Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses

[tetsujin]

I've spent some time now checking and rechecking references in the Qu'ran for the various propositions about the nature or the state of life, our world, and the universe.

From the supposed embryology references to the water cycle, everything stated seems to have been discovered already, in so far as the Qu'ran makes the references, by philosophers and naturalists from previous centuries.

That's not an issue for me. Okay sure, maybe it's a book of signs and not science and as to what could be revealed to a largely illiterate population in the middle east, that's as far as god went in describing the world.

Why is it that these "signs" are used as confirmation of god's divine revelation when there's nothing new in it or that the vague description, when interpreted, could be applied to our understandings today and to those of the Greeks without any conflicts.

Is it an acceptance of science as a means to validate a holy book? If so, why not accept all scientific understandings of this day, since the process by which human knowledge and societies progress in any scientific field is that same as the one that confirmed your beliefs.

Or is it that as a Muslim you cannot have any doubt, and that whatever science discovers (good or bad) is of no concern since the truth (the one and only) is already known?


So, is it really just a marketing ploy to recruit more members, or has anyone actually put more thought into it than say the lovely Zakir Naik (who on one hand credits science for it's discoveries and on the other rejects evolution on the basis that we're just rebelling against a church for the past 200 years).

[asadxyz]

I've spent some time now checking and rechecking references in the Qu'ran for the various propositions about the nature or the state of life, our world, and the universe.

From the supposed embryology references to the water cycle, everything stated seems to have been discovered already, in so far as the Qu'ran makes the references, by philosophers and naturalists from previous centuries.

That's not an issue for me. Okay sure, maybe it's a book of signs and not science and as to what could be revealed to a largely illiterate population in the middle east, that's as far as god went in describing the world.

Why is it that these "signs" are used as confirmation of god's divine revelation when there's nothing new in it or that the vague description, when interpreted, could be applied to our understandings today and to those of the Greeks without any conflicts.

Is it an acceptance of science as a means to validate a holy book? If so, why not accept all scientific understandings of this day, since the process by which human knowledge and societies progress in any scientific field is that same as the one that confirmed your beliefs.

Or is it that as a Muslim you cannot have any doubt, and that whatever science discovers (good or bad) is of no concern since the truth (the one and only) is already known?


So, is it really just a marketing ploy to recruit more members, or has anyone actually put more thought into it than say the lovely Zakir Naik (who on one hand credits science for it's discoveries and on the other rejects evolution on the basis that we're just rebelling against a church for the past 200 years).

Would you please state that at the time of revelation

1. human being knew that every thing is created in pairs.
2. Secondly did mankind knew that "life originated from water "

[czgibson]

Greetings,

As far as I can see, it's a marketing ploy and nothing more.

Peace

[asadxyz]

Greetings,

As far as I can see, it's a marketing ploy and nothing more.

Peace

An irrational thought 'design is possible without a designer" bearers cannot even think of such things.It is beyon their capacity.So no wonder.

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

[czgibson]

Greetings,

An irrational thought 'design is possible without a designer" bearers cannot even think of such things.It is beyon their capacity.So no wonder.

So, who designed the designer?

The logic (if I can call it that) of your own argument leads naturally to this question.

Peace

[tetsujin]

Would you please state that at the time of revelation

1. human being knew that every thing is created in pairs.
2. Secondly did mankind knew that "life originated from water "

No, I would not.

I take it to mean that you want me to explain those references.


The proposal itself is vague, but false nonetheless.

If by "pairs" you mean sexually compatible mates of the same species then there are quite a few that do not follow that rule.
Under asexual reproduction, various forms of budding, gemmules, fragmentation and regeneration can produce offspring. And it is not just the sponges and starfish who perhaps can conceivable be disregarded as important in the lives of humans but the numerous Oligochaeta and micro organisms that make human life even possible.

Earthworms, to take an example, are hermaphrodites and contain a full set of the necessary organs to reproduce "Sexually" but what is more interesting is that the will just as often reproduce asexually by simply folding their own bodies in half. Without these creatures in abundance, working our soil to make it more conducive for plant life, we may have given up farming many parts of the world.

Mitochondria, to take in internal example, are not part of the human cell structure in that our bodies to not produce them. These microorganisms and other bacterium living inside our bodies essentially create a world within our bodies that even allows for us to survive by producing the chemicals and proteins necessary for us to survive. This was only discovered recently. Like other bacterium, these organisms reproduce asexually through a process called binary fission.

If by "pairs" you mean mutually beneficial partnerships among plants and animals, in order to facilitate their lives, then unfortunately even that is false. Not all creatures have such pairs.

Unless you happen to take the evolutionary approach of arguing that a gazelle should be grateful for cheetahs because it has evolved to become a faster land animal in order to escape it's death, and cheetahs should be grateful for such an elusive prey for the same reason, only to be give up their kills on average to scavengers such as hyenas.


As for the Water idea. You really must read about other creation myths. 12th century BCE Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian mythology created even their gods in the water let alone humans.


All the best wishes,

Faysal

[tetsujin]

An irrational thought 'design is possible without a designer" bearers cannot even think of such things.It is beyon their capacity.So no wonder.

Who is claiming that anything was designed? You've begged the question, but as far as I've seen, none of the atheists make such an argument.

Please read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, and you will understand why the design argument was utterly defeated before we even grasped a firm understanding of evolution (the appearance of design without the need for a designer). Hume did not have an alternative explanation available to him at the time but he conclusively showed that it is an argument from ignorance.

Edit:

To quote myself from another thread,


Arguments from ignorance, i.e. "I do not know, therefore...", are in and of themselves useless because once you claim to not know then you must forgo the ability to lay positive claims to truth.

I do not know how wormholes are created, I do not for a moment use my ignorance of an event which can be measured and evaluated naturally, to assert divine authority, nor can I use it, if it happen to be a singularity, to extrapolate vague theories which cannot be tested in order to establish positive claims about anything else.

In short, if you don't know then just admit it and try to find out, if you think you can't do it yourself, that still means you just have to admit you don't know.




All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

What is the abstract you'd like us to consider with your above manifesto?
You've already assumed your conclusions in the premises of your questions ( I am not seeing much room for a methodical or logical reasoning this is more a free style writing for one!~.. Are you looking for validation from fellow atheists or simply promote atheist philosophy in such a way that it appears as final and authoritarian method to broach the topic of God or theology?


cheers

[tetsujin]

It's quite simple.


You have two options.

1) You can read the Qu'ran, and make positive claims about the world and the universe.

or

2) You can read the Qu'ran, and not make positive claims about the universe.


I'm simply asking why one would choose to do the first, and use it to convert or otherwise advertise the divine revelation.


For example, the fact that the earth was a sphere was put forth by Pythagoreans as early as 500 BC and that it rotates as early as 455 BC, and even Aristotle contemplated a spherical earth in 340 BC. Simple devices such as the use of an effect known as parallax helped to determine this.


All the very best,


Faysal



Edit:

You didn't seem to like my methodical approach last time. :-)

[جوري]

let's rather ask this..
Let's forgo the laws of chance and probability, forgo the earth's age and its climate that makes for favorable living conditions, forgo what we know of mutations, jumping genes, DNA breaks, forgo the 100, million species or so that inhabit this planet, forgo the real leap of faith it takes for a paramecium to dictate upon itself the laws of evolution incorporating every few years or so more base pairs ex nihilo to fully evolve into erect thinking, feeling human beings -- and not say have stopped at a more prospering cockroaches or other nightly insects.. as one would be full of unanswered questions, but those more erudite amongest us, it seems have done all the thinking, thus disabling the rest of us from treading those grounds out of dread we'd be labeled of those largely illitrate Arabians.. would still leave us with one simple question though at the bottom of it all... Where did that first organism come from? and why does it favor life, why does it favor evolution, why does it favor sentience, why does it favor speciation? What is the purpose of our existence? and how exactly does evolution confute a Creator?

Also, why is it that atheists are so full of sterility and lack imagination?

once a person has forgo the element of curiosity and wonderment, are we left with these sort of compositions... I sometimes wonder if any of you just sit and watch the sun rise or set at the end of the day and are in awe of any of it...


in closure, as I tend to despise these kinds of fruitless discussions.. I'll end with an excerpt by William Blake

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wildflower:
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
from 'Auguries of Innocence'


cheers

[tetsujin]

You would surely have loved the late Carl Sagan. The universe is a wonderful and marvelous place, and I fail to see how atheism sterilizes one's world view.

Isn't is wonderful to know that white light as perceived by us is constituted by all the other colors we can imagine. But no, even Isaac Newton for his discoveries in optics was attacked for taking the wonder and mystery out of this world. The more we know about our universe the more we have to appreciate it and it's intricate laws. Why must one invoke a god for us to stand here dumbfounded in order to imagine a universe full of exciting things.

But no, praise be to god for all that is good and holy and all that we do not understand.

Sometimes I wonder why I am not deist.

Edit: If you do not wish to contribute to the discussion then please try not to stifle it.


All the very best,


Faysal

[جوري]

It's quite simple.

I know.. one can only go as far as their mind can take them!

You have two options.

1) You can read the Qu'ran, and make positive claims about the world and the universe.

or

2) You can read the Qu'ran, and not make positive claims about the universe.

I don't actually have only two options.. those are the two options that you've posed to create a theme for this thread, as if merits some deep mental effort. I choose neither!

I'm simply asking why one would choose to do the first, and use it to convert or otherwise advertise the divine revelation.

The divinity of the Quran isn't determined by the 'scientific conditions' or circumstances that follow that premise, whether proven or otherwise...

Further I haven't seen people using scientific evidence to echo its truth or to seek validity.. I can't think of a worst time for Muslims to go out there to convert others, but notwithstanding it still is the fastest growing religion on its own accord. Perhaps folks look deeper and find their answeres therein? Perhaps they think on different planes than you do?
People like you and Hume exist it is true.. but also people like Dr. Gary Miller, Dr. Murad Wilfred Hofmann, Dr. Jeffrey Lang etc etc.. Perhaps it is all to give contrast.. I don't particularly think they sat there and listened to a lecture by Hume or Deedat to resolve whether or not they should be Muslims.. the same thought that has lead you to be an atheist, has lead another to Islam!

For example, the fact that the earth was a sphere was put forth by Pythagoreans as early as 500 BC and that it rotates as early as 455 BC, and even Aristotle contemplated a spherical earth in 340 BC. Simple devices such as the use of an effect known as parallax helped to determine this.

Aha? so?

Edit:

You didn't seem to like my methodical approach last time. :-)

it wasn't that great I am afraid--I mean this is along the lines of free-lance writing..

to impress upon us your atheism?!.. and you are so entitled..

all the best to you too


cheers

[جوري]

You would surely have loved the late Carl Sagan. The universe is a wonderful and marvelous place, and I fail to see how atheism sterilizes one's world view.

Atheists echo sterility to me.. I suppose the same way Muslims echo a 'largely illitrate' population to you!

Isn't is wonderful to know that white light as perceived by us is constituted by all the other colors we can imagine. But no, even Isaac Newton for his discoveries in optics was attacked for taking the wonder and mystery out of this world. The more we know about our universe the more we have to appreciate it and it's intricate laws. Why must one invoke a god for us to stand here dumbfounded in order to imagine a universe full of exciting things.

You have every free will not to invoke him.. believe ir or not, some of us are only happy to give thanks and be in awe of all this splendor..

Sometimes I wonder why I am not deist.

Good question, I am sure only you can answer that!

Edit: If you do not wish to contribute to the discussion then please try not to stifle it.

I thought the topic was/is enfeebled from the outset?.. I doubt I can do much damage to it!

All the very best,

and to you..

cheers

[tetsujin]

I know.. one can only go as far as their mind can take you!


I don't actually have only two options.. those are the two options that you've posed to create a theme for this thread, as if merits some deep mental effort. I choose neither!

Out of curiosity, what would you choose, if you could make up your own option?

The divinity of the Quran isn't determined by the 'scientific conditions' or circumstances that follow that premise, whether proven or otherwise...

Great, I don't see where I've stated otherwise.

Further I haven't seen people using scientific evidence to echo its truth or to seek validity.. I can't think of a worst time for Muslims to go out there to convert others, but notwithstanding it still is the fastest growing religion on its own accord. Perhaps folks look deeper and find their answeres therein? Perhaps they think on different planes than you do?
People like you and Hume exist it is true.. but also people like Dr. Gary Miller, Dr. Murad Wilfred Hofmann, Dr. Jeffrey Lang etc etc.. Perhaps it is all to give contrast.. I don't particularly think they sat there and listened to a lecture by Hume or Deedat to resolve whether or not they should be Muslims.. the same thought that has lead you to be an atheist, has lead another to Islam!

Great! That's wonderful. I would like to find out what they're thinking. There's obviously something that they have found that I have yet to discover. Why keep it bottled up? Share with the infidels and maybe they'll save a few souls.

This is a refutations board, yes? Surely you expected to find some opposition to the Islamic teachings.

In any case, a quick search of the words Qu'ran and modern science will lead to hundreds of books and websites claiming what you suggest I have imposed as the truth. From the Harun Yahas to the Zakir Naiks and many literate scholars in between.

If it's not the case, I apologize.




Faysal




Edit:

Atheists echo sterility to me.. I suppose the same way Muslims echo a 'largely illitrate' population to you!

I've never said that. Clearly if the word was revealed to an illiterate nation, they could not already be Muslims.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^ Ummm bro i suggest u edit ur post. none of that stuff on here...+o(

Edit. k good.

[tetsujin]

^^ Ummm bro i suggest u edit ur post. none of that stuff on here...+o(

I'll make a note of it.

What's the customary way of showing platonic love in Islam?


Peace be with you,


Faysal

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

We don't show "love" to the opposite sex, except with respect in modesty. We dont hug and kiss or anything. Talking with dignity and respect is better than anything.

Peace.

[tetsujin]

We don't show "love" to the opposite sex, except with respect in modesty. We dont hug and kiss or anything. Talking with dignity and respect is better than anything.

Peace.

I hope I've shown nothing less than dignity and respect. To be sure, I wouldn't actually run up and hug and kiss a woman. I suppose I could have chosen other words.


:sl:


Faysal

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I wasnt implying that, you just asked for a better way. So I gave you one, that's all :)

:w:

[snakelegs]

It's quite simple.


You have two options.

1) You can read the Qu'ran, and make positive claims about the world and the universe.

or

2) You can read the Qu'ran, and not make positive claims about the universe.


I'm simply asking why one would choose to do the first, and use it to convert or otherwise advertise the divine revelation.

there are many more options than the 2 above. you can read the qur'an and think it's really kinda cool how god is always drawing your attention to his creation as a way of showing that he works through nature.
personally, i see no reason to try to use the qur'an as a science text book and i don't think that was the purpose.

[tetsujin]

there are many more options than the 2 above. you can read the qur'an and think it's really kinda cool how god is always drawing your attention to his creation as a way of showing that he works through nature.

Perfectly fine. When you read a passage about the revolutions of celestial bodies. Do you think "it's really cool how god could have made the universe like that" or "it's really cool how this hidden knowledge is revealed to us by god". Would you then tell your friends about the cool passage in the book as a useful metaphor for a deism, or would you say that this passage could not be conceived by mortals, and thus we have proof of the "hand of god"

Is it revealed truth, or not?

personally, i see no reason to try to use the qur'an as a science text book and i don't think that was the purpose.

I agree.

[جوري]

Out of curiosity, what would you choose, if you could make up your own option?

I don't know, it isn't the sort of question that crossed my mind.. for me it was, is there a God, YES/NO, once I have determined which of the two, it was, I moved on to which religion.. I didn't stick with any ideologies (Buddhism, Shintoism, Janism etc) you get the pic.. I stuck with Abrahamic faiths, and out of that, it was down to Judaism or Islam, and Islam made the most sense.. Yes there was a time in my life when I didn't pray/fast or believed in anything, I believe it is natural for every human to question...

It was more active reading on my part than the scientific miracles, although when you read them and they make sense, it is an added bonus...

It was more a case of where was the author addressing me.. and this is more a personal experience, every time I had a question, not two or three days later it was answered therein in the Quran... I can't say it will work out that way for you... it is an inside willingness to do something...

for instance when I decided to study science, I took the appropriate steps, find best programs, best schools, where I could personally grow, and what suited me.. I know science doesn't change from one institution to the next.. it was a matter of where best I can cultivate my talents.... It was in me to be who I am today.. it was just a matter of finding which route suited me best... I had to weed out what didn't work in order that I may achieve what does work...

Great, I don't see where I've stated otherwise.

Well the fact that you narrowed it down to two options, is sort of a cul de sac?

Great! That's wonderful. I would like to find out what they're thinking. There's obviously something that they have found that I have yet to discover. Why keep it bottled up? Share with the infidels and maybe they'll save a few souls.

I don't think it is a matter of saving anyone really or converting the infidels.. I mean has that ever worked? it is a matter of your own heart, You have to want it.. read my very first reply on this very post.. You can have a million glossy books, with a bazillion endorsement from heavy weights but it simply doesn't work for you... Not everyone can be Muslim.. It is something you have to want to attain... for every opinion you've out there, there is one contradicting it.. even in science, you've multiple theories competing with each other.. You personally have to sort and intellectualize through it.... You can't force your own track of thoughts on someone, any more than they can impose theirs on you... The forum really is a prime example of that? How many times do atheists post talk origins, to which I post a counter rebuttal by another leading scientist of the impossibilities that lie therein? The best most people do when cornered is go for the credibility of someone.. but for the most part it really doesn't touch the work.. if you don't know enough science to discuss the work, then one theory is as good as the next.. wouldn't you say?

This is a refutations board, yes? Surely you expected to find some opposition to the Islamic teachings.

Of course.. I'd just like it to be colored a little differently.. but I can't impose that either.. to be honest, it is the under lying tone patronage and condescension that irks me... not so much what you do or don't believe!

In any case, a quick search of the words Qu'ran and modern science will lead to hundreds of books and websites claiming what you suggest I have imposed as the truth. From the Harun Yahas to the Zakir Naiks and many literate scholars in between.

So? it is certainly a part of the Quran.. some people focus on the allegory, some focus on the poetry, some focus on the numerology..some focus on the arrangement of suras, some focus on the 'mutaqati3at' (the suras that start with only a few letters) that in an of itself has loan rise to a thousand theory, personally, I think they will have missed the point entirely, but Allah SWT has stated 'its wonders never cease' and it is certainly an art all its own to go on trying to decode the centuries old book!

Edit:



I've never said that. Clearly if the word was revealed to an illiterate nation, they could not already be Muslims.

alrighty then.. thank you for the clarification...
I still get a depressing feeling though around atheists.. it is my own psychology, and I am very set in my ways.. I can't unlearn some habits/feelings now, considering they are ingrained there from impressions I have gathered in my experience..

all the best

cheers

[Chuck]

No, I would not.

I take it to mean that you want me to explain those references.


The proposal itself is vague, but false nonetheless.

If by "pairs" you mean sexually compatible mates of the same species then there are quite a few that do not follow that rule.
Under asexual reproduction, various forms of budding, gemmules, fragmentation and regeneration can produce offspring. And it is not just the sponges and starfish who perhaps can conceivable be disregarded as important in the lives of humans but the numerous Oligochaeta and micro organisms that make human life even possible.

Earthworms, to take an example, are hermaphrodites and contain a full set of the necessary organs to reproduce "Sexually" but what is more interesting is that the will just as often reproduce asexually by simply folding their own bodies in half. Without these creatures in abundance, working our soil to make it more conducive for plant life, we may have given up farming many parts of the world.

Mitochondria, to take in internal example, are not part of the human cell structure in that our bodies to not produce them. These microorganisms and other bacterium living inside our bodies essentially create a world within our bodies that even allows for us to survive by producing the chemicals and proteins necessary for us to survive. This was only discovered recently. Like other bacterium, these organisms reproduce asexually through a process called binary fission.

If by "pairs" you mean mutually beneficial partnerships among plants and animals, in order to facilitate their lives, then unfortunately even that is false. Not all creatures have such pairs.

Unless you happen to take the evolutionary approach of arguing that a gazelle should be grateful for cheetahs because it has evolved to become a faster land animal in order to escape it's death, and cheetahs should be grateful for such an elusive prey for the same reason, only to be give up their kills on average to scavengers such as hyenas.

Quran says everything was created in pairs like even night and day, that would include everything including reproduction sexual and asexual among other thing. It is not talking about genders specifically.

As for the Water idea. You really must read about other creation myths. 12th century BCE Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian mythology created even their gods in the water let alone humans.

First, similarity doesn't make Quran wrong. It is still correct, it is your presumption that if there is similarity than it must be copied. Interestingly, it happened to copy the correct one out of all the other creation myths around at that time.

Second, those myths are not same other than some water similarity. Quran says everything of life we see God created out of them water. Neither of those mention creation of the celestial bodies out of smoke and dust.

[barney]

I was looking at all the scientific Miracles that were predicted in the Quran and Bible.

Can anyone use these books to find the next major scientific Discovery? :D

Dont get depressed around us Skye! We can do some singing if ya like to cheer you up?

[snakelegs]

Perfectly fine. When you read a passage about the revolutions of celestial bodies. Do you think "it's really cool how god could have made the universe like that" or "it's really cool how this hidden knowledge is revealed to us by god". Would you then tell your friends about the cool passage in the book as a useful metaphor for a deism, or would you say that this passage could not be conceived by mortals, and thus we have proof of the "hand of god"

Is it revealed truth, or not?



I agree.

i am not qualified to know what is revealed truth or not! but yeah, i do think, "yeah, isn't that cool how god made....." both when i read these passages as well as when i look at a tiny flower in the desert.
personally, i think it is a mistake to try to use these things in the qur'an as scientific proof and only opens up the way for a lot of silly arguments. also, i would never try to convince anybody about anything.
since one reason i came to believe in god is by learning about and observing nature, i think it's cool that god directs your attention to various creations and refers to them as signs of his creation. i believe that god works through nature.
but religion isn't science and shouldn't be expected to be or claimed to be.

[Chuck]

Can anyone use these books to find the next major scientific Discovery? :D

Sure one can get the direction as muslim scientist once did before. For example, one can infer our universe is essentially flat from the descriptions in Quran. There could be numerous other things. But I believe we are reaching at the end of our discovery spectrum, there won't be any major new discoveries in physics, but mainly improvement in existing technologies. One major that might come could be teleportations or reducing 3D space travel with wormhole/spacewraps if our civilization doesn't collapse within 500 years.

However for specific things, there are prophecies of events that will take place near the end of our world, but no point in mentioning them now your not gonna believe them, people will know when they will happen.

[جوري]

^^^ there is actually one egyptian scientist working on a project to see what it is in sweat that can cure elevated intraocular pressure progressing to blindness as was the case of Jacob when he lost Joseph..
You'll recall that he was cured of his blindness when he held Joseph's shirt to his face.. I'll try to find that article for you..

I am sure it will prove interesting insha'Allah

:w:

Addendum: article found
personal note: I don't know how accurate these results are, I can't find the original article from Ar'Raya Qatar and not sure if it were published in any medical journal foreign or domestic.. I just wanted to share it....

Treatment of Cataract from Al-Quran

One of the Swiss pharmaceutical companies has started producing a new medicine called "Medicine of Quran" which allows the treatment of cataract without surgery. As the newspaper Ar-Raya, published in Qatar writes, "this drug which was synthesised by an Egyptian doctor Abdul Basit Muhammad from the secretions of human sweat glands and has an effectiveness of 99 per cent with absolutely no side effects, was registered in Europe and the United States. It is also reported that one of the Swiss companies produces the new drug in the form of liquid and eye drops."

The source of inspiration is Surah Yusaf. Dr. Abdul Basit Muhammad emphasised that he obtained his inspiration from Surah Yusaf and said: "Once in the morning, I was reading Surah (chapter) Yusuf. My attention lingered over the 84th and successive ayats (verses). "Go with this shirt of mine, and cast it over the face of my father, he will become clear-sighted, and bring to me all your family" (Qur'an 12:93)

They tell that Prophet Yaqoob who was mourning his son Yusaf (AS) in sadness and grief got his eyes turned white and later when people cast over the sorrowful father's face, the shirt of his son Yusuf, vision returned to him and he was able to see again.

Here I started pondering. What could be there in the shirt of Yusuf? Finally I arrived at the decision that nothing except sweat could be on it. I concentrated my thoughts over the sweat and its composition. Then I proceeded to the laboratory for research. I carried out a series of experiments on rabbits. The results turned out to be positive. Later I performed treatment on 250 patients by administering the drug twice a day for two weeks. Finally I achieved 99 per cent success and said to myself: "This is the miracle of the Quran".

Dr Abdul Basit Muhammad presented the results of his research to appropriate institutions in Europe and the United States dealing with patenting of new discoveries for consideration. After tests and research were performed, he finalised a contract with a Swiss company on the production of the medicine on the condition that the package should clearly mention - "Medicine of Quran." In the words of the Egyptian scientist, the company accepted his condition and started producing the new drug.

We send down from the Qur'an that which is a healing and mercy to those who believe. (Al-Qur'an 17:82)


Courtesy: Ar-Raya, Qatar

http://ajmalbeig.addr.com/isl_medicine.htm

[asadxyz]

I was looking at all the scientific Miracles that were predicted in the Quran and Bible.

Can anyone use these books to find the next major scientific Discovery? :D

Dont get depressed around us Skye! We can do some singing if ya like to cheer you up?

Yes
A time is coming when there will be very severe earthquakes and the world will be destroyed .

[tetsujin]

Quran says everything was created in pairs like even night and day, that would include everything including reproduction sexual and asexual among other thing. It is not talking about genders specifically.

Yes, I got that night and day part. I'm sure you realize I was simply responding to the first post. But you've raised something I didn't touch, if it's not talking about genders, what about the genderless creatures? What's the other half?

You must explain your statement for me. If everything was created like night and day, in pairs, why does it not include gender?

First, similarity doesn't make Quran wrong. It is still correct, it is your presumption that if there is similarity than it must be copied. Interestingly, it happened to copy the correct one out of all the other creation myths around at that time.

By no means did I assert that the similarity made it wrong, my statement that it was simply not the first kid on the block to say that we all came from water. The Babylonians thought the same and some native Americans thought the same. Whether they had divine revelation too, I can't say. But then again, it's not my problem. Islam allows for other civilizations to have have their own prophets.

Second, those myths are not same other than some water similarity. Quran says everything of life we see God created out of them water. Neither of those mention creation of the celestial bodies out of smoke and dust.

I'm sorry, the grammar of that response leaves a lot to interpret, I really don't know which "neither of those" you're referring to. In either case, I really wasn't making the point that the entire book is plagiarized, but that it did not contain the first instances of these natural philosophies which are ambiguous or did not require any divine revelation for their veracity.

[tetsujin]

Sure one can get the direction as muslim scientist once did before. For example, one can infer our universe is essentially flat from the descriptions in Quran. There could be numerous other things. But I believe we are reaching at the end of our discovery spectrum, there won't be any major new discoveries in physics, but mainly improvement in existing technologies. One major that might come could be teleportations or reducing 3D space travel with wormhole/spacewraps if our civilization doesn't collapse within 500 years.

Yes, those would be just tiny little discoveries. A Higgs Boson would be nice. Understanding quantum mechanics would be nice, maybe all those little prime movers aren't a direct contradictions to the first cause argument.

Maybe a unified theory of gravity and the other 3 forces we can measure.

However for specific things, there are prophecies of events that will take place near the end of our world, but no point in mentioning them now your not gonna believe them, people will know when they will happen.

Of course, one would argue that at that time it would be too late.


All the best,


Faysal

[tetsujin]

I don't know, it isn't the sort of question that crossed my mind.. for me it was, is there a God, YES/NO, once I have determined which of the two, it was, I moved on to which religion.. I didn't stick with any ideologies (Buddhism, Shintoism, Janism etc) you get the pic.. I stuck with Abrahamic faiths, and out of that, it was down to Judaism or Islam, and Islam made the most sense.. Yes there was a time in my life when I didn't pray/fast or believed in anything, I believe it is natural for every human to question...

It was more active reading on my part than the scientific miracles, although when you read them and they make sense, it is an added bonus...

It was more a case of where was the author addressing me.. and this is more a personal experience, every time I had a question, not two or three days later it was answered therein in the Quran... I can't say it will work out that way for you... it is an inside willingness to do something...

I've now read what you've written no less than 6 times.

I suppose I have to ask you a few questions,

How did you determine that a god exists, or probably exists?

Just on a personal level, why not Jainism? On the face of it, it seems to be better than Islam if one had limited knowledge of both ideologies.

A lot of stuff, if read by itself, can make sense if one doesn't explore the other ideologies. That's simply called rationalization. It doesn't mean it's right, it just has to make sense if you've allowed the premises.

for instance when I decided to study science, I took the appropriate steps, find best programs, best schools, where I could personally grow, and what suited me.. I know science doesn't change from one institution to the next.. it was a matter of where best I can cultivate my talents.... It was in me to be who I am today.. it was just a matter of finding which route suited me best... I had to weed out what didn't work in order that I may achieve what does work...

Wonderful, a lot of people don't do that. They just hear about this school or that school and apply because their friends will be close.

Well the fact that you narrowed it down to two options, is sort of a cul de sac?

To be honest, I think you put yourself in the second option in what you wrote. I really don't think I narrowed it down at all.

I don't think it is a matter of saving anyone really or converting the infidels.. I mean has that ever worked? it is a matter of your own heart, You have to want it.. read my very first reply on this very post.. You can have a million glossy books, with a bazillion endorsement from heavy weights but it simply doesn't work for you... Not everyone can be Muslim.. It is something you have to want to attain... for every opinion you've out there, there is one contradicting it.. even in science, you've multiple theories competing with each other.. You personally have to sort and intellectualize through it.... You can't force your own track of thoughts on someone, any more than they can impose theirs on you... The forum really is a prime example of that? How many times do atheists post talk origins, to which I post a counter rebuttal by another leading scientist of the impossibilities that lie therein? The best most people do when cornered is go for the credibility of someone.. but for the most part it really doesn't touch the work.. if you don't know enough science to discuss the work, then one theory is as good as the next.. wouldn't you say?

Aye, you'd be right. Someone who hasn't a clue about science shouldn't be fervently advocating one theory or another. Science is not advanced through a democratic process. even if tomorrow everyone got up and said that earth is flat, it could be demonstrated, quite easily, that it isn't. Scientists don't get paid to have a consensus, they get paid to provide evidence for or against theories.

Of course.. I'd just like it to be colored a little differently.. but I can't impose that either.. to be honest, it is the under lying tone patronage and condescension that irks me... not so much what you do or don't believe!

Isn't a spade just a really big spoon, do we call it a spade simply because of the way we use it? I have no problems if religious institutions are run like a business. It's in their best interest to come up with the best arguments to get the most converts to get more money and people to do the same. This time it's all for a wealth you can't measure in this world, one just hopes to be filthy rich in the end. If that's offensive, I don't know what to say. It's true.

So? it is certainly a part of the Quran.. some people focus on the allegory, some focus on the poetry, some focus on the numerology..some focus on the arrangement of suras, some focus on the 'mutaqati3at' (the suras that start with only a few letters) that in an of itself has loan rise to a thousand theory, personally, I think they will have missed the point entirely, but Allah SWT has stated 'its wonders never cease' and it is certainly an art all its own to go on trying to decode the centuries old book!

So the question becomes, why would anyone focus on that particular aspect (i.e.the science)?

[tetsujin]

i am not qualified to know what is revealed truth or not! but yeah, i do think, "yeah, isn't that cool how god made....." both when i read these passages as well as when i look at a tiny flower in the desert.
personally, i think it is a mistake to try to use these things in the qur'an as scientific proof and only opens up the way for a lot of silly arguments. also, i would never try to convince anybody about anything.
since one reason i came to believe in god is by learning about and observing nature, i think it's cool that god directs your attention to various creations and refers to them as signs of his creation. i believe that god works through nature.
but religion isn't science and shouldn't be expected to be or claimed to be.

Fair enough. To that extent I too could conceive of a god who devised all the natural laws, but would you state that he has given purpose to the universe or that we are all predestined to a particular outcome?

You claim to be agnostic, but are you also a deist in the sense that Spinoza was or religious in a cultural sense in that it seems like a good way to live?


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Isn't a spade just a really big spoon, do we call it a spade simply because of the way we use it? I have no problems if religious institutions are run like a business. It's in their best interest to come up with the best arguments to get the most converts to get more money and people to do the same. This time it's all for a wealth you can't measure in this world, one just hopes to be filthy rich in the end. If that's offensive, I don't know what to say. It's true.

That has nothing to with Islam. Being filthy rich has no importance in Islam. We would never do it for cash, since for us we aren't supposed to get attached to the materialism of this world. That is if you know what Islam is about and act on that, it's not something you would do. So in fact, it's not true and I won't judge it for other religions.

So the question becomes, why would anyone focus on that particular aspect (i.e.the science)?

Because that part of Islam is different than other religions. And that aspect of Islam is what intrigues a lot of people. But to make it clear, the Qur'an is a book of "signs" more than it is science. But it doesn't negate the fact that it does have it.

[tetsujin]

That has nothing to with Islam. Being filthy rich has no importance in Islam. We would never do it for cash, since for us we aren't supposed to get attached to the materialism of this world. So in fact, it's not true and I won't judge it for other religions.

You missed the metaphor, simply the part of the sentence which explained the rest of that.

Have another go?



Edit:

It's called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. You can imagine that a man could fire several shots into the side of a barn and then walk up to it and draw a circular target, to claim to be a sharpshooter.



:sl:



Faysal

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I didn't take it like a metaphor, I figured it's best to clear it up incase :p But what did you mean, just to be sure?

[snakelegs]

Fair enough. To that extent I too could conceive of a god who devised all the natural laws, but would you state that he has given purpose to the universe or that we are all predestined to a particular outcome?

You claim to be agnostic, but are you also a deist in the sense that Spinoza was or religious in a cultural sense in that it seems like a good way to live?


All the best wishes,


Faysal

i don't know if god has given purpose to the universe or if we are all predestined to a particular outcome.
i'm an agnostic who believes in god, but not religion.

[tetsujin]

Imagine a used car salesman telling you you've got nothing to lose, that the price is dirt cheap, that you can literally step off of his lot making the best decision of your life. You know it's a lemon, or very possibly a lemon, and he's working just as hard as his competitor next door.

But it's not really a car, no he's selling you an ideology. You want to be someone who walks away with a favorable afterlife. If someone could guarantee me a spot of eternal bliss, yeah I'd consider it.

He/she earns his commissions from the ultimate boss. That one big accountant who knows just how much you owe him, and if you pay all your dues you might one day start collecting interest.

Okay, so accountants are sometimes boring, and I imagine god isn't boring, but you get the idea.

[snakelegs]

well this is why i don't belong to any religion.

[tetsujin]

i don't know if god has given purpose to the universe or if we are all predestined to a particular outcome.
i'm an agnostic who believes in god, but not religion.

Lovely, and I can respect you for it.

You could probably say the exact opposite for me, I don't believe in the existence of god, but I believe in the existence of religion.


Okay, so that wasn't very clever. I just have a bit of time to kill at the moment. :-[


All the best wishes,



Faysal

[جوري]

I've now read what you've written no less than 6 times.

I suppose I have to ask you a few questions,

How did you determine that a god exists, or probably exists?

Simply at the end of every question I posed to my person, no scientific method provided me with a satisfactory answer.. I was left with two choices really.. either silence the nagging questions and await such a time when science will provide me with an answer or accept that the true secret of life doesn't have an answer in palpable physical science..

Just on a personal level, why not Jainism? On the face of it, it seems to be better than Islam if one had limited knowledge of both ideologies.

How is it better? I didn't say I didn't read about other ideologies, I stated, it simply wasn't for me.. I can make up my own philosophy just the same, there is no divinity in it. Religion is much more than a code of conduct.. it has to satisfy one both heart and mind!

A lot of stuff, if read by itself, can make sense if one doesn't explore the other ideologies. That's simply called rationalization. It doesn't mean it's right, it just has to make sense if you've allowed the premises.

Everything has a bit of truth in it.. and I used this analogy before from one of my previous posts.

Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I don't think it is a matter of right or wrong..rather which is most correct...

I'll use the analogy of you showing up say with chest pain in the ER
1- Does your ER doc take your troponins?
2-Does he administer an EKG?
3-Does he give you an Aspirin/ heparin and draw a blood test?
4-Does he give you TPA on an emergent basis?
5-Does he secure your airway breathing and circulation?
6-Does he rule out other possibilites than a heart attack like an aortic dissection or GERD?

DO you see how they are all potentially correct answers? on a state licensing exam only ONE IS MOST CORRECT. Only one will score you a point on the test... Thus I say.. I personally don't believe the other monotheistic religions are wrong, whether Manadeans, sabeans, Jewish, Christian or whatever... it is a matter of which is most correct.. of course that is a decision left to the individual. In Islam generally we don't need to prove that the other prophets are wrong, to make prophet Mohammed (p) the one true messenger.. we hold them all in the same regards... It is actually a bonus being a Muslim Al7mdlilah.. one doesn't have to spend his/her life debunking the achievements of other messengers to shine a light on another....Islam to me and most practicing Muslims is the most well preserved and encompassing...

peace!

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post844253

Wonderful, a lot of people don't do that. They just hear about this school or that school and apply because their friends will be close.

That might work for a period of time, but surely we all evolve emotionally and intellectually with the passage of time!

To be honest, I think you put yourself in the second option in what you wrote. I really don't think I narrowed it down at all.

That is your interpretation.. I don't feel like broadening the field. I can only work with what you yourself post!

Aye, you'd be right. Someone who hasn't a clue about science shouldn't be fervently advocating one theory or another. Science is not advanced through a democratic process. even if tomorrow everyone got up and said that earth is flat, it could be demonstrated, quite easily, that it isn't. Scientists don't get paid to have a consensus, they get paid to provide evidence for or against theories.

In fact though some things are as clear as day.. many things aren't hence they are called theories..you'd need to know a little something about how the scientific method is approached.. I am taking the liberty to quote another one of my previous posts.. in short.. people have to stand there and defend their thesis and even with, there is always critical evaluation

You can't prove something is such or such..
try to read a little about the null hypothesis and the confidence interval..
in science and generally in experimentation you never accept the null hypothesis. We either reject them or fail to reject them. and we create a confidence interval where there is a certain percentage of error..
The scientific method is never 100% fool proof ..

Thus, you'll be waiting an awfully long time for someone to come with proof that this universe came ex nihilo and out of no ones volition. :)

Isn't a spade just a really big spoon, do we call it a spade simply because of the way we use it? I have no problems if religious institutions are run like a business. It's in their best interest to come up with the best arguments to get the most converts to get more money and people to do the same. This time it's all for a wealth you can't measure in this world, one just hopes to be filthy rich in the end. If that's offensive, I don't know what to say. It's true.

I have no idea what that means? but I am sure it makes sense in the confines of your mind.. in the scheme of things it is inconsequential to me or to Islam

So the question becomes, why would anyone focus on that particular aspect (i.e.the science)?

Why not? It is an aspect of it.. you seem to only find it I am guessing because that is all you are typing into google.. try a different variety of words and you'll get a different set of rationales..

Now, I need to be up at 4:30 AM to cheerio

[TrueStranger]

Greetings,

As far as I can see, it's a marketing ploy and nothing more.

Peace

Yeah, the "right path" is being marketed to you.

[جوري]

I fail to see how Islam is being marketed to atheists when they come to an Islamic forum on their own volition?
By same token, they too come here to market their philosophies/doctrines?.

Surely on a religious forum, catering to Muslims, you'll have to expect a gamut of articles addressing all aspects of Islam no different than a dawkin forum addressing all sorts of atheist doctrines and so-called humanist articles?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^I was thinking the same. You come to an Islamic forum, so expect it to be about just that.

[tetsujin]

In fact though some things are as clear as day.. many things aren't hence they are called theories..you'd need to know a little something about how the scientific method is approached.. I am taking the liberty to quote another one of my previous posts.. in short.. people have to stand there and defend their thesis and even with, there is always critical evaluation

Thus, you'll be waiting an awfully long time for someone to come with proof that this universe came ex nihilo and out of no ones volition. :)

For which scientific discovery or law does anyone say they have absolute proof? You're being disingenuous or deliberately obscuring what it means to have scientific understandings of fact, theory and law.


1988, Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 8

In simple terms that you could understand.


As for Dawkins, I would suggest reading "The Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Improbable" or "Unweaving the Rainbow" if you haven't done so already. Particularly the last one if you find us atheists depressing...

In any case, the universe does not owe us a sense of purpose or satisfaction, it does not have to fulfill our desires or wishes to be understood in any one particular way. That's the marvelous thing about it. I truly hope you don't make decisions because in your "heart" you find one explanation satisfying, and conclude that it is true.


Do you believe I or other atheists came here not expecting pro-Islamic articles and arguments?

Have you thought that maybe I could see past that and ask a general question?


And yes, there are many religious people on Non-theism or Anti-theism forums.

[snakelegs]

do you believe that that which cannot be put in a test tube or under a microscope automatically doesn't exist?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Please read David Hume's Leviathan, and you will understand why the design argument was utterly defeated before we even grasped a firm understanding of evolution (the appearance of design without the need for a designer). Hume did not have an alternative explanation available to him at the time but he conclusively showed that it is an argument from ignorance.

Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan, not David Hume. The argument you refer to is covered by Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which I would recommend everybody read at their earliest convenience.

I fail to see how Islam is being marketed to atheists when they come to an Islamic forum on their own volition?

That's close to being a good point, although obviously Muslim apologists pushing the "scientific miracles" argument do not only exist on this forum.

By same token, they too come here to market their philosophies/doctrines?.

Sometimes - like I just did above.

Surely on a religious forum, catering to Muslims, you'll have to expect a gamut of articles addressing all aspects of Islam no different than a dawkin forum addressing all sorts of atheist doctrines and so-called humanist articles?

Obviously true, although my point was really that the "scientific miracles" argument is a marketing ploy and nothing more. In other words, beyond the hype, there is no substance to these claims at all.

You've got me thinking, though, and I can see that my initial comment was wrong. As well as being a marketing ploy, the "scientific miracles" argument does also help to legitimise to Muslims their own beliefs, and to add a veneer of supposedly scientific credibility to them.

Peace

[tetsujin]

Thank you for the correction, not sure why said Leviathan to begin with.

It was the dialogue between David Hume and William Paley that one would be interested in. The argument is that if you find a watch on the beach with no footprints in sight and no sign of anyone else around, you would still assume that the watch had been crafted by a designer.


If anyone is interested, Leviathan is an awesome read as well.

do you believe that that which cannot be put in a test tube or under a microscope automatically doesn't exist?

No, I don't see how I can.

If there was not a smidgen of evidence to support a theory for the existence of God, that would not mean God does not exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, it is also not evidence of presence.

What in general should we do in a dialogue like this? Here I am. I say that my mind is open. I am happy to see the evidence, and the response I sometimes get is, "I've had this experience. It's compelling to me. But I can't give it over to you." Now, doesn't that prevent any dialogue whatever? How are we to communicate?

[جوري]

For which scientific discovery or law does anyone say they have absolute proof? You're being disingenuous or deliberately obscuring what it means to have scientific understandings of fact, theory and law.

My reply was a response to this statement by your person.

Science is not advanced through a democratic process. even if tomorrow everyone got up and said that earth is flat, it could be demonstrated, quite easily, that it isn't. Scientists don't get paid to have a consensus, they get paid to provide evidence for or against theories.

Thus I believe the one being 'disingenuous' here is you? as far as I am concerned, you are the one who made a statement of absolution!

1988, Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 8
In simple terms that you could understand.

Are you attempting reverse psychology on me? cute :D

As for Dawkins, I would suggest reading "The Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Improbable" or "Unweaving the Rainbow" if you haven't done so already. Particularly the last one if you find us atheists depressing...

I don't waste my time on things that are of no interest to me.
It would be like reading a book on the dark arts or witch crafts.. I can think of better use of my time!

In any case, the universe does not owe us a sense of purpose or satisfaction, it does not have to fulfill our desires or wishes to be understood in any one particular way. That's the marvelous thing about it. I truly hope you don't make decisions because in your "heart" you find one explanation satisfying, and conclude that it is true.

I think it prudent for an atheist to focus on his own existence and worry of his own well being, and not expand it so, to include all those miserable lost souls who seem to waste their life seeking God.. It is rather pathetic on your part don't you think?. Please don't feign to know what forces drive me down one path or another!

Do you believe I or other atheists came here not expecting pro-Islamic articles and arguments?

I don't spend my time thinking of you or other atheists.. thus your expectations are of no interest or consequence to me!

Have you thought that maybe I could see past that and ask a general question?

see above!

And yes, there are many religious people on Non-theism or Anti-theism forums.

I am most delighted with that declaration.

cheers

[جوري]

That's close to being a good point, although obviously Muslim apologists pushing the "scientific miracles" argument do not only exist on this forum.

Oh mr CZ gibson.. I can't tell you how delighted I am at your quasi approval at a semi good point!
Further, so what the scientific miracles threads don't only exist on this forum? I see atheist miasma campaigned on every crevice of the web.. either deal with it, or simply don't browse a thread and or a website that doesn't agree with your belief system!..

Sometimes - like I just did above.

You haven't been especially clandestine about it.. but thank you for stating the obvious!

Obviously true, although my point was really that the "scientific miracles" argument is a marketing ploy and nothing more. In other words, beyond the hype, there is no substance to these claims at all.

Thank you, for your usual wide-sweeping views, it would be refreshing for a change if you all weren't so predictable.. and rather than engage you the route of vain discourse, I'll rebuff your beliefs aside as they tend to lack any sort of distinction, consideration, critical review or common sense... all one really needs to do is browse through your old posts with Ansar Al'Adl to get a sense of just how deep your intellectual penetration!

You've got me thinking, though, and I can see that my initial comment was wrong. As well as being a marketing ploy, the "scientific miracles" argument does also help to legitimise to Muslims their own beliefs, and to add a veneer of supposedly scientific credibility to them.

Peace

aha.. here we are yet again, with one of your strained, agonistic and oversimplified conclusions as is the case always when overcome in an argument or when you have nothing of substance to impart-- my applause!

cheers

[جوري]

on a seperate note and regarding this quote

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
What in general should we do in a dialogue like this? Here I am. I say that my mind is open. I am happy to see the evidence, and the response I sometimes get is, "I've had this experience. It's compelling to me. But I can't give it over to you." Now, doesn't that prevent any dialogue whatever? How are we to communicate?

It is fascinating to me indeed how something so personal can also be universal, yet needs to be on a low enough a common denominator for sterile minds to understand...
Let's consider for instance having a headache...

How does one apply fact, precision and reason to having a headache?

If someone presented to the hospital (where doctors congregate) with an occipital or temporal headache the worst ever experienced --how can any scientist support that view? it is a subjective report, there is no test to quantify or measure what one is experiencing-- there is NO ( headache-O-Meter) no looking directly at pain.. in fact short of taking a proper history, there is much doubt to differentiating a grade 6/10 concentric headache to someone suffering factitious disorder... Yet here we set the standards to classify and distinguish thunderclap from migraines, from tension, from sinus from cluster headaches and based entirely and solely on the subjective opinion of the one experiencing it.

Can there be any doubt that headaches exist? that we've all been touched by them.. folks across the globe, across races, of all ages can universally understand and relate to someone speaking of a headache-- and still at times, it is a non-descript manifestation of many a pathological phenomenon!


So why do we remain hypocrites? find a thousand and one story from a thousand and one philosophers to Put reason for us and make comprehensible the most vague subjective incidents, yet fail to use that same calm, rationale to answer what is quite visible all around us and to the naked eye?


All I can say.. Is sob7an Allah 3amma yasifoon!

:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Thank you for the correction, not sure why said Leviathan to begin with.

It was the dialogue between David Hume and William Paley that one would be interested in. The argument is that if you find a watch on the beach with no footprints in sight and no sign of anyone else around, you would still assume that the watch had been crafted by a designer.

I've not heard of a dialogue between the two, but they are often positioned against each other as the two classic opponents on the argument from design. Like here, for example. Anyone who is interested in the design argument will find that to be a useful read.

If anyone is interested, Leviathan is an awesome read as well.

Definitely. :)

aha.. here we are yet again, with one of your strained, agonistic and oversimplified conclusions as is the case always when overcome in an argument or when you have nothing of substance to impart-- my applause!

It's been a while since I was insulted by you - glad to see you're maintaining your standards in debate. :)

Peace

[جوري]

It's been a while since I was insulted by you - glad to see you're maintaining your standards in debate. :)

Peace

Would love to have seen a 'debate' by your person... you really ought to look the word up, perhaps you'd have seen that, there should be some sort of proposition with discussions and reasons for and/or against it.. not a Potemkin village designed to give the appearance of an educated fact!

Better luck with your next vehement declamation!

cheers

[barney]

Look out CZ! The SHARKS!!!.....THE TRAPDOOR!

Meh too late :(

Anyway, avoiding the perfectly valid comment CZ made is simple verification that his post had weight.
If something cant be countered-simply denounce or un-think it.

[جوري]

It would be wonderful if he could be hooked to your bait/ buoy and together you can both stand on a united front.. I fear worst than being an atheist though, is not being able to make up your mind on who or what you actually are!

Pick a way of life and stick with it :smile:

cheers

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Would love to have seen a 'debate' by your person... you really ought to look the word up, perhaps you'd have seen that, there should be some sort of proposition with discussions and reasons for and/or against it.. not a Potemkin village designed to give the appearance of an educated fact!

Better luck with your next vehement declamation!

cheers

Keep 'em coming!

Look at the state of me now > :laugh:

Look out CZ! The SHARKS!!!.....THE TRAPDOOR!

Meh too late

Terrifying, isn't it?

Peace

[tetsujin]

Science is not advanced through a democratic process. even if tomorrow everyone got up and said that earth is flat, it could be demonstrated, quite easily, that it isn't. Scientists don't get paid to have a consensus, they get paid to provide evidence for or against theories.

For which scientific discovery or law does anyone say they have absolute proof? You're being disingenuous or deliberately obscuring what it means to have scientific understandings of fact, theory and law.

Thus I believe the one being 'disingenuous' here is you? as far as I am concerned, you are the one who made a statement of absolution!

I failed to see how any of that was disingenuous, or where I made an absolutist claim.

To say that something could be demonstrated is not the same as saying you have absolute proof.

I don't waste my time on things that are of no interest to me.
It would be like reading a book on the dark arts or witch crafts.. I can think of better use of my time!

You mean to say you're not wasting your time on this thread? Gee, here I thought you had no interest.

I think it prudent for an atheist to focus on his own existence and worry of his own well being, and not expand it so, to include all those miserable lost souls who seem to waste their life seeking God.. It is rather pathetic on your part don't you think?. Please don't feign to know what forces drive me down one path or another!

So seeking to understand the opinions and philosophies by which others live is pathetic, or is it pathetic for just an atheist? I don't think you understand what it means to be an atheist, but since you have in interest in finding out I suppose I shouldn't waste time trying to explain why/how one could be passionate or sympathetic without believing God.

Then again, that's simply what I think, you have no obligation to respond to that.

I don't spend my time thinking of you or other atheists.. thus your expectations are of no interest or consequence to me!

You've spent enough time on this thread responding to us, I mean it wouldn't matter to you if we went on asking other people the same questions right? Why would you subvert the topic and be disrespectful to other posters?

[tetsujin]

It is fascinating to me indeed how something so personal can also be universal, yet needs to be on a low enough a common denominator for sterile minds to understand...
Let's consider for instance having a headache...

How does one apply fact, precision and reason to having a headache?

If someone presented to the hospital (where doctors congregate) with an occipital or temporal headache the worst ever experienced --how can any scientist support that view? it is a subjective report, there is no test to quantify or measure what one is experiencing-- there is NO ( headache-O-Meter) no looking directly at pain.. in fact short of taking a proper history, there is much doubt to differentiating a grade 6/10 concentric headache to someone suffering factitious disorder... Yet here we set the standards to classify and distinguish thunderclap from migraines, from tension, from sinus from cluster headaches and based entirely and solely on the subjective opinion of the one experiencing it.

Can there be any doubt that headaches exist? that we've all been touched by them.. folks across the globe, across races, of all ages can universally understand and relate to someone speaking of a headache-- and still at times, it is a non-descript manifestation of many a pathological phenomenon!


So why do we remain hypocrites? find a thousand and one story from a thousand and one philosophers to Put reason for us and make comprehensible the most vague subjective incidents, yet fail to use that same calm, rationale to answer what is quite visible all around us and to the naked eye?


All I can say.. Is sob7an Allah 3amma yasifoon!

:w:

Who is denying the existence of spiritual experiences? Yes, they too come in all shapes and sizes. Some go to a cave, some have dreams, some sit quietly and meditate, some travel great distances without food or water, some fall ill and nearly die. Is there any doubt that one can have a spiritual experience? No.

The Jews have them, the Christians have them, the Muslims have them, the Hindus have them, the Buddhists have them, the Jain have them, the Quakers have them, the Olympians had them, the Vikings had them. Every society I can think of has had spiritual experiences and probably used them to validate their belief in YHWH, Jesus, Allah, God, Zeus, Thor, Mithras, Bayal etc...

Great, that's fine and dandy.

Tell me. Medicine is your field, right? I'm not sure and I wouldn't want to assume the wrong thing. Is there a difference in the ability to treat a disease between one competent doctor and another equally knowledgeable and competent doctor, in the same field, if they happen to be of different faiths? Would you feel any different if you had required an important surgery and you had the choice of choosing a doctor of a particular faith? It seems irrelevant to me, but this is a personal opinion.

How do you treat headaches? The Jews have them, the Christians have them, the Muslims have them, the Hindus have them, the Buddhists have them, the Jain have them, the Quakers have them, the Olympians had them, the Vikings had them. Do you treat them according to the person's faith? Do you simply treat the type of headache?

A headache is still a headache, and a spiritual experience is no less real because one's personal faith has compelled them to attribute the phenomenon to YHWH, Jesus, Allah, God, Zeus, Thor, Mithras, Bayal etc...

So how does one make that connection from having a personal experience to finding an intelligent agency as its root cause? Is there a way you can communicate that logical process to anyone else? That, my friend, was the question. I apologize if it wasn't clear from the onset.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[snakelegs]

No, I don't see how I can.

If there was not a smidgen of evidence to support a theory for the existence of God, that would not mean God does not exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, it is also not evidence of presence.

ok - we are not in disagreement here at all. most of my life i didn't believe in god one way or the other. over the last decade i have come to feel his presence and so now i do, based on my experiences. key word: belief
his existence can neither be proven or disproven.
we're "on the same page" on this one.

[tetsujin]

ok - we are not in disagreement here at all. most of my life i didn't believe in god one way or the other. over the last decade i have come to feel his presence and so now i do, based on my experiences. key word: belief
his existence can neither be proven or disproven.
we're "on the same page" on this one.

Agnosticism is a respectable position, despite the jabs that theists and atheists usually make about indecisiveness or fear. There are some things one cannot possibly claim to know.

[Nerd]

I've spent some time now checking and rechecking references in the Qu'ran for the various propositions about the nature or the state of life, our world, and the universe.

From the supposed embryology references to the water cycle, everything stated seems to have been discovered already, in so far as the Qu'ran makes the references, by philosophers and naturalists from previous centuries.

Are you implying that, the largely illiterate population of the of the middle east at the time were able to comprehend and extract fine details of the alleged embryological studies conducted by civilizations from way before the Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)?

That's not an issue for me. Okay sure, maybe it's a book of signs and not science and as to what could be revealed to a largely illiterate population in the middle east, that's as far as god went in describing the world.

It wasn't a book just for the illiterate mass of the middle east, but rather a book to the whole man-kind till Judgment day.

Why is it that these "signs" are used as confirmation of god's divine revelation when there's nothing new in it or that the vague description, when interpreted, could be applied to our understandings today and to those of the Greeks without any conflicts.

Why shouldn't anyone see these signs as confirmation of Allah's revelation? :?

Is it an acceptance of science as a means to validate a holy book? If so, why not accept all scientific understandings of this day, since the process by which human knowledge and societies progress in any scientific field is that same as the one that confirmed your beliefs.

Firstly, Muslim's believe in the validity of Quran. And according to Islam the pursuit for knowledge is itself a form of worship. According to the Qur’an only men of knowledge really fear Allah most. Positive fear of God (taqwa) can be attained only by those who have knowledge (H.Q 35:28). One of the indispensable conditions in relation to the spiritual state of the soul, in getting closer to Allah, is the attainment of knowledge.

Scientific gathering of knowledge is an on-going process, which garners new knowledge as well very often bring in to light new evidences which amends previous understandings and are integrated into the previous knowledge. Therefore it is an oversimplification to state that Muslim's reject part of science.

Or is it that as a Muslim you cannot have any doubt, and that whatever science discovers (good or bad) is of no concern since the truth (the one and only) is already known?
So, is it really just a marketing ploy to recruit more members, or has anyone actually put more thought into it than say the lovely Zakir Naik (who on one hand credits science for it's discoveries and on the other rejects evolution on the basis that we're just rebelling against a church for the past 200 years).

I cannot state the Islamis view on evolution; but I can state here I have not come across any verse of Hadith that rejects evolution. And no one can deny, that science itself have a lot to learn and understand on how the first species came about to earth. Even if there is overwhelming scientific data supporting evolution.

[جوري]

Who is denying the existence of spiritual experiences? Yes, they too come in all shapes and sizes. Some go to a cave, some have dreams, some sit quietly and meditate, some travel great distances without food or water, some fall ill and nearly die. Is there any doubt that one can have a spiritual experience? No.

spirituality and religiosity are two different things!

The Jews have them, the Christians have them, the Muslims have them, the Hindus have them, the Buddhists have them, the Jain have them, the Quakers have them, the Olympians had them, the Vikings had them. Every society I can think of has had spiritual experiences and probably used them to validate their belief in YHWH, Jesus, Allah, God, Zeus, Thor, Mithras, Bayal etc...

Great, that's fine and dandy.

Again, experiencing spirituality and following a creed after some reflection and thoughts are different things.. spirituality is a subset of religion-- what makes one superior to another is ultimately a personal choice.. in some minds there can be no doubt... people get there on there own time
If you are being offered Soda or being offered tomato juice, they are both drinks it is true, both will quench your thirst, but ultimately for your body's needs, one is better than the other!

Tell me. Medicine is your field, right? I'm not sure and I wouldn't want to assume the wrong thing. Is there a difference in the ability to treat a disease between one competent doctor and another equally knowledgeable and competent doctor, in the same field, if they happen to be of different faiths? Would you feel any different if you had required an important surgery and you had the choice of choosing a doctor of a particular faith? It seems irrelevant to me, but this is a personal opinion.

It is indeed a personal opinion.. and doctors have different approaches to the same problem, sometimes religion plays a large part in it, sometimes not.. The thing that you need to know about ethics in medicine, is that the final decision determining the Quality of health care lies with the patient him/herself, not the doctor...
you may have an intractable ulcer/ with a hiatal hernia .. and two or three or four doctors that have gone through the same institution learned the same medicine will offer you completely different treatments. One might offer you magnetic sphincters, another may offer you a PPI, another offers you an enteryx procedure, another may offer you a Nissen fundoplication.. even in the testing, each may go about it differently.. some might offer you a barium swallow, some by endoscopy, some an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, some offer esophageal manometry.. fact of the matter is, there are gold standards it is true, there is also taking into account, the patient's own health condition, what his/her body can withstand, the level of compliance, religion, plus the socio-economic conditions. Some might offer you the one or two options that are best for you.. Again, The final decision lies with the patient.. Fact is, just like with religion there is a code of conduct that all doctors take an oath to comply with, and it is very much similar to the code of conduct one takes when committing to religion!

How do you treat headaches? The Jews have them, the Christians have them, the Muslims have them, the Hindus have them, the Buddhists have them, the Jain have them, the Quakers have them, the Olympians had them, the Vikings had them. Do you treat them according to the person's faith? Do you simply treat the type of headache?

If a mormon suffered a major accident requiring a blood transfusion as a life saving treatment, but refuses the blood transufsion citing religious reasons, then you'll comply with the patient's faith, not the standard medical treatment! Medical ethics goes beyond what you can bottle and dispense.. if you are interested in reading more about this, then I recommend

Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine by Albert R. Jonsen, Mark Siegler, and William J. Winslade

as you can see this is a very expansive topic, which I don't wish to get into here for the sake of amusing you. The one or two points I broached upon are adequate for now and for the practical purpose of this forum!

A headache is still a headache, and a spiritual experience is no less real because one's personal faith has compelled them to attribute the phenomenon to YHWH, Jesus, Allah, God, Zeus, Thor, Mithras, Bayal etc...

I don't know what the above statement means short of to tally up the count of the names of the many Gods you know? If you have a specific question then you may pose it.. I really don't care much for that declamatory style writing- from which I am to understand nothing, save your own personal conclusions!

So how does one make that connection from having a personal experience to finding an intelligent agency as its root cause? Is there a way you can communicate that logical process to anyone else? That, my friend, was the question. I apologize if it wasn't clear from the onset.

All the best wishes,

Faysal

I think you were very clear, but also liberal in your approach. Personally, I think it best to deal with the topic in a systematic way. If at the end you can actualize our existence in a scientifically accurate way without making up unfounded theories about Jack and his bean stalk, or little Jars of sperms left behind to give various life forms, or some inorganic/inanimate object sprouting arms, legs a complex system and later sentience in a constant progressive positive pattern very much opposite to what we actually know of spontanous mutations, can we really have this deeply reflective philosophical conversation. But if when all is said and done, it comes down to 'I simply don't know' or some sort of belief, that sounds better put in words than 'God did it' are theists and atheists starting from the same baseline.. in which case I say, let's not waste each other's time... just simply believe what you will and be happy in your beliefs!


cheers

[tetsujin]

If at the end you can actualize our existence in a scientifically accurate way without making up unfounded theories about Jack and his bean stalk, or little Jars of sperms left behind to give various life forms, or some inorganic/inanimate object sprouting arms, legs a complex system and later sentience in a constant progressive positive pattern very much opposite to what we actually know of spontanous mutations

Who has made those claims? I don't know of any biologist that has made such a claim.

I would simply like a name, or a journal, or an essay, that would point me to the man or woman that made such a statement.

I think you were very clear, but also liberal in your approach. Personally, I think it best to deal with the topic in a systematic way.

I'll come back for the rest later.


I'm not sure what you expect. If one sets up a simple dichotomy which allows for a range of possibilities on either side, you state that I am simplifying things too much or artificially limiting the possible answers one could give. If I allow you take the lead and explore your own options, then you don't even acknowledge the original point. If you haven't thought of a question, or thought about a proposition in any one particular way. How long would it take you to maybe try a new avenue. If don't want to, what if anything do you have to add?

Better yet, when you can't be bothered to follow either approach you feign a lack of interest or state that anyone else's attempts or theories are of no importance or consequence to you.

I'm attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt each time. But, you come across as already having found all the answers and when I question anything you take offense. It's not uncommon among the religious types, and when someone says "Okay, why don't we let you ask the questions." then it seems as if there's nothing to talk about.

So what exactly are you doing here, if you have no interest in helping someone genuinely understand an ideology, and what do you have to offer other than veiled insults and links to other works with obvious publication bias.

One has to think that if you had only taken philosophy courses with an interest in learning what logic and reason are you would not be setting up straw men left and right. I hope that compulsory credit was worth the trouble you face on these boards, or you would have come to understand what an atheist is.

Don't for a moment think that I presume to be smarter than you, or all the religious types. It's the arrogant assumption that you have all the answers and no one is worthy of questioning them. I would not look down upon you in that manner, and I would hope for the same in return.

spirituality and religiosity are two different things!

So what is your point? Are they mutually exclusive? Is your version of Islam not spiritual? Is your version of Islam simply the mundane aspects of living your daily life, or are you making claims about the supernatural or moral truths of the cosmos and feel a connection with an agency you cannot describe in materialist terms?

Have you already reflected on a particular religion and assumed than any future spiritual experiences are a subset or effect of the presumed belief?

Spirituality can go beyond any one doctrine or dogma, but one may not have a religious experience with explicitly Catholic or Muslim effects unless you have already begged the question.

It is indeed a personal opinion.. and doctors have different approaches to the same problem, sometimes religion plays a large part in it, sometimes not.. The thing that you need to know about ethics in medicine, is that the final decision determining the Quality of health care lies with the patient him/herself, not the doctor...
you may have an intractable ulcer/ with a hiatal hernia .. and two or three or four doctors that have gone through the same institution learned the same medicine will offer you completely different treatments. One might offer you magnetic sphincters, another may offer you a PPI, another offers you an enteryx procedure, another may offer you a Nissen fundoplication.. even in the testing, each may go about it differently.. some might offer you a barium swallow, some by endoscopy, some an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, some offer esophageal manometry.. fact of the matter is, there are gold standards it is true, there is also taking into account, the patient's own health condition, what his/her body can withstand, the level of compliance, religion, plus the socio-economic conditions. Some might offer you the one or two options that are best for you.. Again, The final decision lies with the patient.. Fact is, just like with religion there is a code of conduct that all doctors take an oath to comply with, and it is very much similar to the code of conduct one takes when committing to religion!

You missed the point altogether. Does one's faith have an effect on the ability to treat a disease. Would the same treatment applied by two different doctors produce different results if the one any only difference in doctor or patient is the particular faith he/she holds. I did not say the doctors or patients are not willing, but does the efficacy of a type of treatment depend on the person's faith? You must have at one point accepted the existence microorganisms as the cause of many illnesses. I don't care if your faith tells you it's god and not that virus/bacteria. Does it change the fact that if the way in which one can be cured is known to exist and is easily applicable then you don't need intercessory prayer or miracles.

Would you prescribe a different vaccine for polio or smallpox for a child because of the religious doctrines of his/her parents, because it is known that certain types of vaccines don't work on, for example, "Jewish" children?

Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine by Albert R. Jonsen, Mark Siegler, and William J. Winslade

I've made a note of it

I don't know what the above statement means short of to tally up the count of the names of the many Gods you know? If you have a specific question then you may pose it.. I really don't care much for that declamatory style writing- from which I am to understand nothing, save your own personal conclusions!

Which part of the statement did you not understand? You don't have to agree with it, but I am sure it was written in English with minimal grammatical errors. Once you understand it, and I will help you, I'm sure it'll be much easier to answer the question that followed.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

Who has made those claims? I don't know of any biologist that has made such a claim.

I would simply like a name, or a journal, or an essay, that would point me to the man or woman that made such a statement.

Go browse the theories out there on the origin of life--abiogenesis, autogeny etc-- the only thing I have done was substitute ' an organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter' to what it actually means.. a moribund rock devloping arms/legs and later sentience unguided on its own volition!

So we'll just wait around until one of you can demonstrate the above phenomenon or similar theories on the matter of origins with some palpable results to accept that deeply scientific approach over answers offered by religion! :)

I'm not sure what you expect. If one sets up a simple dichotomy which allows for a range of possibilities on either side, you state that I am simplifying things too much or artificially limiting the possible answers one could give. If I allow you take the lead and explore your own options, then you don't even acknowledge the original point. If you haven't thought of a question, or thought about a proposition in any one particular way. How long would it take you to maybe try a new avenue. If don't want to, what if anything do you have to add?

I have indeed nothing to add, this is your thread, so far I haven't seen anyone clamoring over your propositions save for your own kin who seem to offer you a cluster of approval though not in any particularly coherent manner.. perhaps your Q's are inwardly flawed a direct product of your own mind and has no basis in anyone else's?... just because you put some words together in question form does it mean, it is actually merits a reply is sensical or to be addressed. It is founded on the low common grounds you've reduced theology to!
And I refuse to bring down an entire doctrine to an electrical impulse that fired across your synapse!

Better yet, when you can't be bothered to follow either approach you feign a lack of interest or state that anyone else's attempts or theories are of no importance or consequence to you.

Your questions having no consequence or are of importance, and manage to rouse a state of disinterest that is actually true- however, I am not seeing, how I have personally forbade anyone else from replying to your questions for my natural response to be received with that gore like reaction... as for following either approach, Why do I have to?
It is as if I were going to a resturant and being offered pork or deep fried strawberries with sherry sauce.. what kind of resturant simply runs on two ingredients and is capable of drawing an ardent following, least of which, if it is smack in the middle of a Muslim neighborhood and is supposed to address a Muslim crowd? -- I imagine if you'd created a better theme, you'll receive more favorable replies?!


Another example of this, was one of your buddies on this very forum posing a questionnaire on why we are Muslims.. questions ranging from , brainwashed, forced on us, born into it, a supernatural experience.. honestly and in the vernacular get a life! If you have a particular mindset and pre-conceived notions as to why things are, you are not interested in a duologue.. then please don't come and act all vexed or surprised when you don't receive the results you were hoping for!
If anything المؤمن كيّس فطن -

وفي رواية للديلمي عن أنس أيضا بلفظ: المؤمن فطن حذر وقاف، متثبت لا يعجل، عالم ورع، والمنافق همزة لمزة حطمة لا يقف عند شبهة ولا عند محرم كحاطب ليل لا يبالي من أين كسب ولا فيما أنفق، ومثله في التاريخ للبخاري. .

you having apostated and having read the Quran, Hadith as well as a gamut os Islamic literature ad nauseam should know exactly what that means! :smile:

I'm attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt each time. But, you come across as already having found all the answers and when I question anything you take offense. It's not uncommon among the religious types, and when someone says "Okay, why don't we let you ask the questions." then it seems as if there's nothing to talk about.

What is it exactly that you are giving me the benefit of the doubt for? if we are going down that ground, then it is actually not uncommon for the atheist type to probe and mock as if anyone's cognitive capacity or contentedness with their state of being is subject to mockery, ridicule or even question-- as if anyone owes you an explanation? further, I expect that you browse the health/science section to see how your type responds almost pathologically on every thread remotely addressing something in the Quran that is in concert with the sciences, before you come here cast-typing the 'religious character'..

I so hate to repeat myself, whatever 'logic' lead you to disbelieve in God, has led someone else to believe in God. It is a matter of drawing a different conclusion from the same type questions... You'll always be dissatissfied with other people's answers, if internally you can't bring their explanations it into consonance with your own . It has nothing to do with logic or lack thereof.. it just has to do with what theories sound more en vogue!

So what exactly are you doing here, if you have no interest in helping someone genuinely understand an ideology, and what do you have to offer other than veiled insults and links to other works with obvious publication bias.

I am a Muslim on an Islamic forum, I enjoy being here I thought that would be obvious?! one might ask you the same though in rhetoric since you've already given the answer --and I thank you for your refreshing honesty as I believe that you've led us into your own psyche. You have no genuine interest in understanding Islamic ideology, considering your first week of being here, you were only too happy advertising that you'd apostated? religion has been offered you and you have already made up your mind that it isn't for you by virtue of your 'way of life'? You look for every chance to post in a book or school of thought of one of your atheist gods and unashamedly flaunt your Arabic name at the end of every post. What am I to draw from that really short of an overt form of projection?

One has to think that if you had only taken philosophy courses with an interest in learning what logic and reason are you would not be setting up straw men left and right. I hope that compulsory credit was worth the trouble you face on these boards, or you would have come to understand what an atheist is.

an atheist usually represents himherself well. I need not do more as s/he is only too happy leaving his/her offense behind with the usual inane extrapolations and mindless drivel in guide of philosophy. I'll ask you to refrain from feigning to know how I approached my courses philosophy or otherwise!

Don't for a moment think that I presume to be smarter than you, or all the religious types. It's the arrogant assumption that you have all the answers and no one is worthy of questioning them. I would not look down upon you in that manner, and I would hope for the same in return.

lol.. Don't worry I've never presumed such a thing...I don't know that this should merit a reply even? I think it is just your inner child speaking?.. You had carried yourself so well in the previous paragraphs, I was wondering when the pseudo esthete in you would drop the mask.

So what is your point? Are they mutually exclusive? Is your version of Islam not spiritual? Is your version of Islam simply the mundane aspects of living your daily life, or are you making claims about the supernatural or moral truths of the cosmos and feel a connection with an agency you cannot describe in materialist terms?

I never said spirituality and religiosity are mutually exclusive at least not as far as Islam is concerned, I said it is a subset of. Why should I have to abbreviate the major essential elements of religion for the sake of an argument you've posed? when one poses questions one must first have an expectation of what it is, one hopes to gain by asking them? if you are going to ask a leading question or an open/ended question you'll receive a gamut of different responses even if the idea is the same...

My version of Islam is the way of the marjority of practicing sunni Muslims the variations in particular details as pertains the entire doctrine are negligble in the scheme of things and don't see how they would be of benefit to discuss? as an example, If I were to tell you that I personally out of all my family members have dreams of people who die before they drop dead, how would that benefit you? or how is a reflection on Islam or Muslims as opposed to my hindu counterpart that also has dreams of people who die before they die? all one can infer from this, is, there are phenomenons in this world that can't be explained by science, but it isn't an affirmation to a particular religion. It is what it is!

That being said, I don't see us meeting on mutual grounds! this goes back to the original question that you've neglected to answer.. I don't owe you an explanation for my personal beliefs and I am not looking to convert you.. I just rather enjoy nipping in the bud fruitless discussions as they form.. not very unsimilar to what most of you do to Muslims on H&S but I can see I have failed terribly as here we are on page 5!

be that as it may-- Can you prove to yourself that God exists? Yes or NO? descartes did it in his own way, as well millions of others, it has nothing to do with smarts or harboring all the answers and being too stingy to share, it is nothing more than quest sought on a solo journey. As for posting bias material, is that anything like the onslaught of your atheist 'philosophers' as if their word is of biblical importance? ' Do they have all the answers? Perhaps the fact that they write books and push it out into the world for young eager minds like yours to lap up is an answer to that question!...

Have you already reflected on a particular religion and assumed than any future spiritual experiences are a subset or effect of the presumed belief?

I choose the religion that is most logical to me.. one didn't rely too much on mythical creatures, butter statues to be eaten at end of worship/ elephant God, man/God, special sacrifices, chosen people or the anti-climax, but the one with a clear message.. You are here for a reason, fulfill your obligations, obligations made sense from a moral, social stucture, economic/political and spiritual standpoint and seemed to follow from a long line centuries apart all attesting to the same concept without all the derangements!
I'll not discuss the divinity of the Quran with you' if you were to detour us of any other 'universal truths' of similar premise that isn't Islam... There will be things that you've to accept by virtue of being a believer and yes have faith that Allah swt will reveal those things unto us at some point-- from where I am now, everything that deals with our daily life seems perfect, and even the religious obligations are of major benefit and not imposing.

When you start off an experiment, where you have conducting a controlled testing a serious investigation, double blind, expecting certain outcome based on what you know of science-- 80/90% percent of it is predictable and some of it, is beyond your control or even understanding.
If you start off making a drug to treat anti-fungal organisms and beyond what you know of science or the pharmacology/ pharmacokinetics mechanism of action of the drug itself, 1% of the population acquires a metalic taste when ever they consume cheese, and you can't attribute that to any of the parameters of the drug itself or the way it exerts its action.. it might not make any sense but you accept and believe that, that will happen to a percent of the population and you write that in your findings to be scientifically forthcoming at a risk of being ridiculed by your peers! If 80/90% of what you know of something is true and palpable and makes sense and is of great benefit, then you can accept the 10-20% that are beyond your understanding and hope that at a later time they will become more clear!

Spirituality can go beyond any one doctrine or dogma, but one may not have a religious experience with explicitly Catholic or Muslim effects unless you have already begged the question.

Indeed...If anything, I have always felt that christianity was solely based on spirituality and very little thought-- Again, spirituality to me is a subset, if you can attain it in distilled form, it is great, but Islam is an entire way of life, meant to feed more than just the spiritual. you may browse one of my previous paragraphs where I have touched upon that in more details..

You missed the point altogether. Does one's faith have an effect on the ability to treat a disease. Would the same treatment applied by two different doctors produce different results if the one any only difference in doctor or patient is the particular faith he/she holds. I did not say the doctors or patients are not willing, but does the efficacy of a type of treatment depend on the person's faith? You must have at one point accepted the existence microorganisms as the cause of many illnesses. I don't care if your faith tells you it's god and not that virus/bacteria. Does it change the fact that if the way in which one can be cured is known to exist and is easily applicable then you don't need intercessory prayer or miracles.

Fact of the matter is intercessory prayers are very much a part of medicine, and I have posted a Duke study on the benefits of prayers for the dying pt. it is probably lying some where in health and science if you wish to dig it up...

You need to define for us what a 'miracle' is--- someone might want to see angels hovering over a body and leaving it in a total state of well being as their defintion of a 'miracle'.. for me cancer going into remission is a miracle. Someone diagnosed with small cell ca. and given two months to live and surviving two years is a miracle ( and I have actually seen that happen). There are no absolutes in medicine you make that mistake as most lay people do... Just like your body has a digestive, circulatory nervous systems, biochemical and physiological reactions working in harmony with each other at all times, does it also have an emotional and a spiritual aspect that need to be equally addressed.

Would you prescribe a different vaccine for polio or smallpox for a child because of the religious doctrines of his/her parents, because it is known that certain types of vaccines don't work on, for example, "Jewish" children?

Some vaccines indeed don't work on some children. would I prescribe a different vaccine? currently the indication is to give the vaccine anyway and await the reaction, treat accordingly with supportive measures.
Parents also have the right to withold vaccines so long as it isn't for life and or limb saving treatment based on their religious beliefs! The laws of ethics that govern children aren't the same for consenting adults... but I have no idea where you are going with this one?!
perhaps you should choose examples in a field where you are better versed?

Which part of the statement did you not understand? You don't have to agree with it, but I am sure it was written in English with minimal grammatical errors. Once you understand it, and I will help you, I'm sure it'll be much easier to answer the question that followed.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

There was nothing to understand .. it was a mere reply to your many meaningless attempts to beat the same dead horse.. It is as if I stated 'what a beautiful day, the blue jay is making noise and disturbs all the other birds in the trees, blue Jays are a nuisance they dilapidate the natural habitat and there are more evolved birds that are better for the eco-system like the bul-bul, the macaw, the Cockatoo etc etc.. How would you personally respond to that? There is nothing to be made of it... it is a personal opinion! There is really nothing that requires any form of understanding.. best we can do is offer an OK!


Are we done here?

cheers

[Nerd]

From the supposed embryology references to the water cycle, everything stated seems to have been discovered already, in so far as the Qu'ran makes the references, by philosophers and naturalists from previous centuries.

Are you implying that, the largely illiterate population of the of the middle east at the time were able to comprehend and extract fine details of the alleged embryological studies conducted by civilizations from way before the Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)? :?

[جوري]

I think he is implying that, they went abroad to Greek libraries and translated their work, into a poetic style text, incorporated into various verses but in such a way as to flow with linguistic context, lyricality, people's circumstance, carry a universal message and have no record of such an exchange having taken place.. all of that for prophet Mohammed Peace be upon him to have lived a pauper never sleeping on a full stomach three days in a row, with his armor pawned to a Jewish guy upon his death...

carry that same abstract thought through to western civilization, the one that they claim is founded in greek roots, with someone like king Roger the II of sicily crushing the globe given to him by al-Idrisi al-Qurtubi al-Hasani citing the accepted christian belief at the time that the earth was flat-- why did such knowledge take the circuitous route to Arabia over Europe is beyond me.. but so we can have an erudite atheist highlighting things that have apparently escaped the rest of the world's scholars..

curious indeed...

:w:

[Azy]

Except that you didn't need to go abroad, Greek was widely spoken in the middle east alongside aramaic and there are plenty of artifacts inscribed in Greek found in arab regions.

[Nerd]

are you implying that Greeks, back than had Ultrasonic scanning devices or advanced devices to observe embryo's? :?

[Azy]

Well I went back and read through my post, had a quick flick through the history books and realised, no, I don't think I was implying that.

You seem to be overcomplicating things a bit, why bother with ultrasound when you can just open up a woman who has died while pregnant, or view the results of a miscarriage? These have been documented a long long time ago, and there are a few threads already about this topic.

[Nerd]

now it baffles me as to how an illiterate, ignorant group of Arabs were able to comprehend, extract and write fine details of such studies that you have mentioned above. Would be very enlightening if you could point to one of these books by Greeks.

[Azy]

Have you never met anyone who speaks more than one language?

As for the Greek stuff, search for works by Galen or Hippocrates (Hippocratic Oath?)

[Nerd]

Have you never met anyone who speaks more than one language?

In fact I have.

As for the Greek stuff, search for works by Galen or Hippocrates (Hippocratic Oath?)

Greek studies on developing embryos to be more exact

[Azy]

Galen: De Semine

[tetsujin]

Are you implying that, the largely illiterate population of the of the middle east at the time were able to comprehend and extract fine details of the alleged embryological studies conducted by civilizations from way before the Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)? :?

Whether or not they did is irrelevant. That wasn't my concern. If I was to make a claim for having divine revelation, and base that on knowledge that was given to me by god, what explaination do you have for other civilisations that have acquired that knowledge without divine guidance or claiming that some deity was their source of foreknowledge?

So if person A made a discovery before person B had the revelation, how does person B persuade anyone that their revelation is of divine origin?


I'm not saying they lied or cheated, maybe it was divine after all, but it's hardly convincing if whatever you're revealing is already known.

[Nerd]

Whether or not they did is irrelevant. That wasn't my concern. If I was to make a claim for having divine revelation, and base that on knowledge that was given to me by god, what explaination do you have for other civilisations that have acquired that knowledge without divine guidance or claiming that some deity was their source of foreknowledge?

So if person A made a discovery before person B had the revelation, how does person B persuade anyone that their revelation is of divine origin?

I'm not saying they lied or cheated, maybe it was divine after all, but it's hardly convincing if whatever you're revealing is already known.

Person B was illiterate, and his team were illiterate Arabs. It still baffles as to how a group of people who can't either write or read, extract details of studies by Greeks and make a book and dupe over a billion people over thousands year, and still keep on doing it.

Are you implying that divinity of a Book is determined if it contains futuristic knowledge/science?

[tetsujin]

Person B was illiterate, and his team were illiterate Arabs. It still baffles as to how a group of people who can't either write or read, extract details of studies by Greeks and make a book and dupe over a billion people over thousands year, and still keep on doing it.

I would contend that, even today, the vast majority of the information to which you have access and are able to absorb, retain, analyze, discuss, and disseminate, is not in print form. The Arabs were not the only oral society, and by no means is an oral society a stupid or ignorant one. There are problems with every means of communication, that is apparent, but that does not stop one from propagating information from one corner of the world to the other.

You've read the Quran, yes? What are the details in your own example of the revealed embryological process?

Are you implying that divinity of a Book is determined if it contains futuristic knowledge/science?

You've rephrased my question to the believers about their claims.

You can answer that yourself. Can you claim that a book is divine if all the contents of it's worldly knowledge were known to pagans centuries earlier?

Were the Arabs isolated from the world, did they have no access to anyone or anything from Europe or Africa, or are you claiming that knowledge can only be exchange by reading and writing?

[جوري]

Can you write an embryology/physiology/numerology/geology etc book in metrical form, have it transcend centuries and still make perfect sense?
Were the Europeans themselves isolated from the world when they repugned the fact that the earth was round? and yet claim today that, their knowledge and roots come from literature already in existence? Seems strange for Greek lit and 'science' which I doubt you can do an actual comparative analysis of least of which linguistically to circumvent the very citadel of its birth to go to the 'Arab world' and have no record of it whatsoever be it in the form of contact or translation..
But, I am willing to make large leaps of faith, the same way I do when one of you rants about some nameless mutation that favored the better half of our ancestors while leaving the rest to pick on their ectoparasites.. and ask really what is the point?

Do you think in your mind, that religion is about satisfying your pre-med requirements, your history requirements, your ice breaker requirements, your comparative religion requirements, arguing for the sake of argument requirements? or fulfillment of your spiritual desires?

You have to sit down and wonder what is the point.. I am willing to wager that anyone who posts such inane platitudes and nonsensical comparisons has either, never read the Quran or missed the point entirely...

Let me sum up the point for you..

Look at yourself, look at the world around you, look at how you were made and from what and from where.. look at the flies, the bees, the water, the skies above you, nebulas, the cosmos, your food, the denizens, people before you, people who will come after you and reflect... Is it all a chance event.. or are you accountable for what you say, do and how you live?

If you choose this world, then enjoy it.. you'll only get that one chance.. if you think/believe there is more, then here are your guidelines and these signs whether mentioned before or not translated or orally passed down ( and the Quran never contends that it is the only divine chance/warning people received, only that it is the last) These (signs) are your admonition and confirmation at least to those who give heed!

And no Muslim should be aggrieved by the pedantic approach of habitually scornful atheists..

This is the fork on the road where people choose to part ways.

[tetsujin]

Can you write an embryology/physiology/numerology/geology etc book in metrical form, have it transcend centuries and still make perfect sense?
Were the Europeans themselves isolated from the world when they repugned the fact that the earth was round? and yet claim today that, their knowledge and roots come from literature already in existence? Seems strange for Greek lit and 'science' which I doubt you can do an actual comparative analysis of least of which linguistically to circumvent the very citadel of its birth to go to the 'Arab world' and have no record of it whatsoever be it in the form of contact or translation..
But, I am willing to make large leaps of faith, the same way I do when one of you rants about some nameless mutation that favored the better half of our ancestors while leaving the rest to pick on their ectoparasites.. and ask really what is the point?

Do you think in your mind, that religion is about satisfying your pre-med requirements, your history requirements, your ice breaker requirements, your comparative religion requirements, arguing for the sake of argument requirements? or fulfillment of your spiritual desires?

You have to sit down and wonder what is the point.. I am willing to wager that anyone who posts such inane platitudes and nonsensical comparisons has either, never read the Quran or missed the point entirely...

Let me sum up the point for you..

Look at yourself, look at the world around you, look at how you were made and from what and from where.. look at the flies, the bees, the water, the skies above you, nebulas, the cosmos, your food, the denizens, people before you, people who will come after you and reflect... Is it all a chance event.. or are you accountable for what you say, do and how you live?

If you choose this world, then enjoy it.. you'll only get that one chance.. if you think/believe there is more, then here are your guidelines and these signs whether mentioned before or not translated or orally passed down ( and the Quran never contends that it is the only divine chance/warning people received, only that it is the last) These (signs) are your admonition and confirmation at least to those who give heed!

And no Muslim should be aggrieved by the pedantic approach of habitually scornful atheists..

This is the fork on the road where people choose to part ways.

Thank you for the comment.

Was it intended for this thread or did you click the wrong link?

[جوري]

Thank you for the comment.

Was it intended for this thread or did you click the wrong link?

Your impression rests on the condition that I was accosting you with my post?!... I say my post belongs here as your presumptuousness/effrontery assumes to quote me!

cheers

[tetsujin]

Your impression rests on the condition that I was accosting you with my post?!... I say my post belongs here as your presumptuousness/effrontery assumes to quote me!

cheers

You don't like people thanking you? You're using big words and it's confusing me.

[Azy]

There's no need for that kind of flirting you two. ;)

Seems strange for Greek lit and 'science' which I doubt you can do an actual comparative analysis of least of which linguistically to circumvent the very citadel of its birth to go to the 'Arab world' and have no record of it whatsoever be it in the form of contact or translation..

On the one hand we're constantly told the Arabs were illiterate and had a strong oral culture, and then you're complaining there's no record of information transmitted from other places. You can't have it both ways.

From what we know Galen was born in Greece, learned medicine in Egypt and wrote most of his works in Rome while physician to Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

We also know that Arabs of the time were trading in Syria, a nation which was not arabic speaking at the time, and less than 200 miles from Galen's home country, yet you find it inconceivable that in the intervening half a millennium this information could not have travelled that distance.

[جوري]

There's no need for that kind of flirting you two. ;)

On the one hand we're constantly told the Arabs were illiterate and had a strong oral culture, and then you're complaining there's no record of information transmitted from other places. You can't have it both ways.

I have no idea what point you are trying to assert here?
I can only conclude that you so wish to insinuate yourself in this thread, that you didn't bother acquaint yourself with the subject matter, the stance of modern science on embryology, the Quran or even the opinion of the members on board Muslim or otherwise!

From what we know Galen was born in Greece, learned medicine in Egypt and wrote most of his works in Rome while physician to Emperor Marcus Aurelius. We also know that Arabs of the time were trading in Syria, a nation which was not arabic speaking at the time, and less than 200 miles from Galen's home country, yet you find it inconceivable that in the intervening half a millennium this information could not have travelled that distance

Have you read Galen's work-- Did you contrast it with the what is in the Quran? and lastly did you study modern medicine specfically as relates to embryology?
here is an excerpt from Galen

• "But for the present I need not speak of the foetus as an animal, for as a plant it got all its generation and formation from the semen, and right from the start it indicated, as plants do, that the beginning of its motion and formation was two-fold. The downward and underground growth of roots in plants corresponds in the foetus to the growth of the arteries and veins of the chorion to the uterus; and the ascending stalk in plants corresponds to the out growths from the three ruling parts in embryos. Again, just as plants have a two-fold growth from seeds, sending stalk and branches upward as far as the outer most shoots and dividing the root-growth downward, so also the embryos have much-divided outgrowths consisting in arteries and veins that extend as stalks to the whole foetus and as roots to the uterus." (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine: Galen: On Semen (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10, pp. 91-95)

I don't personally see anything in the Quran assimilating the fetus to a plant!
And the first known illustrations of the fetus as far as I have learned in art history were exemplified in da vinci's journals.. he would actually steal dead bodies and was under threat of being arrested and convicted for doing so.. further, the microscope was invented around 17th century to describe 'STAGES' of evolution and differentiation of the fetus, and what it grossly looks like in its earliest forms development!

But again, I ask, what is your point? is there a point?

The description of human development in the Quran isn't so that it could be renowned or call dibs in the annals of genetics and embryology.. anymore than any of the other passing references to other sciences. I have already pretty much sublimated its resolution for the lot of you two posts ago?

I suggest you study in some details subjects that you wish to engage so we are not all wasting each other's times on recycled thoughts, hop-skipping around topics that have nothing in common save their deed of conveyance!

Read with some measure of detail the book you wish to refute, the works of he whom you'd like to assimilate the book to, and learn something of the subject matter itself as relates to modern science.. Go back and contrast it to the intention and purpose of the original book you wish to refute yet again, and come up with something a bit more meaningful and significant!


cheers

[Azy]

I have no idea what point you are trying to assert here?

You know very well what is going on, but it is in conflict with what you would rather believe and so, once again, you need to stamp on it your own special brand of obfuscation and depracation.

I don't personally see anything in the Quran assimilating the fetus to a plant!

Well no, he didn't go into as much depth as Galen would've since he wasn't a physician. He had never seen a developing foetus rooted in the uterus, but Galen had. Anyway, you're side-stepping the real point by pasting an irrelevant section.

Let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which, as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails. At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it was, of all the other parts. You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed.

The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow.

Foetal development defined in four stages?
Bones clothes in flesh (albeit in more detail)?

[جوري]

You know very well what is going on, but it is in conflict with what you would rather believe and so, once again, you need to stamp on it your own special brand of obfuscation and depracation.

I can tell you have strained really hard to come up with this. Again, until you have read the two texts in full, understood the subjects and purpose therein, made a comparative analysis, can you come up here give us your abstract and summarizes the main ideas and the assimilations that lie therein.
So far you have only danced around to save face, I am not really that interested on whether or not you can write or understand English or why it is you believe or don't believe the things you do!

Well no, he didn't go into as much depth as Galen would've since he wasn't a physician. He had never seen a developing foetus rooted in the uterus, but Galen had. Anyway, you're side-stepping the real point by pasting an irrelevant section.

first of all who is he? secondly, how am I side stepping the real point? This is actually the crux of the argument, and quite relevant, the topic expresses a doubt and a question of the originality of the Quran and whether or not the Quran plagiarizes ancient Greek Embryology citing Galen as the prime example, and I have just shown everyone that Galen found in his On the Natural Faculties compared animal embryo with plant seeds, and concludes that from beginning to end the process of growth in plants and in humans is exactly the same. And I am asking you where in the Quran is Human development in utero compared to plant growth?

Foetal development defined in four stages?
Bones clothes in flesh (albeit in more detail)?

Ok.. go ahead and compare Galen's embryology to the contents found in the Quran and the current science of anatomy and embryology. And This time please do pick up some books and read I'd recommend high yield embryology and anatomy, you can pick them up at amazon.com .. don't rush into a ready made net response, it really detracts from your credibility ---and I'll wait!


cheers

[tetsujin]

@ Skye:

Are you married/engaged/betrothed?


Just on a personal level, leaving aside our differences and opinions.

[جوري]

Are you propositioning me?

[tetsujin]

Are you propositioning me?

I do have a thing for confident, mature women.



Edit: No, but if you're nice... (just had to add it in case someone misunderstood)

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Eww ok, get back to topic InshaAllah...:X

[جوري]

I do have a thing for confident, mature women.



Edit: No, but if you're nice...

Well I only like one type of Guy and you don't meet my quota!

back to topic..

cheers

[tetsujin]

Well I only like one type of Guy and you don't meet my quota!

back to topic..

cheers

Darn.... it's in my nature to be curious. What is you're type anyways?

[جوري]

Darn.... it's in my nature to be curious. What is you're type anyways?

My type is alot like coffee (sharp, stimulating, saporous, and very rich)

cheers

[tetsujin]

My type is alot like coffee (sharp, stimulating, saporous, and very rich)

cheers

I'll have to work on that money thing.... :) Alrighty, you're a good sport.



All the best wishes,


Faysal

[aadil77]

woah wats goin on 'ere eh?

[Azy]

first of all who is he? secondly, how am I side stepping the real point? This is actually the crux of the argument, and quite relevant, the topic expresses a doubt and a question of the originality of the Quran and whether or not the Quran plagiarizes ancient Greek Embryology citing Galen as the prime example, and I have just shown everyone that Galen found in his On the Natural Faculties compared animal embryo with plant seeds, and concludes that from beginning to end the process of growth in plants and in humans is exactly the same. And I am asking you where in the Quran is Human development in utero compared to plant growth?

Just because *all* of Galen's work on embryos is not present in the Qur'an that does not mean *none* of it is plagiarised.

We're not talking here about one divine revelation vs another and deciding which is a more accurate prediction of some process to be discovered in the future, Galen had actually done the work himself and seen these things with his own eyes.

The passage you quote is using analogy with plant seeds, in a similar way to Hippocrates describing appendages as twig-like.

"The downward and underground growth of roots in plants corresponds in the foetus to the growth of the arteries and veins of the chorion to the uterus".

Corresponds 2. To be similar or equivalent in character, quantity, origin, structure, or function. I don't think it's that hard to see the similarity:

Rotated to save your neck/imagination.

The parts which are present in the Qur'an follow very closely with the passages I posted. Four stages as described.

[جوري]

Just because *all* of Galen's work on embryos is not present in the Qur'an that does not mean *none* of it is plagiarised.

And again, I ask you to show me the part that is plagiarized, as you are starting to bore me!

We're not talking here about one divine revelation vs another and deciding which is a more accurate prediction of some process to be discovered in the future, Galen had actually done the work himself and seen these things with his own eyes.

I am not the one comparing divine revelation to a man who is so far off from embryology as we know it.. I think it is best you put up or shut up, don't you think? I can't believe this is what you came up with after two days of 'reading'

The passage you quote is using analogy with plant seeds, in a similar way to Hippocrates describing appendages as twig-like.

aha.. and what does Hippocrates have to do with the Quran-- did you think this would look pretty in here-- If all else fails throw in Hippocrates does it solidify your case?

"The downward and underground growth of roots in plants corresponds in the foetus to the growth of the arteries and veins of the chorion to the uterus".

fascinating.. that isn't how it works in real life, nor is it how it is described in the Quran!

Corresponds 2. To be similar or equivalent in character, quantity, origin, structure, or function. I don't think it's that hard to see the similarity:

What is with all the psychobabble? did you not understand the question posed? are you not interested in the topic? or do you wish we'd get besotted enough to make this dulling crap florid so we are left to decipher what we may?.. this isn't poetic medicine.. if you don't understand the topic, don't engage in it!

Rotated to save your neck/imagination.

very pretty images.. and I understand your frustration!

The parts which are present in the Qur'an follow very closely with the passages I posted. Four stages as described.

aha.. show me where the specific terms, Nutfah, ‘Alaqah, Mudghah, Izam, Lahm, Nash’ah resembles anything of Galen, yet again, oh learned one!


cheers

[tetsujin]

What is with all the psychobabble?

I believe Galen's point was about how a plant takes root in the soil and how similar it is to the way a foetus takes root in the womb/uterus.

aha.. show me where the specific terms, Nutfah, ‘Alaqah, Mudghah, Izam, Lahm, Nash’ah resembles anything of Galen, yet again, oh learned one!

It's simply a visual description.

[جوري]

I believe Galen's point was about how a plant takes root in the soil and how similar it is to the way a foetus takes root in the womb/uterus.

You should go over fertalization as if first occurs in the upper 1/3 of the fallopian tube and all the the way through to implantation.. what he did was visualize something and likened it to plant growth not at all like the description in the Quran!

It's simply a visual description.

in pathology and histology many things are described grossly.. I reference to my earlier posts.. thus, there is nothing wrong with the visual and very 'MICROSCOPIC' description in the Quran.. it is actually quite accurate, whether or not you wish to character assassinate Dr. Keith moore!

yup... people often think that every scientific term has to sound like this dysdiadokinesia
..
well in fact we have these terms and use them daily,
Nutmeg liver
strawberry gallbladder
chocolate cyst
Orphan Annie eye nucleus
fried egg appearance
anchovy paste (Amebic abscess of the liver)

these are a few of the winded lists we use daily in medicine to describe organs and their pathologies, and anyone is free to google to verify for themselves.. bottom line is for something to be described as a leech that clings (grossly) or a blastocyst attaching to the endometrium is very similar and very sound way to use language to transcend... the board of pathologists convenes every so often to re-define the terms.. what they deem synciotrophoblast might end up being placental trophoblast tomorrow.. if simple language is used to describe, it will be accurate and transcendent...


I am sickened by this topic and this constant back and forth...

please before you decide to 'debunk' or have an all out expose acquaint yourselves in both science, Arabic, and religion and then step back, have a look at the entire picture...

cheers

http://www.islamicboard.com/newreply...reply&p=937271

[Azy]

Quran 23:13 Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging
Galen: as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails.

Quran 23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot
Galen: But when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen.

Quran 23:14 then fashioned We the clot a little lump
Galen: The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it was, of all the other parts.

Quran 23:14 then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh
Galen: Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other

Quran 23:14 and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!
Galen: the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed.

[جوري]

Quran 23:13 Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging

Galen: as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails.
The Quran in the above and other verses speaks the term 'amshag' which I have gone quite extensively over, to denote 'intermingled/mixed fluid' as in fertalized egg. A safe lodging place to denote the uterus. Semen 'prevailing' was indeed common belief at the time, but not in the Quran or sunna.. Again, I fail to see the similarity..

Quran 23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot
Galen: But when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen.

aha.. maybe I have missed something here in the way of similarity.. the next word is from the nutfah 3alaqa.. as in something that clings, describing the implanation of the zygote to the uterus.. not sure how I can assimilate that to blood, heart, brain and liver articulated.. does anyone else?

Quran 23:14 then fashioned We the clot a little lump
Galen: The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it was, of all the other parts.

lol.. perhaps you are banking on us being pressed for time to cut and paste more nonsensical crap?

Quran 23:14 then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh
Galen: Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other

Just one last note, before I waste more time on this, because I really do tire quickly of folks who can't follow simple direction, when I make a requisite of you reading the actual books, that is modern embryology/the Quran and Galen... I mean for you personally not to plagiarize someone else's work from some handy website.. it might actually be wrought with error and not work in your favor.. aren't you ashamed of yourself?

The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow ". KORAN: MUHAMMED 570-632 AD: Qu"an 023:13-14: "And we created man from a portion of clay. Then we made him a drop in a firm place. Then we formed the drop into a clot, then we formed the clot into a morsel, then we formed the morsel into bones, then we clothed the bones with flesh. Then we brought it forth as another creation. Blessed is Allah, the best of creators." [23:13-14]

taken from:

http://www.ishm2006.hu/scientific/abstract.php?ID=230

and just like that google scholars get their credibility revoked... ..

cheers!

[tetsujin]

Indeed. You're quite astute, I'm sure you'll notice that the colourful names ascribed to those conditions - Nutmeg liver, strawberry gallbladder, chocolate cyst, Orphan Annie eye nucleus, fried egg appearance, anchovy paste - the very ones you've quoted, give us little to no insight on the actual disease or symptoms and their causes.

Would that these were written 1500 years ago by a chinese faith healer I'm sure we would have another prophet on our hands with claims of devine revelation.


Comming around to your earlier comments...

Can you write an embryology/physiology/numerology/geology etc book in metrical form, have it transcend centuries and still make perfect sense?

Numerology? Seriously? Actually yes, it shouldn't be too much to ask of our lord and master to reveal a book that is perfect in every aspect and free from bigotry and malice and one that could not be misconstrued by those who read it. Anyone who could claim to understand would truly believe, unlike today where most claiming to believe do not truly understand. I'm sorry if it just seems pedantic, but why leave so much up for interpretation. Where truly if one read the words without prior guidance the fringe minorities seem to be the true believers.

Were the Europeans themselves isolated from the world when they repugned the fact that the earth was round? and yet claim today that, their knowledge and roots come from literature already in existence?

So what happened in 1993?

I seem to remember a Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz stating, "The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished."

Who was that guy? Did he not hear of the 2nd century astronomer Claudias Ptolemaeus, he was greatly admired in the muslim/arab world nearly 1000 years ago.

I just wanted to point that out, before you equate all of western history influenced by religious dogmatism with those who actually worked to advance our species (muslim and non-muslim alike).

[جوري]

Indeed. You're quite astute, I'm sure you'll notice that the colourful names ascribed to those conditions - Nutmeg liver, strawberry gallbladder, chocolate cyst, Orphan Annie eye nucleus, fried egg appearance, anchovy paste - the very ones you've quoted, give us little to no insight on the actual disease or symptoms and their causes.

it gives YOU no insight to the dz, condition or symptom that is true, but run it by any doctor and they'll know exactly what it is as this is the final product of a great deal of work... same with religion.. it takes great study and reflection-- if you want to learn, you are welcome to, if you wish to remain ignorant, it is your prerogative.. as is always the case!
We can't all be doctors, any more than we can all be religious scholars.. but I have always thought that little knowledge is much more dangerous than complete ignorance.. as you can see it gives you a false sense of understanding to things that are clearely over your head!

Would that these were written 1500 years ago by a chinese faith healer I'm sure we would have another prophet on our hands with claims of devine revelation.

I am sure you can be distracted by alot of things, I already sense it in your character .. learned people however, can distinguish real medicine from quackery, and it is no different when comes to religion!

Comming around to your earlier comments...



Numerology? Seriously? Actually yes, it shouldn't be too much to ask of our lord and master to reveal a book that is perfect in every aspect and free from bigotry and malice and one that could not be misconstrued by those who read it. Anyone who could claim to understand would truly believe, unlike today where most claiming to believe do not truly understand. I'm sorry if it just seems pedantic, but why leave so much up for interpretation. Where truly if one read the words without prior guidance the fringe minorities seem to be the true believers.

The Quran addresses every state of mind, every back ground, and every level of education. My religion knows no color or nationality.. as anyone can tell, Islam is embraced by all, east and west, Texas to the china sea!
The fact that you refuse it, speaks volumes of you, not the religion itself, how it is revealed or written!
Many people think it is a great not to conform, that they are shakers and movers.. in fact they are the losers..Don't fasten your seat belt because it is constricting hey you are a rebel.. most of the people who have died in shock truama due to car accidents didn't have their seatbelt on.. Don't read the manuel and operate your system, then incur the charges of someone else fixing it. Don't do the job right because you think your boss is an asshole and get fired.. Don't exercise because it takes great resolve and dedication, end up a fat slob dead at 40!
Don't want to be rpeached to, good for you, No one is holding a gun to your head asking you to be here or to read this!

So what happened in 1993?

I seem to remember a Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz stating, "The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished."

I don't know, you seem to know more about his than me. a Sheikh doesn't represent Islam or the Muslim umma, we have no reverence for shyookh, like christians do for their pope.. I am not going to speak, nor apologize for one ignorant man, it really doesn't concern me.. If you want to fixate on every inertia of details that most other people haven't even come across to make a case for yourself, be my guest!

Who was that guy? Did he not hear of the 2nd century astronomer Claudias Ptolemaeus, he was greatly admired in the muslim/arab world nearly 1000 years ago.

I have in fact heard of him, and have quite a few pieces of lit by him.. however, I am not sure, what this has to do with the topic, pull other things out of your hat that are a bit more applicable.. Muslims have corrected many a mathematical formula, that were originally started by the Greeks, if you dig a little more, You'll learn of them, there was quite a grand lecture in Columbia university recently on just that topic.. the question however still remains-- why was Europe so retarded in the dark ages, when they have all their roots supposedly in this very enriching past of the Greeks and Romans?!

I just wanted to point that out, before you equate all of western history influenced by religious dogmatism with those who actually worked to advance our species (muslim and non-muslim alike).

well as usual you failed especially on wow factor, or even to tie your points together so I can make some sense of them.. I suggest you work to refine your skills a little!



cheers

[Azy]

The Quran in the above and other verses speaks the term 'amshag' which I have gone quite extensively over, to denote 'intermingled/mixed fluid' as in fertalized egg. A safe lodging place to denote the uterus. Semen 'prevailing' was indeed common belief at the time, but not in the Quran or sunna.. Again, I fail to see the similarity..

Semen prevailing is not the point, the 'form of semen' is, which is what the text actually says.
A single sperm & egg would be too small to be observed directly, and both the Quran and Galen assume that the first stage is a small amount of fluid.

If we're going to be pedantic, we all know that it is not actually fluid, but the single cell result of two gametes. Galen wasn't able to see this and assumed the fluid state, an error which the Quran repeats.

not sure how I can assimilate that to blood, heart, brain and liver articulated.. does anyone else?

Well you don't have to, you changed the word 'unarticulated' to 'articulated' to suit your purposes.

The third stage illustrates that Galen actually knew and had seen what a month old foetus looks like, exact wording is not that important since I'm not claiming the Quranic author raided a Greek library beforehand.

I tried the link you pasted but for whatever reason it is inaccessible to me at this time.
If you're interested (though I know you do hate google so) my quotes are from the same Philip de Lacy translation of Galen's work that you pasted from earlier, available to read (well the relevant parts are available anyway) at
Google Books, Galen: On Semen
Quran translation from Islamicity.com, Asad version.

I'm assuming you will continue to deny that 500 years prior to the 'revelation', people of the Roman, Greek and, more than likely, Egyptian empires had witnessed and documented the stages of embryonic growth, and that in those intervening 500 years there is no possible way that information could have been passed by word of mouth between physicians and to expecting parents and other interested parties.

[جوري]

Semen prevailing is not the point, the 'form of semen' is, which is what the text actually says.
A single sperm & egg would be too small to be observed directly, and both the Quran and Galen assume that the first stage is a small amount of fluid.

What is your point here? Galen likens the fetus to plant growth and states it is semen that prevails, and that is actually the point..

You have just learned about all of this two days ago and already you are an expert with what is or isn't the point? I have already shown you, that the term 'amshaj' is used in the Quran to denote 'mixture' as in sperm and egg.. semen prevailing isn't an Islamic concept but a Greek one.
Where is the plagiarism and where is the similarity? Why would the Prophet who was shunned for the most part by his people, meet with some Greek guy and a translator given he was illitrate, to incorporate some obscure terms that have nothing to do with Galen's thoughts on embryology and poetically in the Quran and in Arabic to get people to worship God...
Do you think before you write?

If we're going to be pedantic, we all know that it is not actually fluid, but the single cell result of two gametes. Galen wasn't able to see this and assumed the fluid state, an error which the Quran repeats.

Where in the Quran does it repeat it?.. You have failed to read, you have failed to assimilate, and you have failed to make a point. Again!

Well you don't have to, you changed the word 'unarticulated' to 'articulated' to suit your purposes.

Whether articulated or not you end up comparing apples to oranges!

The third stage illustrates that Galen actually knew and had seen what a month old foetus looks like, exact wording is not that important since I'm not claiming the Quranic author raided a Greek library beforehand.

well what are you claiming? You have failed to answer paragraph one on any of the levels I have raised!
similarity in content. Which is really the big one
similarity in textual style
a purpose
a person
a translator
and a record for it all

I tried the link you pasted but for whatever reason it is inaccessible to me at this time.
If you're interested (though I know you do hate google so) my quotes are from the same Philip de Lacy translation of Galen's work that you pasted from earlier, available to read (well the relevant parts are available anyway) at
Google Books, Galen: On Semen
Quran translation from Islamicity.com, Asad version.

You mean 'your words' are a plagiarism of someone else's work as I have shown in the link above where 'your words' are one and the same with someone else's where you have failed to give credit! using google which sorts out the world for you in seconds, but still can't verifiy to us without an obsecure diagonal that the works are in fact at all related on any level. Yet have the audacity to sit here and claim that the Quran was plagiarized without connecting pieces of evidence to us on any level.. not the same terms, same concept, same language, failed to give us references or characters, or translations or even a library for such an exchange to have taken place.. I am sorry.. you would like to make a case on which grounds? Because you are 'Azy' and you have said so?

I'm assuming you will continue to deny that 500 years prior to the 'revelation', people of the Roman, Greek and, more than likely, Egyptian empires had witnessed and documented the stages of embryonic growth, and that in those intervening 500 years there is no possible way that information could have been passed by word of mouth between physicians and to expecting parents and other interested parties.

This is a nonsequitur to the topic, and just really works to tie the noose around your neck when flustered and at a loss, just throw everything out there for the reader to decipher what s/he may.
You want to assert or deny make a point.. first do your homework.. I am not going sit here and do it for you.

You have something of substance to impart, bring it forth.. let's see it!

cheers

[tetsujin]

it gives YOU no insight to the dz, condition or symptom that is true, but run it by any doctor and they'll know exactly what it is... same with religion.. it takes study and reflection-- if you want to learn, you are welcome to, if you wish to remain ignorant, it is your prerogative.. as is always the case!

I hope that's not your best argument, I may be mistaken but you seem to have contradicted yourself.

The Quran addresses every state of mind, every back ground, and every level of education. My religion knows no color or nationality.. as anyone can tell, Islam is embraced by all east and west, Texas to the china sea!
The fact that you refuse it, speaks volumes of you, not the religion itself!

Every level of education... interesting point.

The problem is that once you have a text that is open to interpretation, based upon your own knowledge and expertise, you begin to infer upon it any meanings and intentions that you wish to use in order validate your own perspective of life. I have no issues with Dr. Israr Ahmad, he can accept Freud's work and he can accept Darwin's work, and I'm willing to bet that he would accept any scientific work that followed if it were conducted in a rational and methodical manner. On the other hand you have the Ahmed Deedat, Sheik Ibn Baaz, and to a different extent Zakir Naik. Resolute in their beliefs, which is admirable, but to a point where they are blind deaf and dumb when it comes to any matter of scientific understanding. Rote memorizations of every verse in a single book does not make one an expert on anything else.

You seem to be fortunate enough to work in a scientific field and don't see a clash between the two, but to say there are no problems at all speaks volumes of you, not the religion. It is possible that you may be the one who is mistaken.

I don't know, you seem to know more about his than me. a Sheikh doesn't represent Islam or the Muslim umma, we have no reverence for shyookh, like christians do for the pope.. I am not going to speak, nor apologize for one ignorant man!

The supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia. I'm not asking for you to speak or apologize for anyone. There's just a follow up question, was his interpretation of the Qu'ran wrong?

I obviously can't answer that question for you. But if you don't mind, how many Islamic scholars are out there, popularizing their religion, with a degree or high level education in a field of theoretical science? How many of them would you yourself admire or agree with on issues concerning religion and science? How many of them are active in their fields?

I don't know of any. Credible Islamic scholars are rare enough.

I have in fact heard of him, and have quite a few pieces of lit by him.. however, I am not sure, what this has to do with the topic, I am sure you can pull other things out of your hat.. Muslims have corrected many a mathematical formula, that were originally started by the Greeks, if you dig a little more, You'll learn of them, there was quite a grand lecture in Columbia recently on just that topic.. the question however still remains.. why the circuitous route-- why was Europe so retarded in the dark ages, when they have all their roots supposedly in this very enriching past of the Greeks and Romans?

You brought it up, in any case you're asking the questions but you don't want the answers. I can point to a dozen books and you'll refuse to read them because their written by agnostics, or worse yet atheists. Somehow you seem to believe that our refusal to accept dogma in the absence of evidence colours our political or social views one way or another.

You will either fall into two camps, depending on how much research you've done. Either you believe what was written by Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or you'll believe that Christianity and the churches had no power over the people and their vile, inhuman, and godless ways of life.

Muslims have no more ownership over algebra than Christians have over optics or physics, or Mayans on agriculture. Grow up, the Muslim world hasn't translated as many non-Arabic books since 1200AD as, for example, Spain in any given decade over the past century. I'm sure you can find some excuse for that too. Your best chance came in the 9th and 10th centuries when the faylasufs attempted to reconcile Greek philosophy with Islam. Islamic states no more wanted to accept Greek philosophy than any other religious state. Any attempt to reconstruct Islam as a natural religion failed miserably, faylasufs were deemed heretics for their attempts to use natural philosophy to explain Islam in rational terms, and so ended their quest within 4 centuries of revelation.

But, you knew that already.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

I hope that's not your best argument, I may be mistaken but you seem to have contradicted yourself.

Really how so? Nutmeg liver to a doctor means chronic passive congestion with a gamut of reasons as to why.. to you a lay person it is a pathological state.. a liver wouldn't have a nutmeg prefix unless it is meant to denote something.. I don't think you need much an education for that.. if you were a complete retard, then you wouldn't be held accountable anyway.. that goes for religion as well 'layes 3la almareed haraj'

Every level of education... interesting point.

indeed!

The problem is that once you have a text that is open to interpretation, based upon your own knowledge and expertise, you begin to infer upon it any meanings and intentions that you wish to use in order validate your own perspective of life. I have no issues with Dr. Israr Ahmad, he can accept Freud's work and he can accept Darwin's work, and I'm willing to bet that he would accept any scientific work that followed if it were conducted in a rational and methodical manner. On the other hand you have the Ahmed Deedat, Sheik Ibn Baaz, and to a different extent Zakir Naik. Resolute in their beliefs, which is admirable, but to a point where they are blind deaf and dumb when it comes to any matter of scientific understanding. Rote memorizations of every verse in a single book does not make one an expert on anything else.

We are asked to reach for knowledge from ahel al'3ilm, if it seems arguably outlandish, you are under no obligation to accept or believe what they say, as is noted in chapter 74 in the noble Quran, each soul is held accountable for its own deeds.. it is not a community effort!
As for the level of education of Dr. Deedat, or Dr Naik, or Dr. so and so, they have their doctorate, what do you have to speak with such authority on their expertise?

You seem to be fortunate enough to work in a scientific field and don't see a clash between the two, but to say there are no problems at all speaks volumes of you, not the religion. It is possible that you may be the one who is mistaken.

Show me the clash between the two and then we'll discuss it!
as for theories, well frankly I could theorize as well as the next person. if you don't have an effectual way to substantiate your account to to explain a specific set of phenomena then your effort is as good as the next.. frankly even scientists don't agree on theories, and I have well demonstrated that before with an every day example citing Dr. Sampson theory, you may use the search engine, third from your anatomical right to look for it.

The supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia. I'm not asking for you to speak or apologize for anyone. There's just a follow up question, was his interpretation of the Qu'ran wrong?

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and not a body of scholars to consult with as is in the shura system of an Islamic state. And of course his explanation was incorrect! Do you speak Arabic, have you read the Quran in its entirety, do you know what the word de'7'ha means??

I obviously can't answer that question for you. But if you don't mind, how many Islamic scholars are out there, popularizing their religion, with a degree or high level education in a field of theoretical science? How many of them would you yourself admire or agree with on issues concerning religion and science? How many of them are active in their fields?

I have a few favorites, Dr Sala7 Ar'rashid is one.. Dr rashid Ar'rashid is another, Dr. Ahmed Deedat of course, and sheikh el-sha3rawi, although his work was never that popular considering he only spoke Arabic. If you have a problem with their work, you can always not purchase the DVD's or buy their books, they are not exactly best seller on borders!

I don't know of any. Credible Islamic scholars are rare enough.

I wouldn't expect you to know of any!

You brought it up, in any case you're asking the questions but you don't want the answers. I can point to a dozen books and you'll refuse to read them because their written by agnostics, or worse yet atheists. Somehow you seem to believe that our refusal to accept dogma in the absence of evidence colours our political or social views one way or another.

You don't know what sort of books I read, the sort of books interest me, or what sort of books were imposed as a part of my curriculum to state categorically what it is I refuse to read. I have summed it up really well for you just a couple of paragraphs ago.. Anyone with a doctorate can theorize, and set up a study to prove their point.. .. People who are set out to prove something is right, will find a way to make it so-- a hawthorne effect!

You will either fall into two camps, depending on how much research you've done. Either you believe what was written by Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or you'll believe that Christianity and the churches had no power over the people and their vile, inhuman, and godless ways of life.

History is always written by victors!

Muslims have no more ownership over algebra than Christians have over optics or physics, or Mayans on agriculture. Grow up, the Muslim world hasn't translated as many non-Arabic books since 1200AD as, for example, Spain in any given decade over the past century. I'm sure you can find some excuse for that too. Your best chance came in the 9th and 10th centuries when the faylasufs attempted to reconcile Greek philosophy with Islam. Islamic states no more wanted to accept Greek philosophy than any other religious state. Any attempt to reconstruct Islam as a natural religion failed miserably, faylasufs were deemed heretics for their attempts to use natural philosophy to explain Islam in rational terms, and so ended their quest within 4 centuries of revelation.

But, you knew that already.

if you are Muslim and are a scientist under an Islamic state, then you are a Muslim scholar/scientest and such was recorded by history, a little pugilistic atheist isn't going to change recorded history, even if he doesn't wish to open a book and read it proper. If you are a Muslim and abroad you'll be deemed by nationality under your passport or birth certifcate.. American, Czech or whatever.. I hope that was simple enough for you to understand?

All the best wishes,


Faysal

blah blah blah..

cheers

[tetsujin]

Galen: as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails.
The Quran in the above and other verses speaks the term 'amshag' which I have gone quite extensively over, to denote 'intermingled/mixed fluid' as in fertalized egg. A safe lodging place to denote the uterus. Semen 'prevailing' was indeed common belief at the time, but not in the Quran or sunna.. Again, I fail to see the similarity..

Where in that verse (23:13) do you see the word amshag or amshaj? I'm not sure if our friend here reads arabic, but i could not, for the life of me, find amshaj in that entire surah. I suggest you read that surah again.

You may be referring to Surah 76:2, can you find any other verse that mentions the mingling of this drop of semen or sperm?

What is your point here? Galen likens the fetus to plant growth and states it is semen that prevails, and that is actually the point..

You have just learned about all of this two days ago and already you are an expert with what is or isn't the point? I have already shown you, that the term 'amshaj' is used in the Quran to denote 'mixture' as in sperm and egg.. semen prevailing isn't an Islamic concept but a Greek one.
Where is the plagiarism and where is the similarity? Why would the Prophet who was shunned for the most part by his people, meet with some Greek guy and a translator given he was illitrate, to incorporate some obscure terms that have nothing to do with Galen's thoughts on embryology and poetically in the Quran and in Arabic to get people to worship God...
Do you think before you write?


Where in the Quran does it repeat it?.. You have failed to read, you have failed to assimilate, and you have failed to make a point. Again!

I believe the word you are looking for is Sulalah, which you may have forgotten to mention thus far, as you possibly forgot to mention amshaj before Galen was quoted.

Whether articulated or not you end up comparing apples to oranges!

Really?

32:7-8
الَّذِي أَحْسَنَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقَهُ وَبَدَأَ خَلْقَ الْإِنسَانِ مِن طِينٍ . ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِن سُلَالَةٍ مِّن مَّاء مَّهِي

86:5-6
فَلْيَنظُرِ الْإِنسَانُ مِمَ خُلِقَ. خُلِقَ مِن مَّاء دَافِ

16:4
خَلَقَ الإِنسَانَ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٌ مُّبِينٌ

75:36-37
أَيَحْسَبُ الْإِنسَانُ أَن يُتْرَكَ سُدًى ، أَلَمْ يَكُ نُطْفَةً مِّن مَّنِيٍّ يُمْنَى

80:17-19
قُتِلَ الْإِنسَانُ مَا أَكْفَرَهُ . مِنْ أَيِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقَهُ . مِن نُّطْفَةٍ خَلَقَهُ فَقَدَّرَهُ

53:45-46
وَأَنَّهُ خَلَقَ الزَّوْجَيْنِ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَىِ . من نُّطْفَةٍ إِذَا تُمْنَى



So how will you go about distinguishing nutfatin as a non-fluid "drop" of spernm

well what are you claiming? You have failed to answer paragraph one on any of the levels I have raised!
similarity in content. Which is really the big one

I hope that helped

similarity in textual style
a purpose
a person
a translator
and a record for it all

Useless, as this was never the claim and you choose to construct strawmen whenever faced with a serious argument.

This is a nonsequitur to the topic, and just really works to tie the noose around your neck when flustered and at a loss, just throw everything out there for the reader to decipher what s/he may.
You want to assert or deny make a point.. first do your homework.. I am not going sit here and do it for you.

You have something of substance to impart, bring it forth.. let's see it!

I did it for you, but you'll probably want to check it before it's graded.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

Where in that verse (23:13) do you see the word amshag or amshaj? I'm not sure if our friend here reads arabic, but i could not, for the life of me, find amshaj in that entire surah. I suggest you read that surah again.

I never claimed it was in that surah.. we are talking of embryology all throughout the Quran.. just like the end chapters describe end of world events over several suras, so too is the creation of man.

We created man from a drop of mingled fluid (nutfah amshaj)” ( Surah Al-Insan , 76: ayah 2)

"Not from all the fluid is the offspring created".

(Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Nekah, Bab Al-Azl)

iv) Al-Nutfah Al-Amhsaj

In Arabic Amshaj means mixture and Al-Nutfah AI-Amshaj means a mixture of male and female germinal fluids or cells (Ref: 1A, 29/126-7: 2A, 2/195: 6A, 19/121: 7A, 6/418: 8A, 8/393; 9A, 2/454: 4D, 2/367). All Islamic scholars unanimously agree on deriving this meaning from the above expression. This is evidently clear from the following quotation:

"Verily We created Man from mixture of germinal drop
reference
http://www.geocities.com/mabdulrahmanb/Embryology

You may be referring to Surah 76:2, can you find any other verse that mentions the mingling of this drop of semen or sperm?

see above!

I believe the word you are looking for is Sulalah, which you may have forgotten to mention thus far, as you possibly forgot to mention amshaj before Galen was quoted.

What does sulalah mean to you?

Really?

32:7-8
الَّذِي أَحْسَنَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقَهُ وَبَدَأَ خَلْقَ الْإِنسَانِ مِن طِينٍ . ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِن سُلَالَةٍ مِّن مَّاء مَّهِي

86:5-6
فَلْيَنظُرِ الْإِنسَانُ مِمَ خُلِقَ. خُلِقَ مِن مَّاء دَافِ

16:4
خَلَقَ الإِنسَانَ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٌ مُّبِينٌ

75:36-37
أَيَحْسَبُ الْإِنسَانُ أَن يُتْرَكَ سُدًى ، أَلَمْ يَكُ نُطْفَةً مِّن مَّنِيٍّ يُمْنَى

80:17-19
قُتِلَ الْإِنسَانُ مَا أَكْفَرَهُ . مِنْ أَيِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقَهُ . مِن نُّطْفَةٍ خَلَقَهُ فَقَدَّرَهُ

53:45-46
وَأَنَّهُ خَلَقَ الزَّوْجَيْنِ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَىِ . من نُّطْفَةٍ إِذَا تُمْنَى



So how will you go about distinguishing nutfatin as a non-fluid "drop" of spernm

What is your point? indeed the male and female sex are determined by the sperm.. a brush up on modern embryo will clear that for you.. a female ova is an X, where as a sperm is either an X or a Y, hence the sex of a child is determined by the sperm.. It can't be more clear =)

I hope that helped

I hope it helped you.. sheesh how unenviable for you to put yourself in such a corner :-[

Useless, as this was never the claim and you choose to construct strawmen whenever faced with a serious argument.

Perhaps you can point that strawman out for me again, and in the process manage not to highlight your ignorance of fifth grade biology!

I did it for you, but you'll probably want to check it before it's graded.

;D lol how adorable.. tell you what.. make a new thread where you can be boss for a day.. I think you owe it to yourself to feel good about your accomplishment so far!

All the best wishes,


Faysal

cheers

[tetsujin]

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and not a body of scholars to consult with as is in the shura system of an Islamic state. And of course his explanation was incorrect! Do you speak Arabic, have you read the Quran in its entirety, do you know what the word de'7'ha means??

"Duhaha", yes. Once again, those were not my claims. What you gain by pointing this out, I have no idea.

[quote]
I have a few favorites, Dr Sala7 Ar'rashid is one.. Dr rashid Ar'rashid is another, Dr. Ahmed Deedat of course, and sheikh el-sha3rawi, although his work was never that popular considering he only spoke Arabic. If you have a problem with their work, you can always not purchase the DVD's or buy their books, they are not exactly best seller on borders![quote]

Thank you, and in which field did they earn their doctorate?

I wouldn't expect you to know of any!

That would make sense, now if you could only refrain from ad hominem fallacies...

You don't know what sort of books I read, the sort of books interest me, or what sort of books were imposed as a part of my curriculum to state categorically what it is I refuse to read. I have summed it up really well for you just a couple of paragraphs ago.. Anyone with a doctorate can theorize, and set up a study to prove their point.. .. People who are set out to prove something is right, will find a way to make it so-- a hawthorne effect!

That's not even what the Hawthorne effect is, I suggest you look it up.

if you are Muslim and are a scientist under an Islamic state, then you are a Muslim scholar/scientest and such was recorded by history, a little pugilistic atheist isn't going to change recorded history, even if he doesn't wish to open a book and read it proper. If you are a Muslim and abroad you'll be deemed by nationality under your passport or birth certifcate.. American, Czech or whatever.. I hope that was simple enough for you to understand?

What is your point?



All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

Addendu:
I wanted to keep this separate, since I like to take the opportunity to foster learning Arabic

here is the word سُلَالَةٍ sulalah
in Arabic:

سلالة : نتيجة البحث عن

ancestry line of ancestors; the members of your family who lived a long time ago
children plural of child
descendant descendant
descendants progeny:offspring: posterity
descent ancestry

family group of persons or nations united by political or religious ties
line connected series of persons following one another in time
lineage lineal descent; ancestry
offspring child or children of a particular person or couple, or young of an animal
progeny offspring

http://www.arabiclookup.com/default....A7%D9%84%D8%A9

There you have it folks, the word of the day courtesy of our resident atheist, who I am sure will tie it for us nicely to denote something else

[جوري]

'Duhaha", yes. Once again, those were not my claims. What you gain by pointing this out, I have no idea.

You asked me if the sheikh were wrong 'speaking of a flat earth' and I stated, indeed he was, asked you if you knew what 'de'7aha' duha with a dhadh, is different de7aha with a dhal.. but I am sure you already knew that, in your vast knowledge of exegesis.. but d'eh7aha , meant the rounding or egg shaping of it!
We have many dumb scholars even who graduate al-azhar, I am not sure what your point was.. did you have one?


[QUOTE]I have a few favorites, Dr Sala7 Ar'rashid is one.. Dr rashid Ar'rashid is another, Dr. Ahmed Deedat of course, and sheikh el-sha3rawi, although his work was never that popular considering he only spoke Arabic. If you have a problem with their work, you can always not purchase the DVD's or buy their books, they are not exactly best seller on borders!

Thank you, and in which field did they earn their doctorate?

One is a doctor of medicine, another has his doctorate in biochem and the third in psychology.. does it matter? Again, I ask you what are your qualifications?

That would make sense, now if you could only refrain from ad hominem fallacies...

I would but you are so bloody indolent, that I just can't help myself..

That's not even what the Hawthorne effect is, I suggest you look it up.

Hawthorne was an experiment where scientists wanted to see what would double the effort of workers by change in lighting, every time they increased or decreased the light the work was up and up.. people didn't want to disappoint.. there are many kinds of biases in studies.. I wouldn't put something down for folks to read, lest I knew what it meant.. unlike most atheist google scholars we have here

What is your point?



All the best wishes,


Faysal

Take a hint clever guy-- I bore fast-- I suggest you sit down with yourself and question what it is you hope to gain by this? will you be Muslim by the end of the day? will we be atheists? frankly I can answer the latter for you.. You are not skilled enough to convince me of anything, and I am a bit jetlagged, I just got home to NY and between laundry/ cleaning and putting away my clothes and averaging in a few hrs sleep, I still don't find you cohesive on any of your points :)

cheers

[tetsujin]

What does sulalah mean to you?

An extract, or condensed form

What is your point? indeed the male and female sex are determined by the sperm.. a brush up on modern embryo will clear that for you.. a female ova is an X, where as a sperm is either an X or a Y, hence the sex of a child is determined by the sperm.. It can't be more clear =)

So as in 32:8 and 77:20 and the others I have pointed out the reference is for a fluid, I granted you the benefit of the doubt that you would point to the word sulalah implying that it is not all of the fluid that is used but an extract.

Can you read Arabic or will you make me explain the verses for you as well?

Perhaps you can point that strawman out for me again, and in the process manage not to highlight your ignorance of fifth grade biology!

I need only to point you to all of my previous posts in this thread. Whether you have an ability to read and comprehend them is not something I can change, I presume you can. Where have I "highlighted my ignorance of fifth grade biology"?

All the best wishes,


Faysal

[tetsujin]

Addendu:
I wanted to keep this separate, since I like to take the opportunity to foster learning Arabic

here is the word سُلَالَةٍ sulalah
in Arabic:

سلالة : نتيجة البحث عن

ancestry line of ancestors; the members of your family who lived a long time ago
children plural of child
descendant descendant
descendants progeny:offspring: posterity
descent ancestry

family group of persons or nations united by political or religious ties
line connected series of persons following one another in time
lineage lineal descent; ancestry
offspring child or children of a particular person or couple, or young of an animal
progeny offspring

http://www.arabiclookup.com/default....A7%D9%84%D8%A9

There you have it folks, the word of the day courtesy of our resident atheist, who I am sure will tie it for us nicely to denote something else

Indeed I did. Try using your definition where the word sulalatin was used and see if 32:8 makes sense and sounds beautiful or whatever else you want to call it.

I'm not here for you amusement.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

An extract, or condensed form

Nope.. I have already put the clear definition of sulalah..

So as in 32:8 and 77:20 and the others I have pointed out the reference is for a fluid, I granted you the benefit of the doubt that you would point to the word sulalah implying that it is not all of the fluid that is used but an extract.

You should follow the verses through, and I believe you have in just one of them.. from that which is emitted, both male and female are made.. I am not seeing a problem with it.. It actually is our modern understanding of the role of a sperm!

Can you read Arabic or will you make me explain the verses for you as well?

ana at7adath al3arbya be'labaqa, walkan'ak insan zhaleel wo ghabbi.
Does that answer your Q?

I need only to point you to all of my previous posts in this thread. Whether you have an ability to read and comprehend them is not something I can change, I presume you can. Where have I "highlighted my ignorance of fifth grade biology"?

I can't make sense of confabulation.. like your athy friend, you have the ability to cut and paste from various sites although I'll give it to you, you are not as overt as he in your approach, but still unable to reconcile what you read with what you are trying to evince.
Fifth grade bio should teach you, that it is the sperm that produces either sexes of male or female!
as the verse denotes in suret al-qyama and many others!

All the best wishes,


Faysal

aha

cheers

[جوري]

Indeed I did. Try using your definition where the word sulalatin was used and see if 32:8 makes sense and sounds beautiful or whatever else you want to call it.

I'm not here for you amusement.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

That is most disconsolate indeed.. I wish you were remotely amusing or remotely accurate.. but you are neither..

I have already quoted the definition for the word sulalah from an Arabic dictionary.. it isn't my own definition but the accepted definition!

I am sorry I can't translate things to resound to your desired meaning..

are we done?

cheers

[tetsujin]

Quran 23:13 Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging
Galen: as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails.

Galen: as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails.
The Quran in the above and other verses speaks the term 'amshag' which I have gone quite extensively over, to denote 'intermingled/mixed fluid' as in fertalized egg. A safe lodging place to denote the uterus. Semen 'prevailing' was indeed common belief at the time, but not in the Quran or sunna.. Again, I fail to see the similarity..

I never claimed it was in that surah.. we are talking of embryology all throughout the Quran.. just like the end chapters describe end of world events over several suras, so too is the creation of man.

It read like a claim to me.

[جوري]

It read like a claim to me.

I believe the operative terms here are other verses.. aside from that, the current verse still dioesn't reconcile with your friend's allegation of plagiarism.

cheers

[tetsujin]

That is most disconsolate indeed.. I wish you were remotely amusing or remotely accurate.. but you are neither..

I have already quoted the definition for the word sulalah from an Arabic dictionary.. it isn't my own definition but the accepted definition!

I am sorry I can't translate things to resound to your desired meaning..

are we done?

cheers

Would you care to translate all of 32:8 then?


032.008 ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِنْ سُلالَةٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ مَهِينٍ
032.008 Thumma jaAAala naslahu min sul[a]latin min m[a]-in maheen(in)
032.008 And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:

Al-Qur'an, 032.008 (As-Sajda [The Prostration, Worship, Adoration])

Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910 (I give credit where it's due)


If you don't mind, what does naslahu mean?



All the best wishes,


Faysal

[tetsujin]

I believe the operative terms here are other verses.. aside from that, the current verse still dioesn't reconcile with your friend's allegation of plagiarism.

cheers

So, you're saying "the above and" was merely a typo, did it slip your mind while editing?

Very well, then, I suppose you do make mistakes.


All the best wishes,


Faysal


PS: As far as I can recall, there was never an allegation of plagiarism.

[جوري]

Would you care to translate all of 32:8 then?


032.008 ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِنْ سُلالَةٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ مَهِينٍ
032.008 Thumma jaAAala naslahu min sul[a]latin min m[a]-in maheen(in)
032.008 And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:

Al-Qur'an, 032.008 (As-Sajda [The Prostration, Worship, Adoration])

Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910 (I give credit where it's due)


If you don't mind, what does naslahu mean?



All the best wishes,


Faysal

Why you don't you make up your mind what you desire to learn, nasal am sulalah? to spare us both the agony.. here is a translation of the entire verse!

32:8 then He causes him to be begotten out of the essence of a humble fluid!

cheers

[tetsujin]

Why you don't you make up your mind what you desire to learn, nasal am sulalah? to spare us both the agony.. here is a translation of the entire verse!

32:8 then He causes him to be begotten out of the essence of a humble fluid!

cheers

Okay, I'll accept that translation.


Which Arabic word is referring to "essence"?



All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

So, you're saying "the above and" was merely a typo, did it slip your mind while editing?

Very well, then, I suppose you do make mistakes.


All the best wishes,


Faysal


PS: As far as I can recall, there was never an allegation of plagiarism.

Perhaps you should read your friend's allegtions then before jumping to his defense? Or better yet.. do all your homework comparing all literary work on the subject matter before starting a thread on redundance?

cheers

[tetsujin]

Perhaps you should read your friend's allegtions then before jumping to his defense? Or better yet.. do all your homework comparing all literary work on the subject matter before starting a thread on redundance?

cheers

I did. The closest he came was in actually correcting your faulty logic in that in order to claim something is plagiarized you must copy it exactly or in it's entirety.

That was all, if you read further on he states explicitly that plagiarism was not his claim, nor have I made that claim since Post #1


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

I did. The closest he came was in actually correcting your faulty logic in that in order to claim something is plagiarized you must copy it exactly or in it's entirety.

Perhaps you are selectively blind as you are selectively read/learned?
I like the faulty logic thing, you might be on to something.. if this were a remedial session you'd have reached a mile stone on self-discovery!

Just because *all* of Galen's work on embryos is not present in the Qur'an that does not mean *none* of it is plagiarised.
.

That was all, if you read further on he states explicitly that plagiarism was not his claim, nor have I made that claim since Post #1


All the best wishes

Faysal

see above .. and please do get a life.. don't you have anything better to do on a sunday than sit here and get really anal?

cheers

[Chuck]

Shaykh Ibn Baaz did not say shape of the earth is flat: http://www.fatwa-online.com/fataawa/...us/0040819.htm

Here is an answer from him

Is the Earth round or flat?

Question: The following letter reached the program (broadcast program) from Kenya, sent by our brother, the student, Ibraheem Muhammad Al-Awwal. The brother says, "I heard the program Nurun 'alad-Darb (A Light upon the Path) and I benefited greatly from it. Therefore, I wanted to send these questions to you all because their topics are very perplexing to me. The first is: Is the earth round or flat?"

Response: According to the people knowledge (scholars of Islaam) the earth is round, for indeed Ibn Hazm and a group of other scholars mentioned that there is a consensus (unanimous agreement, Ijmaa') among the people of knowledge that it is round. This means that all of it is connected together thus making the form of the entire planet like a ball. However, Allaah has spread out surface for us and He has placed firm mountains upon it and placed the animals and the seas upon it as a mercy for us. For this reason, Allaah said:

{And (do they not look) at the Earth, how it was made FLAT (Sutihat)}, [Soorah al-Ghaashiyyah, Aayah 20]

Therefore, it (the Earth) has been made flat for us in regards to its surface, so that people can live on it and so that people can be comfortable upon it. The fact that it is round does not prevent that its surface has been made flat. This is because something that is round and very large, if it is made flat (its surface), then its surface will become very vast or broad (i.e. having a flat appearance). Yes."

Shaykh Ibn Baaz

..........
Translated by: Abu Sumayyah Aqeel Walker

[جوري]

^^^ great.. Baraka Allah feek..

let me also take this opportunity to highlight how Islamic science not only superceded but corrected errors found in empires preceding it..

Here is a lecture of interest by Dr. george Salibah, at columbia university..

http://www.columbia.edu/~gas1/projec...se1/sci.1.html

Whose Science is
Arabic Science in Renaissance Europe?1

© George Saliba -Columbia University

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:Introduction
Section 2: Arabic/Islamic Science And Renaissance Science in Italy (Large file)
Section 3: Role of Arabic Scientific Manuscripts in European Libraries
Section 4: Travelers in Search of Science (Large file)
Section 5: Conclusion
Back to visions...



Introduction

It is becoming more apparent to historians of science that the more they deconstruct the grand narrative of the history of their discipline, which stipulates a majestic progressive march of science from ancient Mesopotamia to Greece (with some unresolved questions and caveats on the connection between these two cultural areas), to the Islamic civilization and on to Europe with some marginal input by Indian and Chinese cultures, the more it becomes difficult to assign linguistic, civilizational and cultural adjectives to the term "science." Adjectives such as Greek, Arabic, Chinese, Indian, and more pertinently western, when applied to science as in Greek science, Arabic science, etc., are quickly becoming obsolete. Not because of any lack of interest in applying such adjectives, but because of the newly-emerging understanding of the essentially hegemonic meanings such adjectives have always harbored. There was a time when these terms were often used as analytical categories, and it was thought they imparted some significance at the time when languages, cultures and civilizations used to embody individual characteristics that could distinguish them from one another. But today more and more people are coming to realize that these same terms are no longer serving the same functions. This is especially so when the new scrutiny now being applied to such grand narratives of the history of science is making it quite obvious that these terms can no longer yield the same analytical results they used to yield. Add to that the newly-emerging realization that the terms "culture", "civilization", "language", and "science" itself, are no longer the same stable, commonly-accepted terms of reference they once were. Instead, it is becoming apparent by the day that such terms do indeed embody ambiguities of their own and embody hegemonic theoretical structures that prohibit their modification with the old adjectives as was once done.

In particular the greatest challenges to the grand narrative of the history of science are surfacing as a result of the micro historical work now being done by historians of each of these cultural sciences. And as is always the case, micro history has a direct bearing, and at times a devastating effect, on the general schematics of theories of history or theorizing about history, if for no other reason than that micro history sometimes produces stubborn facts that are by their very nature impossible to explain away no matter how great is the amount of theorizing employed. More specifically as these historians try to explore the boundary issues that used to be discussed under such rubrics as the transmission of science, the influence of one cultural science on the other, or under the various schemes that were devised for diffusion of science and technology, simultaneous discoveries, indebtedness, etc., these same historians are beginning to discover that the old analytical categories are no longer adequate to explain the kind of facts that their investigations are producing. The boundaries are blurring and the very defining characteristics of cultural sciences are beginning to lose their meaning, and yet no new theoretical framework has proven to explain sufficiently well what is taking place.

In what follows, I would like to illustrate the predicament that now faces historians of science, especially those who have devoted their work to cultural sciences and have tried to tackle such issues as the nature and defining characteristics of such concepts as the "Greek miracle", the nature of scientific revolutions, the nature of western science, the reason why "modern" science rose in the west and nowhere else, and many such questions whose answers at any time seem to be contradicted as soon as they are defined. It is important to note that such investigations also have a direct bearing on the defining characteristics that have been utilized to describe "modern" science, just as those characteristics themselves were almost always conceived as constituting the ever varying essential features of modern science and were as a result constantly shifting to one or more of such descriptive but yet complex conceptual terms as mathematization of nature, experimentation, use of general symbolism and more particularly mathematical symbolism, institutionalization of science, rise of western universities, legal and cultural institutions governing science, etc.

In order to illustrate the futility of the attempts to write the history of cultural sciences in this fashion, and to highlight the ambiguities so far implied by the analytical categories just listed, I will resort to some of the results that have been already established in specific micro histories, and others like them that are still being established. In particular I will focus on a set of results that has emerged from the examination of a border case that is becoming quickly blurred in between two cultural sciences. The border in question is the ever-fluctuating border "separating" Arabic/Islamic science on the one side and the Latin/western science on the other. The episode itself deals with the activities of scientists working on both sides of the border divide roughly between the thirteenth and the sixteenth centuries and delving into each others cultural and geographical territories. It also deals with the relationship between a series of texts that were written in Arabic at various periods of time within the lands that were referred to as lands of the Islamic world and another set of texts written in Latin in the lands now referred to as Europe. The results that are now surfacing from the study of the lives of the few scientists who performed those roles as well as from the texts being subjected to scrutiny have been accumulating over the last four decades or so and have recently come to the attention of those interested in border issues of cultural sciences. The significance of such massive results is still being put to the test. Their sheer quantity, as well as their sheer complexity, have not yet been fully digested in the secondary literature in order to create the kind of impact they will certainly eventually create on the manner in which histories of sciences modified by cultural, civilizational, or linguistic terms ought to be pursued.

But in order to fully comprehend the significance of this problematic evidence one needs to supply the historical background that brought it about and thus reconstruct the larger investigative context that framed the problem in the first place. One can not avoid reconstructing as well the complex web of events and circumstances that produced this problematic evidence that is now forcing us to reconsider the use and significance of such terms as Arabic/Islamic science and Latin/western science. But to do that, one needs to turn the clock back by some forty years, and then attempt to come to terms with what was known then about the nature of Arabic/Islamic science, Renaissance science, "Copernican revolution", and the radical manner in which that knowledge has since then been transformed.

Endnotes
1. Several earlier versions of this paper mostly emphasizing the transmission problems this kind of evidence creates were delivered as public lectures at Georgetown, Duke and Stanford universities during the years 1996-1999. The Georgetown University lecture is now in print as an occasional paper from the Center for Contemporary Arabic Studies of the same university under the title Rethinking the Roots of Modern Science: The Role of Arabic Manuscripts in European Libraries, 1999.

Various agencies have helped in funding the research for this project who are hereby gratefully thanked. Those include The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies (Columbia University), the Accademia della Crusca (Florence), for basic research at the Laurentiana during the summer of 1994, and the current support from the National Humanities Center.


Section 2: Arabic/Islamic Science And Renaissance Science in Italy (Large file)
Section 3: Role of Arabic Scientific Manuscripts in European Libraries
Section 4: Travelers in Search of Science (Large file)
Section 5: Conclusion
Back to visions...

here is a live lecture.. found at the library of congress 84 mins.. If you have an hour to spare to learn instead of peddling nonesense!
"Islamic Science and The Making of Renaissance Europe."

http://www.libraryofcongress.gov/tod...c.php?rec=3883

here is one on 3illom al'islam aldafeena.. really very valuable, comes in a series

Media Tags are no longer supported

Might actually make a whole thread for this on health and sci, instead of wasting it here amidst 8 pages of atheist crap!


:w:

[tetsujin]

Perhaps you are selectively blind as you are selectively read/learned?
I like the faulty logic thing, you might be on to something.. if this were a remedial session you'd have reached a mile stone on self-discovery!







see above .. and please do get a life.. don't you have anything better to do on a sunday than sit here and get really anal?

cheers

I will wait for your response to my previous question before continuing.


From Ayaat 32:8, which Arabic word, according to your preferred translation, means "essence"?

I don't expect a swift response, so I'll open the question to anyone who can read arabic.


If you care to know, I can go about my daily activities and this website, thanks to it's programmer, will send out an e-mail whenever I get a response. I suppose I should thank Allah for blackberrys.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

I will wait for your response to my previous question before continuing.

What are you looking for?

From Ayaat 32:8, which Arabic word, according to your preferred translation, means "essence"?

There is no literal word for any word in the Quran, a translator can only give you an evocation of what the verse means.. you want to understand the Quran in its distilled form, you must learn Arabic like the rest of the 1.86 billion Muslims who make at least a marginal effort if it be just to make their daily prayers!

I don't expect a swift response, so I'll open the question to anyone who can read arabic.

My answer is above.. and you may certainly await other responses!

If you care to know, I can go about my daily activities and this website, thanks to it's programmer, will send out an e-mail whenever I get a response. I suppose I should thank Allah for blackberrys.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

I don't suspect you thank him for anything.. and I am not sure if I have made it clear enough that I don't really give a D*** what you do with your life.. not sure personally how to avoid receiving a nimiety of the same rhetoric which you don't seem to tire of..
But I'll keep doing it for Allah, and I do it for the young Muslims on board...

cheers

[asadxyz]

I will wait for your response to my previous question before continuing.


From Ayaat 32:8, which Arabic word, according to your preferred translation, means "essence"?



Faysal

Dear Faysal :Peace
I do not know why atheists are so devoid of knowledge.The way you put this question indicates that you do not know arabic at all.But the actual objectional thing you did not try to verify it from some arabic dictionary.
Lane's lexicon :
سلالة الشئ = an extract of a thing,the clear pure part , or the choice ,best or more excellent part.
Ref:
http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

[tetsujin]

There is no literal word for any word in the Quran, a translator can only give you an evocation of what the verse means.. you want to understand the Quran in its distilled form, you must learn Arabic like the rest of the 1.86 billion Muslims who make at least a marginal effort if it be just to make their daily prayers!

I'm sure you didn't assume or suspect, but I already knew that.

All I will state is that in the context of that verse, you cannot take the mean definition of sulalah unless you want the verse to be disjointed and redundant.

The point was not what the word means in any case, you seem to get distracted easily and blame others for not being able to hold your attention. I listed a few verses in which the quran notably mentions that a fluid state is the beginning and that there are indeed similarities with Galen's findings and the revealed text.

I don't suspect you thank him for anything.. and I am not sure if I have made it clear enough that I don't really give a D*** what you do with your life..

I didn't tell you what I do with my life. I'm not sure why you thought I would tell you.

not sure personally how to avoid receiving a nimiety of the same rhetoric which you don't seem to tire of..
But I'll keep doing it for Allah, and I do it for the young Muslims on board...

Good for you. Stick with it for as long as you can.


As for Ibn Baaz. His fatwa was well documented, but even if we grant that what he truly mean was that the surface of the earth was a great expanse stretched out for our comfort, his declaration was useless. Who are the atheists in 1993 arguing against the sphericity of our earth or the vastness/smoothness of it's surface? Ignoring for a moment that there are large mountains and deep trenches, abrupt cliffs and shelfs. What use is a fatwa against people who really aren't making such a claim?

In any case, if you cut the sheik some slack for not being familiar with English or basic mathematics then it's okay. The surface of a sphere cannot by definition be "flat", it may be smooth, or it's circumference may be large so that as someone standing on it, you may not see it's curvature, but it is not "flat". It's a concept understood easily if one has ever stepped into a course for calculus.

You can find plenty of resources online since 1993 referrencing Sheik Ibn Baaz's edict.

The New York Times, 1995


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[tetsujin]

Dear Faysal :Peace
I do not know why atheists are so devoid of knowledge.The way you put this question indicates that you do not know arabic at all.But the actual objectional thing you did not try to verify it from some arabic dictionary.
Lane's lexicon :
سلالة الشئ = an extract of a thing,the clear pure part , or the choice ,best or more excellent part.
Ref:
http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

Thank You.

You've simultaniously confirmed what I've said and revealed the disingenuity of our sister.

I would suggest skimming through the past two pages, it would show that you've agreed with me.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

I'm sure you didn't assume or suspect, but I already knew that.

I don't occupy my free time with thoughts of you!

All I will state is that in the context of that verse, you cannot take the mean definition of sulalah unless you want the verse to be disjointed and redundant.

I am delighted you have reached that conclusion on your own accord.. might just save us a few posts employing petitio principii!

The point was not what the word means in any case, you seem to get distracted easily and blame others for not being able to hold your attention. I listed a few verses in which the quran notably mentions that a fluid state is the beginning and that there are indeed similarities with Galen's findings and the revealed text.

That is means of great advancement coming from someone who couldn't use his index finger to scroll back a couple of pages to save his believability..

Now, if you will allow me to quote your person and pls do fill in the blank where proper 'All I will state is that in the context of that verse, you cannot take the mean definition of --- unless you want the verse to be disjointed and redundant'.. There is a reason we explore exegesis with paragraphs that anteceded and continued so that the whole can flow..
Hence I say, The Quran and Galen's work are actually as different as can be.. one is scientifically accurate, speaking of the gross specimen and goes so far as to tell you of 'We created man from a drop of mingled fluid (nutfah amshaj)” ( Surah Al-Insan , 76: ayah 2 and further goes to tell you that it is from Man's sperm that the sex of the fetus is determined' and the other one is a good try for its age!
..
Galen (fetus/plant like) good try... though not nearly as colorful as your pathetic attempts to find similarities!

I didn't tell you what I do with my life. I'm not sure why you thought I would tell you.

Where did this come from? I have no interest in what you do with your life, save when you rant about the qualifications of Muslim scholars.. one really needs to extend you the courtesy to defend your own position with your weighty laurelses!

Good for you. Stick with it for as long as you can.

I shall

As for Ibn Baaz. His fatwa was well documented, but even if we grant that what he truly mean was that the surface of the earth was a great expanse stretched out for our comfort, his declaration was useless. Who are the atheists in 1993 arguing against the sphericity of our earth or the vastness/smoothness of it's surface? Ignoring for a moment that there are large mountains and deep trenches, abrupt cliffs and shelfs. What use is a fatwa against people who really aren't making such a claim?

Are you going some where with this? or are you just really upset? History holds its own.. fatwa or not.. and I have already posted before and quite recently per regards to Idrisi and Roger the II or do you wish to erase all of our scholars old and new from the face of the earth?

In any case, if you cut the sheik some slack for not being familiar with English or basic mathematics then it's okay. The surface of a sphere cannot by definition be "flat", it may be smooth, or it's circumference may be large so that as someone standing on it, you may not see it's curvature, but it is not "flat". It's a concept understood easily if one has ever stepped into a course for calculus.

see my above previous reply

All the best wishes,


Faysal

cheers

[جوري]

Thank You.

You've simultaniously confirmed what I've said and revealed the disingenuity of our sister.

I would suggest skimming through the past two pages, it would show that you've agreed with me.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

You wanted the definition of the word 'sulalah' and we have provided you it from the dictionary reference included... You wanted the meaning for the entire verse and we provided you it using the translation of Leopold Weiss/Muhammad Asad.


I need not extend myself to jurisprudence, tafsir, fiqh, or anything above and beyond your pedantic queries!

cheers

[جوري]

Again
Dictionaries - القواميس

سُلالَة اســــــــــــم نَسَب , أَصْل

lineage , line

نَسْل , ذُرِّيَّة

descendant , descendants , progeny , ancestry , children , offspring , descent , family

http://dictionary.sakhr.com/idrisidi...c7%e1%f3%c9%f2

Addendum:
I wanted to keep this separate, since I like to take the opportunity to foster learning Arabic

here is the word سُلَالَةٍ sulalah
in Arabic:

سلالة : نتيجة البحث عن

ancestry line of ancestors; the members of your family who lived a long time ago
children plural of child
descendant descendant
descendants progeny:offspring: posterity
descent ancestry

family group of persons or nations united by political or religious ties
line connected series of persons following one another in time
lineage lineal descent; ancestry
offspring child or children of a particular person or couple, or young of an animal
progeny offspring

http://www.arabiclookup.com/default....A7%D9%84%D8%A9

There you have it folks, the word of the day courtesy of our resident atheist, who I am sure will tie it for us nicely to denote something else

Would you care to translate all of 32:8 then?


032.008 ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِنْ سُلالَةٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ مَهِينٍ
032.008 Thumma jaAAala naslahu min sul[a]latin min m[a]-in maheen(in)
032.008 And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:

Al-Qur'an, 032.008 (As-Sajda [The Prostration, Worship, Adoration])

Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.910 (I give credit where it's due)


If you don't mind, what does naslahu mean?



All the best wishes,


Faysal

Why you don't you make up your mind what you desire to learn, nasal am sulalah? to spare us both the agony.. here is a translation of the entire verse!

32:8 then He causes him to be begotten out of the essence of a humble fluid!

You get only what you ask for!

cheers

[tetsujin]

You wanted the definition of the word 'sulalah' and we have provided you it from the dictionary reference included... You wanted the meaning for the entire verse and we provided you it using the translation of Leopold Weiss/Muhammad Asad.


I need not extend myself to jurisprudence, tafsir, fiqh, or anything above and beyond your pedantic queries!

Oh, if only that's all you did. You're well versed in sophistry and stating absolutly nothing with a casuistic flair.

A bit of lateral thinking on your part could have saved you the trouble, no? Were you unwilling or unable?

What lengths will you go to for the sake of not conceeding a point.

If we are to be pedantic, I never once asked you for your definition of "sulalah". Actually, you asked me, then paraded the general definition whether or not you knew it didn't fit the context, then when I stated the correct application of the arabic word in that verse, you "corrected" me, then I pointed out the other word in that very verse which would have made it redundant and disjointed, and asked you for its definition (the one you DID NOT provide), and here we are summarizing again why I am amazed by your disingenuity.


If we are to be pedantic...


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[tetsujin]

You get only what you ask for!

Okay, You referenced 76:2 and stated that the "paragraphs" before and after it need to be considered as well.

There is a reason we explore exegesis with paragraphs that anteceded and continued so that the whole can flow..
Hence I say, The Quran and Galen's work are actually as different as can be.. one is scientifically accurate, speaking of the gross specimen and goes so far as to tell you of 'We created man from a drop of mingled fluid (nutfah amshaj)” ( Surah Al-Insan , 76: ayah 2 and further goes to tell you that it is from Man's sperm that the sex of the fetus is determined' and the other one is a good try for its age!

Which paragraphs are you referring to? Surah 76 is only 31 verses long. The flow should be pretty good.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

Oh, if only that's all you did. You're well versed in sophistry and stating absolutly nothing with a casuistic flair.

I only work with what I am given..

A bit of lateral thinking on your part could have saved you the trouble, no? Were you unwilling or unable?

more benumbed by your queries than anything... I have made it abundantly clear, even when you asked for the lone word to mean 'essence' there is no literal word to denote its equivalent in Arabic, rather the translator gives you the evocation of. If you don't like it, it isn't really my problem iron man!

What lengths will you go to for the sake of not conceeding a point.

lol... are you projecting?

If we are to be pedantic, I never once asked you for your definition of "sulalah". Actually, you asked me, then paraded the general definition whether or not you knew it didn't fit the context, then when I stated the correct application of the arabic word in that verse, you "corrected" me, then I pointed out the other word in that very verse which would have made it redundant and disjointed, and asked you for its definition (the one you DID NOT provide), and here we are summarizing again why I am amazed by your disingenuity.

You simply quoted me several long verses to disport the thread in the fashion of your liking? your definition of the word sulalah is incorrect, The correct definition is already referenced from the dictionary.. but you are in no position to translate it literally or figuratively, whether essence (Asad) quintessence (yusfali) or draught (pickthal).. the translation of the verse is admitted ( see previous) as is the literal meaning of the word see dictionary!

If we are to be pedantic...

Is that a rhetorical question?

All the best wishes,


Faysal

Indeed
cheers

[Azy]

Let's be straight about what the point actually is here.
The development and appearance of the unborn child had been observed 500 years prior to it's miraculous revelation in the Quran.
There is nothing miraculous about describing something that has been seen half a millennium hence, except
to impress a bunch of illiterate, ignorant desert dwellers.

That is the point, and whether you like Galen's or Hippocrates' analogies or not, doctors were doing autopsies to examine the developing foetus.

So you don't see the likeness of those images to a plant and that's fine, I see it, my 9 year old nephew saw it, but whether you see it or not doesn't
really make a difference since it's not critical to this argument nor does it detract from Galen's credibility as it was merely a descriptive aid.

You have just learned about all of this two days ago and already you are an expert with what is or isn't the point? I have already shown you, that the term 'amshaj' is used in the Quran to denote 'mixture' as in sperm and egg.. semen prevailing isn't an Islamic concept but a Greek one.

The problem here is that the Quran talks of mingled fluids, in the same way that Galen talked of the 'form of semen', ie fluid.

Wouldn't it have been so easy to just say egg? Why not say sperm and the woman's egg, since that's what we know it to be rather than fluids which is wrong?
That would have just killed the argument dead since noone had the equipment to observe a woman's egg, but instead they carried on with the same old
fluid nonsense that had been going around for hundreds of years.

Why would the Prophet who was shunned for the most part by his people, meet with some Greek guy and a translator given he was illitrate, to incorporate some obscure terms that have nothing to do with Galen's thoughts on embryology and poetically in the Quran and in Arabic to get people to worship God...

1) The knowledge of foetal development was not restricted to Greeks, Greece or the Greek language, even in Galen's lifetime.
2) Check out Nemesius (4th Century) and Sergius (6th Century), both of Syria who were familiar with Galen's ideas centuries before the Prophet travelled there.
3) What does being illiterate have to do with understanding what a translator says?

similarity in content. Which is really the big one

The fact that foetuses had been studied is enough on it's own since it gives a perfectly plausible mechanism for acquiring this knowledge by means other than divine revelation.

similarity in textual style

5 centuries, translation between languages and oral transmission work against this one but again it's not required since it is the ideas, not the style of writing that are important.

a purpose

Power.

a person

The Prophet of Islam

a translator

Not really a prerequisite as we know these ideas were already present in various places and languages.

and a record for it all

A bit like writing a blog of how you carried out an armed robbery don't you think? Why incriminate yourself so easily.

You mean 'your words' are a plagiarism of someone else's work as I have shown in the link above where 'your words' are one and the same with someone else's where you have failed to give credit!

Miss, this isn't my dissertation, the quoted text that matters is either from the Quran or a translation of Galen from which you quoted. The website in question merely quotes from both those sources. I wasn't aware I had copied someone's work and passed it off as my own, but if someone somewhere makes a valid point and I will do it, this is not about personal credit for myself.

[جوري]

Let's be straight about what the point actually is here.
The development and appearance of the unborn child had been observed 500 years prior to it's miraculous revelation in the Quran.

Yes, unlike its revelation in the Quran, the description by Galen though admirable, is still incorrect, again Galen taught that the embryo transformed from possessing the life of a plant to that of an animal, and the umbilicus was made the root in the analogy with a plant.. I see nothing of the sort in the Quran, nor in modern embryo!

There is nothing miraculous about describing something that has been seen half a millennium hence, except
to impress a bunch of illiterate, ignorant desert dwellers.

The miracle isn't simply sequestered to the accurate description of embryology. If you would read instead of going to such outrageous lengths that defy logic and understanding to defend a controverted point which I might point out has been refuted on all angels; you'd have ascertained in the brief and the distilled, the creation of man from a lowely form, the change in his morphology, the essence of his life, all the different phases are a testament, that just as he came from a humble emitted fluid to evolve into those various stages, so too shall he rise again on the day of resurrection, a revival from inactivity a life after death!

The ones lacking knowledge on all facets and deliberately insistent on an invalid argument whilst displaying frank sophism in reasoning in the hope of deceiving others here, is you and your pal!

That is the point, and whether you like Galen's or Hippocrates' analogies or not, doctors were doing autopsies to examine the developing foetus.

The point is actually in the correctitude of actual 'doctors' at the time compared to an illitrate messenger who not only was correct in the desription ofcreation of a fetus, but went on to cover geology/physiology/numerology/astronomy/poetry with no purpose for scientific reasoning at all-- Writing a science book isn't the purpose of the Quran!
further upon autopsies, you can't see microscopic findings, Have you actually attended an autopsy? There is gross examination of the organs, and there is a microscopic portion to follow from that.. You can't see a morula, a gastrula, a zygote upon naked inspection. Which takes me back to the original Galen theorized of what he couldn't see.. admirable.. the Quran was right on the mark, with what wasn't even known 300/400 yrs ago!

So you don't see the likeness of those images to a plant and that's fine, I see it, my 9 year old nephew saw it, but whether you see it or not doesn't
really make a difference since it's not critical to this argument nor does it detract from Galen's credibility as it was merely a descriptive aid.

I am glad you have the mental capabilities of a 9 year old. That isn't an accurate description of fetal growth and development nor is it par with what we know of embryology, even grossly speaking!

The problem here is that the Quran talks of mingled fluids, in the same way that Galen talked of the 'form of semen', ie fluid.

veritably, one concedes that a woman is involved in the process, to bring about what we know as a zygote whilst the other uses vague terminology to denote male ejaculate!!

Wouldn't it have been so easy to just say egg? Why not say sperm and the woman's egg, since that's what we know it to be rather than fluids which is wrong?That would have just killed the argument dead since noone had the equipment to observe a woman's egg, but instead they carried on with the same old
fluid nonsense that had been going around for hundreds of years.[/

Why not ova, or byda, or madwara, I think the term used is transcendent.. 100 years from now when they decide to call the egg, super cell, or if the term 'egg' is deemed politically incorrect because of some woman's movement that is anti-chickens, mingled fluid will still stand the test of time-- my experience with your type, is, it makes no difference how precise the terms.. you'll always find fault with it, because as you are a kanoods by nature!

The Quran was/is revealed in very complicated text, fewest words with the most sophisticated of meaning.. it takes seven words to describe just two I reference you for instance to the first verse of suret an-nazi3at. Would love to see you come up with just one verse that is, that powerful or transcendent or poetic, that actually conveys some universal message that would last a a couple of centuries let alone millenniums!

1) The knowledge of foetal development was not restricted to Greeks, Greece or the Greek language, even in Galen's lifetime.
2) Check out Nemesius (4th Century) and Sergius (6th Century), both of Syria who were familiar with Galen's ideas centuries before the Prophet travelled there.
3) What does being illiterate have to do with understanding what a translator says?

If you wish to branch out on tangents, I'd suggest you take yourself out of indistinctness and bring forth their assimilations and lets have another comparison going.. this time have a focus and read on the subjects be a bit more industrious before you dive in head first !

The fact that foetuses had been studied is enough on it's own since it gives a perfectly plausible mechanism for acquiring this knowledge by means other than divine revelation.
5 centuries, translation between languages and oral transmission work against this one but again it's not required since it is the ideas, not the style of writing that are important. Power.The Prophet of IslamNot really a prerequisite as we know these ideas were already present in various places and languages.A bit like writing a blog of how you carried out an armed robbery don't you think? Why incriminate yourself so easily.Miss, this isn't my dissertation, the quoted text that matters is either from the Quran or a translation of Galen from which you quoted. The website in question merely quotes from both those sources. I wasn't aware I had copied someone's work and passed it off as my own, but if someone somewhere makes a valid point and I will do it, this is not about personal credit for myself.

I have already sufficed a reply to your descending prolegomenon in my first or second paragraph.
As for not being aware you'd copied someone else's work, well I consider that hilarious sir, if not down right dishonest, considering three pages ago, you had no thought on the description of a fetus or even fetal growth according to Galen, and here you are a few pages later, with an apparent brigand composed of yourself and a 9 year old in agreement with anatomy and embryology and word for word from a web page, embarrassingly on material that is no longer supported by 21st century science. Here you are willing to go so far to defend it when you should be a bit more self-effacing--

Further, You haven't opened one page in the Quran to speak of its contents with such authority and confidence of its purpose let alone carry it to comparability-- and lastly you haven't a clue of modern embryo as advsed you'd at least purchase a high yeild book from amazon.com would have saved you a barrage of verbose but meaningless explanations.

There is no nidus to your story, and when caught with your head in your --- you convolute and pervert your this minute point to overtly mislead..
This isn't the point, that isn't the point.. well others came up with the same thousands and thousands of years earlier! That to me is the argument of recession of someone who can't accept defeat ( what a deadly sin this pride) at least be grateful this isn't a face to face discussion, you have time to change your SN and feign knowledge still in the future.... I am not going to sit here and do your homework for you, if a topic is clearely over your head, then the honorable thing to do least of which to save your own face, would be not engage in it.. How disgraceful.

cheers

[asadxyz]

The Prophet of IslamNot really a prerequisite as we know these ideas were already present in various places and languages..

Peace
Would you please provide the proof/evidence that these idease were present in Arabic society and the channel through which the Prophet PBUH got them??

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Greetings all and :sl:

Do some Muslims mistakenly try to use scientific miracles to validate the Qur'an? Yes. Is that approach fallacious? Certainly. Are some of these claims far-fetched and baseless? Probably. Are they peddled as a form of "marketing"? Sure.

But none of that negates that there is an objective basis to many of the scientific correlations with passages of the Qur'an (some of which have been debated in detail on this forum) and while it is methodologically incorrect to advance them as the basis for Islam's validity, Muslims generally appreciate them as one facet of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an.

The alleged similarities between Qur'anic embryology and other pre-islamic sources is dealt with in the this refutation.


As for the roundness of the earth, it is interesting that there has never been the kind of controversy over it in the Islamic world that was seen in other parts of the world. Within only a few centuries after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islamic scholars recorded a unanimous consensus that the earth was round (see here and this fatwa of Shaykh Bin Baz).

By the way, it is NOT correct to say that even when magnified to our level the earth's surface is still not "spread out" or flattened but rather imperceptibly curved. The reason is that at this level of magnification, the geological features are the deterministic factor.

Regards

[جوري]

Greetings all and :sl:

Do some Muslims mistakenly try to use scientific miracles to validate the Qur'an? Yes. Is that approach fallacious? Certainly. Are some of these claims far-fetched and baseless? Probably. Are they peddled as a form of "marketing"? Sure.

But none of that negates that there is an objective basis to many of the scientific correlations with passages of the Qur'an (some of which have been debated in detail on this forum) and while it is methodologically incorrect to advance them as the basis for Islam's validity, Muslims generally appreciate them as one facet of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an.

The alleged similarities between Qur'anic embryology and other pre-islamic sources is dealt with in the this refutation.


As for the roundness of the earth, it is interesting that there has never been the kind of controversy over it in the Islamic world that was seen in other parts of the world. Within only a few centuries after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islamic scholars recorded a unanimous consensus that the earth was round (see here and this fatwa of Shaykh Bin Baz).

By the way, it is NOT correct to say that even when magnified to our level the earth's surface is still not "spread out" or flattened but rather imperceptibly curved. The reason is that at this level of magnification, the geological features are the deterministic factor.

Regards

:sl:
Thank you and Baraka Allah feek... the 'The alleged similarities between Qur'anic embryology and other pre-islamic sources' link isn't working and it is something of a personal interest.. do you have it in your cache, I believe the entire website for that link is down..


:w:

[Armand]

:sl:

Islamic scholars recorded a unanimous consensus that the earth was round (see here and this fatwa of Shaykh Bin Baz).

I've been told that Shaykh Bin Baz supported the ancient fable that the world was literally flat without any roundness and had made takfeer on all those who stood in rejection thereof. Allegedly he was criticized for this by the scholarly consensus and regarded ignorant.

Now that I see this fatwa I am lead to believe it was nothing but rumours and false gossip.

Wa salaam,

Armand

[Chuck]

:sl:
Thank you and Baraka Allah feek... the 'The alleged similarities between Qur'anic embryology and other pre-islamic sources' link isn't working and it is something of a personal interest.. do you have it in your cache, I believe the entire website for that link is down..


:w:

that url is faulty, try this one: http://www.quranicstudies.com/articl...mbryology.html

[tetsujin]

:w:

Thank you for replying to the original post, I do appreciate it.

Greetings all and :sl:

Do some Muslims mistakenly try to use scientific miracles to validate the Qur'an? Yes. Is that approach fallacious? Certainly. Are some of these claims far-fetched and baseless? Probably. Are they peddled as a form of "marketing"? Sure.

Before we go any further, I would like to know which of the claims you have found to be far-fetched and baseless.

But none of that negates that there is an objective basis to many of the scientific correlations with passages of the Qur'an (some of which have been debated in detail on this forum) and while it is methodologically incorrect to advance them as the basis for Islam's validity, Muslims generally appreciate them as one facet of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an.

I clicked on the link. Sadly that thread plunged head first into ad hominem attacks in round one. I will take a look at it later, but it does put me off.

The alleged similarities between Qur'anic embryology and other pre-islamic sources is dealt with in the this refutation.

I will take a look at it. It's a 50 page print-off, and of course will take some time to consider.

As for the roundness of the earth, it is interesting that there has never been the kind of controversy over it in the Islamic world that was seen in other parts of the world. Within only a few centuries after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islamic scholars recorded a unanimous consensus that the earth was round (see here and this fatwa of Shaykh Bin Baz).

By the way, it is NOT correct to say that even when magnified to our level the earth's surface is still not "spread out" or flattened but rather imperceptibly curved. The reason is that at this level of magnification, the geological features are the deterministic factor.

Regards

One can understand why it should not have been a problem for the Islamic world as it was for their Christian counterparts if you take a look at the times when such discoveries were made. The roundness of the earth was found centuries earlier and Muslim scholars loved the work of Claudius Ptolemaeus of Alexandria and dubbed it "Almagest" after corrupting the Greek word for his "greatest" compilation (approx. 150 AD). It was not the original work of Muslim scholars that lead to the consensus that the world was round. It was information already available.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

[Azy]

The alleged similarities between Qur'anic embryology and other pre-islamic sources is dealt with in the this refutation.

There are two main issues I have with this discussion and the 'refutation'.

Firstly, there are some generous interpretations of Quranic descriptions.

"Min Nutfah" implies that only a small number of the total cells produced by Nutfah

Nowhere does the Quran mention cells, this is conveniently implied at this point.

Linguistically, Al Maa-ad-Dafiq refers to a gushing, or self emitting fluid, or to a drop that is emitted out. In other words, it refers to a discharge that is self emitting, hence motile by itself. The use of microscope has shown that not only sperms, but the ovum also shows motility. The mature sperm is a free swimming actively motile germ cell consisting of a head and a tail. The tail provides motility to the sperm, and helps its transportation to the site of fertilisation.

Gushing fluid I can live with.
Describing the movement of sperm as 'self-emitting fluid' just doesn't work since
a) Sperm isn't a fluid, semen is, and semen is not motile.
b) Self-emitting does not mean motile. Try finding an example of these two words used interchangeably that isn't in an Islamic text... you won't, because they're not.

You have gone from 'gushing fluid' to 'motile gametes' by gradually changing the meaning of words since there is nothing of such detail in the text. Commentators routinely talk of cells, eggs and sperm when there is no such thing in the Quran, only 'fluids' in varying quantities.

"When forty two nights have passed over the Nutfah, Allah sends an angel to it, who shapes it and makes its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones. Then he says "0 Lord! Is it male or female?" And your Lord decides what He wishes and then the angel records it".

If after 42 night our Lord decides the characteristics and sex of a child is that going to make any difference to those determined at conception? Not likely.

Secondly, you're treating the earlier descriptions of development as if the authors were writing about something unknown in the way the Quran is supposedly doing. You might disagree with the wording of a description, or note the knowledge of processes is limited, but the works are based on experience. Physicians all around Europe, North Africa and the Middle East had been dissecting humans and animals for hundreds of years and documenting their findings.

It's a bit like an Amazonian native returning from trading with the outside world one day in 2008 and shortly afterwards declaring he has predicted the laws of planetary motion.

[asadxyz]

There are two main issues I have with this discussion and the 'refutation'.

Firstly, there are some generous interpretations of Quranic descriptions.
Nowhere does the Quran mention cells, this is conveniently implied at this point.
Gushing fluid I can live with.
Describing the movement of sperm as 'self-emitting fluid' just doesn't work since
a) Sperm isn't a fluid, semen is, and semen is not motile.
b) Self-emitting does not mean motile. Try finding an example of these two words used interchangeably that isn't in an Islamic text... you won't, because they're not.

You have gone from 'gushing fluid' to 'motile gametes' by gradually changing the meaning of words since there is nothing of such detail in the text. Commentators routinely talk of cells, eggs and sperm when there is no such thing in the Quran, only 'fluids' in varying quantities.
If after 42 night our Lord decides the characteristics and sex of a child is that going to make any difference to those determined at conception? Not likely.

Secondly, you're treating the earlier descriptions of development as if the authors were writing about something unknown in the way the Quran is supposedly doing. You might disagree with the wording of a description, or note the knowledge of processes is limited, but the works are based on experience. Physicians all around Europe, North Africa and the Middle East had been dissecting humans and animals for hundreds of years and documenting their findings.

It's a bit like an Amazonian native returning from trading with the outside world one day in 2008 and shortly afterwards declaring he has predicted the laws of planetary motion.

Dear AZY :
Above you said :

Originally Posted by Azy
The Prophet of IslamNot really a prerequisite as we know these ideas were already present in various places and languages..

I asked you question :

Peace
Would you please provide the proof/evidence that these idease were present in Arabic society and the channel through which the Prophet PBUH got them??

But you intentionally avoided this question and ran away showing a typical attitude of atheists when they become speechless.

Now you say :

Describing the movement of sperm as 'self-emitting fluid' just doesn't work since
a) Sperm isn't a fluid, semen is, and semen is not motile.
b) Self-emitting does not mean motile. Try finding an example of these two words used interchangeably that isn't in an Islamic text... you won't, because they're not.

Can you show me anywhere that strictly speaking (as you are insisting) it is the sperm which is motile?
Is this not flagella of the sperms which are motile ?
Or is it axoneme of the flagella which is motile ?
Or it is the microtubules of the axomeme which are motile ?
or it is the Dyneine motor protein which is motile ?
Or it the ATPs which provide energy for motion are actual moving factor ?
Where do you stand ??
Try to have some rational approach also .Please answer these two questions.
Thanks

[tetsujin]

I asked you question :

Would you please provide the proof/evidence that these idease were present in Arabic society and the channel through which the Prophet PBUH got them??

But you intentionally avoided this question and ran away showing a typical attitude of atheists when they become speechless.

If I may step in for a moment. I'll take up the challenge, but I need you to clarify your request.

All things considered, the claim is that:

1) the prophet Muhammad was illiterate, correct?

2) the prophet Muhammad was a successful tradesman, correct?

3) the prophet Muhammad would travel in and around arabia by profession, correct?

If you answered yes:

Since he could not read or write, would you like us to provide a detailed list of all the people the prophet spoke with and how the information was passed from person to person?

And

Since there will be very little in the ways of his written records of who he spoke with and who he met, if we are able to provide a plausible link to other people. What proof could we submit for you that would conclusively tell you that the prophet spoke to those people?

If you could clarify that for me/us, i will appreciate it.

As for the claim that the prophet Muhammad was illiterate, I haven't seen any proof of that. I hope someone can provide it for me.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

[asadxyz]

If I may step in for a moment. I'll take up the challenge, but I need you to clarify your request.

All things considered, the claim is that:

1) the prophet Muhammad was illiterate, correct?

2) the prophet Muhammad was a successful tradesman, correct?

3) the prophet Muhammad would travel in and around arabia by profession, correct?

If you answered yes:

Since he could not read or write, would you like us to provide a detailed list of all the people the prophet spoke with and how the information was passed from person to person?

And

Since there will be very little in the ways of his written records of who he spoke with and who he met, if we are able to provide a plausible link to other people. What proof could we submit for you that would conclusively tell you that the prophet spoke to those people?

If you could clarify that for me/us, i will appreciate it.

As for the claim that the prophet Muhammad was illiterate, I haven't seen any proof of that. I hope someone can provide it for me.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

Instead of beating about the bush and posing counter questions (A well know atheist strategy) provid the proof /evidence of in answering my question.

[tetsujin]

Instead of beating about the bush and posing counter questions (A well know atheist strategy) provid the proof /evidence of in answering my question.

I'm not beating around the bush, I asked you what kind of proof you would like because your question wasn't clear.

I hope you read my post.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

[asadxyz]

I'm not beating around the bush, I asked you what kind of proof you would like because your question wasn't clear.

I hope you read my post.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

The question was very clear .
You provide the proof of
1:that Galen's teaching was prevalent in The Arabic area (Mecca) during the era of Prophet Muhammad PBUH
2:Prophet Muhammad PBUH had access to these teachings and what was the source of it.Please name the "teacher" who taught him this science.
3:Give me any evidence where the Mushriks of Mecca who were deadly against him and could never spare him if they had even a little doubt that he was getting all this stuff from any teacher,objected him and blamed him of plagiarism.They called him as "crazy" Majnoon" ,bewitched person " Poet" a magician " but none of them ever blamed him of this plagiarism.

I am waiting for proof /evidence from you .

[Azy]

But you intentionally avoided this question and ran away showing a typical attitude of atheists when they become speechless.

I was waiting for this post. The reason I didn't answer you straight away is that an administrator posted here before I returned to the forum and saw your post. I thought it best to respond to that post in order that they might see sufficient cause to keep this thread open, as I feel there are many questions which are unanswered and many previous answers which merit further examination.

Can you show me anywhere that strictly speaking (as you are insisting) it is the sperm which is motile?
Is this not flagella of the sperms which are motile ?....

It is generally accepted in medical circles to talk of motile sperm.
See here, here, here, here, here, here, here etc.
It's a bit like saying "people don't run, it is their legs that run, no their muscle fibres that run" and so on.
You seem to have nicely avoided addressing the fact that whether you say the sperm is motile or the dyneine motor protein, it is not the fluid i.e. semen, and that no mention is ever made of sperm.

You provide the proof of
1:that Galen's teaching was prevalent in The Arabic area (Mecca) during the era of Prophet Muhammad PBUH

The problem with this and the following questions is that you're asking me to defend a claim I never made.
Noone here claims that the Arabs of Mecca had any such knowledge, go back and read my posts again. The medical works of the Greeks were known to the people of Syria, where the Prophet travelled on business.

[asadxyz]

[QUOTE=

Noone here claims that the Arabs of Mecca had any such knowledge, go back and read my posts again. The medical works of the Greeks were known to the people of Syria, where the Prophet travelled on business.[/QUOTE]

Ok provide the evidence that
1:Syrian people knew this science during that period
2:Travelling of the Holy Prophet to Syria except in childhood or may be occasional business trips.
3:About the education of the Holy Prophet which he Got from syria ,name of the insititute ,name of the teacher ,the subjects he studied over there.The proof for the period he spend for this education.
Please do not run away like typical atheists.

[Azy]

Ok provide the evidence that
1:Syrian people knew this science during that period

I already mentioned that Nemesius and Sergius of Syria used Galen's work as a basis for their own.

2:Travelling of the Holy Prophet to Syria except in childhood or may be occasional business trips.

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong but are you saying 'except on occasional business trips', as if there were some reason he could not talk to people and receive information when he is there on business?

3:About the education of the Holy Prophet which he Got from syria ,name of the insititute ,name of the teacher ,the subjects he studied over there.The proof for the period he spend for this education.
Please do not run away like typical atheists.

Why would the prophet need to enrol in a school to learn a few paragraphs of knowledge that probably any doctor in the land was familiar with? The verses concerned are about (in english) 70-80 words in total.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong but are you saying 'except on occasional business trips', as if there were some reason he could not talk to people and receive information when he is there on business?

That link isn't really proof though. A possibility (or rather an assumption) but nothing more. Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Muhammad [saw] learnt any science from syria (neither thiest or aethiest have found anything with regards to this) I think we can establish that he did not learn any science from syria.

[Abdul Fattah]

From the supposed embryology references to the water cycle, everything stated seems to have been discovered already, in so far as the Qu'ran makes the references, by philosophers and naturalists from previous centuries.

I have to strongly disagree with you on that one for the following reasons.

1. Can you show me that the following concepts/facts where known to mankind prior to the revelation of the Qur'an?
1.1. Microscopic form of embryo's
1.2. The existence of different waves under the surface
1.3. The fraction (and partial reflection) of light due to those waves
1.4. The constant expansion of the universe
1.5. The underground structure of Mountains
1.6. the effect mountains have on earthquakes
(there are more, but those 'll do to start)

2. If you can show that some of these things were known somewhere in the history, can you show that Muhammed (peace be upon him) had access to that information?

Is it an acceptance of science as a means to validate a holy book? If so, why not accept all scientific understandings of this day, since the process by which human knowledge and societies progress in any scientific field is that same as the one that confirmed your beliefs.

I do accept all scientific understandings of this day! I assume you're referring to evolution here? Well evolution is a name that can refer to many theories, some of them scientific, some of them unscientific. But it seems best not to go off topic about that here. You can see my arguments about that in one of the evolution threads in the comparative religion forum, or just browse the evolution page of my website which is linked in my signature.

[tetsujin]

:sl:

That link isn't really proof though. A possibility (or rather an assumption) but nothing more. Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Muhammad [saw] learnt any science from syria (neither thiest or aethiest have found anything with regards to this) I think we can establish that he did not learn any science from syria.

The argument just doesn't follow. If you lack evidence for something, you cannot make a positive claim on that basis.

A correct argument would be to say "we do not know whether or not the prophet learned anything from syria, so we cannot conclude anything" That is not the basis for saying he definitely did not learn anything, or that he dedfinitely did.

I'm not nitpicking. If we're going to have a debate it must be logical.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

[aamirsaab]

The argument just doesn't follow. If you lack evidence for something, you cannot make a positive claim on that basis.

A correct argument would be to say "we do not know whether or not the prophet learned anything from syria, so we cannot conclude anything" That is not the basis for saying he definitely did not learn anything, or that he dedfinitely did.

I'm not nitpicking. If we're going to have a debate it must be logical.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

Fair point. But you really cannot use that alleged syria link to back up any arguments along the lines of muhammad obviously learnt some science from syria - as I said: noone has given any proof (actual hardcore proof) that muhammad[saw] had learnt any science from syria or that he plagiarised from any other texts (certain folk try the oh he copied the bible/tora/veda etc but not one has actually provided any evidence). At most it is an assumption.

[tetsujin]

2. If you can show that some of these things were known somewhere in the history, can you show that Muhammed (peace be upon him) had access to that information?

I'm just going to cut to the chase. If the claim is that the prophet was illiterate, then the prophet himself would not have written down these accounts. Proof would boil down to the probability of such information being transmitted to him during his daily life as a tradesman, and that's not proof.

So even if that information was presented to you or him, we wouldn't know if he understood it.

This is why I did not claim that the Quran was plagiarized. I simply asked why you would claim that it was divine revelation when no one else who knew at that time made such a claim.

I suggest you reread my initial post.

It's back to work for me.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

[asadxyz]

I already mentioned that Nemesius and Sergius of Syria used Galen's work as a basis for their own.

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong but are you saying 'except on occasional business trips', as if there were some reason he could not talk to people and receive information when he is there on business?
Why would the prophet need to enrol in a school to learn a few paragraphs of knowledge that probably any doctor in the land was familiar with? The verses concerned are about (in english) 70-80 words in total.

This is how you are running away to provide the proof.The Holy Prophet might have only one or two visits.But other meccans had frequent visits for business.It means
1:Other people could learn these few words (according to you).How many of them learnt this knowledge from Syria
2:There were Kaafir and against the Holy Prophet PBUH.Did any one of them object and blamed the prophet for plagiarism ? If not why ? If yes provid the proof
Note : You are persistantly working on assumptions as the atheists do.

[جوري]

This is why I did not claim that the Quran was plagiarized. I simply asked why you would claim that it was divine revelation when no one else who knew at that time made such a claim.



Faysal

If no one else at the time accepted the claim of its divinity, how do you explain the spread of Islam at least locally? why wasn't it deemed simply another poetry book? there was the prophet and a handful of Muslims many of whom were tortured to death.. have you read at least about his trip through ta'ef ? and then in a matter of years all of Arabia became Muslim.. I am beginning to think you haven't a clue at all of early Islamic history, yet claim to have apostated?
People can always distinguish the style of the prophet's writing (hadiths) and that of the Quran.. No two suras read the same.. anyone can agree, that folks who write books/poetry, stick with one genre and have a particular style.. we certainly see the prophet' style in the hadiths.. but we see no one's style in the Quran.. it reads very differently... once you have found us the author of the Quran can we have the discussion of its divinity or lack thereof.. the book is its own testament!


cheers

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Fair point. But you really cannot use that alleged syria link to back up any arguments along the lines of muhammad obviously learnt some science from syria - as I said: noone has given any proof (actual hardcore proof) that muhammad[saw] had learnt any science from syria or that he plagiarised from any other texts (certain folk try the oh he copied the bible/tora/veda etc but not one has actually provided any evidence). At most it is an assumption.

I think the thrust of the argument is perhaps slightly different from the way you are understanding it.

The claim that the Prophet (pbuh) may have learned about scientific information in Syria is not intended as a definitive statement, simply a possibility.

Remember, this argument is used to oppose the argument that says "Amazing scientific information is contained in the Qur'an; there is no way an illiterate man of that time could know about it; it must have been a divine revelation; there is no other possible explanation." Well, there is another possible explanation, and that is that he found out about it from a person alive in his time.

We don't know the details of the case, but we don't really need to - all the available evidence suggests that it was at least possible, and that in itself is all that is needed to reject one big plank of the scientific miracles argument in its "pre-cognition" form.

Peace

[asadxyz]

Greetings,


I think the thrust of the argument is perhaps slightly different from the way you are understanding it.

The claim that the Prophet (pbuh) may have learned about scientific information in Syria is not intended as a definitive statement, simply a possibility.

Remember, this argument is used to oppose the argument that says "Amazing scientific information is contained in the Qur'an; there is no way an illiterate man of that time could know about it; it must have been a divine revelation; there is no other possible explanation." Well, there is another possible explanation, and that is that he found out about it from a person alive in his time.

We don't know the details of the case, but we don't really need to - all the available evidence suggests that it was at least possible, and that in itself is all that is needed to reject one big plank of the scientific miracles argument in its "pre-cognition" form.

Peace

Though the Holy Quran is not a book of science but a book of guidance.If during its guidance if it has to give some scientific facts ,those are valid and correct scietifically.
The Question is how did the Holy Prophet PBUH was able to give them in this miraculous book .There are only two possibilities
1:The scientific facts were well know at that time and prophet PBUH got them through regular education from most advanced academic insititute
2:These facts were not know at that time but Holy Prophet PBUH got them directly through divine revelation.
Either you prove the clause one above or accept the clause two that it is Divine revelation.
But ------------------- Atheist always depend and rely only and only upon assumptions ,assumption ,assumptions ,assumption ,nothing else because it is something 'in-built " problem.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

....

We don't know the details of the case, but we don't really need to - all the available evidence suggests that it was at least possible, and that in itself is all that is needed to reject one big plank of the scientific miracles argument in its "pre-cognition" form.

Peace

Hmm I guess so. I still haven't seen any evidence to show that any human being had an influence on the Quran (by this I mean plagiarism) though. Neither have I seen any evidence (from a muslim or non-muslim for that matter) that Muhammad[pbuh] was told these scientific facts by a human being - I've heard plenty of allegations but no real proof

[Trumble]

There are only two possibilities
1:The scientific facts were well know at that time and prophet PBUH got them through regular education from most advanced academic insititute
2:These facts were not know at that time but Holy Prophet PBUH got them directly through divine revelation.
Either you prove the clause one above or accept the clause two that it is Divine revelation.

Firstly you are making one huge assumption yourself, which is that these so-called 'scientific facts' are anything of the sort. To me it seems obvious most are nothing but a mixture of liberal (and often wildly out-of-context) 'interpretation' and wishful thinking. That includes everything on Abdul Fattah's list except the embryology. I've seen all the 'refutations' and all are based on exactly the same flexibility in 'interpretation' as the original claims.

Secondly, with those that are left no "advanced academic institute" would have been necessary. Much, if not exactly common knowledge, would hardly have been esoteric.

Thirdly, your conclusion wouldn't follow even if those things were not true (and I certainly don't expect you to accept they are!) It's just "God of the gaps" again.

I still haven't seen any evidence to show that any human being had an influence on the Quran (by this I mean plagiarism) though. Neither have I seen any evidence (from a muslim or non-muslim for that matter) that Muhammad[pbuh] was told these scientific facts by a human being - I've heard plenty of allegations but no real proof

If there was any 'real proof' Islam would be a historical curiosity, not a living religion. Likewise, if there were any 'real proof' the Qur'an is a Divine revelation then atheism would be a historical curiosity! However, czgibson is right; in this case 'possibility' is sufficient to make the point. But not to settle the case, of course.

[asadxyz]

Firstly you are making one huge assumption yourself, which is that these so-called 'scientific facts' are anything of the sort. To me it seems obvious most are nothing but a mixture of liberal (and often wildly out-of-context) 'interpretation' and wishful thinking. That includes everything on Abdul Fattah's list except the embryology. I've seen all the 'refutations' and all are based on exactly the same flexibility in 'interpretation' as the original claims.

Secondly, with those that are left no "advanced academic institute" would have been necessary. Much, if not exactly common knowledge, would hardly have been esoteric.

Thirdly, your conclusion wouldn't follow even if those things were not true (and I certainly don't expect you to accept they are!) It's just "God of the gaps" again.




If there was any 'real proof' Islam would be a historical curiosity, not a living religion. Likewise, if there were any 'real proof' the Qur'an is a Divine revelation then atheism would be a historical curiosity! However, czgibson is right; in this case 'possibility' is sufficient to make the point. But not to settle the case, of course.

It is not your fault.This is some in built problem in all who think like you.

[tetsujin]

If no one else at the time accepted the claim of its divinity, how do you explain the spread of Islam at least locally?
etc....


Cheers

Please, allow me to rephrase the question. If Galen, Ptolemy, Democritus, and most (if not all) of the people who made scientific discoveries prior to the prophet Muhammad did not claim to have had divine revelation, then what would be so special about having the same information passed down to one man who possibly had contact with people who knew about the aforementioned scientific discoveries.

You do yourself no favor in arguing that the persecution of the early Muslims is a point which proves the divinity of the Qur'an. Almost every single religion throughout history has been seen a a revolutionary movement in the society. Those already in power have been keen to protect their own comfortable positions, and usually had their own beliefs with claimed some other divine revelation or divine favors which required sacrifices and proselytizing.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

[جوري]

Please, allow me to rephrase the question. If Galen, Ptolemy, Democritus, and most (if not all) of the people who made scientific discoveries prior to the prophet Muhammad did not claim to have had divine revelation, then what would be so special about having the same information passed down to one man who possibly had contact with people who knew about the aforementioned scientific discoveries.

You re-phrasing the question doesn't make a case for your thread, It makes for indolent redundancy, aside from the apparent need to beat a dead horse or go around in circles....perhaps I should make this as a color by number, you might see the whole picture?
1- The Quran isn't a book about scientific discoveries, it is a book of social and moral guidance ( an admonition) to man-kind.. should they choose to walk the straight path!

2-The fact that there are scientific discoveries in the Quran is an added bonus to those, so that all doubt is removed from their heart!

3-It is indeed wonderful that you have acquainted yourself with Greek philosophers and holy men alike.. still doesn't change a few known facts..

a- the west claims to have had its roots in Greek civilization, I ask you AGAIN, where was Ptolemy et al. when Roger the II crushed Al-Idrisi's globe or when Europe was steeped in the superstition of the dark ages? it phases me as to why you deliberately ignore those little factoids history has left us with... it wasn't lost to the Muslims, why was it lost to its supposed place of conception?


b- Muslims may or may not have taken Greek work, but not only did they introduce it to the ignorant west, but improvised many of the incorrect notions previousely thought especially in the field of mathematics, I reference you of course to the article by Dr. George Saliba a few pages ago


4- Others didn't claim to have divine revelation, simply because there was nothing divine about their revelations. I don't pick an article in the NEJM and say wow, this is inviting me to walk the stright path. For one to make such an inference to begin with, one must compare pieces of literature so as to not be constantly speaking out of their ***

You do yourself no favor in arguing that the persecution of the early Muslims is a point which proves the divinity of the Qur'an. Almost every single religion throughout history has been seen a a revolutionary movement in the society. Those already in power have been keen to protect their own comfortable positions, and usually had their own beliefs with claimed some other divine revelation or divine favors which required sacrifices and proselytizing.

All the best wishes,

Neither the sacrifices of early Muslims, Nor the plight of the prophet, is why I consider the Quran divine in source... There are Multiple reasons, at the very fulcrum of it, the language itself which hasn't been met on any stratum.

The one thing I have determined from this futile correspondence with your person, is that you are not at all whom you claim to be.. and it is such a shame that I had given you the benefit of the doubt for so long.. least you can do is offer some intellectual deference...'faysal'


It appears we have reached a cul de sac .. I prefer to part ways with folks whose company doesn't suit me on any strata..

best of luck to you

cheers

[tetsujin]

It appears we have reached a cul de sac .. I prefer to part ways with folks whose company doesn't suit me on any strata..

best of luck to you

I agree. Best of luck to you as well, since I've already covered all of those points I will move on.

Thank you for your participation.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Though the Holy Quran is not a book of science but a book of guidance.If during its guidance if it has to give some scientific facts ,those are valid and correct scietifically.
The Question is how did the Holy Prophet PBUH was able to give them in this miraculous book .There are only two possibilities
1:The scientific facts were well know at that time and prophet PBUH got them through regular education from most advanced academic insititute
2:These facts were not know at that time but Holy Prophet PBUH got them directly through divine revelation.
Either you prove the clause one above or accept the clause two that it is Divine revelation.
But ------------------- Atheist always depend and rely only and only upon assumptions ,assumption ,assumptions ,assumption ,nothing else because it is something 'in-built " problem.

Total misunderstanding of the argument. Never mind - it happens all the time.

Peace

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Faysal

So even if that information was presented to you or him, we wouldn't know if he understood it. This is why I did not claim that the Quran was plagiarized.

Well things are bit more complex then how you suggest.
It's more then just a matter of did he understand it. The prophet (peace be upon him) didn't travel all over the world. A good start would be if you showed that he traveled to a region were this was known in the first place. I'm not a historian, and the Islamic tradition also speaks scarsly of what happened before the start of the revelation. So I genuinely wouldn't know whether or not these trips during his life as a merchant included destinations like Egypt or the Roman empire. But I grant that it is indeed beside the question since your claim was not that it was plagiarized. Nevertheless I still found it important enough to mention. My apologies for venturing off-topic ^_^

I simply asked why you would claim that it was divine revelation when no one else who knew at that time made such a claim.

Well, you completely ignored the first question I asked. Can you show that this information was known to mankind uberhaut! Can you show that these specific details I listed in my previous posts were indeed known to other people besides the Prophet (Peace be upon him). My claim is that these details (especially the ones I picked out) were not known at all in any place. In fact I will take this claim even further, some of the details were so specific that it appears impossible for someone to find out without advanced knowledge of science as well as very specific tools to study the environment. So it's not just so much that I argue that nobody else knew, but also that there was no plausible way for people to discover it back then in the first place.

Secondly, lets say purely for the sake of argument, that you can show me that this knowledge was indeed already know by other people. Or lets just say you can illustrate how some of these specific details could have been discovered with primitive equipment and investigation, or perhaps merely by philosophical analysis. Even if you could show me that, then you still have to acknowledge that there's a huge difference between somebody who lives near an ocean and discovers some specific characteristics of the sea on one hand, and somebody who lives in the middle of the dessert and makes a discovery about very specific characteristics of the sea.

In other words, to put a long story in short, the Prophet (peace be upon him) had no plausible way of knowing these details other than trough revelation.

Scrolling back, I see that you have already made some claims about the works of Galen and Nemesius among others. So let my clarify the details so it becomes clear these early scientists did not cover this:
1. Microscopic form of embryo's (first few days/weeks, till to small to notice with naked eye)
2. The existence of different waves under the surface (not just the existence of undercurrent, but the knowledge that there is a clearcut division between layers of sea that acts similar to surface waves).
3. The correlation between those waves and the fraction and partial reflection of light
4. The constant expansion of the universe (As opposed to the idea of a steady-state-universe)
5. The underground structure of Mountains (I'm talking formations of Mountains up to kilometers deep, far further then their height above surface)
6. The effect mountains have on earthquakes (How mountains react to plate tectonic movement)

[asadxyz]

Greetings,


Total misunderstanding of the argument. Never mind - it happens all the time.

Peace

No misunderstanding.None of you could provide any evidence/proof that the Holy Prophet got science education from Syrian institutes or name of his teachers.Only Theories ,assumptions ,Nothing else {A classical modus operandi of atheists} I wish anyone of you could use his brain.

[Trumble]

No misunderstanding.None of you could provide any evidence/proof that the Holy Prophet got science education from Syrian institutes or name of his teachers.Only Theories ,assumptions ,Nothing else {A classical modus operandi of atheists} I wish anyone of you could use his brain.

I'm afraid all you've done is proven his point.

For the purposes of the argument it is sufficient to establish that the possibility cannot be ruled out. To do that 'proof' is not necessary and a theory relying on plausible assumptions is perfectly adequate. To take another historical example to illustrate, it is quite possible that Napoleon ate Chicken Marengo for dinner on 13 June 1806. But I can neither 'prove' it nor name the cook.

For the atheist it suffices to show that the possibility being discussed is more likely than divine revalation. That is very easy to do for atheists, and of course impossible for muslims which is why the whole argument is pretty futile. :)

[asadxyz]

I'm afraid all you've done is proven his point.

For the purposes of the argument it is sufficient to establish that the possibility cannot be ruled out. To do that 'proof' is not necessary and a theory relying on plausible assumptions is perfectly adequate. To take another historical example to illustrate, it is quite possible that Napoleon ate Chicken Marengo for dinner on 13 June 1806. But I can neither 'prove' it nor name the cook.

For the atheist it suffices to show that the possibility being discussed is more likely than divine revalation. That is very easy to do for atheists, and of course impossible for muslims which is why the whole argument is pretty futile. :)

Suppositions Or possibilities Or theories without concrete proof or evidence = Atheism

Try to be scientific
Best of luck

[Azy]

'scuse me for injecting myself into the thread again.

It's more then just a matter of did he understand it. The prophet (peace be upon him) didn't travel all over the world. A good start would be if you showed that he traveled to a region were this was known in the first place.

There are many biographies/histories of the Prophet's life that refer to his journey to Syria as a youth and again at the request of Khadija. I believe it is from Khatib al-Waqidi but I don't read arabic so you'd have to check that one.

Scrolling back, I see that you have already made some claims about the works of Galen and Nemesius among others. So let my clarify the details so it becomes clear these early scientists did not cover this:
1. Microscopic form of embryo's (first few days/weeks, till to small to notice with naked eye)

Mingled fluids, clot, lump. People seem keen to push this point but why has noone said anything about God waiting 42 days to determine the sex and characteristics of the child?

2. The existence of different waves under the surface (not just the existence of undercurrent, but the knowledge that there is a clearcut division between layers of sea that acts similar to surface waves).

24:40 Or [else, their deeds are] [60] like the depths of darkness upon an abysmal sea, made yet more dark by wave billowing over wave, with [black] clouds above it all: depths of darkness, layer upon layer, [61] [so that] when one holds up his hand, he can hardly see it: for he to whom God gives no light, no light whatever has he!

The scene seems to be illustrating extreme darkness by example of a dark and stormy sea, wave crashing over wave, rather than the ocean separated into vertical layers.

3. The correlation between those waves and the fraction and partial reflection of light

Not really sure what you're referring to, maybe you could slip in a verse to clarify?

If you're saying what I think you are, why would lower layers of water be relevant when refraction and partial reflection occur at the air/water interface?

4. The constant expansion of the universe (As opposed to the idea of a steady-state-universe)

"Thus said God, Jehovah, preparing The heavens, and stretching them out..." Isaiah 42:5

5. The underground structure of Mountains (I'm talking formations of Mountains up to kilometers deep, far further then their height above surface)
6. The effect mountains have on earthquakes (How mountains react to plate tectonic movement)

Quran 13:3 And it is He who has spread the earth wide and placed on it firm mountains and running waters.
Quran 78:6-7 Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?

Earth spread out and pegged down? How did the scientists miss that one?
Comparing mountains to pegs is possibly the biggest stretch I have seen so far, mountains are formed when tectonic plates collide and crumple or one rides over the other. If the Quran could be assumed to be speaking of the internal structure of mountains, "peg" tells us nothing about that, not to mention that the structure of one mountain can be vastly different from that of another.

Quran 16:15 And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you.

Mountains form where tectonic plates meet and move against each other, also causing earthquakes. We also know that mountains were not 'set' here and are not fixed, but are continuously changing. There was a time when the current ones did not exist and new ones will be created in the future.

None of you could provide any evidence/proof that the Holy Prophet got science education from Syrian institutes or name of his teachers.

All the millions of muslims who have memorised and later recited those passages had to do so at an institute?

Suppositions Or possibilities Or theories without concrete proof or evidence = Atheism

The whole of your initial claim i.e. Islam is true and is divine revelation is without concrete proof or evidence.

[Trumble]

If you're saying what I think you are, why would lower layers of water be relevant when refraction and partial reflection occur at the air/water interface?

Both occur at the interface of two water layers of different density, as well as where air meets water. Rather academic, though, as (IMVHO) the so-called 'correlation' is a classic piece of Qur'anic sciento-tosh. Folks can make their own minds up.

"Or (the Unbelievers' state) Is like the depths of darkness In a vast deep ocean, Overwhelmed with billow Topped by billow, Topped by (dark) clouds: Depths of darkness, one Above another: if a man Stretches out his hand, He can hardly see it! For any to whom ALLAH Giveth not light, There is no light!"
[21:40]

....

1. A light ray is composed of seven colours. These seven colours are Violet, Indigo, Blue. Green, Yellow, Orange and Red(VIBGYOR). The light ray undergoes refraction when it hits water. The upper 10 to 15 metres of water absorb the red colour. Therefore if a diver is 25 metres under water and gets wounded, he would not be able to see the red colour of his blood, because the red colour does not reach this depth. Similarly orange rays are absorbed at 30 to 50 metres, yellow at 50 to 100 metres, green at 100 to 200 metres, and finally, blue beyond 200 metres and violet and indigo above 200 metres. Due to successive disapperance of colour, one layer after another, the ocean progressively becomes darker, i.e. darkness takes place in layers of light. Below a depth of 1000 metres there is complete darkness.{Oceans, Elder and Pernetta, p.27}

source

[asadxyz]

'scuse me for injecting myself into the thread again.There are many biographies/histories of the Prophet's life that refer to his journey to Syria as a youth and again at the request of Khadija. I believe it is from Khatib al-Waqidi but I don't read arabic so you'd have to check that one.
Mingled fluids, clot, lump. People seem keen to push this point but why has noone said anything about God waiting 42 days to determine the sex and characteristics of the child?




24:40 Or [else, their deeds are] [60] like the depths of darkness upon an abysmal sea, made yet more dark by wave billowing over wave, with [black] clouds above it all: depths of darkness, layer upon layer, [61] [so that] when one holds up his hand, he can hardly see it: for he to whom God gives no light, no light whatever has he!

The scene seems to be illustrating extreme darkness by example of a dark and stormy sea, wave crashing over wave, rather than the ocean separated into vertical layers.

Not really sure what you're referring to, maybe you could slip in a verse to clarify?

If you're saying what I think you are, why would lower layers of water be relevant when refraction and partial reflection occur at the air/water interface?
"Thus said God, Jehovah, preparing The heavens, and stretching them out..." Isaiah 42:5

Quran 13:3 And it is He who has spread the earth wide and placed on it firm mountains and running waters.
Quran 78:6-7 Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?

Earth spread out and pegged down? How did the scientists miss that one?
Comparing mountains to pegs is possibly the biggest stretch I have seen so far, mountains are formed when tectonic plates collide and crumple or one rides over the other. If the Quran could be assumed to be speaking of the internal structure of mountains, "peg" tells us nothing about that, not to mention that the structure of one mountain can be vastly different from that of another.

Quran 16:15 And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you.

Mountains form where tectonic plates meet and move against each other, also causing earthquakes. We also know that mountains were not 'set' here and are not fixed, but are continuously changing. There was a time when the current ones did not exist and new ones will be created in the future.

All the millions of muslims who have memorised and later recited those passages had to do so at an institute?
The whole of your initial claim i.e. Islam is true and is divine revelation is without concrete proof or evidence.

Proof of Divine revelation :
1:There are millions of Huffaaz of the Holy Quran who recite the Holy Quran every year.I challenge you to bring only 1000 such person who can recite the any book of the size of the Holy Quran with such accuracy .
2:It is the Quran who told us that Procreation without union of male and female gamete is possible which Science is revealing today.
We do not believe in 'suppositions' theories ' assumptions' because we use our brains.

[Trumble]

Proof of Divine revelation :

1:There are millions of Huffaaz of the Holy Quran who recite the Holy Quran every year.I challenge you to bring only 1000 such person who can recite the any book of the size of the Holy Quran with such accuracy.

'Proof'? Only of some very impressive feats of memory. But the ancient Indian classics were memorised for centuries (and indeed still are) and are MUCH, MUCH longer than the Qur'an. Many actors could reel off Shakespeare of a similar word count to the Qur'an. It's all about motive, or necessity, to learn, not divine origin.

2:It is the Quran who told us that Procreation without union of male and female gamete is possible which Science is revealing today.

'Proof' only of willingness to throw reason to the wind when there is a need to believe. The Qur'an says nothing about "male and female gametes". Or at least not without suitable 'interpretation' and a large dollop of wishful thinking it doesn't.

And so on, and so on. There is no 'proof', or anything vaguely resembling it. It is, always has been and always will be a faith thing. I just don't see the problem with admitting the fact.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi azy

'scuse me for injecting myself into the thread again.

Come in, take a seat, fancy a cup of coffee? ^_^

There are many biographies/histories of the Prophet's life that refer to his journey to Syria as a youth and again at the request of Khadija. I believe it is from Khatib al-Waqidi but I don't read arabic so you'd have to check that one.

That's only one part of the assignment, now show that they indeed had this knowledge in syria.

Mingled fluids, clot, lump. People seem keen to push this point but why has noone said anything about God waiting 42 days to determine the sex and characteristics of the child?

Could you clarify your point?

The scene seems to be illustrating extreme darkness by example of a dark and stormy sea, wave crashing over wave, rather than the ocean separated into vertical layers.

I've put three most accepted English translations to remove doubt:
YUSUFALI: Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!
PICKTHAL: Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light.
SHAKIR: Or like utter darkness in the deep sea: there covers it a wave above which is another wave, above which is a cloud, (layers of) utter darkness one above another; when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it; and to whomsoever Allah does not give light, he has no light.

Also I don't know if you know this, but the only place where waves "crash over" each other is at a few meters from the cost. At full sea waves don't crash in to each other but instead follow up. Also you're adding interpretation, you're saying that the reference to darkness, is the stormy weather, whereas the verse says quite clearly that the different waves them self cause darkness rather then "symbolically refer to it". It's kind of silly really, to infer that muslims interpret the verse in the wrong way because they want the miracle to be true. If you look at it, your the only one who's making interpretations. The muslim explanation of the verse is a literal and not an interpretative explanation.

Not really sure what you're referring to, maybe you could slip in a verse to clarify?
If you're saying what I think you are, why would lower layers of water be relevant when refraction and partial reflection occur at the air/water interface?

See the thing is, each wave has it's own density, salinity, and temperature. So these different waves act like different mediums, between the waves is a surface, and light reflects partially at each wave it passes. In other words, each wave refracts light, and by the process a small part of light is reflected untill eventually you'll have complete darkness. That is the reason the bottom of the sea is dark sea, as the verse suggested.

"Thus said God, Jehovah, preparing The heavens, and stretching them out..." Isaiah 42:5

Close, but not quite the same. This verse refers to methodology. the heavens were stretched out. Doesn't necessarily mean they are constantly expanded. There's definitely no emphasis on that. The Qur'an states quite clear "constantly" expanding them.

Earth spread out and pegged down? How did the scientists miss that one? Comparing mountains to pegs is possibly the biggest stretch I have seen so far,

Scientists haven't missed this at all, but apearently you have missed science class :)
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g112/mtn_roots.html

Mountains form where tectonic plates meet and move against each other, also causing earthquakes.

Yes I know that, and once a mountain is created it prevents further earthquakes. You're mixing up method of creation with function.

We also know that mountains were not 'set' here and are not fixed, but are continuously changing. There was a time when the current ones did not exist and new ones will be created in the future.

You're hung up on the word set. I think it's unfair. What other verb should God have used to describe the process of formation in an old language.

[asadxyz]

'Proof'? Only of some very impressive feats of memory. But the ancient Indian classics were memorised for centuries (and indeed still are) and are MUCH, MUCH longer than the Qur'an. Many actors could reel off Shakespeare of a similar word count to the Qur'an. It's all about motive, or necessity, to learn, not divine origin.



'Proof' only of willingness to throw reason to the wind when there is a need to believe. The Qur'an says nothing about "male and female gametes". Or at least not without suitable 'interpretation' and a large dollop of wishful thinking it doesn't.

And so on, and so on. There is no 'proof', or anything vaguely resembling it. It is, always has been and always will be a faith thing. I just don't see the problem with admitting the fact.

I have challenged you bring just 1000 persons who could recite any book of the size of the Holy Quran (it is not the question of a few persons who memorize for the time beings) with such accuracy.Produce them on any televison ,I assure you I will leave Islam.OPEN CHALLENGE OPEN CHALLENGE ,OPEN CHALLENGE .
2:Quran Declared Procreation of Jesus christ without Father 1500 years ago.
OPEN CHALLENGE ,OPEN CHALLEGE ,OPEN CHALLEGE

[Trumble]

I have challenged you bring just 1000 persons who could recite any book of the size of the Holy Quran (it is not the question of a few persons who memorize for the time beings) with such accuracy.Produce them on any televison ,I assure you I will leave Islam.OPEN CHALLENGE OPEN CHALLENGE ,OPEN CHALLENGE .

I see. So you want me to go out, find a 1,000 people (out of six billion or so), gather them together and put them all on a TV show for the sole purpose of persuading you to leave Islam? Exactly what have you been smoking? :D

2:Quran Declared Procreation of Jesus christ without Father 1500 years ago.OPEN CHALLENGE ,OPEN CHALLEGE ,OPEN CHALLEGE

Fascinating. Now show me where it mentions male and female gametes and what that has to do with 'modern science'. That is supposed to be 'proof'?!

[Trumble]

Sorry, duplicate post.

[asadxyz]

I see. So you want me to go out, find a 1,000 people (out of six billion or so), gather them together and put them all on a TV show for the sole purpose of persuading you to leave Islam? Exactly what have you been smoking? :D



Fascinating. Now show me where it mentions male and female gametes and what that has to do with 'modern science'. That is supposed to be 'proof' of divine origin?!

If you cannot find 1000 such persons ,I can show you 5000 Huffaz ,and you embrace Islam ,Right ??? Do you accept my offer?2:Quran has mentioned that Jesus christ was born without father.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

If you cannot find 1000 such persons ,I can show you 5000 Huffaz ,and you embrace Islam ,Right ??? Do you accept my offer?

Why would meeting 5000 people who've memorised the Qur'an convince someone that they should convert to Islam? Doesn't it actually just show how limited some educational approaches are?

2:Quran has mentioned that Jesus christ was born without father.

If you mean biological father, so does the Bible. Nowhere does either book say anything about male and female gametes. Unless you can provide a quote to show that it does, of course.

Peace

[Abdul Fattah]

selam aleykum asadxyz
Please take a moment a reflect your previous posts. Although I'm debating at the same side, it is obvious that your argument is flawed. Insulting your oponents and writing in huge color font only makes you look bad but doesn't help us forward in the debate. Please be more constructive.
And Allah (subhana wa ta'ala's) knows best

[asadxyz]

Greetings,


Why would meeting 5000 people who've memorised the Qur'an convince someone that they should convert to Islam? Doesn't it actually just show how limited some educational approaches are?



If you mean biological father, so does the Bible. Nowhere does either book say anything about male and female gametes. Unless you can provide a quote to show that it does, of course.

Peace

It is the miraculous nature of the Quran that it can be memorized with such an accuracy and by so extreme number of people.No other book has credit.
Anyway :
So you have run away from both challenges

[Azy]

Steve, i'll write a reply when i get home, just had 5 minutes so i thought i'd blast off a quick one to asadxyz.

If you cannot find 1000 such persons ,I can show you 5000 Huffaz ,and you embrace Islam ,Right ???

People in other cultures don't generally memorise whole books for the sake of doing it.

It's a bit like saying 'find me 1000 amazing didgeridoo players outside of australia'. It's not that the didgeridoo or australian aborigines are miraculous, just that people outside that area don't do it.

Anyway, as Trumble said Shakespeare is a good example in the English speaking world, stage actors routinely memorise whole plays and you could probably find 1000 people who can recite Hamlet alone.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^Yea but I dont think he means something like that. Thats not religious, but then again who knows....people are weird you know lol.

[Azy]

That's only one part of the assignment, now show that they indeed had this knowledge in syria.

2) Check out Nemesius (4th Century) and Sergius (6th Century), both of Syria who were familiar with Galen's ideas centuries before the Prophet travelled there.

Could you clarify your point?

The extent of the detail in the Quran regarding embryos is mingled fluid (incorrect), clot (observable after miscarriage and previously observed), lump (observable and previously observed).

There are hadiths which speak of angels asking god to decide the sex and characteristics of the child at 42 days after conception, but they don't get much of a mention.

I've put three most accepted English translations to remove doubt:
YUSUFALI: Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!
PICKTHAL: Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light.
SHAKIR: Or like utter darkness in the deep sea: there covers it a wave above which is another wave, above which is a cloud, (layers of) utter darkness one above another; when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it; and to whomsoever Allah does not give light, he has no light.

Also I don't know if you know this, but the only place where waves "crash over" each other is at a few meters from the cost. At full sea waves don't crash in to each other but instead follow up. Also you're adding interpretation, you're saying that the reference to darkness, is the stormy weather, whereas the verse says quite clearly that the different waves them self cause darkness rather then "symbolically refer to it". It's kind of silly really, to infer that muslims interpret the verse in the wrong way because they want the miracle to be true. If you look at it, your the only one who's making interpretations. The muslim explanation of the verse is a literal and not an interpretative explanation.

Erm, in what sort of weather do you normally have billowing waves and dark clouds?

See the thing is, each wave has it's own density, salinity, and temperature. So these different waves act like different mediums, between the waves is a surface, and light reflects partially at each wave it passes. In other words, each wave refracts light, and by the process a small part of light is reflected untill eventually you'll have complete darkness. That is the reason the bottom of the sea is dark sea, as the verse suggested.

"What isn't reflected enters the water and is absorbed by water molecules. About 65 percent of the visible light is absorbed within 1 meter (~3.3 feet) of the sea surface in shelf and open-ocean water... ...This property of water - the selective absorption of certain wavelengths of light - combined with the scattering of the visible light accounts for the blue colour of the open ocean. In very clear water, not even 1 percent of the light that enters the ocean reaches a water depth of 100 meters (~330 feet)" Pinet, P.R. 2003 Invitation to Oceanography

The effect on the darkness of the ocean of light absorption by water moecules and solid particles is vastly more significant than anything to do with partial reflection by varying densities of subsurface water. God must have known it was due to absorption so why tell everyone otherwise and leave out the absorption bit altogether?

Close, but not quite the same. This verse refers to methodology. the heavens were stretched out. Doesn't necessarily mean they are constantly expanded. There's definitely no emphasis on that. The Qur'an states quite clear "constantly" expanding them.

Link to an explanation (it's pretty thorough but a bit dry)
I would've pasted small chunks but I just ended up putting more and more to explain other parts so you might have to trudge through it (it wasn't fun).
Quick summary:
There would be more correct ways to write "we are expanding them".
The term used is used elsewhere with a different meaning.
The Hebrew grammar used in Isaiah is basically identical to that used in the Quran so it is valid to interpret it the same way.

I've put three most accepted English translations to remove doubt:
051.047
YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).
SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

Scientists haven't missed this at all, but apearently you have missed science class :)
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g112/mtn_roots.html

Do me a little favour, it's late and that's a lot to read, could you whittle it down a bit and tell me what relates to which verse, would be appreciated :)

Yes I know that, and once a mountain is created it prevents further earthquakes. You're mixing up method of creation with function.

Firstly, mountains do not prevent earthquakes. Remember the 7.6 earthquake in Pakistan in 2005 in the Himalayas? Mountainous areas are plagued with earthquakes because the tectonic plates don't just stop moving when mountains form.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/
Look at all the areas with mountains around the Pacific Rim and the Himalayas.

Secondly, the Arabic word for earthquake is used in the Quran, but not in that verse.

You're hung up on the word set. I think it's unfair. What other verb should God have used to describe the process of formation in an old language.

You emphasised yourself the 'constantly expanding universe' in the text, so what's the problem here? Why not creating or forming?

What's unfair is when a Quranic 'scholar' strains and translates and interprets the life out of a word in order to make it almost fit a scientific principle and then claim it's predictive qualities as proof of divinity.
(I woke up this morning and realised people might take that the wrong way, it's not directed at anyone here, more the folk who initiate this stuff)

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy,

2) Check out Nemesius (4th Century) and Sergius (6th Century), both of Syria who were familiar with Galen's ideas centuries before the Prophet travelled there.

But does Galen include the stages of the first few days/week. To small to notice with the naked eye?

The extent of the detail in the Quran regarding embryos is mingled fluid (incorrect),

Could you clarify further?

clot (observable after miscarriage and previously observed), lump (observable and previously observed).

It could have been observed yes, but somehow I doubt the detailed structured could have been noticed with the naked eye.

There are hadiths which speak of angels asking god to decide the sex and characteristics of the child at 42 days after conception, but they don't get much of a mention.

Predestination tells us that the sex is already decided even before the mother is impregnated. I don't know what the meaning of this hadeeth is, but I can only assume that the angels are asking for confirmation. Also remember that hadeeths have a different degree of accuracy and reliability. You have to consider whether it is a strong or weak hadeeth. And even the strong hadeeth are not equal in strength as ayaath from the Qur'an.

Erm, in what sort of weather do you normally have billowing waves and dark clouds?

All the same, I think the verse illustrates clearly that the succession of waves is vertically speaking.

"What isn't reflected enters the water and is absorbed by water molecules. About 65 percent of the visible light is absorbed within 1 meter (~3.3 feet) of the sea surface in shelf and open-ocean water... ...This property of water - the selective absorption of certain wavelengths of light - combined with the scattering of the visible light accounts for the blue colour of the open ocean. In very clear water, not even 1 percent of the light that enters the ocean reaches a water depth of 100 meters (~330 feet)" Pinet, P.R. 2003 Invitation to Oceanography

The effect on the darkness of the ocean of light absorption by water moecules and solid particles is vastly more significant than anything to do with partial reflection by varying densities of subsurface water. God must have known it was due to absorption so why tell everyone otherwise and leave out the absorption bit altogether?

I stand corrected, 'll have to think this trough a while before I can answer your counterquestion...

Quick summary:
There would be more correct ways to write "we are expanding them".
The term used is used elsewhere with a different meaning.
The Hebrew grammar used in Isaiah is basically identical to that used in the Quran so it is valid to interpret it the same way.

I've looked up the tafsir on www.tafsir.com (the text was writen a long time ago before the scientific discoveries) and indeed there was a different interpretation of the meaning back then. Again I stand corrected.

Do me a little favour, it's late and that's a lot to read, could you whittle it down a bit and tell me what relates to which verse, would be appreciated :)

Sure no problem. Basically it describes how several mountains, next to tectonic plates pushing are also formed by magma being pushed up (a bit like volcanoes). The magma stoled ages ago, and the end result is one big massive "peg". Just like icebergs, what lies above surface is only a small top, and the roots of the mountains go 10 to some times 100 times deeper. Of course, tectonic movement can still push and pull the mountains higher. But only a few mountains are created by plates being pushed up alone.

Firstly, mountains do not prevent earthquakes. Remember the 7.6 earthquake in Pakistan in 2005 in the Himalayas?

No, they do not prevent it indeed, otherwise we'd never have earthquakes, but they do make them less severe. They counter the movement of the plates somewhat.

Mountainous areas are plagued with earthquakes because the tectonic plates don't just stop moving when mountains form. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/
Look at all the areas with mountains around the Pacific Rim and the Himalayas.

I'd say it's the other way around, areas plagued by earthquakes have mountains. Just because they are at the same area doesn't mean mountains caused them.

Secondly, the Arabic word for earthquake is used in the Quran, but not in that verse.

Yes I know, we're talking about two separate verses here:
Have We not made the earth as a bed and the mountains its pegs? (Qur'an, 78:6-7)
and:
We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them… (Qur'an, 21:31)

You emphasised yourself the 'constantly expanding universe' in the text, so what's the problem here? Why not creating or forming?

Isn't it obvious that when God says he placed them there, that he created and formed them first then? As you can see from the previous paragraphs I'm not the kind who is to stubborn to admit when he's wrong, but in this case I really feel like you're just splitting hairs.

What's unfair is when a Quranic 'scholar' strains and translates and interprets the life out of a word in order to make it almost fit a scientific principle and then claim it's predictive qualities as proof of divinity.
(I woke up this morning and realised people might take that the wrong way, it's not directed at anyone here, more the folk who initiate this stuff)

You're right, I'm a bit aggravated by it myself. Although I do still believe the Quran is miraculous; trying to make it look more miraculously by adding interpretation isn't the right way to go.

[Azy]

But does Galen include the stages of the
first few days/week. To small to notice with the naked eye?

It could have been observed yes, but somehow I doubt the detailed
structured could have been noticed with the naked eye.

What sort of detail in the text makes you say that microscopic detail is revealed that is otherwise undetectable?

I know the following is not from the Quran but is it considered a strong hadeeth? If so it would make the claim of 'previously unknown scientific accuracy' a little more shaky.

Volume 8, Book 77, Number 593:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle, the truthful and truly-inspired, said, "Each one of you
collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into
a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of
flesh for a similar period (of forty days) and then Allah sends an
angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, and
whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter).
Then the soul is breathed into him.

All the same, I think the verse illustrates
clearly that the succession of waves is vertically speaking.

I'm interpreting a translation so I would have to say the exact meaning could be as you say :) Unless any arabic speakers have an input?

Sure no problem. Basically it describes how
several mountains, next to tectonic plates pushing are also formed by
magma being pushed up (a bit like volcanoes). The magma stoled ages ago,
and the end result is one big massive "peg". Just like icebergs, what
lies above surface is only a small top, and the roots of the mountains
go 10 to some times 100 times deeper. Of course, tectonic movement can
still push and pull the mountains higher. But only a few mountains are
created by plates being pushed up alone.

As you say, they are a few different types of mountain formation, not all having this peg-like structure.

No, they do not prevent it indeed, otherwise we'd never have earthquakes, but they do make them less severe. They counter the movement of the plates somewhat.

I'd say it's the other way around, areas plagued by earthquakes have
mountains. Just because they are at the same area doesn't mean mountains caused them.

That's not what I meant, they're both just byproducts of the same processes.

Isn't it obvious that when God says he placed
them there, that he created and formed them first then? ... I really
feel like you're just splitting hairs.

I'm not trying to split hairs, I thought that unless you were a young earth creationist you'd
acknowledge that there was a time before the mountains existed and that they came to be over millions of years and continue to form, rather than by direct intervention. I don't know, I suppose it depends how old you believe the earth is.

As you can see from the previous paragraphs
I'm not the kind who is to stubborn to admit when he's wrong

And trust me, I really appreciate it :) I can be very stubborn at times, and it's not a good thing.
(edit: I will get round to writing a reply on the free will thread ;) )

[SixTen]

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...tant-read.html

Take some time if you can, on my view of the "Naikh" style translation. I do see it as a recruitment ploy - in that their is very little factuality to it.


So what validates the Qur'an to be true? Well their are 2 steps

1) Having belief that life has a purpose and hence some form of power above us. This is a first step I believe one must take before considering religion at all.

2) After having done so, you must study the history of the religion - understand its texts and make conclusions.

Different people will have different conclusions. Some may feel, it has a perfect message, teaches so much good and hence will decide to follow it. Others may not.

It has never really been about science affirmations which lead people to religion - all of these science claims did not exist 1000 years ago, yet religion spread.

It is up to the one researching, to try logically deduce, what the Prophets said and did - why did they do it, motives and so fourth. Add it up all together and make an informed judgement on the whole thing.

It is the reaching of, feeling that God is communicating to you, that you will affirm the faith.

Be objective in your search. Alot of people, state they studied it and found it to be X or Y - but had an agenda to begin with. Alot of atheists (that I encountered) value more sources that are anti-religion rather than pro. When they see something anti-religion, they get really involved and excited over it. However, anything pro-religion, skepticism becomes apparent greatly and a sense of silence. Ask yourself, are you taking it all objectively. I find, many people who claimed to have researched it, state alot of things of the religion which are the propaganda you get from anti-religious source - If they really did research it, you would find that the stuff has been refuted.

So, do really be open-minded on the issue and most importantly - don't take from some and make conclusions and end it their. Some people may be wrong and give false information. Do a proper study, 1 side of the arguement sounds great until you hear the rebuttle. So keep going front and back, don't just stay at 1 side of the table too long or you have broken the rule of objective search.

Just as an example, if anyone read FFI, I read some of these articles (by Muslims, who after research left), stating things like Ghazali is the 2nd best muslim according to muslims, that Islam allows baby marriages according to some fatwah (which is actually a fabricated lie), some lies are still stated their such as that the Prophet practiced a certain sexual act on Aisha when she was 6 (another fabricated fatwa, without checking its validity) - they immediatly (being anti-islam) took it as true rather then check the stuff. It is just an observation I have made, rarely people are willing to check out the anti-religious stuff, but they are fast to report it to the masses. Can we truly say, these people studied Islam objectivly or not, when they do such things?

[Chuck]

That's not what I meant, they're both just byproducts of the same processes.
I'm not trying to split hairs, I thought that unless you were a young earth creationist you'd
acknowledge that there was a time before the mountains existed and that they came to be over millions of years and continue to form, rather than by direct intervention. I don't know, I suppose it depends how old you believe the earth is.

And your point is? So if they are million years old that means they are not created by God?

[Azy]

And your point is? So if they are million years old that means they are not created by God?

...they weren't mountains then, so why would he say they were created and set down...

[Chuck]

...they weren't mountains then, so why would he say they were created and set down...

You're not making any sense. There weren't mountains but they are there now, so between those 2 points in time they were created.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy

What sort of detail in the text makes you say that microscopic detail is revealed that is otherwise undetectable?

The description of zygotes with the word "alaq".

Allah's Apostle, the truthful and truly-inspired, said, "Each one of you
collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into
a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of
flesh for a similar period (of forty days) and then Allah sends an
angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, and
whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter).
Then the soul is breathed into him.[/i]
I'm interpreting a translation so I would have to say the exact meaning could be as you say :) Unless any arabic speakers have an input?

Making angels write it down, does not mean that it is decided at that point. Islam holds that all these details, including many others have already been written down before on the tablets. For what other purposes these things are thus written I do not know; but they obviously aren't written down because they are "decided" at that point.

As you say, they are a few different types of mountain formation, not all having this peg-like structure.

Yes, but mind that these other types are fewer in number, and lower in hight.

That's not what I meant, they're both just byproducts of the same processes.

They are both byproducts indeed, but even if you consider mountains as byproduct, once they are by-produced, they do influence future earthquakes. So although they are formed as byproduct of tectonic movement, they then later on serve as a "peg" that lowers further tectonic movement, or at least "buffers" it.

I'm not trying to split hairs, I thought that unless you were a young earth creationist you'd acknowledge that there was a time before the mountains existed and that they came to be over millions of years and continue to form, rather than by direct intervention. I don't know, I suppose it depends how old you believe the earth is.

I'm not a young earth creationists. I do believe they took multiple years to form, but I fail to see how that is a problem. Direct intervention or slow intervention, I see it as an act of God all the same. And I don't see why it's a problem to describe the creation of the latter -the slow intervention- as "placing" them. If they were indeed formed by God's will, then regardless of trough which method, or over how much time, I'd say that God "placed" them. That's why I judged this as splitting hairs.

edit: I will get round to writing a reply on the free will thread ;)

Looking forward to it =)

[Whatsthepoint]

Making angels write it down, does not mean that it is decided at that point. Islam holds that all these details, including many others have already been written down before on the tablets. For what other purposes these things are thus written I do not know; but they obviously aren't written down because they are "decided" at that point.

'Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported: Evil one is he who is evil in the womb of his mother and the good one is he who takes lesson from the (fate of) others. The narrator came to a person from amongst the Companion of Allah's Me ssenger (may peace be upon him) who was called Hudhaifa b. Usaid Ghifari and said: How can a person be an evil one without (cornmittilng an evil) deed? Thereupon the person said to him: You are surprised at this, whereas I have heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saving: When forty nights pass after the semen gets into the womb, Allah sends the angel and gives him the shape. Then he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones, and then says: My Lord, would he be male or female ? And your Lord decides as He desires and the angel then puts down that also and then says: My Lord, what about his age? And your Lord decides as He likes it and the angel puts it down. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood? And then the Lord decides as He likes and the angel writes it down, and then the angel gets out with his scroll of destiny in his hand and nothing is added to it and nothing is subtracted from it.
Book 33, Number 6393

[Uthman]

Greetings,

'Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported: Evil one is he who is evil in the womb of his mother and the good one is he who takes lesson from the (fate of) others. The narrator came to a person from amongst the Companion of Allah's Me ssenger (may peace be upon him) who was called Hudhaifa b. Usaid Ghifari and said: How can a person be an evil one without (cornmittilng an evil) deed? Thereupon the person said to him: You are surprised at this, whereas I have heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saving: When forty nights pass after the semen gets into the womb, Allah sends the angel and gives him the shape. Then he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones, and then says: My Lord, would he be male or female ? And your Lord decides as He desires and the angel then puts down that also and then says: My Lord, what about his age? And your Lord decides as He likes it and the angel puts it down. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood? And then the Lord decides as He likes and the angel writes it down, and then the angel gets out with his scroll of destiny in his hand and nothing is added to it and nothing is subtracted from it.
Book 33, Number 6393

Certain things are decided by Allah. What you pointed out is one such thing. That by no means suggests that the same applies for everything else.

Here is a useful link which explains it in a much better way: http://www.islamonline.net/english/i...rticle01.shtml

Regards

[Whatsthepoint]

Greetings,



Certain things are decided by Allah. What you pointed out is one such thing. That by no means suggests that the same applies for everything else.

Here is a useful link which explains it in a much better way: http://www.islamonline.net/english/i...rticle01.shtml

Regards

That's not the reason I posted the ahdith. I posted it because it says the gender of a child is determined on the 40 day of pregnancy..

[Imam]

What sort of detail in the text makes you say that microscopic detail is revealed that is otherwise undetectable?

The extent of the detail in the Quran regarding embryos is mingled fluid (incorrect), clot (observable after miscarriage and previously observed), lump (observable and previously observed).

Are you talking about the Quran stages or Galen's?
I guess the second

the Quranic description is far accurate and superior to such childish,easy-to-guess Galen's description.....

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...s-flesh-4.html

Firstly, mountains do not prevent earthquakes. Remember the 7.6 earthquake in Pakistan in 2005 in the Himalayas? Mountainous areas are plagued with earthquakes because the tectonic plates don't just stop moving when mountains form.
Secondly, the Arabic word for earthquake is used in the Quran, but not in that verse

yes the Arabic word for earthquake is not used in the Quran in such verse and if it been used there is no miracle.....
the other word been used (tameed) has another hint

from

http://www.elnaggarzr.com/en/main.php?id=53

The Qur’an explicitly stated that the stabilization of the Earth by means of its mountains was a specific stage in the long process of creation of our planet and still is a very important phenomenon in making that planet suitable for living. Now, the following question arises: how can modern Earth Scientists visualize mountains as means of fixation for the Earth? As mentioned above, the rocky outer cover of the Earth (the lithosphere, which is 65-70 km thick under oceans and 100-150 km thick under continents) is broken up by deep rift systems into separate plates (major, lesser and minor plates as well as micro plates, plate fragments and plate remains). Each of these rigid, outer, rocky covers of the Earth floats on the semi-molten, plastic outermost zone of the Earth’s Mantle (the asthenosphere) and move freely away from, past or towards adjacent plates. At the diverging boundary of each plate, molten magma rises and solidifies to form strips of new ocean floor, and at the opposite boundary (the converging boundary) the plate dives underneath the adjacent plate ‘(subducts) to be gradually consumed in the underlying uppermost mantle zone (the asthenosphere) at exactly the same rate of sea-floor spreading on the opposite boundary. An ideal rectangular, lithospheric plate would thus have one edge growing at a mid-oceanic rift zone (diverging boundary), the opposite edge being consumed into he asthenosphere of the over*riding plate (converging or subduction boundary) and the other two edges sliding past the edges of adjacent plates along transform faults (transcurrent or transform fault boundaries, sliding or gliding boundaries). In this way, the lithospheric plates are constantly shifting around the Earth, despite their rigidity, and as they are carrying continents with them, such continents are also constantly drifting away or towards each other. As a plate is forced under another plate and gets gradually consumed by melting, magmatic activity is set into action. More viscous magmas are intruded, while lighter and more fluid ones are extruded to form island arcs that eventually grow into continents, are plastered to the margins of nearby continents or are squeezed between two colliding continents. Traces of what is believed to have been former island-arcs are now detected along the margins and in the interiors of many of today’s continents (e.g. the Arabian Shield). The divergence and convergence of lithospheric plates are not confined to ocean basins, but are also active within continents and along their margins. This can be demonstrated, by both the Red Sea and the Gulf of California troughs which are extensions of oceanic rifts and are currently widening at the rate of 3cm/year in the former case and 6 cm/year in the latter. Again the collision of the Indian Plate with the Eurasian Plate (which is a valid example of continent/continent collision) has resulted in the formation of the Himalayan Chain, with the highest peaks currently found on the surface of the Earth. Earthquakes are common at all plates’ boundaries, but are most abundant and most destructive along the collisional ones. Throughout the length of the divergent plate boundary, earthquakes are shallow seated, but along the subduction zones, these come from shallow, intermediate and deep foci (down to a depth of 700 kin), accompanying the downward movement of the subducting plate below the over-riding one. Seismic events also take place at the plane’s transcurrent fault boundaries where ii slides past the adjacent plates along transform faults. Plate movements along fault planes do not occur continuously, but in interrupted, sudden jerks, which release accumulated strain. Moreover, it has to be mentioned that lithospheric plates do not all travel at the same speed, but this varies from one case to another. Where the plates are rapidly diverging, the extruding lava in the plane of divergence spreads out over a wide expanse of the ocean bottom and heaps up to form a broad mid-oceanic ridge, with gradually sloping sides (e.g. the East Pacific Rise). Contrary to this, slow divergence of plates gives time for the erupting lava flows to accumulate in much higher heaps, with steep crests (e.g. the Mid-Atlantic Ridge). The rates of plate movements away from their respective spreading centers can be easily calculated by measuring the distances of each pair of magnetic anomaly strips on both sides of the plane of spreading. Such strips can be easily identified and dated, the distance of each from its spreading center can be measured, and hence the average spreading rate can be calculated .Spreading rates at mid-oceanic ridges are usually given as half-rates, while plate velocities at trenches are full rates. This is simply because the rate at which one lithospheric plate moves away from its spreading center represents half the movement at that center as the full spreading rate is the velocity differential between the two diverging plates which were separated at the spreading center (the mid-oceanic ridge). In studying the pattern of motion of plates and plate boundaries, nothing is fixed, as all velocities are relative. Spreading rates vary from about 1 cm/year in the Arctic Ocean, to about 18cm/year in the Pacific Ocean, with the average being 4-5 cm/year. Apparently, the Pacific Ocean is now spreading almost ten times faster than the Atlantic (c.f. Dott and Batten, 1988). Rates of convergence between plates at oceanic trenches and mountain belts can be computed by vector addition of known plate rotations (Cf. Le Pichon, 1968). These can be as high as 9 cm/year at oceanic trenches and 6 cm/year along mountain belts (Le Pichon, op. c.i.t) Rates of slip along the transform fault boundaries of the lithospheric plate can also be calculated, once the rates of plate rotation are known. The patterns of magnetic anomaly strips and sediment thickness suggest that spreading patterns and velocities have been different in the past, and that activity along mid-oceanic ridges varies in both time and space. Consequently such ridges appear, migrate and disappear. Spreading from the Mid-Atlantic rift zone began between 200 and 150 MYBP, from the northwestern Indian Ocean rift zone between 100 and 80 MYBP, while both Australia and Antarctica did not separate until 65 MYBP (cf. Dott and Batten, bc. cit.). Volcanoes also abound at divergent boundaries, whether under the sea or on land. Most of these volcanoes have been active for a period of 20-30 million years or even more (e.g. the Canary Islands). During such long periods of activity, older volcanoes were gradually carried away from the spreading zone and its constantly renewed plate edge, until they became out of reach of the magma body that used to feed them and hence gradually faded out and died. The floor of the present-day Pacific Ocean is spudded with a large number of submerged, non-eruptive volcanic cones (guyots) that are believed to have come into being by a similar process. Continental orogenic belts are the result of plate boundary interaction, which reaches its climax when two continents come into collision, after consuming the ocean floor that used to separate them. Such continent/continent collision results in the scraping off of all sediments and sedimentary rocks, as well as volcanic rocks that have accumulated on the ocean floor and in the oceanic trenches and squeezing them between the two colliding continents. This results in considerable crumpling of the margins of the two continents, followed by the cessation of plate movement at the junction. The two continental plates become welded together, with considerable crystal shortening (in the form of giant thrusts and infrastructural nappes) and considerable crystal thickening (in the form of the decoupling of the two lithospheric plates as well as their penetration by the deep downward extensions of the mountainous chains then formed). Such downward extensions of the mountains are commonly known as mountain roots” and are several times their protrusion above the ground surface. Such deep roots stabilize the continental masses (or plates), as plate motions are almost completely halted by their formation, especially when the mountain mass is entrapped within a continent as an old craton. Again, the notion of a plastic layer (asthenosphere) directly below the outer rocky cover of the Earth (lithosphere) makes it possible to understand why the continents are elevated above the oceanic basins, why the crust beneath them is much thicker (30-40 kin) than it is beneath the oceans (5-8 kin) and why the thickness of the continental plates (100-150 kin) is much greater than that of the oceanic plates (65-70 kin). This is simply because of the fact that the less dense lithosphere (about 2.7 to 2.9 gm/cm3) is believed to float on top of the denser, and more easily deformed, plastic asthenosphere (> 3.5 gm 1cm3), in exactly the same way an inceberg floats in the oceanic waters. Inasmuch as mountains have very deep roots, all other elevated regions such as plateaus and continents must have corresponding (although much shallower) roots, extending downward into the asthenosphere. In other words, the entire lithosphere is floating above the plastic or semiplastic asthenosphere, and its elevated structures are held steadily by their downwardly plunging roots .Lithospheric plates move about along the surface of the Earth in response to the way in which heat flows arrive at the base of the lithosphere, aided by the rotation of the Earth around its own axis. There is enough geologic evidence to support the fact that both processes have been much more active in the distant geologic past, slowing gradually with time. Consequently, it is believed that plate movements have operated much more rapidly in the early stages of the creation of the Earth and have been steadily slowing down with the steady building-up of mountains and the accretion of continents. This slowing down of plate movements may also have been aided by a steady slowing down in the Earth’s rotation around its own axis (due to the operating influence of tides which is attributed to the gravitational pull of both the sun and the moon) and also by a steady decrease in the amount of heat arriving from the interior of the Earth to its surface as a result of the continued consumption of the source of such heat flows which is believed to be the decay of radioactive materials. The above mentioned discussion clearly indicates that one of the basic functions of mountains is its role in stabilizing continental masses lest these would shake and jerk, making life virtually impossible on the surface of such continents) The precedence of the Glorious Qur’an with more than 14 centuries in describing this phenomenon is a clear testimony for the fact that this Noble Book is the word of the Creator in its divine purity and that Muhammad (pbuh) is His final Messenger. In an authentic saying, this noble profit is quoted to have said that: “When Allah created the Earth it started to shake and jerk, then Allah stabilized it by the mountains”. This unlettered Prophet lived at a time between 570 and 632 A.C.) When no other man was aware of such facts, which only started to unfold by the beginning of the twentieth century, and was not finally formulated until towards its very end. The above mentioned four examples of Qur’anic verses include the basic foundations of the most recently established concept in Earth Sciences, namely “the concept of Plate Tectonics”. This concept was only formulated in the late sixties and the early seventies of this century (cf. McKenzie 1967; Maxwell and others, 1970; etc.), i.e. about 1335 years after the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the concept is based on the following observed facts:

a) That the outer rocky layer of the Earth is deeply faulted, and this is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’anic verse "And the earth which splits (with the growth of trees and plants)." (Surat At-Tariq (The Night-Comer): 12).

b) That hot lava flows pour out from such deep faults, particularly in the middle parts of certain seas and oceans, and this is clearly implied in the Qur’anic verse "And the sea kept filled (or it will be fire kindled on the Day of Resurrection)." (Surat At-Tur (The Mount):6).

c) That the flow of such lavas can cause the surface of the Earth to shake and jerk, can lead to the movement of these faulted blocks and the formation of trenches in which deep roots of the mountains are formed. This is implied by both the verses "And the earth which splits (with the growth of trees and plants)." (Surat At-Tariq (The Night-Comer): 12). And "And the mountains as pegs? (Surat An-Naba' (The Great News):7).



d) That these. sudden jerky movements of the continental plates are halted by the formation of mountains and this is clearly emphasized in the verse "And the mountains He has fixed firmly, (Surat An-Nazi'at (Those Who Pull Out): 32)., as well as in many other Qur’anic verses "And it is He Who spread out the earth, and placed therein firm mountains and rivers and of every kind of fruits He made Zawjain Ithnain (two in pairs-may mean two kinds or it may mean: of two varieties, e.g. black and white, sweet and sour, small and big).He brings the night as a cover over the day. Verily, in these things, there are Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, etc.) for people who reflect." (Surat Ar-Ra'd (The Thunder): 3);



"And the earth We have spread out, and have placed therein firm mountains, and caused to grow therein all kinds of things in due proportion." (Surat Al-Hijr (The Rocky Tract): 19);

"And We have placed on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them, and We placed therein broad highways for them to pass through, that they may be guided." (Surat Al-Anbiya' (The Prophets): 31);



"Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water)? Is there any ilah (god) with Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!" (Surat An-Naml (The Ants): 61);

"And have placed therein firm, and tall mountains, and have given you to drink sweet water?" (Surat Al-Mursalat (Those sent forth): 27);



"And the mountains He has fixed firmly." (Surat An-Nazi'at (Those Who Pull Out): 32)

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi whatsthepoint

... and then says: My Lord, would he be male or female ? And your Lord decides as He desires and the angel then puts down that ...

I understand why you bring this up, how ever I argue that you are misunderstanding this description. God does not decide at the spot 40 days after. It is very apparent from a lot of other things. Therefor the correct interpretation of this simply cannot be that "he decides it then".

1. God is omniscient
Omniscience includes knowing everything in advance of it happening. This thus includes all choices God will make, for if he wouldn't know them in advance, he wouldn't know the eventual outcome either.
2. God is timeless
The dimension of time is part of the creation, God is not bound to it. Therefor all his decision are "ungrounded" to specific era's in time.
3. Everything is predestined.
Every single thing, from a leaf falling from a tree to every decision you will make by free will has been written down on tablets. The whole history of mankind, from dawn to judgment day is included in that. That means it's already written down whether this child will be male and female, and obviously God does not decide it on the spot there.

So what could the correct meaning be then? Well obviously I can only speculate, but I assume the following:
It's quite interesting how it says "he decides as he desires" So for all we know this sub-sentence is not meant to indicate that he decides it at that specific time, but only to remind people that God does indeed decides everything.
So given the three mentioned reasons why your interpretation cannot be correct; given we're dealing with hadeeth and not ayaath (which aren't necesairly 100% accurate); and given that the sentence leaves room for personal interpretation; I would hardly consider this an inconsistency within the Islamic teachings.

[Whatsthepoint]

Hi whatsthepoint

I understand why you bring this up, how ever I argue that you are misunderstanding this description. God does not decide at the spot 40 days after. It is very apparent from a lot of other things. Therefor the correct interpretation of this simply cannot be that "he decides it then".

1. God is omniscient
Omniscience includes knowing everything in advance of it happening. This thus includes all choices God will make, for if he wouldn't know them in advance, he wouldn't know the eventual outcome either.
2. God is timeless
The dimension of time is part of the creation, God is not bound to it. Therefor all his decision are "ungrounded" to specific era's in time.
3. Everything is predestined.
Every single thing, from a leaf falling from a tree to every decision you will make by free will has been written down on tablets. The whole history of mankind, from dawn to judgment day is included in that. That means it's already written down whether this child will be male and female, and obviously God does not decide it on the spot there.

So what could the correct meaning be then? Well obviously I can only speculate, but I assume the following:
It's quite interesting how it says "he decides as he desires" So for all we know this sub-sentence is not meant to indicate that he decides it at that specific time, but only to remind people that God does indeed decides everything.
So given the three mentioned reasons why your interpretation cannot be correct; given we're dealing with hadeeth and not ayaath (which aren't necesairly 100% accurate); and given that the sentence leaves room for personal interpretation; I would hardly consider this an inconsistency within the Islamic teachings.

Good arguments. I disagree with your interpetation though, I believe that the expression "god decides" in this case means God lets the angle know what he wills so the winged creature can make it happen.
I find it strange that an angel has to ask the lord about the child's gender, eventhough the latter is determined in the moment of conception.

In any case, this hadith contradicts the one Azy posted; Azy's one says the angel visits the womb after 120 days have passed, whereas in this one the angles comes on the 40th day. Seeing that Bukhari is more reliable than any other hadith collections, this one is probably flawed. Both hold a weird description of the embrionic developemnt though.

[جوري]

That's not the reason I posted the ahdith. I posted it because it says the gender of a child is determined on the 40 day of pregnancy..

until the 7th weeks the fetus is undifferentiated, so in fact that is roughly 49 days, only an examination of the chromosones can indicate the sex.. which pretty much happens at conception depending on whether or not it was an X or a Y chromosome that fertalized the egg
IMMUNOLOCALIZATION OF ANDROGEN RECEPTOR AND ESTROGEN RECEPTORS α AND β IN HUMAN FETAL TESTIS AND EPIDIDYMIS .

also secondary sexual characteristics differ from primary, I certainly don't wish to delve into androgen insensitivity or 5-alpha reductase deficiency, or characteristics that are hormone dependant because it is far beyond the scope of purpose of this topic!
so why do different tests tell you different dates? simple it all depends on how invasive you want the exam to be.. an Amniocentesis vs Chorionic Villus Sampling vs an ultrasound or other tests that are hardly ever done at all unless of course the benefits outweigh the risk which is 'loss of pregnancy'

reading these ahadith actually corroborates evidence that prophet Mohammed SAW was an extraordinary man with a complete message!

I don't want to be sucked back into the vortex of this topic.. but really any high yeild clinical embryology book can explain all that stuff to you, and if you compare it to embryology through the ages, whether likened to a plant or a fish or whatever, you'll find, that there is nothing quite like the message in the Quran.. while hopefully bearing in mind, that neither the Quran nor the ahadith are meant to teach you science... the Quran is a book of signs not science!

peace

[جوري]

Just in case you couldn't open the journal of Urology above, I am cutting and pasting it here

Gonads and genitourinary structures were removed from 5 human male fetuses 7 to 22 weeks of gestational age. Sections were stained with antibodies to AR, ER and ERβ, P450 scc and smooth muscle actin.

Results:
AR was present in undifferentiated gonadal cells, peritubular myoid cells and in some Leydig and stromal cells at 7 weeks of gestation. The number of AR positive peritubular myoid cells remained constant through 22 weeks of gestation but the number of AR positive stromal cells continued to increase through 22 weeks. ER was apparent by 12 weeks of gestation with perinuclear staining of Leydig cells, peaked at 16 weeks and then diminished. ERβ was first observed at 7 weeks in undifferentiated gonadal cells. By 12 weeks of gestation ERβ was apparent in germ cells, PTMC and Leydig cells. In the epididymis AR was expressed in the epithelium and stroma of the efferent ductules and the ductus epididymis by 7 weeks of gestation with increased expression by 12 weeks. A similar pattern of staining was observed for ERβ. By contrast, staining of ER was observed only in the epithelium of the epididymis from 7 weeks of gestation onward with no apparent ER staining in the tail of the epididymis.

Conclusions:
These findings are compatible with the well-known roles of androgen signaling in sexual differentiation and spermatogenesis in humans. The role of estrogens in the developing human testis and epididymis remains unknown.

Key Words:: receptors, androgen; estrogens; testis; epididymis





Fig. 1. P450 scc, SM, AR, ER and ERβ expression in human fetal testis at 7, 12, 16, and 22 weeks of gestation. Leydig cells (L), peritubular myoid cells (P), stromal cells (S), tubules (T) and undifferentiated gonadal cells (UG) are shown (arrows). Reduced from ×400.

Fig. 2. AR, ER, ERβ and SM expression in human fetal epididymal head and tail at 16 and 22 weeks of gestation. Stromal cells (S) and tubules (T) are shown (arrows). Reduced from ×200.


View Within Article





Journal of Urology, The
Volume 174, Issue 4, Part

[جوري]

an on another separate note: in medicine a embryo is considered a fetus 'human beings' at exactly 4 months gestation, i.e 120 days (when a soul is breathed into you)... abortions aren't performed 'ethically' after four month gestation.. I am aware what sort of skull crushing procedures are executed in un-reputable clinics, but that is besides, so again gender determination at seven week fact see above, considered an actual human being (Islamically) as in if mother and child die then, fetus must be taken out with funeral rites performed on it as well for it is considered a 'being' with soul breathed in at 120 days, and in medicine considered the baby becomes recognizable and it is now called a fetus with organ formation complete and the fetus starts to mature...

so please let's recap because I don't want to come back here and read more nonesense!

actual sex determined at conception, becomes recognizable microscopically as noted above from 7-22 weeks
externally by 14 on ultrasound by 20 weeks
by 120 days 4 months the embryo is out of the development of the organ systems better known as 'organogenesis ' the fetus is completely formed but now growing (soul breathed in islamically), considered a fetus medically!

no contradictions again between Quran, hadith or science!

Thank you and that is a wrap!

[Gator]

I'm sorry, I normally don't get into discussions like this but....

1) The hadith says the gender is decided by god 40 days into the pregnancy.

2) You say gender is genetically decided at conception (which makes total sense) and becomes recognizable between 49 days to 154 days.

and you say there is no contradiction?

[جوري]

I'm sorry, I normally don't get into discussions like this but....

1) The hadith says the gender is decided 40 days into the pregnancy

2) You say Gender is genetically decided at conception (which makes total sense) and becomes recognizable between 49 days to 154 days.

and you say there is no contradiction?

Wow.

This takes more than superficial knowledge on the subject of embryology! as advised you may get a high yeild clinical embryo as I really do tire of repeating myself,
'Genetically decided' is a completely different animal than 'genetically manifest', and as you can see above I have touched very superficially on the subject of 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, androgen insensitivity, Müllerian inhibiting factor, hydatidiform mole, primary and secondary sexual characteristics things that can't become apparent at the moment of conception. Growth and differentiation can't be predicted on the basis of sperm meeting egg.. sperm meeting egg could possibly lodge itself ectopically and not become anything at all but a ruptured tubule!

If you can't or unwilling to understand what I have explained, then I suggest you do what you normally do and not get into a discussion like this?

peace

[Gator]

Close enough for government work, I guess.

Thanks.

[جوري]

Close enough for government work, I guess.

Thanks.

I am sorry if I came across as abrasive, out of all the atheists here, I find you the most open minded, be that as it may, it isn't good to be objectionable just for the sake of it!

peace

[Gator]

Its OK and I apologize for the comment.

I did understand your argument and the reply and just struck me as a little reaching. I will go back to butting out now.

[Whatsthepoint]

no contradictions again between Quran, hadith or science!

Infact the hadiths themselves are contradictory. One says the angel carrying the book of destiny is sent on the 120th day, the other say it comes 80 days earlier.
And how do you explain sentencs like this one:
Each one of you collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of flesh for a similar period (of forty days)
or this one:
When forty nights pass after the semen gets into the womb, Allah sends the angel and gives him the shape. Then he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones

As for the gender determination. The hadith says Allah decides what gender the child will be and the angel writes it down. The sex is determined at conception and the process of differentiation starts earlier than 40 days, so I don't know what Allah has to decide here. You're the doctor here, so tell me, can a sudden change in hormone regulation at day 40 change the child's gender as in an XX becoming a "man" or vise versa?
eventhough the hadith doesn't speak about recognition, you seem to be impresssed with the apparent closeness of the numbers involved (though it seems gender is not recognisable at day 40, is it?). I can't argue that, that's your interpetation, let's just agree to disagree, shall we?
EDIT: Unless you're trying to say the gender irrecognisabilty is the reason why the angle asks god about it..? (that IMHO still doesn't make the date (40 days) miraculous or anything)

an on another separate note: in medicine a embryo is considered a fetus 'human beings' at exactly 4 months gestation, i.e 120 days (when a soul is breathed into you)... abortions aren't performed 'ethically' after four month gestation.. I am aware what sort of skull crushing procedures are executed in un-reputable clinics, but that is besides, so again gender determination at seven week fact see above, considered an actual human being (Islamically) as in if mother and child die then, fetus must be taken out with funeral rites performed on it as well for it is considered a 'being' with soul breathed in at 120 days, and in medicine considered the baby becomes recognizable and it is now called a fetus with organ formation complete and the fetus starts to mature...

I', not sure if there's a difference between a fetus and fetus"human beings", but I've been told the fetal stage starts much earlier.
As for ethics concerning abortion, I don't think you can meedically justify the date when abortion suddenly becomes unethical or when an embryo or a fetus ebcoems a human being. This falls more in the field of philosophy and theology I guess.
I can't really argue about medicine with you, as I'm not that well versed in it.

I don't want to be sucked back into the vortex of this topic..

Ditto!

[Abdul Fattah]

I'm sorry, I normally don't get into discussions like this but....

1) The hadith says the gender is decided by god 40 days into the pregnancy.

2) You say gender is genetically decided at conception (which makes total sense) and becomes recognizable between 49 days to 154 days.

and you say there is no contradiction?

No as I've already pointed out the hadeeth says that after 40 days teh angels ask what God's decision is. That doesn't necessarily mean he decides at that specific time, it only means that the angels inquire about his decision at that time.

[Azy]

Problem with that interpretation is the use of the present tense.
It doesn't say "the angel wrote down what God decided"
it says "God decides and the angel writes it down"

[Abdul Fattah]

Problem with that interpretation is the use of the present tense.
It doesn't say "the angel wrote down what God decided"
it says "God decides and the angel writes it down"

Hi Azy,
I don't know where you got "God decides and the angel writes down" from, but that's not what either of those two hadeeth say.

[جوري]

Infact the hadiths themselves are contradictory. One says the angel carrying the book of destiny is sent on the 120th day, the other say it comes 80 days earlier.
And how do you explain sentencs like this one:
Each one of you collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of flesh for a similar period (of forty days)
or this one:
When forty nights pass after the semen gets into the womb, Allah sends the angel and gives him the shape. Then he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones

I don't not know which ahadiths you have quoted or if they are tawatur or ohad, the ones you've brought before I have addressed!

As for the gender determination. The hadith says Allah decides what gender the child will be and the angel writes it down. The sex is determined at conception and the process of differentiation starts earlier than 40 days, so I don't know what Allah has to decide here. You're the doctor here, so tell me, can a sudden change in hormone regulation at day 40 change the child's gender as in an XX becoming a "man" or vise versa?

You can have any number of events hormone influenced or not that alter the sex of the child.. surely you've heard of ambiguous genitalia, penis at 12, men born with uteruses (in fact I turned that into a question of the month on the health and science section, androgen insensitivity etc I don't want to give it any more time than I already have.. if you want to understand when sex differentiation first occurs, you may refer to the urology article I have quoted above, or purchase a high yeild embryo book!

eventhough the hadith doesn't speak about recognition, you seem to be impresssed with the apparent closeness of the numbers involved (though it seems gender is not recognisable at day 40, is it?). I can't argue that, that's your interpetation, let's just agree to disagree, shall we?
EDIT: Unless you're trying to say the gender irrecognisabilty is the reason why the angle asks god about it..? (that IMHO still doesn't make the date (40 days) miraculous or anything)

No hadith has to get into embryological detail for you, it not disagreeing with may I add very very modern finds, is really all that matters.. and of course you don't find it miraculous, I really believe my quote captures that well!

I', not sure if there's a difference between a fetus and fetus"human beings", but I've been told the fetal stage starts much earlier.

There is a difference between an embryo and a fetus, one deals with the process of organogenesis, the other deals with growth and differentiation, I believe I have already covered that above!

As for ethics concerning abortion, I don't think you can meedically justify the date when abortion suddenly becomes unethical or when an embryo or a fetus ebcoems a human being. This falls more in the field of philosophy and theology I guess.
I can't really argue about medicine with you, as I'm not that well versed in it.


Ditto!

It isn't a matter of when it is ethical, I have touched briefly on ROE v. WADE in previous posts and again don't want to repeat myself, I am pressed for time and travelling out of town on sunday (I digress) .. medicine AND PLEASE READ THIS, DOESN'T CONDONE ABORTIONS, WHAT IT HAS DONE THOUGH IS DEFINE AN AGE LIMIT ON WHEN YOU CAN LEGALLY HAVE AN ABORTION.


cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

I don't not know which ahadiths you have quoted or if they are tawatur or ohad, the ones you've brought before I have addressed!

Here you go:

'Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported: Evil one is he who is evil in the womb of his mother and the good one is he who takes lesson from the (fate of) others. The narrator came to a person from amongst the Companion of Allah's Me ssenger (may peace be upon him) who was called Hudhaifa b. Usaid Ghifari and said: How can a person be an evil one without (cornmittilng an evil) deed? Thereupon the person said to him: You are surprised at this, whereas I have heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saving: When forty nights pass after the semen gets into the womb, Allah sends the angel and gives him the shape. Then he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones, and then says: My Lord, would he be male or female ? And your Lord decides as He desires and the angel then puts down that also and then says: My Lord, what about his age? And your Lord decides as He likes it and the angel puts it down. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood? And then the Lord decides as He likes and the angel writes it down, and then the angel gets out with his scroll of destiny in his hand and nothing is added to it and nothing is subtracted from it.
Book 33, Number 6393

Volume 8, Book 77, Number 593:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle, the truthful and truly-inspired, said, "Each one of you
collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into
a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of
flesh for a similar period (of forty days) and then Allah sends an
angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, and
whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter).
Then the soul is breathed into him.

No hadith has to get into embryological detail for you, it not disagreeing with may I add very very modern finds, is really all that matters.. and of course you don't find it miraculous, I really believe my quote captures that well!

Well, it does disagree with modern finds. Firstly, it says God decides what the gender will be on the 40th day, it doesn't say anything about recognition or differentiation. And if it did, it would still be wrong, as the differentiation begins in the 7th week, or so the article says. Besides, a person being born a different gender than their genetic one are never "normal", so it's no true god decides whether they'll be male or female, but rather whether tehy'll be normal or not.

There is a difference between an embryo and a fetus, one deals with the process of organogenesis, the other deals with growth and differentiation, I believe I have already covered that above!

You said a child is considered fetus after 4 months of gestation and did not back it up. I'm not a doctor but from what I can find on the net, the fetal stage begins somewhere in the 9th week of pregnancy. Thats when organs are present but not fully developed, they're not fully developed at 15 weeks gestation (120 days) either..

It isn't a matter of when it is ethical, I have touched briefly on ROE v. WADE in previous posts and again don't want to repeat myself, I am pressed for time and travelling out of town on sunday (I digress) .. medicine AND PLEASE READ THIS, DOESN'T CONDONE ABORTIONS, WHAT IT HAS DONE THOUGH IS DEFINE AN AGE LIMIT ON WHEN YOU CAN LEGALLY HAVE AN ABORTION.

No it hasn't. The limit when a woman can legally have an abortion varies from country to country. I don't think any limit is set in the US.

[جوري]

Here you go:

What would you like? that I send it to ISNA for verification of authenticity or that I render an interpretation, or that I offer you an equivalent but with a more scientific rendition?

Well, it does disagree with modern finds. Firstly, it says God decides what the gender will be on the 40th day, it doesn't say anything about recognition or differentiation. And if it did, it would still be wrong, as the differentiation begins in the 7th week, or so the article says. Besides, a person being born a different gender than their genetic one are never "normal", so it's no true god decides whether they'll be male or female, but rather whether tehy'll be normal or not.

Again, it need not tell you of recognition or differentiation, that isn't its purpose, what it needs is to establish a sign for you to reflect on without being a polar opposite of what we know of science, i.e likened to a fish or a plant.. it is funny I don't see any of you scrutanizing Galen as error ridden as his thesis was given that he was actually a physician, the same way you scrutanize a hadith over a 9 day difference, the hadiths of the prophet aren't the Quran and don't need an absolute value, given that in medicine itself there are no absolute values...are you kidding me or do you just want to split hairs?
I wouldn't go so far as saying people born with different genetics are 'never normal' does Jamie Lee Curtis appear less than normal to you? she is an XY, she is actually supposed to be male, but is born with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, if we were to go solely on chromosomes at conception she would be deemed a male, but she isn't!

You said a child is considered fetus after 4 months of gestation and did not back it up. I'm not a doctor but from what I can find on the net, the fetal stage begins somewhere in the 9th week of pregnancy. Thats when organs are present but not fully developed, they're not fully developed at 15 weeks gestation (120 days) either..

Buy a book or visit with your local gynecologist and ask him/her when a conceptus is considered an embryo or considered a fetus, also you need to understand that there is a whole other field in medicine called ethics, where a committee convenes and decides when to round up a day or two and for what purpose... I am not going to go into finite details for you beyond the purpose of this forum or my time allowance, again, I can advise you of which books to purchase if you really need to have a critical analysis or challenge the American Medical association.

No it hasn't. The limit when a woman can legally have an abortion varies from country to country. I don't think any limit is set in the US.

There is a legal limit in the US on what is called elective abortions!
Anything else you can't get in a hospital unless it is for medical purposes..
You may then go into one of those clinics that get bombed on occasion and pay out of pocket!
As far as medical ethics go a non therapeutic abortions can't be performed after four month!


cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

What would you like? that I send it to ISNA for verification of authenticity or that I render an interpretation, or that I offer you an equivalent but with a more scientific rendition?

All I'm saying is that the hadiths contradict themselves and that the description of the embrionic/fetal developement the first hadith gives is flawed. Id' like your comment on that.

Again, it need not tell you of recognition or differentiation, that isn't its purpose, what it needs is to establish a sign for you to reflect on without being a polar opposite of what we know of science, i.e likened to a fish or a plant.. it is funny I don't see any of you scrutanizing Galen as error ridden as his thesis was given that he was actually a physician, the same way you scrutanize a hadith over a 9 day difference, the hadiths of the prophet aren't the Quran and don't need an absolute value, given that in medicine itself there are no absolute values...are you kidding me or do you just want to split hairs?
I wouldn't go so far as saying people born with different genetics are 'never normal' does Jamie Lee Curtis appear less than normal to you? she is an XY, she is actually supposed to be male, but is born with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, if we were to go solely on chromosomes at conception she would be deemed a male, but she isn't!

We're not discussing Galen. And no one ever claimed Galen's wrok is divine.
My initial criticism of the hadith had nothing to do with the 9 day difference and it still doesn't, however you brought up gender recognition, so I replied, I may be splitting hair.
Of course, very few values in medcine are absolute, yet the hadith gives a very precise number and you don't seem to be bothered with that.
and let me quote you:

in medicine a embryo is considered a fetus 'human beings' at exactly 4 months gestation

She's not normal. she was born with both male and female sexual organs and she can't have children.

Buy a book or visit with your local gynecologist and ask him/her when a conceptus is considered an embryo or considered a fetus.

I've checked dozens of websites and most say a "conceptus" is considered a fetus somewhere around the 9th week of pregnancy.

There is a legal limit in the US on what is called elective abortions!
Anything else you can't get in a hospital unless it is for medical purposes..
You may then go into one of those clinics that get bombed on occasion and pay out of pocket!
As far as medical ethics go a non therapeutic abortions can't be performed after four month!
cheers

I guess I was wrong about the US. anyway, abortion legislation varies from country to country.

[جوري]

All I'm saying is that the hadiths contradict themselves and that the description of the embrionic/fetal developement the first hadith gives is flawed. Id' like your comment on that.

They don't contradict themselves, you just simply need to understand the subject at hand!

We're not discussing Galen. And no one ever claimed Galen's wrok is divine.
My initial criticism of the hadith had nothing to do with the 9 day difference and it still doesn't, however you brought up gender recognition, so I replied, I may be splitting hair.

This discussion started off albeit not with your person on where the prophet got the embryological knowledge, when the Galen thing didn't work out, you or a number of you are going after content, which frankly you can't it is too profound, unless it really is by way of splitting hair.. and it is a nine day difference if at all on that population observed as per the urology journal I referenced

Of course, very few values in medcine are absolute, yet the hadith gives a very precise number and you don't seem to be bothered with that.
and let me quote you:

No I am not bothered with that, the words of the prophet aren't the words of the Quran for me to look for absolution, you haven't provided me with whether it is tawatur of ohad that is two, and lastly it really isn't far off, that it is actually quite remarkable, and unparalleled throughout the centuries, given the dates on the journal above being quite a modern find!

She's not normal. she was born with both male and female sexual organs and she can't have children.

She is genetically male but a phenotypic female, with external sex characteristics of females, she had normal breast enlargement at puberty, but does not have a uterus, the undescended testes are removed at to not cause tumors, and if we didn't have the sophisitcated modern technology she would appear as any other normal though infertile female! in fact irregardless of her androgen insensitivity many genetically sustained females can also be born without a uterus, or have vaginas that end in a blind pouch due to a number of other problems, thus unless you are running an actual genetic test you couldn't distinguish one from another. Which should lead you to conclude, that you can't use genetic determination at conception as the basis of when one is determined male or female.. when it actually becomes physically manifest is given to you in the specific period quoted above in a medical journal and due to a number of other influences science can only define the anatomy, the physiology the biochemistry the genetics of it. It will always give you a how but not a why-- religion on the other hand will answer that for you whether you care to accept it or not!

I've checked dozens of websites and most say a "conceptus" is considered a fetus somewhere around the 9th week of pregnancy.

I have no idea where you are actually going with this? this isn't a question of embryo or fetus even though I have touched upon that to distinguish the difference, so much as it is a legal ethical issue, which might or might not have anything at all to do with proper developement. Again I don't have the time to go into this with such great detail, but even a fetus at 20 weeks has a slim chance of surviving outside the uterus, lung maturation in and of itself happens around the last two or three weeks of pregnancy, those born prior have considerable problems with hyaline disease and a host of other problems, not the subject of this topic, but certainly whatever consensus deems a fetus a human being is decided by a committee and the number established is four months, which is exactly the number established by religion, i.e when a soul is breathed into one..

I guess I was wrong about the US. anyway, abortion legislation varies from country to country.

Every country has a medical ethical committee, and medicine isn't politics so it doesn't run by the same policies, you need to know that the first oath folks take internationally is 'first do no harm', secondly there are rights of children that are completely autonomous from the parents religious beliefs or lack thereof in terms of life and or limb saving treatment...I will not speak for Europe as I am not very familiar with their system, but will speak for middle east and the states and that is how it is!..
to begin with to form an abortion after that period of time, you can't use a conventional dilation and curettage.
It is major surgery, requiring that you crush the skull of a fetus, vacuum suction with major blood loss, as well as possibility for such things as adhesions or ashermans syndrome etc, which most folks are oblivious to when electing to go to such clinics.

That is all I want to impart on the subject so please spare me any more petitio principii.. I know you enjoy debates and under normal circumstances I'd get into this in great detail
however I'll advise you to purchase this book
http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Ethic...4599794&sr=8-2

it isn't very expensive but will take care of many legal/medical/ethical issues that you might ponder, which can appear esoteric as in why four or why this, which is futilistic and very expansive for the purpose of our discussion...

[Whatsthepoint]

They don't contradict themselves, you just simply need to understand the subject at hand!

Well, both hadiths speak of an angel visiting the womb who writes down 4 things connected with destiny, age, livelihood, provision etc. the only difference is in timing. It's true the second hadith doesn't emntion the scroll of destiny, but what's the point in writing down things that had been written down 80 days earlier?..

When forty nights pass after the semen gets into the womb, Allah sends the angel and gives him the shape. Then he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones

Each one of you
collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into
a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of
flesh for a similar period (of forty days)

Do you think this is an accurate description of embrionic/fetal developement?

but certainly whatever consensus deems a fetus a human being is decided by a committee and the number established is four months,

Could you provide some evidence for this. I searched the net and couldn't find anything.

however I'll advise you to purchase this book
http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Ethic...4599794&sr=8-2

thanks. I might buy it.

[جوري]

Well, both hadiths speak of an angel visiting the womb who writes down 4 things connected with destiny, age, livelihood, provision etc. the only difference is in timing. It's true the second hadith doesn't emntion the scroll of destiny, but what's the point in writing down things that had been written down 80 days earlier?..

When you have two ahadiths that are similar but slightly off, you go to the chain of Isnad and ask a scholar, there is a science to hadiths, and I have actually gotten into a long argument with a sister here who was arguing against another hadith, that she didn't think true, no lay person is qualified to judge authenticity of hadith unless they are learned on the subject

Do you think this is an accurate description of embrionic/fetal developement?

It is a gross description of embryonic development, a few pages back, I have described to you similar terms used in pathology unadulterated of the molecular aspect of the subject!

Could you provide some evidence for this. I searched the net and couldn't find anything.

You may purchase a book on the subject from amazon on the subjects of eugenics/embryology and ethics, not everything you seek has an answer on the net!

thanks. I might buy it.

Great

peace

[Azy]

Hi Azy,
I don't know where you got "God decides and the angel writes down" from, but that's not what either of those two hadeeth say.

I was paraphrasing but I didn't think it made any difference to the meaning...
The original text was:-
"My Lord, would he be male or female ? And your Lord decides as He desires and the angel then puts down that"

[Whatsthepoint]

It is a gross description of embryonic development, a few pages back, I have described to you similar terms used in pathology unadulterated of the molecular aspect of the subject!

The hadith says a 40 days old embryo has a sense ot hearing and sight. It also says it's got skin, flesh and bones, all of which was created at the same day. It also suggest nothing happens to the semen the first 40 days of pregancy.
The second hadith is vague, though it does suggest that changes occur only ever 40 days, as well as that nothing happens to sperm for fourty days. Verse 23:14 (Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood...) suggest that the the clot is created directly from sperm. Seeing taht the clot is created on day 40, nothing happens to the sperm before that.

[جوري]

The hadith says a 40 days old embryo has a sense ot hearing and sight. It also says it's got skin, flesh and bones, all of which was created at the same day. It also suggest nothing happens to the semen the first 40 days of pregancy.
The second hadith is vague, though it does suggest that changes occur only ever 40 days, as well as that nothing happens to sperm for fourty days. Verse 23:14 (Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood...) suggest that the the clot is created directly from sperm. Seeing taht the clot is created on day 40, nothing happens to the sperm before that.

I am sorry, but what you are stating has no intelligible meaning whatsoever, if by chinese whispers it would have held some of its original integrity better than this!
I have covered the Quranic verses previously and ad nauseam in fact I believe there is a whole thread dedicated to it, whatever conclusions you've reached are your own rendering to exegesis and have no basis in the hadiths or the Quran.
For some reason you feel, that by subtracting a word here and adding a word there, you'll have reached some sort of divine manifestation, but in fact what you are doing is fabricating age old text to intellectualize why it is you believe what you do, or don't believe in the things that you do!


be that as it may, all you need to do otherwise is ask a scholar as I have referenced you to several links previousely, or do a simple google search from a reputable site!

http://muslim-canada.org/printletter24.html

Question
I recently saw the following quote on another website. I am quite confused as to it's meaning so can you explain it to me:

“Early Muslim jurists considered abortion lawful for a variety of reasons until 40 -120 days after conception (first trimester). This was based on interpretation of Qur'an (22:4 and 23:12-14) and hadith that implied that ensoulment or "life" did not exist until after that time. Contemporary thinkers, considering available technology that allows visualization of the embryonic heartbeat at four weeks of gestation, are of the position that life begins much earlier than previously thought, and therefore to terminate would be to take a life illegally.”
* * *

Answer
This quote seems to make the sweeping assertion that the opinion of "contemporary thinkers" is accurate without indicating, among other considerations, how many or who these "contemporary thinkers" are. One must be very careful when consulting these self-styled "contemporary thinkers" because more often than not, they are clearly not qualified and lack the adequate understanding to be able to make pronouncements of this kind. [Click here for information on Ijtihad (interpretation through the legal process of deductive analogy) etc. of a mujtahid (interpreter of law) and a discussion of the problems associated with this type of situation. For example, some so-called "contemporary thinkers" patently decide that they are 'experts' because they have a little bit of information. They delude themselves into thinking that 'information' is 'knowledge.' Thus in this way, not only have they deceived themselves, but they also deceive others with their incompetent advice, which can be seen in the above quote.]

With regards to this quote, which you find confusing, it would seem to me that this opinion is obviously the result of confused thinking on both the part of the writer and also the “contemporary thinkers” referred to. These "contemporary thinkers" (unlike the early jurists) don’t seem to understand or appreciate the very basic fact that ensoulment or “life” is a spiritual phenomenon – a miracle, if you like – rather than a physical occurrence or a mere physiological accident.

Therefore, I would suggest that these “contemporary thinkers' ” viewpoint is not correct because the embryonic heartbeat is something completely different from "ensoulment or life" which was envisaged by the early Muslim Jurists. The crucial point, or the heart of the matter, is that the physical organ known as the ‘heart’ (which is a muscle composed of flesh which performs the function of pumping the blood etc.) is not the same as the "spiritual" heart. This "spiritual" heart is the seat of life where ensoulment takes place. It is actually a celestial entity and, as such, is invisible to the human eye, whereas the physical heart is quite visible. The scholars of the esoteric sciences, such as Sufis, who acquire a deep insight into understanding the 'inner' dimensions of human life, and such other people who are adept in matters that are of a spiritual nature, (e.g.. Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi, alaf-sani, r.a., a well-known Naqshbandi saint) actually describe the location of the spiritual heart to be at a distance of the width of two fingers below and a little to the left of the cone of the heart.


The following Quranic quote and Hadith will further explain in detail the development of the fourth stage (ensoulment):
[Qur'an 23:14 Translated by Yusuf Ali] :
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (fetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!

The well-known scholar, Yusuf Ali, in his translation of the above Quranic verse added this footnote of explanation:
Note 2873
The growth in the fetal stage is silent and unseen. This fetus is protected in the mother's womb like a king in a castle . . ."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hadith: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 549:
Narrated Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(as regards your creation), every one of you is collected in the womb of his mother for the first forty days, and then he becomes a clot for another forty days, and then a piece of flesh for another forty days. Then Allah sends an angel to write four words: He writes his deeds, time of his death, means of his livelihood, and whether he will be wretched or blessed (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into his body. So a man may do deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire, so much so that there is only the distance of a cubit between him and it, and then what has been written (by the angel) surpasses, and so he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise and enters Paradise. Similarly, a person may do deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise, so much so that there is only the distance of a cubit between him and it, and then what has been written (by the angel) surpasses, and he starts doing deeds of the people of the (Hell) Fire and enters the (Hell) Fire."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hadith: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 book 77, number 593:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle, the truthful and truly-inspired, said, "Each one of you collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of flesh for a similar period (of forty days) and then Allah sends an angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his deeds, his provision, his age, and whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter). Then the soul is breathed into him. And by Allah, a person among you (or a man) may do deeds of the people of the Fire till there is only a cubit or an arms-breadth distance between him and the Fire, but then that writing (which Allah has ordered the angel to write) precedes, and he does the deeds of the people of Paradise and enters it; and a man may do the deeds of the people of Paradise till there is only a cubit or two between him and Paradise, and then that writing precedes and he does the deeds of the people of the Fire and enters it."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hadith: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4 Book 54, Number 430:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud:

Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise."


The Hanafi scholars (whose adherents consist of the overwhelming majority [i.e., over 80%] of orthodox Muslims) permit abortion until the end of the four months (120 days).

Quite a few of the Maliki jurists describe abortion as completely forbidden. In their view, it seems that although life does not begin at conception (i.e., when semen settles in the womb) it is expected to develop into a living baby and so it should not be disturbed by anyone. According to Ibn Jawziyyah, when the womb has retained the semen, it is not permitted for either the husband or wife, or one of them to induce an abortion. After ensoulment, however, abortion is prohibited absolutely and is akin to murder.

Many Shafi'i and Hanbali scholars agree with the Hanafis in their tolerance of the practice, although some put an upper limit of forty days for a legal abortion, whereas others gave eighty days or even 120 days.

Therefore, if you are a Hanafi, you must follow the Hanafi school of law and if you are Shafi'i, Hanbali or Maliki, then you must follow your own particular school of law in this regard. To learn more about the reasoning as to why Muslims should follow a Madhab (i.e., a particular school of law), here are five articles: One | Two | Three | Four | Five

cheers.

[Whatsthepoint]

I am sorry, but what you are stating has no intelligible meaning whatsoever, if by chinese whispers it would have held some of its original integrity better than this!
I have covered the Quranic verses previously and ad nauseam in fact I believe there is a whole thread dedicated to it, whatever conclusions you've reached are your own rendering to exegesis and have no basis in the hadiths or the Quran.
For some reason you feel, that by subtracting a word here and adding a word there, you'll have reached some sort of divine manifestation, but in fact what you are doing is fabricating age old text to intellectualize why it is you believe what you do, or don't believe in the things that you do!

whats so wrong about it?
where ahve I subsracted or added words?

[AntiKarateKid]

The best path to tread in this thread ( heh that rhymes), is that there are in fact signs in the Quran for those who are versed in science. It is true that some Muslims in their zeal at finding these may take some alittle too far, but that does not negate the fact that there are many in there.

[kay106]

the greeks also used to believe in a load of nonsense, such as that the sun is stationary, why isn't anything of the nonsenses in the Quran? why is the Quran 100% compatible with science? there fore making the Quran far more superior, than science.

The question about to designed the designer is very very absurd, example can we ask a man who was in the hospital whether he gave birth to a boy or a girl? No simply becuase this is not the definiton of a man, to be able to give birth. Similary the definition of Allah is that he is uncreated, eternal. therefore the question who created is Allah is absurd.

[Azy]

why is the Quran 100% compatible with science? there fore making the Quran far more superior, than science.

That's quite a bizarre argument you've got going there.

[kay106]

That's quite a bizarre argument you've got going there.

Bizarre, you serious? dont you know this is confirmed by scientists, who learnt arabic and studied the revelation?? they were the leading authorities in their field. example professor Keith Moore

[Azy]

Bizarre, you serious? dont you know this is confirmed by scientists, who learnt arabic and studied the revelation?? they were the leading authorities in their field. example professor Keith Moore

Yeah I've heard of those guys who got paid to attend a conference in Saudi. There are 101 threads on the 'argument from authority', and how pointless it is. You could find more scientists that disagree with the 'confirmed science of the revelation' than those that agree with it, quite considerably more.

I know exactly who Keith Moore is because he is one of a very small pool of scientists that Muslims like to invoke when scrambling for validation.
The information Prof. Moore validated had been known for centuries before the 'revelation', and I would bet our learned friend knew this and was quite happy to take money from the Arabs for telling them what they wanted to hear.

Where is he now? Has he converted? Have all the other biologists?

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

You say there are more scientists who don't agree. If you accept that as an argumetn, then you should accept the argumetn that there are more people who believe in God then those who don't.

The information Prof. Moore validated had been known for centuries before the 'revelation', and I would bet our learned friend knew this and was quite happy to take money from the Arabs for telling them what they wanted to hear.

Then please let us know which things were know before the revelation, and please let us know which of them were known to the Arabs of that ime.

Also, as an atheist you don't have a reason to be moral, so your accusation and ad hominem do not wonder me.

By the way, a vast of the greatest scientists in the history believed in God: Newton, Descartes, Faraday, Boyle, Mendel, Pasteur, Pascal, Linnaeus etc.

I do not say that only because there existed some great scientists who believed in God we have a proof of His SWT existence. But, you used pretty the same methodology.

[kay106]

Yeah I've heard of those guys who got paid to attend a conference in Saudi. There are 101 threads on the 'argument from authority', and how pointless it is. You could find more scientists that disagree with the 'confirmed science of the revelation' than those that agree with it, quite considerably more.

I know exactly who Keith Moore is because he is one of a very small pool of scientists that Muslims like to invoke when scrambling for validation.
The information Prof. Moore validated had been known for centuries before the 'revelation', and I would bet our learned friend knew this and was quite happy to take money from the Arabs for telling them what they wanted to hear.

Where is he now? Has he converted? Have all the other biologists?

by us not knowing whethere they have converted or not, dont you realise that this is actually a confirmation that they did not get paid. otherwise the first thing they would have done if they were to get paid is to say they have converted!

can you tell me the name of at least 1 scientist who have refuted their claims?

[Azy]

You say there are more scientists who don't agree. If you accept that as an argumetn, then you should accept the argumetn that there are more people who believe in God then those who don't.

Well that was my point, it's a flawed argument to say that because this important person or this many people say something is true then it must be true.
I suppose if you like that sort of thing then you'd agree with me that Islam is not true since 80% of people think it is false.

Then please let us know which things were know before the revelation, and please let us know which of them were known to the Arabs of that ime.

There have been many threads about this already, search for 'Galen'. (edit: It's even in this thread! Forgot about that)

Also, as an atheist you don't have a reason to be moral, so your accusation and ad hominem do not wonder me.

I think perhaps you should be worried for yourself if you believe one cannot be moral without religion. You believe that you could not live a moral life if you were not guided by the Quran, but I know that I can. I live a reasonably good, moral life while surrounded by muslims who would go to prison if anyone found out what they were doing.

"I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." - Aristotle

by us not knowing whethere they have converted or not, dont you realise that this is actually a confirmation that they did not get paid. otherwise the first thing they would have done if they were to get paid is to say they have converted!

I've added emphasis to some parts.

That might make perfect sense to someone who believes in God and believes in the divine nature of the Quran without having any proof either way.
To say that because we have no knowledge of one thing it confirms something else is logically ridiculous.

Besides, don't you think the muslims who make all these videos and websites of Keith Moore quotes would let us know? Wouldn't it be the ultimate icing on the cake if he had converted?

If he truly believed that these works were the direct word of God, what other option would he have but to convert, there would be no question. What he doesn't say speaks as loudly as what he does.

[Trumble]

by us not knowing whethere they have converted or not, dont you realise that this is actually a confirmation that they did not get paid. otherwise the first thing they would have done if they were to get paid is to say they have converted!

Very few people do any serious research on anything without being paid! Like us, they have families to feed.

Moore, whom nobody denies is a very distinguished expert in the area, was employed (i.e. paid) by the Saudi government, having a faculty position at King Abdul Aziz University and working for the embryology commission at that university with a brief to interpret the statements in the Qur'an that refer to embryology. There was nothing 'under the counter' about it, and he has never denied it. There was therefore no reason to claim he had converted to Islam when he had not and there is no suggestion anybody tried to persuade him, financially or otherwise, to claim he had done so. The purpose of the embrology commission was/is serious research (although what in is debatable), not to gain converts to Islam with cheap tricks.

If Moore ever subsequently converted to Islam he has never said so, and for the last ten years or so has just avoided all questions on both issues. From which most sensible people draw their own conclusions.

[kay106]

I've spent some time now checking and rechecking references in the Qu'ran for the various propositions about the nature or the state of life, our world, and the universe.

From the supposed embryology references to the water cycle, everything stated seems to have been discovered already, in so far as the Qu'ran makes the references, by philosophers and naturalists from previous centuries.

That's not an issue for me. Okay sure, maybe it's a book of signs and not science and as to what could be revealed to a largely illiterate population in the middle east, that's as far as god went in describing the world.

Why is it that these "signs" are used as confirmation of god's divine revelation when there's nothing new in it or that the vague description, when interpreted, could be applied to our understandings today and to those of the Greeks without any conflicts.

Is it an acceptance of science as a means to validate a holy book? If so, why not accept all scientific understandings of this day, since the process by which human knowledge and societies progress in any scientific field is that same as the one that confirmed your beliefs.

Or is it that as a Muslim you cannot have any doubt, and that whatever science discovers (good or bad) is of no concern since the truth (the one and only) is already known?


So, is it really just a marketing ploy to recruit more members, or has anyone actually put more thought into it than say the lovely Zakir Naik (who on one hand credits science for it's discoveries and on the other rejects evolution on the basis that we're just rebelling against a church for the past 200 years).

Today is an age of science and technology, people thinks religion are old fasioned.

But the science people are discovering is already in the Quran, which simply means that science is late, that Quran is far superior than science which means that we should follow the Quran and not science. In other words, the atheists criteria to jude whats right and wrong is science, but our criteria is the Quran, which already contains recent discoveries!

[kay106]

Very few people do any serious research on anything without being paid! Like us, they have families to feed.

Moore, whom nobody denies is a very distinguished expert in the area, was employed (i.e. paid) by the Saudi government, having a faculty position at King Abdul Aziz University and working for the embryology commission at that university with a brief to interpret the statements in the Qur'an that refer to embryology. There was nothing 'under the counter' about it, and he has never denied it. There was therefore no reason to claim he had converted to Islam when he had not and there is no suggestion anybody tried to persuade him, financially or otherwise, to claim he had done so. The purpose of the embrology commission was/is serious research (although what in is debatable), not to gain converts to Islam with cheap tricks.

If Moore ever subsequently converted to Islam he has never said so, and for the last ten years or so has just avoided all questions on both issues. From which most sensible people draw their own conclusions.

What did moore say which is not true? can you prove his claims wrong?

You are claiming he was paid by saudi government, can you proove that? This is only reasonable if you can proove moors claim wrong, which many people like Dr william campbell tried. but off course they coudn't they got refuted in every point they made!

[kay106]

Well that was my point, it's a flawed argument to say that because this important person or this many people say something is true then it must be true.
I suppose if you like that sort of thing then you'd agree with me that Islam is not true since 80% of people think it is false.
There have been many threads about this already, search for 'Galen'. (edit: It's even in this thread! Forgot about that)
I think perhaps you should be worried for yourself if you believe one cannot be moral without religion. You believe that you could not live a moral life if you were not guided by the Quran, but I know that I can. I live a reasonably good, moral life while surrounded by muslims who would go to prison if anyone found out what they were doing.

"I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." - Aristotle

I've added emphasis to some parts.

That might make perfect sense to someone who believes in God and believes in the divine nature of the Quran without having any proof either way.
To say that because we have no knowledge of one thing it confirms something else is logically ridiculous.

Besides, don't you think the muslims who make all these videos and websites of Keith Moore quotes would let us know? Wouldn't it be the ultimate icing on the cake if he had converted?

If he truly believed that these works were the direct word of God, what other option would he have but to convert, there would be no question. What he doesn't say speaks as loudly as what he does.

If Moore was lying the first thing he would have dont is convert to Islam!

[kay106]

Yeah I've heard of those guys who got paid to attend a conference in Saudi. There are 101 threads on the 'argument from authority', and how pointless it is. You could find more scientists that disagree with the 'confirmed science of the revelation' than those that agree with it, quite considerably more.

I know exactly who Keith Moore is because he is one of a very small pool of scientists that Muslims like to invoke when scrambling for validation.
The information Prof. Moore validated had been known for centuries before the 'revelation', and I would bet our learned friend knew this and was quite happy to take money from the Arabs for telling them what they wanted to hear.

Where is he now? Has he converted? Have all the other biologists?

Do you know the mistakes of the ancients? Did you know Aristotle believed that the worker bee is male?
Did you know the greeks belived that sun was stationary?

why is none of those mistakes in the Quran?

[kay106]

That's quite a bizarre argument you've got going there.

how is it bizare?

[Aurora]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQg6x-K82IA
The person who made the video has studied Islam and Arabic and debunks the science miracle claims rather well, I feel.

[- Qatada -]

The person who made the video has studied Islam and Arabic and debunks the science miracle claims rather well, I feel.

And you know Islam and the Quran pretty well you think?

[Aurora]

And you know Islam and the Quran pretty well you think?

I know a pretty decent amount about it. I have read the Quran and read tafsirs on parts of it.

[blaze101]

science and religion can not be put togeter,religion can not say that something in the qur'an is right,and say they have science to back it up,science was not around in the times that the Qur'an was written,and there for thats why the Qur'an and the bible where written,No one knew how the earth works,and how we came to be,the simple fact is that most experts KNOW how we where to be,but its religions push to say Wrong that keeps it down,we know how human bodys are made,because Experts have Made Humans in Labs,If we didnt know how we came about,then we could not remake Humans,or anyother life forms,but yet we have,and have made them for many years now.1500 years ago,there where over 4000 gods and different Religions,Now only 5-10 are the main religions and only 50-100 are low.Why? Because People are getting more information,as we (Humans) move forward into the Future,Religions will contiue to
"drop" off.its really only a matter of time until science can do what it has been doing for years,feeding or minds with information,instead of forcing it on us as religion does.

[czgibson]

Greetings, blaze101,

Welcome to the forum. :)

I agree with some of what you say, but this point really has got me scratching my head:

Experts have made humans in labs, you say?

Can you show us any evidence of this?

Peace

[blaze101]

Researchers at Northeast England Stem Cell Institute have remade Sperm in there Labs,with the next step to remake Female Eggs,When i say human i dont mean,they made a guy ,and hes walking around down town New york right now,The milli Second that sperm hits a egg,religion says thats life,that why they think its murder,Not really knowing what the hell they are talking about.But yeah i dont no if they have a website,but Northeast England stem cell instutue (NESCI) have done this.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Researchers at Northeast England Stem Cell Institute have remade Sperm in there Labs,with the next step to remake Female Eggs,When i say human i dont mean,they made a guy ,and hes walking around down town New york right now,The milli Second that sperm hits a egg,religion says thats life,that why they think its murder,Not really knowing what the hell they are talking about.But yeah i dont no if they have a website,but Northeast England stem cell instutue (NESCI) have done this.

Oh, I see. That's a very different claim.

Peace

[Ramadhan]

Researchers at Northeast England Stem Cell Institute have remade Sperm in there Labs,with the next step to remake Female Eggs,When i say human i dont mean,they made a guy ,and hes walking around down town New york right now,The milli Second that sperm hits a egg,religion says thats life,that why they think its murder,Not really knowing what the hell they are talking about.But yeah i dont no if they have a website,but Northeast England stem cell instutue (NESCI) have done this.

I see, so they haven't made any human yet? That's a shame.
Could you please elaborate how the scientist "remade" sperm?

[aamirsaab]

...The milli Second that sperm hits a egg,religion says thats life..

Wrong. Islamically speaking, life occurs after the embryo has developed - which is some time AFTER the sperm hits the egg. You really should study up on religion - it's getting rather embarrasing reading your posts regarding such topics. And I must say the following rather ironically, you ''don't know what the hell you're talking about''

As for your comments about religion and science unable to coexist, I suggest you look into the past, specifically into medical history and Islam. Also note that your doctor or general practitioner is most likely a follower of Islam, hinduism or sikhism.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Also note that your doctor or general practitioner is most likely a follower of Islam, hinduism or sikhism.

That comes as a big surprise.

Got some statistics, there, sir?

Peace

[aamirsaab]

Greetings,


That comes as a big surprise.

Got some statistics, there, sir?

Peace

I have only been able to find one set so far, and it is rather outdated (2003). Though, the percentage is still quite high and probably higher now.

click me