, Torah, Talmud, whatever you want to call it God was pretty vengeful wasn't he. Musa, Elijah, Job, Noah, Esther, David, Solomon, all have stories of God's vengence against not only their enemies but against themselves. When Isa came around all that changed. Isa said he came not to destroy and condemn but that you may have life and have it more abundantly. When Isa came the rules and God's vengence lightened up. He healed beggars and thieves, and adulters and liars. If you sought him he didn't turn you away. He didn't care he just took care of you. He saved an adulterer from being stoned to death. That person didn't call out to him he just did it. So now you're telling me that Allah is going to follow up this man who today would be considered an ultra liberal with a Therocratic back to hell, fire and brimstone type of prophet. It's almost as saying Allah made a mistake with Isa and he sent Muhammed to fix it. Last time I checked Allah don't make mistakes.
Reply

Izyan
04-24-2008, 11:47 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
It is a good thing to seek good in other religions and find that which is in agreement with our own beliefs. But, we can not pick and choose. If we are to follow God(swt) we must follow not just what is easy or what is compatible with our desires. To believe means to accept even that which is difficult and strive to understand why.

I personally found that Islam is the true path to serve Allaah(swt), most of it is a very easy path. But, there are challenges that can be difficult to follow, at those times I do my best to learn more and try to understand why they seem difficult for me. Through study and striving to understand I find that the difficult makes sense and becomes easy.

To believe in God(swt) requires a full desire to serve him, it is not a desire to try to make Allaah(swt) give us what we want. It is for us to serve and to serve because God(swt) is worthy of our service.

For myself, I have only found that in Islam.
I think you miss understood me. I don't go against God's word but there are things we can learn from others that don't conflict with our deen.
Reply

جوري
04-24-2008, 11:55 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
I like how you used that typo of Gods instead of God's to insult me. I can explain the trinity to you if you are confused. There is only one God Jehovah or Allah be as it may and the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ is a part of him
I went to catholic school and minored in theology, I am very much acquainted with your beliefs!

Actually if you think about it wouldn't Islam be going back?
I have thought about it.. going back to paganism and Greek mythology of a man/God is more in concert with christianity than Islam!

In the Old Testament, Koran, Torah, Talmud, whatever you want to call it God was pretty vengeful wasn't he. Musa, Elijah, Job, Noah, Esther, David, Solomon, all have stories of God's vengence against not only their enemies but against themselves.
That is the OT version of God!

When Isa came around all that changed. Isa said he came not to destroy and condemn but that you may have life and have it more abundantly. When Isa came the rules and God's vengence lightened up. He healed beggars and thieves, and adulters and liars. If you sought him he didn't turn you away. He didn't care he just took care of you. He saved an adulterer from being stoned to death. That person didn't call out to him he just did it. So now you're telling me that Allah is going to follow up this man who today would be considered an ultra liberal with a Therocratic back to hell, fire and brimstone type of prophet. It's almost as saying Allah made a mistake with Isa and he sent Muhammed to fix it. Last time I checked Allah don't make mistakes.
lol.. hilarious.. you must not be a good book keeper since the bible is wrougt with 'Godly' errors, Mistakes and remorse.. so I'd have to say your account of Jesus is also your own postulated biblical sense of him.. he does stand out as the odd one in the midst of all of God's other messengers?

in closure, as I don't have much time to waste on nonesense..

  • I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword is one of the reported sayings of (A teacher and prophet born in Bethlehem and active in Nazareth; his life and sermons form the basis for Christianity (circa 4 BC - AD 29)) Jesus in the (The sacred writings of the Christian religions) Bible. It is a common case of confusion dealing with understanding Christian parables. In ((New Testament) disciple of Jesus; traditionally considered to be the author of the first Gospel) Matthew 10:34-36
  • "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

  • Similarly, in the (One of the four Gospels in the New Testament; contains details of Jesus's birth and early life) Gospel of Luke, 12:51-52 Jesus says:
  • "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three..."



cheers
Reply

Malaikah
04-25-2008, 01:25 AM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Actually if you think about it wouldn't Islam be going back? In the Old Testament, Koran, Torah, Talmud, whatever you want to call it God was pretty vengeful wasn't he. Musa, Elijah, Job, Noah, Esther, David, Solomon, all have stories of God's vengence against not only their enemies but against themselves. When Isa came around all that changed. Isa said he came not to destroy and condemn but that you may have life and have it more abundantly. When Isa came the rules and God's vengence lightened up. He healed beggars and thieves, and adulters and liars. If you sought him he didn't turn you away. He didn't care he just took care of you. He saved an adulterer from being stoned to death. That person didn't call out to him he just did it. So now you're telling me that Allah is going to follow up this man who today would be considered an ultra liberal with a Therocratic back to hell, fire and brimstone type of prophet. It's almost as saying Allah made a mistake with Isa and he sent Muhammed to fix it. Last time I checked Allah don't make mistakes.
So what your saying is that you believe God had some kind of personality change.

Right.:skeleton:
Reply

Izyan
04-25-2008, 01:51 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
So what your saying is that you believe God had some kind of personality change.

Right.:skeleton:
Well I can say you guys are crazy for worshiping a giant moon rock. Be careful what you insult because your beliefs might be next to be mocked.
Reply

Malaikah
04-25-2008, 02:19 AM
Insult? I was merely re-stating what you said yourself.

Much less offensive than your saying:

It's almost as saying Allah made a mistake with Isa and he sent Muhammed to fix it. Last time I checked Allah don't make mistakes.
Double standards? Why is it okay for you to claim that out beliefs equate to Allah making a mistake but its an insult for me to say that your God underwent a personality change? Especially when we don't believe God made mistakes but you are the one who described what could only be seen as a personality change!

By the way, call me crazy for worshipping a giant moon rock, I'll just laugh because we don't even do that.
Reply

Izyan
04-25-2008, 03:13 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
Insult? I was merely re-stating what you said yourself.

Much less offensive than your saying:



Double standards? Why is it okay for you to claim that out beliefs equate to Allah making a mistake but its an insult for me to say that your God underwent a personality change? Especially when we don't believe God made mistakes but you are the one who described what could only be seen as a personality change!

By the way, call me crazy for worshipping a giant moon rock, I'll just laugh because we don't even do that.
I said that to prove a point to the previous about mocking people and you just did the exact same thing. I didn't call you crazy. I said you could be called crazy because of the whole Black Stone business.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-25-2008, 03:30 AM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Well I can say you guys are crazy for worshiping a giant moon rock. Be careful what you insult because your beliefs might be next to be mocked.
It's OK to mock something you know but sometimes it's better to keep our mouth shut and not reveal how stupid we are. Muslims don't worship any Giant Moon Rock. Pls get your facts straight. Embracing Pagan believes has had a very bad effect on your brain. Indeed we could be called crazy by people who don't understand Islam but YOU? This is not expected from you.

Oh, YES! God having sons and daughters is straight from the Pagan play book.
Reply

Izyan
04-25-2008, 03:37 AM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
It's OK to mock something you know but sometimes it's better to keep our mouth shut and not reveal how stupid we are. Muslims don't worship any Giant Moon Rock. Pls get your facts straight. Embracing Pagan believes has had a very bad effect on your brain.

Oh, YES! God having sons and daughters is straight from the Pagan play book.
Reading is fundamental. I know the black rock is said to come from heaven and it first came to earth it was white. It became black when it absorbed the sins of man. Muslims don't worship the rock the they try to kiss it as Muhammed did. Now to someone outside of Islam it looks like you guys worship a giant moon rock like it look like Chistians worship 3 seperate people when we actually worship 1. Like I said be careful at what you mock because your beliefs might be next.
Reply

Malaikah
04-25-2008, 04:52 AM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Like I said be careful at what you mock because your beliefs might be next.
You are simply being a hypocrite because you are the one who said something that could be taken as an insult first.

I repeat, why do you consider it okay that you can say the Muslim God made a mistake but I can't say that you are implying that your God had a personality change?

Please explain to me how this is not a double standard. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Reply

Izyan
04-25-2008, 04:55 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
You are simply being a hypocrite because you are the one who said something that could be taken as an insult first.

I repeat, why do you consider it okay that you can say the Muslim God made a mistake but I can't say that you are implying that your God had a personality change?

Please explain to me how this is not a double standard. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
I've already explained myself and taking this conversation any farther will result in both of being reprimanded.
Reply

Malaikah
04-25-2008, 05:09 AM
you haven't explained your self at all. Either you are understand my point or I am not understanding yours.

But from where I am standing you've it seems like you don't realise the double standards in your own posts.
Reply

glo
04-25-2008, 06:52 AM
Reading this thread and judging by the severity of questions fired at Izyan upon him mentioning that he is an apostate, I am starting to think that attitudes on apostasy aren't softening all that much ... :mmokay:

May I suggest that you take your religious debate in the Comparative Religions section?
And may I suggest that we welcome Izyan into this forum in the manner we show to other newcomers?

Remember: To you your religion, to me mine.

If Izyan has made his choice (just like the rest of us), then one day he will stand before the Lord to justify himself (just like the rest of us). I trust that the Lord will judge him justly (just like the rest of us).

Peace to you all. :)
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-25-2008, 10:57 AM
Originally Posted by Izyan
...like it look like Chistians worship 3 seperate people when we actually worship 1.
Of course you worship three separate entities. Maybe you wanna watch a few debates:-

Is Jesus God? Ahmed Deedat vs Anis Sorrosh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Nc-...eature=related
Reply

barney
04-25-2008, 11:01 AM
Meh, its the christian beleif that God is one and the trinity is one. OK, so facts and logic might say otherwise, but its their beleif.
Theres no mainstream Christian sect that preaces the divisibility of god.
Reply

aamirsaab
04-25-2008, 11:20 AM
:sl:
I have no problems with apostates. What gets on my nerves is that these so called muslim apostates always seem to be so bitter about Islam. If I was to put my psychology hat on, I'd have a freakin field day with apostates - so much to write about!

You know what, one day I'ma write me a book!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
04-25-2008, 11:22 AM
Originally Posted by Izyan
1. I truly believed up until I was a teenager.

2. At around 17 I became curious and started studying other religions from Christians to Wiccans. The more I read about christianity the more it felt right to me. I went to a church a couple of towns over when I was 22 and I was hooked. That being said I do keep an open mind and embrace evreyones beliefs but govern my life as a christian.
Thanks for your reply, and just ignore those flamers, I guess it was unavoidable :(

So would you agree that your decision was more of an emotional one rather then a logical one? (i.e. you chose because you felt attracted to it, not because you found it to make more sense). Or did I understand you wrong?
Reply

glo
04-25-2008, 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:
I have no problems with apostates. What gets on my nerves is that these so called muslim apostates always seem to be so bitter about Islam. If I was to put my psychology hat on, I'd have a freakin field day with apostates - so much to write about!

You know what, one day I'ma write me a book!
Perhaps that comes with the territory, when leaving Islam has caused the apostate hurt and grief?

Is it not all the more reason to treat apostates with love, respect and charity?
Reply

barney
04-25-2008, 12:52 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:
I have no problems with apostates. What gets on my nerves is that these so called muslim apostates always seem to be so bitter about Islam. If I was to put my psychology hat on, I'd have a freakin field day with apostates - so much to write about!

You know what, one day I'ma write me a book!
It's probably because of all the hassle they have had in leaving.
They lose family, they lose freinds, they feel alone and abandoned, they get insults, they get threats and they know that they are wanted dead by a lot of their ex-brothers and sisters.

That might be some ground for feeling a bit of resentment!
Reply

aamirsaab
04-25-2008, 01:34 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by glo
Perhaps that comes with the territory, when leaving Islam has caused the apostate hurt and grief?
Originally Posted by barney
It's probably because of all the hassle they have had in leaving.
They lose family, they lose freinds, they feel alone and abandoned, they get insults, they get threats and they know that they are wanted dead by a lot of their ex-brothers and sisters.
Funny thing is, the so called apostates never ever mention this side (maybe because they aren't actually apostates!) Theyy just say: ''oh I'm an exmuslim and now I'm going to expose Islam'' yadda yadda bull crap. We had one on LI about a year ago. All his posts contained anti-islamic comments, it was difficult to take any of them seriously.
Is it not all the more reason to treat apostates with love, respect and charity?
I guess so. But you get reasonable apostates who actually don't care say anything about Islam because they are no longer muslim anymore - which I have no problem with (these are also known as the silent majority!). It's only the ones who turn around and say: ''Islam sux, I know cus I was a muslim once''. Or in simpler terms, the mouthy ones who don't actually know a blind bit about Islam but seeing as they used to be muslim whatever their comments about Islam are must be true, because hey, an ex-muslim is always going to know more about Islam than an actual muslim(!)

That might be some ground for feeling a bit of resentment!
I understand that. But it many of the cases I have seen/heard, it just sounds like nothing more than delusions of grandeur, social insecurity and mesionic syndromes. ''Hey look Islam says rape your slaves. How disgusting. I used to be a muslim so clearly it must be the truth!'' says exmuslim 666 on an islamic forum.

Again, nothing against apostates in general. Just that if you were a real apostate your mind would no longer be occupied with that religion. If it is, you're simply in a state of confusion - which is evidently not the same as apostacy.

(note: there is absolutely no truth in that example whatsoever. It is simply for illustration purposes to expose how stupid certain arguments of apostates actually are. There are a plethora of other lame comments I have heard from ''apostates'' - they can all be refuted by my 11 year old brother!)
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-25-2008, 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:
I have no problems with apostates. What gets on my nerves is that these so called muslim apostates always seem to be so bitter about Islam. If I was to put my psychology hat on, I'd have a freakin field day with apostates - so much to write about!

You know what, one day I'ma write me a book!

Lets write a book together. Apostates and Converts. You write about apostates, and I'll write about converts. :)

And Izyan, thank you for your contribution to the board and try not to get distracted by our resident troll.
Reply

aamirsaab
04-25-2008, 05:28 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Lets write a book together. Apostates and Converts. You write about apostates, and I'll write about converts. :)
Well I was originally going to go for apostates and homosexuals. Which'd leave you with converts and hetros.

:p.
Reply

barney
04-25-2008, 06:38 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Well I was originally going to go for apostates and homosexuals. Which'd leave you with converts and hetros.

:p.
I'll take Reverts and Celibates!
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-25-2008, 07:40 PM
Can I have hermaprodites and agnostics?
Reply

glo
04-25-2008, 07:41 PM
You daft bunch of people.
Get out of my thread!!! :D
Reply

Izyan
04-25-2008, 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Lets write a book together. Apostates and Converts. You write about apostates, and I'll write about converts. :)

And Izyan, thank you for your contribution to the board and try not to get distracted by our resident troll.
It doesn't bother me I've encountered a lot worse. By the way can I take nymphomaniacs and binge drinkers?
Reply

aamirsaab
04-25-2008, 10:00 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by barney
I'll take Reverts and Celibates!
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Can I have hermaprodites and agnostics?
Originally Posted by Izyan
....By the way can I take nymphomaniacs and binge drinkers?
This book is going to be so bad ass.
Contributions from an apostate, an agnostic, an aethist and a muslim!

Originally Posted by glo
You daft bunch of people.
Get out of my thread!!! :D
Sorry miss.
Reply

barney
04-25-2008, 10:06 PM
Ahh , Pygo's an agnostic, he just dosnt know it yet!
Reply

جوري
04-25-2008, 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Reading is fundamental. I know the black rock is said to come from heaven and it first came to earth it was white. It became black when it absorbed the sins of man. Muslims don't worship the rock the they try to kiss it as Muhammed did. Now to someone outside of Islam it looks like you guys worship a giant moon rock like it look like Chistians worship 3 seperate people when we actually worship 1. Like I said be careful at what you mock because your beliefs might be next.
'looks like' and actually is, are two seperate things..
any superficial reading can dispel away the myth of worshipping 'a stone' whereas you actually do worship three Gods, one of whom has died and was missing for three days.. Took a break from the universe to show up as a pauper in Nazereth..

That aside, I truly have my doubt that you were ever Muslim.. I have seen my share of evangels, especially during my travels, in places like Africa and Iraq, where your ilk pretend to have been Muslim and alas found the light in christianity.. luckily even the poorest of oafs were on to it.. Guess people would rather be atheists than paganists!

cheers
Reply

Izyan
04-25-2008, 11:44 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
'looks like' and actually is, are two seperate things..
any superficial reading can dispel away the myth of worshipping 'a stone' whereas you actually do worship three Gods, one of whom has died and was missing for three days.. Took a break from the universe to show up as a pauper in Nazereth..

That aside, I truly have my doubt that you were ever Muslim.. I have seen my share of evangels, especially during my travels, in places like Africa and Iraq, where your ilk pretend to have been Muslim and alas found the light in christianity.. luckily even the poorest of oafs were on to it.. Guess people would rather be atheists than paganists!

cheers
Have I called anyone to Christ? Have I decried the evils of Islam? Have I even said what you worship was wrong? All I'm trying to say is your faith is your own. Don't make fun of mine and I won't make fun of yours.
Reply

جوري
04-26-2008, 12:48 AM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Have I called anyone to Christ? Have I decried the evils of Islam? Have I even said what you worship was wrong? All I'm trying to say is your faith is your own. Don't make fun of mine and I won't make fun of yours.
That was delightfully sophmoric.. thanks :thumbs_up
Reply

AntiKarateKid
04-26-2008, 01:03 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
That was delightfully sophmoric.. thanks :thumbs_up
Hey, sister. I have read many of your replies and rebuttals on this website and have found them to be really good. That being said, In some of your posts like the ones above, your mocking tone is uncalled for. This is not to say that we cannot verbally retaliate but only to those who aggressively oppose us. There are other ways to point out flaws.

"Allah forbids you not, With regard to those who Fight you not for (your) Faith Nor drive you out Of your homes, From dealing kindly and justly With them: For Allah loveth Those who are just. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"
Reply

جوري
04-26-2008, 12:47 PM
Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Hey, sister. I have read many of your replies and rebuttals on this website and have found them to be really good. That being said, In some of your posts like the ones above, your mocking tone is uncalled for. This is not to say that we cannot verbally retaliate but only to those who aggressively oppose us. There are other ways to point out flaws.

"Allah forbids you not, With regard to those who Fight you not for (your) Faith Nor drive you out Of your homes, From dealing kindly and justly With them: For Allah loveth Those who are just. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"
Thank you for your pointers akhi.. I use my best judgement when assessing who merits what kind of a reply..

:w:
Reply

barney
04-26-2008, 04:57 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Thank you for your pointers akhi.. I use my best judgement when assessing who merits what kind of a reply..

:w:
Do you still have that pool of sharks and the white persian cat?
Reply

جوري
04-26-2008, 05:57 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Do you still have that pool of sharks and the white persian cat?
I especially enjoy it when someone not only perpetuate a myth, but actually believes it :statisfie

If we are done digressing, we can either get back to topic or if it has reached the end of its value, then close all together!

cheers
Reply

barney
04-26-2008, 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I especially enjoy it when someone not only perpetuate a myth, but actually believes it :statisfied
Err, Thats Theism!
Reply

جوري
04-26-2008, 11:24 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Err, Thats Theism!
Err, that is atheism too..
you see in order to prove this one thing incorrect, you must prove its diametrical opposite correct.. so far none were able to do so..

cheers
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-27-2008, 04:50 PM
I want a pony
Reply

Ahmed.
04-27-2008, 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by glo
I came across this article, which I thought was interesting.
I am highlighting the parts which particularly struck me:


(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7355515.stm)

As always, I am interested to hear how people personally feel about this.
And how they would apply it to their personal circumstances.

How far would you go, if a close member of your family or circle of friends became an apostate?
Would you wish for them to be killed?.
No way!

Originally Posted by glo
Would you cut them out of your life?.
I'll first constantly set good examples for them [i.e, try and practice Islam properly myself and thus show them the beuty in Islam] inshAllah, and I'll call them towards Islam in a corteous and wise manner [inshAllah] and hopefully show them the errors of their way; once I feel I've sufficiently explained Islam to them and have thoroughly refuted the new way of life they have chosen, then if he/she doesn't revert to Islam, I may cut them off from my life, but time to time, I'll extend out a hand of goodwill in order to continue to show them the beuty of Islam and give them more dawah [call them towards salvation] inshAllah.

I'll also be continuously praying for their guidance and salvation, for as long as I/they live...

Originally Posted by glo
Would you threaten them?.
No

Originally Posted by glo
Would you pretend they were dead?.
No

Originally Posted by glo
Would you continue to socialise with them and talk to them?.
as answered above

Salaam :)
Reply

barney
04-27-2008, 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I want a pony


Dont say I never give you owt Pygo.

PAevesky, Science proves that the earth is billions of years old, scripture says its roughly 6000. Scripture proves that Noah reset mankind in 4000BC, Science proves that Mankind is 150,000 years old and ten million species cant fit on a ship the size of a light cruiser.

You know I could go on, but I wont as we know our positions very well, and i phear your shark-pool.
Reply

islamirama
04-27-2008, 06:22 PM
off topic are we? maybe this topic is well over discussed and done?
Reply

barney
04-27-2008, 06:34 PM
Yeah, looks like it.
I think theres some evidence that attitudes in "westernised" muslims, if thats a term, have a softer attitude than in places like Iran or Saudi.

It dosnt seem to be a major shift, but theres plenty of people who have replied saying they would cut them out of their lives. Killing them seems to have slipped into a last resort event.
Reply

islamirama
04-27-2008, 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Yeah, looks like it.
I think theres some evidence that attitudes in "westernised" muslims, if thats a term, have a softer attitude than in places like Iran or Saudi.

It dosnt seem to be a major shift, but theres plenty of people who have replied saying they would cut them out of their lives. Killing them seems to have slipped into a last resort event.
well views vary from one country/region to another as well as from one class to another (secular and religious). Some perceive (muslim or not) that apostasy means death soon as you are found out. When actually there's a process like any other process in a legal systm.

In islam, the person is given 3 days to reconsider their decisions, and in that time they in discussions and dialogs between islamic figures to clear any misunderstandings and after 3 days period, the state decides what to do depending on the decision of the apostate and the situation in that particular case. There's no blind apostate = kill stance as many mistakenly perceive it to be.
Reply

جوري
04-27-2008, 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by barney

PAevesky, Science proves that the earth is billions of years old, scripture says its roughly 6000. Scripture proves that Noah reset mankind in 4000BC, Science proves that Mankind is 150,000 years old and ten million species cant fit on a ship the size of a light cruiser.

You know I could go on, but I wont as we know our positions very well, and i phear your shark-pool.
You are teaching me of the Quran and of Science? or you are just being exceptionally precious?

Hilarious :rollseyes

cheers
Reply

truemuslim
04-27-2008, 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
You are teaching me of the Quran and of Science? or you are just being exceptionally precious?

Hilarious :rollseyes

cheers

UR HILARIUS!

lool



@ topic.
I wouldnt mind if that, well i wuld, but in my heart, not show it, we can't force anyone to be a muslim or they be punished/ignored, u kno that ayah "lakum deenakum wali yadeen" u gots ur deen and i gots mine.
Reply

Malaikah
04-27-2008, 10:04 PM
Originally Posted by barney
PAevesky, Science proves that the earth is billions of years old, scripture says its roughly 6000. Scripture proves that Noah reset mankind in 4000BC, Science proves that Mankind is 150,000 years old and ten million species cant fit on a ship the size of a light cruiser.
Christian scripture, not Islamic.
Reply

جوري
04-27-2008, 10:06 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
Christian scripture, not Islamic.
He enjoys sticking it in there to console himself every so often with that intolerably precious sort of way..

:w:
Reply

barney
04-27-2008, 10:14 PM
I said scripture not Islamic scripture.
Having said that, the six "periods of time" debate could loop round forever. The word, as you know means Day or unquantified Period of time.
Islam has to jump through as many verbal and interprative hoops as Christianity or judism to mesh scripture with facts, so much so that a whole "science" is devoted to it.

Anyway. I think we are all (un)/happy with attitudes on Apostacy today.
Lets close the thread and go and knock ten theological bells out of each other on another thread. :)
Reply

جوري
04-27-2008, 11:08 PM
Originally Posted by barney

PAevesky,
thanks for giving me an idea for my new Sn.. it shall be Pure-Evening-sky..
I knew you were good for something..:wink:

cheers
Reply

Abdul Fattah
04-30-2008, 12:22 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Islam has to jump through as many verbal and interprative hoops as Christianity or judism to mesh scripture with facts, so much so that a whole "science" is devoted to it.
I disagree, to get back to the example of the 6 days, the qur'an states that such a day isn't equal to our days. So it isn't a loophole at all but the default position, and it's definitely not interpretive since it's stated explicitly.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-30-2008, 08:32 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
I disagree, to get back to the example of the 6 days, the qur'an states that such a day isn't equal to our days. So it isn't a loophole at all but the default position, and it's definitely not interpretive since it's stated explicitly.
I am certain the christian will say the same of their book.

I'm afraid that if you are a muslim or christian (or jew for that matter re the Torah), you're too biased to see your book as compared to others objectively.

Barney here, as not belonging to any of the above is in a more objective position, so I'll take his view.
Reply

barney
04-30-2008, 10:25 PM
It's not just the one hoop. One hoop I could cope with.If I read a passage of genisis or leviticus or Mark or the Cow or the shrouded one or virtually any of them, there are a whole playground full of hoops.

Theyve been well discussed and documented on these forums so Im not going to sart asking again about 600 wings, photosynthisis of plants or clots of blood, we all know the arguements for and against.

A perfect message to me is a clear unambigious one.
"Man was created from the union of a sperm and an egg, then does the cells divide and divide again until the being is formed and the nucleus of each contains the infomation that defines the human"
"Man was created from a gushing fluid, starting inbetewwen the ribs & the backbone"

If i had a detailed knowlage of human reproduction, I'd nutshell the process as in red.
If I was making a stab at it, millenia ago, based on what i could see and some best guesses, it would be the blue explaination.
Reply

جوري
04-30-2008, 11:05 PM
You are frkin hilarious.. what could be even better than using even more and more ambiguous terms?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ge.../timeline.html
1677
Human sperm is discovered by a student of Antonij van Leeuwenhoek.

1827
The ovum (female egg) is discovered by Prussian-Estonian embryologist Dr. Karl Ernst von Baer.
Allah SWT uses language for lay and scientist alike, and to transcend centuries.. at some point when sperm is deemed a misnomer, being created from that which is emitted will still make more sense...

this isn't the barny Quran 101.. get real..

cheers
Reply

barney
04-30-2008, 11:09 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
You are frkin hilarious.. what could be even better than using even more and more ambiguous terms?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ge.../timeline.html


Allah SWT uses language for lay and scientist alike, and to transcend centuries.. at some point when sperm is deemed a misnomer, being created from that which is emitted will still make more sense...

this isn't the barny Quran 101.. get real..

cheers
Sure using the terminology that hasnt been discovered yet is impossible, but we had this conversation last year. Decribing the internet to a Byzantine and suchlike.
You can use lay terms without getting things wrong!
A gushing fluid that unites with an egg. We had eggs back in 1AH, what did the chickens lay?

Tell ya what, lets start a new thread on it...this is World affairs /apostacy and we might be drifting a bit. :D
Reply

جوري
04-30-2008, 11:20 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Sure using the terminology that hasnt been discovered yet is impossible, but we had this conversation last year. Decribing the internet to a Byzantine and suchlike.
You can use lay terms without getting things wrong!
A gushing fluid that unites with an egg. We had eggs back in 1AH, what did the chickens lay?

Tell ya what, lets start a new thread on it...this is World affairs /apostacy and we might be drifting a bit. :D
I don't know what it is you do for a living barn. But try to have a looksy at the male reproductive organs, starting from embryogensis.. did you know that your testes hung right on top of your kidneys during embryogensis?.. and if you were a premature baby depending on how pre-mature, they'd still be hanging up there until some kind surgeon, brings em down and staples them for ya...kidneys don't hang up in the front!

I don't want to delve into embryology, anatomy or physiology on a forum frequented by 13 year olds (some mentally so) and I certainly don't want to waste my time giving you Arabic lessons, believe it or not I have a life.. but the following will do for now.. get read up barn.. there is nothing worst than ignorance save for little knowledge in my book!

cheers

click on website for diagrams
http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...estion&qid=100

Title:
Does Semen Emanate From Between the Ribs and the Back? (Al-Taariq 86: 6 - 7)

Question:

Does Semen Emanate From Between the Ribs and the Back? (Al-Tariq 86: 6 - 7)

I have a rather urgent question to ask with regard to Quran and Science. A good many Muslims claim that everything in Quran is correctly in accordance with well established scientific data. In this regard, there is a web site at . While discussing this website with an atheist, he pointed out ayah 86:6-7 which has been variously translated as:

086.006

YUSUFALI: He is created from a drop emitted-

PICKTHAL: He is created from a gushing fluid

SHAKIR: He is created of water pouring forth,

086.007

YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

PICKTHAL: That issued from between the loins and ribs.

SHAKIR: Coming from between the back and the ribs.

His claim is that Quran here is scientifically incorrect as [he claims] that the semen [nutfah] is all manufactured only in the pelvic region and definitely not between the ribs [or the backbone]. He further claims that this ideology was prevelent among the Greeks at the time of [Quranic] revelation and that Mohammad (P) has borrowed it from them. Regardless of the "borrowed from Greeks" theory, is it possible for you to elaborate on the correct interpretation of the ayah 86:6-7 and if possible a correct [scientific] account of where the seminal liquid is produced.

A quick answer would be greatly appreciated as the atheist is hung up on this issue.

Jazakallah Khair

Your Brother in Islam



Answer:

Before presenting my understanding of the referred verses of the Qur'an, I would like to stress a few points that would not only help in understanding the verses under consideration, but may also provide some guidelines in understanding other such verses of the Qur'an, which entail references to some scientific knowledge (or knowledge that was, apparently, hidden from the first addressees of the Qur'an).

The first point to remember is that the Qur'an is not a book of scientific information. It has never claimed to be so. This is to say that there is not a single instance in the Qur'an where it has unfolded any information about the physical (or biological or embryological) world, just for the sake of giving information to its addressees, as a book of science, generally, does.
The Qur'an, at most of the places where it has referred to some physical laws (like, for example, reference to the stages in the development of an embryo inside the mother's womb), has made these references to evidence one or the other of its 'claims'. For instance, in Surah Al-Hajj 22: 5 or in Surah Al-Mu'minoon 23: 14 - 15, where the Qur'an has referred to the stages in the development of the human embryo in the mother's womb, the reason for this reference, as is quite clear from the verses themselves, is to remove any doubts that may exist in a mind regarding the possibility of the resurrection. Man, as we know, has generally expressed doubts about the life hereafter by saying that 'how can we be raised again, when our bodies would have scattered away as dust and ashes?'. The referred verses are a response to such doubts. In this response, God has brought to attention the process of development, which a fertilized egg goes through and which finally results in the creation of man. The implication in this response, obviously, is that if a being can bring man into existence through the stated process, then why would it, suddenly, become impossible (or even difficult) for the same being to bring man back to life after his death?
In the same way, a close look at such instances where the Qur'an has referred to any of the physical (or scientific) laws would show that such laws have been referred to, not to give any information about the physical laws of this world, but as evidence and signs or arguments in support of the point that the Qur'an wants to establish.

Keeping the above two points in perspective, it seems more likely that most of the physical laws referred to by the Qur'an are such, which were generally, known by the Arabs of the times of the Prophet (pbuh). We know that a supportive argument is likely to be more effective only when it is mutually known as well as agreed upon by the speaker and the addressee. Something, which is not known (at least vaguely) by the addressee or not believed or agreed by him, is less likely to be effective as a supportive argument. For instance, when I say: "Because man needs a stable social environment for his sound socio-psychological development, therefore sexual relations should be restricted to marriage", the result statement (i.e. 'therefore sexual ... marriage') is only likely to be accepted by those who agree or ascribe to the premise statement (i.e. 'Because man... development'). It is important to remember that the statements entailing any reference to physical (or scientific) facts in the Qur'an are generally, not mere 'information statements'. On the contrary, they are 'premise statements'. This fact makes it all the more likely that the physical (or scientific) facts referred to by the Qur'an in these statements were generally known and adhered to by the addressees of the Qur'an.
In view of the above explanation, it may be derived that the Qur'an has, generally, referred to only such physical (or scientific) facts, which were known as well as adhered to by the Arabs. However, it may be added that of the many beliefs (regarding the physical and/or scientific facts) ascribed to by the Arabs, the Qur'an has only used such beliefs, which were correct. The Qur'an has not used reference to any incorrect beliefs of the Arabs to support its arguments. Moreover, it is also possible that such 'evidence' or 'premise' statements of the Qur'an may be phrased in such a way that they not only serve their primary purpose of being an evidence for an argument, for the first addressees of the Qur'an, on the one hand, but may also point to a deep (and at that time unknown) scientific reality. Nevertheless, in such verses, the actual message of the Qur'an, in my opinion, shall be the real 'evidence' (which was intended for the first addressees of the Qur'an).

After having considered the above points regarding the understanding and interpretation of the Qur'anic verses, which entail references to physical (scientific, biological or embryological) facts, let us now turn to the specific verses of the Qur'an about which you have requested clarification. Al-Tariq 86: 6 -7 may be translated into simple English as:

Man should consider what it is that he has been created from. He is created from water (fluid) spurting forth, emanating from a place between the (lower) back and the (lower) ribs.


Figure - 1

The latter part of this verse, i.e. "emanating from a place between the (lower) back and the


Figure - 2

(lower) ribs", has generally been taken to imply the part of the abdomen that lies between these points. In Figure 1, this part has been roughly marked by the triangle ABC. This implication, obviously, has led the Muslims to believe that the sperm itself or its basic ingredients are made within the (roughly) marked area. I, being a novice in the related fields, asked a few of my doctor friends about the making of the male sperm and the supply of its ingredients to the ultimate place of its making. In response, among a few other things, I was told that although the male sperm is formed in the testes, yet the blood supply which, obviously, is integral to the making of the sperm comes from between the ribs and the back. I was also told by one of my doctor friends that the cells that form the sperm originate from between the ribs and the back. If this is true, then the words of the Qur'an are not scientifically incorrect, as the words "emanating from a place between the (lower) back and the (lower) ribs", do not necessarily imply "emanating in its final shape" only, but can also cover "initial emanation".

However, predictable as it was, the explanation that my doctor friends provided was completely Greek to me. After giving close thought to this medical explanation, the following questions came to my mind: Why has the Qur'an referred to the biological origin of the sperm? Is it only to inform the Arabs about the basic origin of the sperm (or its blood supply or cell supply)? How does this origin support any of the Qur'anic points? What difference would it make on the message of the Qur'an, if the origin of the sperm was 'between the ribs and the back', or if it was between, for instance, 'the neck and the chest'? These questions forced me to adopt a more common sense based approach to understanding the verses. The questions that needed to be answered were:

What is the context of these verses?
What is the basic point that the Qur'an wants to convey or evidence through its reference to the place of emanation of the sperm? Is it merely some biological information or does it, in any way, relate to the overall message of the Qur'an?
Can the words "Bayen al-Sulb wa al-Taraayib" (i.e. 'between the ribs and the back') imply anything besides the (roughly) marked triangle in Figure 1? If yes, then could such usage of the phrase "Bayena shayin wa shayin" (i.e. between one thing and another) be evidenced by the Arabic language?
My findings, while searching for the answers to the above-mentioned questions are summarized below:

As far as the context of the verses is concerned, it is visibly clear that the verses under consideration are actually a response to the doubts, regarding the possibility of the promised resurrection, expressed by the rejecters. When the Prophet (pbuh) told people that after they die, they shall be raised again and shall then have to face the consequences (good as well as bad) of their deeds that they do during the life of this world, they would normally, arrogantly turn away from the sincere admonitions of the Prophet (pbuh) rejecting the whole idea of resurrection and the life hereafter as impossible. In response to the call of the Prophet (pbuh), they would normally say that how can man be brought back to life after he has become dust and bones. In the verses under consideration, besides a number of other instances[1], the Qur'an has, generally, responded to this doubt expressed by the rejecters, regarding the possibility of the Day of Judgment, in such a way that it not only answers the question regarding the possibility of resurrection but also entails an eloquent ridicule on the arrogance of the rejecters in turning away from the call of the Prophet (pbuh). In this response, the Qur'an has pointed out the fact that if it was possible for God to create man from a drop of emitted fluid, then why would it suddenly become difficult for Him to recreate man after his death? In this response of the Qur'an, man is also reminded of the fact that he did not originate from a material of high rank and grandeur but from a drop of 'despicable' fluid[2], a drop of 'semen'[3] and a drop of 'sperm'. Arrogance and haughtiness do not suit a creation that has actually originated from such lowly and despicable material.

A close look at the verse under consideration shall show that the implication of the verse under consideration is also the same as explained above. The Qur'an (Al-Tariq 86: 6 - 8) says:

Man should consider what it is that he has been created from. He is created from water (fluid) spurting forth, emanating from a place between the (lower) back and the (lower) ribs. Indeed He [i.e. God] is fully capable of returning him [to life].

Verse 8, "Indeed He is fully capable of returning him to life" is a clear indication of the fact that the reference to man's creation is in response to his doubts about the possibility of the promised resurrection.

As far as the second question (i.e. what is the basic point that the Qur'an wants to convey or evidence through its reference to the place of emanation of the sperm? Is it merely some biological information or does it, in any way, relate to the overall message of the Qur'an?) is concerned, it seems to me that the place of emanation of the human sperm has been mentioned to remind man of the same basic reality, which has been conveyed at other places by the words 'despicable' fluid, a drop of 'semen' and a drop of 'sperm' (i.e. arrogance and haughtiness do not suit a creation that has actually originated from such lowly and despicable material). The only difference in the style of the two kinds of phrases is that in one the actual material has been mentioned (i.e. despicable fluid, sperm or semen) to remind man of his matter of origination, while in the verse under consideration it is the place (or the organ) from which this despicable fluid spurts out that man is reminded of.

The words: "emanating from a place between the back and the ribs" actually imply the male sex organ, from which the gushing fluid finally comes out. It is as if to say:

Man arrogantly rejects the call of the messenger and says that how is it possible for the dead to be raised again? Man should observe what he was created from in the first place. He was created from a fluid gushing forth, emanating from a place, which is not even worth mentioning, between the ribs and the back. And yet man behaves arrogantly and expresses doubts about the Day of Judgment. Indeed, God, Who created him the first time, is fully capable of returning him back to life, after his death.

As shown in Figure 2, if we were to join the sulb (i.e. the back) and the taraayib (i.e. the ribs), by means of an external line, it would pass through our lower abdomen, to our hips, to the testes, to the sex organ on to our groin, and then join our ribs. The line would roughly look like the red curve ABCD. Obviously, the ultimate point of emanation of the male sperm lies within the points A and D. This, in my opinion, is what the statement "Yakhrujo min bayen al-Sulb Wa al-Taraayib" (i.e. 'which emanates from a place between the back and the ribs') means. The meaning and the implication of the verse, as well as the message entailed in it, was as clear to the unlettered Arabs as it is for the scientists of the modern day. If seen in the light of this explanation, it would be clear that the verse does not refer to any scientific reality, but to an obvious physical reality. Thus, the very objection of a scientific error, in this case, is misplaced.


Figure - 3

Nevertheless, a few questions may arise in one's mind regarding the above explanation.


Figure - 4

Firstly, one may ask why has the Qur'an used the phrase 'between the back and the ribs' and, thereby, created confusion regarding the implication of the verse. The Qur'an, on the contrary, could have saved us from all confusion simply by naming the organ from which semen spurts out. Furthermore, one may also ask whether such usage of the phrase 'bayena shayin wa shayin' (i.e. 'between one thing and another') as it has been interpreted in the above explanation, is supported in the Arabic language or not.

As far as the first question is concerned, it is obvious that the Qur'an, as any decent and sober literature would do, has only avoided direct reference (in words) to the male sexual organ. Through the words that it has used, the Qur'an has made a complete euphemistic reference to the point of emanation of the sperm, while successfully avoiding naming it. Naming it would definitely have negatively affected the literary value of the Qur'an. As far as the objection that the euphemistic style of the Qur'an, in this case, has negatively affected the clarity of the message and has resulted in confusion regarding the implication of the verse is concerned, in my opinion, it seems quite out of place. The mere fact that the previous verse had referred to 'the fluid gushing forth' (semen), which is followed by the words 'which emanates from...', brings to mind the source of the 'gushing forth' of the fluid, without much difficulty. Furthermore, one should not forget that even if the male sperm was actually formed within the two stipulated points, the mention of this source of formation of the male sperm had absolutely no pertinence with the message of the Qur'an and the information would have been of absolutely no relevance to the Arabs of old - the direct addressees of the Qur'an. The mere realization of the point that the Qur'an does not refer to any such information, even if it is true, that has no relevance to its basic message, guides one to the simple physical (non-scientific and uncomplicated) interpretation of the verse under consideration.

Finally, let us take the question whether such usage of the phrase 'bayena shayin wa shayin' (i.e. 'between one thing and another') as it has been interpreted in the above explanation, is supported in the Arabic language or not. The Qur'an itself has used the same style of phrase (once again euphemistically) in an implication that, due to its close resemblance with the style of the verse under consideration, clearly supports the explanation given above.

In Al-Mumtahinah 60: 12 the Qur'an says: "And [the newly converted] Muslim women should pledge that they shall not slander a lie regarding portions between their hands and legs"[4]. It is obvious that the verse does not refer to what lies between the hands (AB) and the legs (CD) as given in Figure 3 (to the left). On the contrary, the part that is being euphemistically alluded to in the verse is what lies between the hands (A to B to C) and the feet (D to E to F) as in Figure 4 (to the right). Thus, in Al-Mumtahinah 60: 12, it is actually a euphemistic allusion to the upper and the lower organs of sexual attraction in a woman. The usage of the phrase 'bayena shayin wa shayin' in Al-Tariq 86: 7, as explained above, is quite similar to its usage in Al-Mumtahinah 60: 12.

I hope this helps.
A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n
Sexuality and Spinal Cord Injury
where we are and where we are going

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Sexual Response | Treatment of Sexual Dysfunction | Treatment of Male Infertility | Conclusion |

Marca L. Sipski, M.D.




Maintaining a healthy sex life after spinal cord injury is an important priority to many people. Fortunately, over the past few years a large amount of research has begun to be performed in this area. Whereas in the past our knowledge about the field of spinal cord injury was exclusively focused on males and erectile function, recent work has begun to illustrate the impact of spinal cord injury on female sexuality. Moreover, recent gains in the study of infertility after spinal cord injury have allowed professionals to approach the care of newly injured patients with optimism for their potential in sexual functioning. In this article, I will provide a basic review of what is known about sexual functioning after spinal cord injury and the impact on patients.

Sexual Response
The effect of spinal cord injury on sexual response is generally discussed based upon the degree of completeness or incompleteness of the patient's injury and whether the neurologic damage affecting the individual's sacral spinal segments is an upper or lower motor neuron injury. Whether a spinal cord injury is considered complete or incomplete is determined by whether they have voluntary rectal contraction and whether they have the ability to perceive sensation around their rectum. As males have external genitalia, questionnaire studies have been utilized to determine the impact on erections and ejaculations, depending on their extent of injury. In males with complete spinal cord injuries and upper motor neuron injuries affecting their sacral segments, there is a loss of psychogenic1 erectile function in conjunction with maintenance of reflex1 erectile functions (Bors & Comarr, 1960). In those males with incomplete upper motor neuron injuries, there is still maintenance of reflex function; however, some of these males may be able to have psychogenic erectile function. For those males with lower motor neuron injuries affecting their sacral spinal segments, it has been shown that approximately 25 percent of males will have psychogenic erectile function, whereas none of these males will have reflex erectile function. With incomplete lower motor neuron injuries affecting the sacral spinal segments, over 90 percent of the population will be able to have some type of erectile function.

Previous reports have hypothesized that female sexual function would be affected similarly to male sexual function in that psychogenic and reflex lubrication will be maintained in a comparable fashion to males, depending on the level and degree of the woman's spinal cord injury. Recent laboratory-based research performed at our institution has supported the hypothesis that women with complete spinal cord injuries and upper motor neuron injuries affecting the sacral spinal segments will maintain the capacity for reflex lubrication while losing the capacity for psychogenic lubrication (Sipski and Alexander, 1995a). Moreover, in those women with incomplete injuries and upper motor neuron injuries, research indicates the preservation of the ability to perceive pinprick sensation in the T11-L2 dermatomes may be able to be used as a predictor for the ability of psychogenic lubrication. Further research to confirm the effects of spinal cord injury on women with injuries below the level of T6 is planned for the future.

Ejaculatory function is markedly decreased in men with spinal cord injuries. This is most likely due to the fact that coordinated neurologic impulses from the sympathetic, parasympathetic, and somatic nervous systems are necessary for ejaculation to occur. For instance, the rate of ejaculation in men with complete upper motor neuron injuries can be as low as 4 percent (Bors and Comarr, 1960). Furthermore, many times men with spinal cord injuries have ejaculation which goes back into the bladder instead of coming out of the penis. Treatment of this inability to ejaculate has recently been used successfully to help men who suffer from infertility.

Treatment of Sexual Dysfunction
Treatment of male sexual dysfunction has been focused at the treatment of erectile dysfunction. For those males who are able to attain reflex erections but not maintain them, the use of a silicon or rubber ring placed at the base of the penis can be helpful to maintain an erection. These rings may be used for up to 30 minutes, but should not be used on a longer basis due to the risk of insufficient blood flow to the penis causing ischemia and subsequent complications. If a male is not able to have an erection, a vacuum suction device may possibly be used effectively to produce the erection, followed by the placement of a similar ring. Again, this device should not be used for more than 30 minutes due to the risk of ischemia. Recently, FDA approval has been obtained to allow for self-administered injections of prostaglandin E1 into the penis. This is followed by an erection which occurs in approximately 5 minutes. Potential complications from prostaglandin include the development of priapism, a condition whereby an erection will not go down; therefore, emergency instructions must be available to the patient, and a system for appropriate treatment for priapism must be in place. Intraurethral insertion of medication is now also on the horizon as another mechanism to treat erectile dysfunction.

Other male sexual dysfunctions such as inability to have an orgasm, decreased sexual desire, and premature ejaculation have not been well-studied in the male population. Questionnaire studies have revealed that approximately 50 percent of males with spinal cord injuries can have orgasms and that the ability to have orgasms is not related to the degree of spinal cord injury. Furthermore, it has been documented that both sexual satisfaction and frequency of sexual activity decrease after spinal cord injury. As the focus changes from merely production of an erection to improving the quality of feeling in male sexual response, the reasons for the ability of some males to attain orgasms and others not to will need to be elucidated. Furthermore, treatment protocols for other male sexual dysfunctions will need to be developed.

Similar to male sexual functions, females with spinal cord injury have been shown to have the capacity to achieve orgasm approximately 50 percent of the time, and this has not been found to be related to the degree of injury. This has also recently been confirmed via laboratory-based research (Sipski & Alexander, 1995b). Similar to males, women with spinal cord injury have been shown to have decreased sexual satisfaction in addition to decreased frequency of sexual activities postspinal cord injury. Treatment of inability to have orgasms, decreased sexual desire, and arousal disorders has not been attempted in a standardized fashion in women after spinal cord injury. Because some women with spinal cord injury may be able to be orgasmic, the use of sex therapy techniques similar to those utilized in the nondisabled population may be an appropriate treatment in the future for women with spinal cord injuries.

Treatment of Male Infertility
As ejaculation is greatly decreased after spinal cord injury, it follows that infertility can become a problem (Sipski & Alexander, 1992). In addition to the inability to ejaculate, males with spinal cord injury have decrease in the quality and quantity of sperm which occur in the first few weeks postinjuries. Production of ejaculation via electroejaculation (electrical stimulation in the area of the prostate which produces ejaculate) followed by either

in utero insemination (insertion of the semen in the woman's uterus),
in vitro fertilization,2 or
intracytoplasmic sperm injection3
has emerged as a viable option for treatment of male infertility after spinal cord injuries. Whereas the use of these techniques has been able to produce pregnancies in the partners of men with spinal cord injuries, these techniques must be performed in a clinic setting and can be somewhat costly. An alternative method to remediate male infertility has been the use of electrovibration applied to the penis. Due to the risk of autonomic dysreflexia,4 this technique is initially performed in a clinic setting, but may also be performed at home, and has been done so in Europe and other countries around the world. Electrovibration, similar to electroejaculation, is coupled with artificial insemination of the female.

Women with spinal cord injuries suffer from temporary loss of their menstrual periods after their injuries. After this, there is generally resumption of periods, which most times return similar to their previous fashion. Menstrual pain is still present after spinal cord injury and there is generally not a decrease in the ability of a woman with a spinal cord injury to conceive. For this reason, the need to use birth control must be emphasized with women who have spinal cord injuries.

For those women who become pregnant after spinal cord injury, it is important that their gynecologist is aware of the potential complications associated with pregnancy and spinal cord injuries. These can include anemia, problems with transfers due to weight gain, urinary tract infections, pressure sores, and, most significantly, autonomic dysreflexia, which frequently occurs during labor in women with injuries above the level of T6. Unfortunately, confusion of autonomic dysreflexia with preeclampsia5 still occurs and the gynecologist who works with a woman with spinal cord injury must be able to differentiate between these two conditions in order to properly treat dysreflexia in the woman with spinal cord injury. Some studies have shown an increased risk of caesarean section in women with spinal cord injuries; however, more recent works have not shown this increased incidence.

Conclusion
Sexual activity and the ability to remain a sexual being persists in both males and females after spinal cord injuries. As such, it is important to provide the patient with information about how their sexual response and sexual functioning can be affected after spinal cord injuries and for healthcare professionals to know where to refer patients who are in need of further information. In our rehabilitation hospital, this information is supplemented by the presentation of our patient education video, "Sexuality Reborn" (Alexander & Sipski, 1993). The video includes various couples speaking about their sexual functioning after spinal cord injury and demonstrating various sexual techniques. Building upon these two instructional presentations, the patient may also be referred to a sexuality clinic for further information about their sexual potential or remediation of problems which may occur. It is important that in this time of change in the healthcare system, the need to maintain healthy sexuality in persons with spinal cord injury not be ignored. Recent advances in our understanding of this area can be utilized to educate and counsel patients and optimize their level of sexual health.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References
1. Alexander, C.J., & Sipski, M.L. (Co-Producers). (1993). Sexuality Reborn: Sexuality Following Spinal Cord Injury. Videotape. Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ.
2. Bors, E., & Comarr, A.E. (1960). Neurological disturbances of sexual function with special reference to 529 patients with spinal cord injury. Urology Survey, 110, 191-221.
3. Sipski, M.L., Alexander, C.J. (1992). Sexual function and dysfunction after spinal cord injury. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America (pp. 811-828). Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company.
4. Sipski, M.L., Alexander, C.J., & Rosen, R.C. (1995a). Physiological parameters associated with psychogenic sexual arousal in women with complete spinal cord injuries. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 76, 811-818.
5. Sipski, M.L., Alexander, C.J., & Rosen, R.C. (1995b). Orgasm in women with spinal cord injuries: A laboratory-based assessment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 76, 1097-102.
6. Sipski, M.L., Alexander, C.J., & Rosen, R.C. (1996) Physiologic parameters associated with the performance of a distracting task and genital self-stimulation in women with complete spinal cord injuries. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 419-424.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes
1. In the able-bodied male there are two pathways for erection, both of which result in increased engorgement of blood in the penis. With a psychogenic erection, the person is aroused in his brain by seeing something or hearing something. With a reflex erection, the person is aroused by touching in the genital region/area.
2. With in vitro fertilization, the male's sperm and the female's egg are put together outside of the woman's body. After the sperm fertilize the eggs the embryos are placed into the women's uterus.
3. With intracytoplasmic sperm injection, an individual sperm is used to fertilize an individual egg outside of the woman's body. The embryo is then placed in the woman's uterus.
4. Autonomic dysreflexia is an abnormal reflex which occurs in people with spinal cord injuries at the level of T6 and above. A noxius stimulus such as bladder distention causes a chain of reflexes which can lead to dangerously elevated blood pressure, sweating, headache, and other symptoms. The condition is treated by removing the offending stimulus and giving the patient medication.
5. Preeclampsia is a medical condition which results in hypertension and can result in seizures which can occur during pregnancy.
aging with a spinal cord injury


| Contents Spring 1997 | American Rehabilitation Home | Department of ED Home |
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/AmericanRehab...97/sp9707.html


if you wanna go medicine 1 on 1 it would only be my pleasure!
here is a sagittal view of male reproductive organs!
http://www.wfurology.org/images/male_sagittal_view.jpg
Reply

barney
04-30-2008, 11:26 PM
Thanks for the post. I , as i'm sure your aware, have read that and similar many times.
I know its the standard explaination by scholars, (modern at least) for the surah.

You will not be stunned into amazement to hear that i disagree with it, on the grounds that God would have no reason, in transmitting a clear message and clear guidance to describe the location of the testes in the embryonic stage rather than as a male of reproductive age.
If Fetuses were capable of creating seman then it would still not make any sense!

Aye, lets take this elsewhere, my chicken korma is going to be barfed up. :D
Reply

جوري
04-30-2008, 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Thanks for the post. I , as i'm sure your aware, have read that and similar many times.
I know its the standard explaination by scholars, (modern at least) for the surah.
I am not a scholar but I am a scientist who also happens to speak Arabic. I think the way it is described is vivid without being graphic and IS accurate!

You will not be stunned into amazement to hear that i disagree with it, on the grounds that God would have no reason, in transmitting a clear message and clear guidance to describe the location of the testes in the embryonic stage rather than as a male of reproductive age.
Why is that? and why single out embryology? I'd wonder why he wouldn't do the same for other sciences mentioned in the Quran, Geology, the physio of high altitude hypoxia, death of nebulas.. what would be the point? The Quran is meant as a reminder for man kind to reflect on the world around him written in a transcendent and very poetic language, not to be used John's Hopkins pre-clinical curriculum but as guidance and comfort for man's spiritual life!


If Fetuses were capable of creating seman then it would still not make any sense!
I have no idea what that means?


cheers
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 11:39 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 11:03 AM
  3. Replies: 146
    Last Post: 08-31-2008, 02:54 AM
  4. Replies: 316
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 08:34 PM
  5. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 12:16 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!