How do we know that the Koran is true?

[TorahTruth]

Bs'd

How do we know that the Koran is true, and not the Jewish or Christian Bible, or the book of Mormon, or whatever other holy book of any religion?

Thanks,

Gold.

[index123]

There are so many signs in the Quran which tell about things no one could have ever known about at the time it was written.

[TorahTruth]

Bs'd

What signs might that be? Can you give examples?

[Vito]

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...messanger.html

That thread will probably answer most of your questions. (I'm sure there are tons of other ones out there as well)

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

[Dawud_uk]

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance,

this is a question i put to christians all the time when doing the da'wah stall (da'wah means invitation to islam) because they qoute the bible, we qoute the Quran.

how do we know which book is true when they differ on so many different matters?

many books claim to be the book of God, but how can we independently varify which is a true book of God and which not?

the book itself saying it is true is not in itself a proof, that is totally circular in reasoning. so we have to have something other than this.

so could we just see if we agree, the creator does not lie, the creator does not make mistakes. do we agree with these two ideas?

if we do then it becomes easier to varify which is the true book of God as it should therefore have no contradictions or mistakes in it.

[Keltoi]

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance,

this is a question i put to christians all the time when doing the da'wah stall (da'wah means invitation to islam) because they qoute the bible, we qoute the Quran.

how do we know which book is true when they differ on so many different matters?

many books claim to be the book of God, but how can we independently varify which is a true book of God and which not?

the book itself saying it is true is not in itself a proof, that is totally circular in reasoning. so we have to have something other than this.

so could we just see if we agree, the creator does not lie, the creator does not make mistakes. do we agree with these two ideas?

if we do then it becomes easier to varify which is the true book of God as it should therefore have no contradictions or mistakes in it.

If you accept that God writes books that would be one strategy. The problem with this is that many people do not accept that premise.

[Dawud_uk]

If you accept that God writes books that would be one strategy. The problem with this is that many people do not accept that premise.

if a book claims to be the true book of God then it would therefore be without flaw or contradiction, as only God is perfect, only God is capable of writing a book without flaws.

[Keltoi]

if a book claims to be the true book of God then it would therefore be without flaw or contradiction, as only God is perfect, only God is capable of writing a book without flaws.

Again, that is if you accept the premise that God writes books. There is a difference between God revealing Himself through revelation and interaction and writing a book. Yes, if God actually "wrote" a book it would be perfect as befits His nature. I don't believe Christians or Muslims make the claim that God actually wrote a book. Both religions believe that God's message is contained within our holy books, the difference is that Muslim's claim and believe that the Qu'ran is in its entirety the literal message of God. That is a matter of faith.

[Chuck]

Again, that is if you accept the premise that God writes books. There is a difference between God revealing Himself through revelation and interaction and writing a book. Yes, if God actually "wrote" a book it would be perfect as befits His nature. I don't believe Christians or Muslims make the claim that God actually wrote a book. Both religions believe that God's message is contained within our holy books, the difference is that Muslim's claim and believe that the Qu'ran is in its entirety the literal message of God. That is a matter of faith.

Yup Muslims don't make a claim that God physically wrote Quran by his hand. :rollseyes Author doesn't have to write book by his hand, author can dictate and scribe or publisher can write the book, yet book belongs to author. The key question is who the words belong too.

[TorahTruth]

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...messanger.html

That thread will probably answer most of your questions. (I'm sure there are tons of other ones out there as well)

Bs'd

I looked at those prophecies, and they are supposed to have happened about 1400 years ago, and be fulfilled a few years after they would have been spoken.

Now there is of course no way to check if those prophecies were spoken before or after the events they speak about.


What I read in the Quran, is that the mother of Jesus, Miriam, was the daughter of Imran, the father of Moses.

But Moses and Miriam, they lived 1300 years before Jesus. So that looks like a serieus problem.

Anybody any thoughts on that one?


Salaam.

[alcurad]

Again, that is if you accept the premise that God writes books..

Keltoi, there are two opinions on this amongst the scholars, one is that the meanings of the qur'an are from Allah, the words from the prophet, the other is that both meanings and words are from Allah. doesn't make much difference either way, no one claimed that Allah 'wrote' books. straw man..

on subject, we 'believe' the qur'an is true, faith and reason are both in play here, if the qur'an is coherent-no contradictions-, and makes no claims that could be falsified by science, and the moral commands and world view etc there are sound, and have benefits then it's 'true'. the bible and Torah specifically have been tampered with by men 'inspired' by God, many other 'bibles' existed, why the current ones and not the others, not to mention other obvious indicators of it not being 'true' anymore.

[sur]

Bs'd
What I read in the Quran, is that the mother of Jesus, Miriam, was the daughter of Imran, the father of Moses.
But Moses and Miriam, they lived 1300 years before Jesus. So that looks like a serieus problem.

Hay "Torah Truth". Say, my name is also "Torah Truth" but it doesn't mean we are same person. We are 2 different persons.... Like wise Father of Maryam was also Imran sharing name with Prophet Imran ..... They were 2 different persons......


How can i say this??? Because it's clarified in a Hadees. I'll InshALLAH find that Hadees & post that in this very post, so do visit again :)

[Keltoi]

Keltoi, there are two opinions on this amongst the scholars, one is that the meanings of the qur'an are from Allah, the words from the prophet, the other is that both meanings and words are from Allah. doesn't make much difference either way, no one claimed that Allah 'wrote' books. straw man..

on subject, we 'believe' the qur'an is true, faith and reason are both in play here, if the qur'an is coherent-no contradictions-, and makes no claims that could be falsified by science, and the moral commands and world view etc there are sound, and have benefits then it's 'true'. the bible and Torah specifically have been tampered with by men 'inspired' by God, many other 'bibles' existed, why the current ones and not the others, not to mention other obvious indicators of it not being 'true' anymore.

The issue of course is whether one particular holy book is "the" Word of God. That is a matter of faith and faith alone. I can read the manual for my new television set and find no contradictions in the things it tells me...that does not equate to divine involvement. As in all things to do with religion, it boils down to faith and which holy book we see as the authority.

[Dawud_uk]

The issue of course is whether one particular holy book is "the" Word of God. That is a matter of faith and faith alone. I can read the manual for my new television set and find no contradictions in the things it tells me...that does not equate to divine involvement. As in all things to do with religion, it boils down to faith and which holy book we see as the authority.

no, it is a matter which can be proved by proof and ration not just faith alone. you go on yours on faith alone because you know it is full of flaws and contradictions like the guru granth sahib and the sancrit scriptures of the hindus.

the Quran however is without flaw or contradiction, unlike the bible.

[Qingu]

the Quran however is without flaw or contradiction, unlike the bible.

Except for the parts where

• it refers to the existence of invisible magical spirits from Arabian mythology (djinn)

•*it claims that the entire world was covered in a flood and a man gathered all the million plus species onto an ark (11:40)

• it refers to the sun's orbit, usually in the same phrase as the moon's orbit, (13:2, 21:33, 36:40) along with places where the sun rises and sets (18:86)—just like most Mesopotamian myths

• it refers to splitting the moon into two pieces (54:1)

• it claims that the stars will "fall"; (81:2) and the lower sky has "lamps" in it (41:12)

• it claims that humans are formed from a "gushing fluid" that comes from between your loins and ribs (86:5)

This is exactly the kind of language you would expect from 7th-century desert nomads.

Of course, Muslims have all kinds of clever ways of interpreting these verses "metaphorically" or whatever so they don't seem as silly as they are—just like Christians interpret the Bible to seem less silly than it is.

I'm also a fan of the part in the Bukhari hadith that talks about Muhammad riding a magical flying donkey, al-Buraq.

[Qingu]

I will note that the Quran has far less contradictions than the Bible.

Though, this is mostly because it is much shorter and was only written by one person (or a small group) during a short time.

Similarly, Harry Potter doesn't have many contradictions either.

[crayon]

Eh, mock all you like.
To us our religion, to you yours. (or nonreligion, should I say, as atheists seem so adamant to stress that atheism is not a religion)

[KashifB]

Punishment very soon for you there will be !!!

[Follower]

Torah Truth- Yes it is the prophecies help prove that a scripture is from GOD.

Qingu- If there is a "contradiction" in the Bible further, deeper study into the "contradiction" reveals a truer, richer story. The "contradiction" becoming more information for the one with an open heart.

Various translation can also help you decide if the message is truely a contradiction, or a human error.

LOL!! Why would someone manufacture contradictions and say it is from GOD!! Wouldn't they realize that atheists would question it and use that to prove that the writing was not from GOD?

[ayshayasmin]

We no the quran is reall becuase that is the only holy book that has never been changed it was given too our prophet with the exact same words from allah. and it will never be changed and never has.

[ayshayasmin]

i mean how can u compare harry potter too the quran u silly person!!!!! ull get punished too question the quran

[Follower]

ayshayasmin- but you can't prove that the Quran remained unchanged from original revelation to today. You do not have the original bones, leaves that the revelations were written on.

There is also the whole issue of Uthmann burning the copies of the Quran. He was trying to correct something- we will never know why. He did a great diservice to the Quran by burning so many copies.

[YusufNoor]

Except for the parts where

• it refers to the existence of invisible magical spirits from Arabian mythology (djinn)

•*it claims that the entire world was covered in a flood and a man gathered all the million plus species onto an ark (11:40)

• it refers to the sun's orbit, usually in the same phrase as the moon's orbit, (13:2, 21:33, 36:40) along with places where the sun rises and sets (18:86)—just like most Mesopotamian myths

• it refers to splitting the moon into two pieces (54:1)

• it claims that the stars will "fall"; (81:2) and the lower sky has "lamps" in it (41:12)

• it claims that humans are formed from a "gushing fluid" that comes from between your loins and ribs (86:5)

This is exactly the kind of language you would expect from 7th-century desert nomads.

Of course, Muslims have all kinds of clever ways of interpreting these verses "metaphorically" or whatever so they don't seem as silly as they are—just like Christians interpret the Bible to seem less silly than it is.

I'm also a fan of the part in the Bukhari hadith that talks about Muhammad riding a magical flying donkey, al-Buraq.

Peace Quingu,

i would like to address this point:

This is exactly the kind of language you would expect from 7th-century desert nomads

then Qur'an initially issued a challenge that if you feel that the Qur'an is manmade, then please, by all means make another like it! which it also claims, you CANNOT! the challenge was reduced to 10 Surahs, which you are challenged to produce, which again the Qur'an claims you CANNOT! and lastly, we are at the present challenge: PRODUCE ONE SURAH, if you can, which the Qur'an claims, you CANNOT!

so all you have to do, is produce 1 Surah like in the Qur'an and you will have made your point, and history!

you know the language of the Qur'an is far superior to even the Arabic of it's time and has never been equalled. "Uncle Woodrow", that is Abdullah Muhammad, studied the Qur'an before his reversion, you might want to discuss this with him.

i had heard that we, Muslims, were given Surah Al Fatiha as a gift which no other Ummah was given. at first glance it seems similar to the "Christian" Our Father, and i have even made the general comparison. i did NOT see how it was superior, i accepted that it was, but didn't know why.

then i listened to a series of lectures by Jamaaluddin Zarabozo on Al Fatihah [and i am actually only on disc 12] which attempts to show the merits of the Quranic Arabic. my wife is much younger than me and has less patience than i do, for the most part. she has listened to many lengthy lectures by Anwar Al Awlaki and usually has to force herself to the end and then will not listen to it again. she's annoyed with me when i listen to my Mufti Menk over and over [and over] again! however, she listens to this lecture EVERY SINGLE DAY and has completed more times than i know of!

here is the series:

http://www.kalamullah.com/al-fatihah.html

at the least, you should understand that if you have only read the Qur'an in English, you have not read the Qur'an! you are missing meaning and shades of meaning upon shades of meaning and as well as beauty!

there were Arabs that converted to Islam after only hearing a few verses!

by the way, even as an atheist, you must believe in something, even if it is simply luck or fate.

so when can we expect our surah?:D

:sl:

[alcurad]

Except for the parts where

• it refers to the existence of invisible magical spirits from Arabian mythology (djinn)

•*it claims that the entire world was covered in a flood and a man gathered all the million plus species onto an ark (11:40)

• it refers to the sun's orbit, usually in the same phrase as the moon's orbit, (13:2, 21:33, 36:40) along with places where the sun rises and sets (18:86)—just like most Mesopotamian myths

• it refers to splitting the moon into two pieces (54:1)

• it claims that the stars will "fall"; (81:2) and the lower sky has "lamps" in it (41:12)

• it claims that humans are formed from a "gushing fluid" that comes from between your loins and ribs (86:5)

This is exactly the kind of language you would expect from 7th-century desert nomads.

Of course, Muslims have all kinds of clever ways of interpreting these verses "metaphorically" or whatever so they don't seem as silly as they are—just like Christians interpret the Bible to seem less silly than it is.

I'm also a fan of the part in the Bukhari hadith that talks about Muhammad riding a magical flying donkey, al-Buraq.

that is quite funny Qnigu, all the time in LI and you still, meh nevermind, I'm too busy to answer this, if it hadn't been answered several dozen times already that is.

[Qingu]

Qingu- If there is a "contradiction" in the Bible further, deeper study into the "contradiction" reveals a truer, richer story. The "contradiction" becoming more information for the one with an open heart.

Every religious person says this about problems in their holy text. Muslims say it about the points I brought up in the Quran. A Hare Krishna I met said it when I brought up the nonsensical stories in the Mahabharata about magical archery.

In the same way, Harry Potter fans can also engage in "deeper study" to explain how the astrology classroom is on the third floor in Book 2 but on another floor in Book 3*, and I'm sure the elaborate excuses they invent to explain this "seeming contradiction" reveals a truer, richer story as well.

*(note: I've forgotten the exact details of the classroom contradiction in HP, so excuse me if I'm misrepresenting).

Various translation can also help you decide if the message is truely a contradiction, or a human error.

Another common excuse for problems in the Bible. And if it's not a translation problem, you can always just blame it on a "scribal error" that miscopied the original, divinely inspired text. Excuses, excuses, excuses....

[Qingu]

then Qur'an initially issued a challenge that if you feel that the Qur'an is manmade, then please, by all means make another like it! which it also claims, you CANNOT! the challenge was reduced to 10 Surahs, which you are challenged to produce, which again the Qur'an claims you CANNOT! and lastly, we are at the present challenge: PRODUCE ONE SURAH, if you can, which the Qur'an claims, you CANNOT!

so all you have to do, is produce 1 Surah like in the Qur'an and you will have made your point, and history!

you know the language of the Qur'an is far superior to even the Arabic of it's time and has never been equalled. "Uncle Woodrow", that is Abdullah Muhammad, studied the Qur'an before his reversion, you might want to discuss this with him.

With all due respect, Yusuf, this has always struck me as an incredibly silly argument.

You are claiming that the Quran is so perfect and awesome that nobody could write something better than the Quran. Therefore, this is evidence that the Quran is perfect and awesome.

The problem is, how on earth do you determine if something is "better-written" than the Quran? I have not read the Quran in Arabic, but I've read it in English and I don't think it's beautiful or well-written at all. I think it's repetitive and childish. Many people who have read the Quran in Arabic have a similarly low opinion of the book.

Of course, you'll just dismiss these opinions because "Allah has blocked our heart" or something. So your argument is entirely circular. The Quran is the best book ever because people who think the Quran is the best book ever say it's the best book ever. Do you really think this argument is going to convince someone like me?

at the least, you should understand that if you have only read the Qur'an in English, you have not read the Qur'an! you are missing meaning and shades of meaning upon shades of meaning and as well as beauty!

there were Arabs that converted to Islam after only hearing a few verses!

I've listened to the Quran in Arabic. I didn't understand it, of course. I think Arabic is a beautiful language to look at, but frankly it's kind of an ugly language to listen to. Maybe if it was spoken in Afrikaans? Now there's a pretty-sounding language.

by the way, even as an atheist, you must believe in something, even if it is simply luck or fate.

I believe in a largely deterministic universe—I guess you could call that fate. :)

so when can we expect our surah?:D

I didn't write this—it comes from the Nasadiya hymn of the Rig Veda, a Hindu scripture dating from 1000 B.C.—but I think it's a lot more beautiful and compelling than anything I've read in the Quran:

There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
Where?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.

Their cord was extended across.
Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen
– perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not –
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps He does not know.

Maybe you don't think it's as pretty as the Quran (different strokes for different folks!). But then—according to your logic—I could make the argument that it's because you're missing out on the divine shades of meaning by not reading it in the original Sanskrit! (Do you see now why the "original Arabic" argument isn't convincing?)

[KashifB]

La'natullah ...

[Qingu]

Eh, mock all you like.
To us our religion, to you yours. (or nonreligion, should I say, as atheists seem so adamant to stress that atheism is not a religion)

I think you are referencing probably my favorite verse from the Quran ("unbeliever, you will never believe what I believe, and I will never believe what you believe ... you have your way of life and I have mine").

But then something has always bothered me about this verse. It's tolerant and respectful, which is good. But it's also sort of close-minded. I like to think that it's possible that I could be convinced to believe in Islam, or another religion. It's probably not going to happen, but I'm certainly open to being convinced. And I think everyone should at least be open to the possibility that their religion or worldview could be wrong.

That said, crayon, I apologize if I have come off as disrespectful of "mocking." That was not my intent—I'm simply responding to the arguments put forth on here.

[crayon]

That's actually not so great a translation of it, a better one is:

"Say: O disbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. "

This one has no "never".
It's always possible for one to change one's beliefs, but I guess these verses talk about the present, what's currently going on, which is that we do not and will not worship what you do, nor do you or will you worship what we do.

No worries, peace.

[aysegul]

I think you are referencing probably my favorite verse from the Quran ("unbeliever, you will never believe what I believe, and I will never believe what you believe ... you have your way of life and I have mine").

But then something has always bothered me about this verse. It's tolerant and respectful, which is good. But it's also sort of close-minded. I like to think that it's possible that I could be convinced to believe in Islam, or another religion. It's probably not going to happen, but I'm certainly open to being convinced. And I think everyone should at least be open to the possibility that their religion or worldview could be wrong.

That said, crayon, I apologize if I have come off as disrespectful of "mocking." That was not my intent—I'm simply responding to the arguments put forth on here.

Yes everyone should at least be open to the possibility that .....If we consider ,we were born in a christian family,would we say ''This is the right religion''without searching=?This would be narrow minded....Even ın ıslam ..
Yes as for me ı was born in muslım family,but nevertheless ı searched WHy am ı in this religion ?Why not the others?etc.
After reading Quran All seems satisfactory to me.honestly ı didnt search for a miracle etc...So I m happy:D If you believe in One God,Just ask for help from Him!Help will find you !
That so!:)

[Vito]

With all due respect, Yusuf, this has always struck me as an incredibly silly argument.

You are claiming that the Quran is so perfect and awesome that nobody could write something better than the Quran. Therefore, this is evidence that the Quran is perfect and awesome.

The problem is, how on earth do you determine if something is "better-written" than the Quran? I have not read the Quran in Arabic, but I've read it in English and I don't think it's beautiful or well-written at all. I think it's repetitive and childish. Many people who have read the Quran in Arabic have a similarly low opinion of the book.

I guess the many people who convert every year don't find it as silly as the 'many' people who read it and disregard it.

[Qingu]

I guess the many people who convert every year don't find it as silly as the 'many' people who read it and disregard it.

Obviously not.

Likewise, the many people who convert to Mormonism each year don't find the book of Mormon as silly as those who disregard it.

The many people who convert to Scientology each year don't find Dianetics as silly as those who dismiss it as science fiction nonsense.

My point here is that "the Quran is so beautiful so it must be true" isn't really a good argument, because not everyone thinks it's beautiful.

[aysegul]

Obviously not.

Likewise, the many people who convert to Mormonism each year don't find the book of Mormon as silly as those who disregard it.

The many people who convert to Scientology each year don't find Dianetics as silly as those who dismiss it as science fiction nonsense.

My point here is that "the Quran is so beautiful so it must be true" isn't really a good argument, because not everyone thinks it's beautiful.

Iın some ways it is true... we dont believe in Quran for being beautifully written ,we believe in it for having truths in it....And rhyming is magnificant!This can not be denied...For instance:there is a beautifully written poem in English,rhyming is perfect.But when it is translated to another language this ryhming dipeppears.. like being in Arabic..Quran has a good rhyming in Arabic.But not in english...When it is translated...

And Allah says in fact indicates that in Holy Quran :

This is not a poem this is an advice...He wants to say ı didnt send this Quran as a book,bu for finding and making you know me !

[Whatsthepoint]

You don't, you just have to believe. There's some evidence, like with so many other holy books, but nothing conclusive, so in the end, you have believe it.

[Trumble]

at the least, you should understand that if you have only read the Qur'an in English, you have not read the Qur'an! you are missing meaning and shades of meaning upon shades of meaning and as well as beauty!

I'm sure that's true, and I've always found Woodrow's comments on the subject very interesting (not to mention rather more convincing than alleged lack of contradictions, 'science', and so forth). However, while I can never really know if or until I ever learn Arabic I am concious that exactly the same of works in other ancient languages. Including, incidently, the NT gospels which in Greek include much poetic patterning integrated into the prose. I'm not at all sure that could be replicated by any scholar today. All of that is lost in translation(*).


(*)In passing, incidently - if you will forgive a very quick diversion off topic - I'd point out that while that patterning is of distinctly Hebraic style, it only really 'works' in Greek. It is very strong evidence, despite claims to the contrary, that the gospels were written by persons familiar with Hebrew literary style, but IN Greek (not Hebrew or Aramaic).

[alcurad]

the qur'an is neither a song, nor a piece of poetry,it's main purpose is not aesthetics, rather guidance. it is delivered in an aesthetically 'sound' way,although that is mostly noted by Arabic speakers..

[Mustapha@]

:sl:

the way in which the Qur'an is represented to humanity proves that it's the truth. we can say that from its signs...including Miracles...scientific discoveries...the style of language that challenged the best speakers of Arabic" Quraysh" at that time...the moral codes...wisedom...Allah says:

"We have sent down to thee Manifest Signs(ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse" (Qur'an, 002:099)

and another sign is the preservation of the Qur'an till our days now and without changing a single word...in the past and nowadays tens of thousands Muslims all over the world memorize it by heart...Allah say on one His verses:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)" (Qur'an, 015:009)

I think that this preservation that we see now back up this verse...so the promise of Allah is kept and it will always be till the day of judgement...
this is why we say that the Qur'an is the true words of Allah, the only Creator

:sl:
peace be with you all :)

[Qingu]

and another sign is the preservation of the Qur'an till our days now and without changing a single word...in the past and nowadays tens of thousands Muslims all over the world memorize it by heart...Allah say on one His verses:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)" (Qur'an, 015:009)

I think that this preservation that we see now back up this verse...so the promise of Allah is kept and it will always be till the day of judgement...
this is why we say that the Qur'an is the true words of Allah, the only Creator

Why would the fact that a text is well-preserved by evidence that it's true?

The original text of Harry Potter may well be identical to a copy made 1,600 years from now. But just because Harry Potter is well-preserved doesn't mean Harry Potter is true.

[KashifB]

A Muslim knows in his heart that the Quran is true. Just as we know Allah subhanahu wata'ala is the one and only God and the Quran is Allah's subhanahu wata'ala words.

We don't need evidence to believe in these things.

[Mustapha@]

Why would the fact that a text is well-preserved by evidence that it's true?

The original text of Harry Potter may well be identical to a copy made 1,600 years from now. But just because Harry Potter is well-preserved doesn't mean Harry Potter is true.

first of all who told you that Harry Potter is well preserved? you have to show evidence for that....as for any Muslim can show you that the Qur'an is well preserved....one thing i want to tell you dude...Atheists think that they are special...they depend on their brain to reach what's beyong their thinking...they do not know that the Human mind is limited...if the Human mind is unlimited we would find a cure to death...could you prevent yourself from dying?

[Mustapha@]

The original text of Harry Potter may well be identical to a copy made 1,600 years from now.

?????????????????????????:blind:
when harry potter was first written exactly?

[Qingu]

first of all who told you that Harry Potter is well preserved? you have to show evidence for that....

I brought it up as a hypothetical. If the text of Harry Potter turns out to be well preserved thousands of years from now, would you think that was evidence that it's true?

Again, my point here is that something being well-preserved has nothing to do with whether or not is true.

Maybe a better example than Harry Potter are the Hindu Vedas. These scriptures are much older than the Quran, dating from 1,000 B.C. They were orally transmitted over centuries before being written down, but many Hindus swear that they have been perfectly preserved. My response to this is: so what if they are? Similarly, so what if the Quran is perfectly preserved? Myths and lies can be perfectly preserved just as easily as truth.

one thing i want to tell you dude...Atheists think that they are special...they depend on their brain to reach what's beyong their thinking...they do not know that the Human mind is limited...if the Human mind is unlimited we would find a cure to death...could you prevent yourself from dying?

That would certainly be nice. And some people think it's possible during our lifetimes.

Not sure what your point is, though. (Edit: Also, I don't think the human mind is unlimited. It emerges from the brain, which is a limited amount of matter.)

[Mustapha@]

:sl:

well, so you agree with me that the Qur'an is well-preserved !!!

then we should make a comparison between all the relegious scriptures...including Torah, the Gospel...the Qur'an...then we make an examination on all of them...then we see which is more accurate, which is devoid from contradictions...which back up the scienctific discoveries...

since I'm a Muslim i should talk about the Qur'an:

1- for accuracy you should ask native Arabic speakers...and you should know that even the best speakers of Arabic, at that time was Quraysh tribe, stood astonished when the Qur'an was sent down to Muhammed(pbuh)...and many of them converted because the style of language and wisedom that Qur'an brought to them...and the moral codes....

2- for contradictions, as it is known the Qur'an was sent down as a challenge for humanity...so it's a challenge for you as well to find a contradcition in the Qur'an...

3- as for scientific discoveries let me give you two samples that show that the Qur'an is Allah's words; there are many but i'm including just these two examples:

a- the Qur'an describes the very stages through which the embroyo passes, Allah says:

"We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed-like substance)..." (Qur'an 23:12-14)


In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said; "It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'an about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been the messenger of God, or Allah"

here is the comment of professor Keith Moor in audio and video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWEMA...eature=related

and here is the video where Dr Keith Moore Explaining about Embryo Stages Mentioned in the Quran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ocmAHiDSV0

and here is the biography of Dr. keith Moor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ocmAHiDSV0


b- the discovery of Pharoah's body preserved and not a mummy:

now let me show this scientific discovery about the well-known Pharaoh who was dead drowned. the bible says that he was drowned then he demolished. BUT Allah says that his body did not demolish and his corpse is still existing till these days to be an example for the unbelievers. this discovery is backed up by a French ex-non-muslim scientist, who converted to Islam later. this man is Maurice Bucaille. he is a French medical doctor, member of the French Society of Egyptology, and author. he has a well know book called "the Bible, the Qur'an and science" ...Allah says:


(Qur'an: 10:90): we took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god exept Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit(to Allah in Islam)"

(Qur'an: 10:91): "(it was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief( and violence)!"

(Qur'an: 10:92): " This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our signs!"


here is his lectures about this discovery in audio and video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaSfE1DW2-w


and here is the biography of the Maurice Bucaille

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille

:sl:

[Vito]

Obviously not.

Likewise, the many people who convert to Mormonism each year don't find the book of Mormon as silly as those who disregard it.

The many people who convert to Scientology each year don't find Dianetics as silly as those who dismiss it as science fiction nonsense.

My point here is that "the Quran is so beautiful so it must be true" isn't really a good argument, because not everyone thinks it's beautiful.

I understand what point you're making but, in regards to the top of your post, don't forget that Islam is painted as this religion that "supports terrorism" yet, the % of people converting is still pretty high I would say. I wonder why.

[Qingu]

:sl:

well, so you agree with me that the Qur'an is well-preserved !!!

Of course it is. I just don't see why on earth that means it's worth following.

1- for accuracy you should ask native Arabic speakers...and you should know that even the best speakers of Arabic, at that time was Quraysh tribe, stood astonished when the Qur'an was sent down to Muhammed(pbuh)...and many of them converted because the style of language and wisedom that Qur'an brought to them...and the moral codes....

As I've said in this thread before, this is a silly argument, and it's not going to convince an atheist like me. Yes, Muslims think the Quran is very pretty; supposedly some people have even converted because it's so pretty. But I've read it, and I don't think it's pretty at all. I think it's repetitive and childish. Simply asserting that the Quran is beautiful is not going to convince me that it's beautiful, let alone that I should convert because it's beautiful.

On morals, the Quran made many advances over the dominant Arab culture of its time. But that doesn't mean it's relevant or moral for today's world. I think many of its laws are barbaric. Though I think that is a discussion for another thread.

2- for contradictions, as it is known the Qur'an was sent down as a challenge for humanity...so it's a challenge for you as well to find a contradcition in the Qur'an...

For a religious text, the Quran is remarkably consistent. It's also quite short, and it should be consistent since it was written by one guy over a short period of time.

Just because something doesn't contradict itself doesn't mean it's true. The Enuma Elish—the Babylonian creation myth—also doesn't contradict itself. That doesn't mean that the god Marduk exists.

3- as for scientific discoveries let me give you two samples that show that the Qur'an is Allah's words; there are many but i'm including just these two examples:

a- the Qur'an describes the very stages through which the embroyo passes, Allah says:

"We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed-like substance)..." (Qur'an 23:12-14)

Embryology was well known to the ancient Greeks, hundreds of years before the Quran was written.

This would have been known to anyone who bothered to examine miscarriages.

Why on earth do you think this is evidence that the Quran is "special"?

b- the discovery of Pharoah's body preserved and not a mummy:

now let me show this scientific discovery about the well-known Pharaoh who was dead drowned. the bible says that he was drowned then he demolished. BUT Allah says that his body did not demolish and his corpse is still existing till these days to be an example for the unbelievers. this discovery is backed up by a French ex-non-muslim scientist, who converted to Islam later. this man is Maurice Bucaille. he is a French medical doctor, member of the French Society of Egyptology, and author. he has a well know book called "the Bible, the Qur'an and science" ...Allah says:


(Qur'an: 10:90): we took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god exept Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit(to Allah in Islam)"

(Qur'an: 10:91): "(it was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief( and violence)!"

(Qur'an: 10:92): " This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our signs!"

Egyptian mummies and methods of preserving bodies were well-known to ancient cultures before the Muslims. Again, why on earth would this make the Quran special (even if the passage refers to what you say it refers to, which seems like quite a stretch from my reading)?

I think it's telling that the great "scientific" references of the Quran were well-known to people before the Quran was written. On the other hand, the Quran has plenty of passages containing mythological, unscientific nonsense, which I brought up earlier in the thread. It refers to the orbit of the sun, just like every other ancient culture who thought the sun revolved around the earth. It refers to a man bringing pairs of every animal onto an ark, which is physically impossible. It refers to semen being produced in the wrong place. It gives every indication of being written by a 7th-century Arab tribesman, not an all-knowing deity.

I'm sure you can Google all kinds of clever excuses for why the Quran says these apparently false things, complete with Muslim doctors and scientists on Youtube appealing to their own authority. But I hope you understand why such arguments are not convincing to someone like me.

[Qingu]

I understand what point you're making but, in regards to the top of your post, don't forget that Islam is painted as this religion that "supports terrorism" yet, the % of people converting is still pretty high I would say. I wonder why.

Well-funded marketing. Those billionaire Saudis love to throw their money at putting up new madrassas in war-torn Africa.

Also, is the conversion rate high? Or is the total number of new Muslims high? Because if it's the latter, that is easily explained by the high Muslim birth rate.

But I will say that Islam has a very simple, direct appeal that is probably easy for people like me to underestimate. I can see how the "straight path" would be appealing for many people who feel lost or directionless in the modern world. The instant sense of community is also probably quite appealing. Of course, for the same reasons, lots of people join cults.

In any case, though, this just amounts to an appeal to popularity. "Everyone's doing it" won't convince me Islam is true anymore than it should convince you to get drunk with the "cool kids" under the bleachers. :)

[aamirsaab]

...
In any case, though, this just amounts to an appeal to popularity. "Everyone's doing it" won't convince me Islam is true anymore than it should convince you to get drunk with the "cool kids" under the bleachers. :)

The irony is, Islam says no to alcohol.
:D

As for the topic:
Well, first of all the Qur'an acknowledges all the prophets that both the christians and the jews believe in (jews don't accept Jesus[pbuh] as a prophet and Christians don't accept Muhammad[pbuh] as a prophet).

Secondly, many of the great people who invented and furthered academic studies (such as medicine, biology, mathematics etc) were Muslims, following the Qur'an.

Thirdly, because of the teachings of the Qur'an, Europe got out of the dark ages. So for a religious book to take an entire continent OUT of such dark times, I'd say that had to be one great book!

Fourthly, look at the teachings of the Qur'an - it elovated women's status (before Islam, women were objects and NOTHING more!), it encouraged respect in all forms (business, marital and social), it created a freaking business model, encouraged ethics, encouraged charity, encouraged protection of animals and the environment etc.

I'd put more down except I'm in need of some doritos. But from what I have given, that should be enough to give you some idea of how truthful this book is.

[Qingu]

The irony is, Islam says no to alcohol.
:D

That was supposed to be the funny part. :)

Well, first of all the Qur'an acknowledges all the prophets that both the christians and the jews believe in (jews don't accept Jesus[pbuh] as a prophet and Christians don't accept Muhammad[pbuh] as a prophet).

But it leaves out other prophets I don't believe in, including Zoroaster, Joseph Smith, and of course, the great and omnipotent Space Emperor Zargon.

The fact that the Quran is syncretistic with respect to other religions I don't believe in is not going to convince me that the Quran is true.

Secondly, many of the great people who invented and furthered academic studies (such as medicine, biology, mathematics etc) were Muslims, following the Qur'an.

Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest scientist of all time, was a heretical Christian. Hindus have made amazing accomplishments in mathematics over history. Albert Einstein was a Jewish/secularist.

Unless you can show how these scientists' beliefs about religion actually interacted with their scientific accomplishments, this seems rather irrelevant. I mean, you certainly wouldn't argue that Monistic Christianity is true because Isaac Newton was such a great scientist, would you?

Thirdly, because of the teachings of the Qur'an, Europe got out of the dark ages. So for a religious book to take an entire continent OUT of such dark times, I'd say that had to be one great book!

What on earth are you talking about? How did the Quran help Europeans get out of the Dark Ages?

Now, I'm certainly willing to concede that Muslim scientists and philosophers helped the Europeans get out of the Dark Ages—not least because Muslims preserved the writings of ancient Greek philosophers and spread them to the Europeans. But again, this isn't a reflection of Islam, it's a reflection on the usefulness and value of scientific thought. (Incidentally, you could argue that the reason Islamic culture has been in a slump for the past 500 years is related to the fact that it hasn't produced much scientific thought during that time—whereas "The West" has.)

Fourthly, look at the teachings of the Qur'an - it elovated women's status (before Islam, women were objects and NOTHING more!), it encouraged respect in all forms (business, marital and social), it created a freaking business model, encouraged ethics, encouraged charity, encouraged protection of animals and the environment etc.

As I said, all were good moral advances (it also was quite progressive in terms of slavery) ... for 7th century Arabia.

I happen to think morality has continued to progress since the time the Quran was written. (So does my girlfriend, especially with respect to women's status—she's not a fan of the passages that treat women as half-witnesses and half-inheritors, or the passage that compares women to fields that husbands can go into whenever they like.)

Muslims disagree. But then that's the whole point of religion, isn't it—to freeze moral norms to whatever time period your holy book was written. I prefer the morals of modern Western culture over the morals of the Quran. Though it's worth noting there is some overlap. Enjoy your doritos.

[Mustapha@]

the Qur'an is not only beautiful in language or style. but the message that brought as well...I told you that the Qur'an language is unique...even Quraysh Tribe speakers stood astonished because they discerned that the Qur'an words can not be writen by a human being...especially that Muhammed(pbuh) was an illiterate man, he did not know how to write or read...this was known among his companions...even nowadays Arabic speaker do not understand it easily...no human being can write like those words...and in that style

who told you that it's laws are barbaric...do you think the laws of todays are modern?...if so they should at least have prevented this economic crisis to spread....so tell me the best law that you think is unbarbaric, is it marxism? is it darwinism? is it freudism? all these theories have been collapsed dude...and the majority of modern scientists todays are creativits...go and read the book The Hidden Face of God by Michael Card... I know that atheist want to make themselves special...but they are not in fact...Atheism is old-fashioned...

I think you have not seen the videos at all, because you are afraid from the truth.....

for the embroyoly, I challenge you to give a Greek text that describes the embroyo as much as the accuracy of the Qur'an description...I think you are not more clever than Mr. keith Moor. if there was such description in greek books, i think that Mr. Moor would be the first to know, since embroyology is his major field

for the Pharoah, i told you it's not a mummy. do you think you are clever than maurice bucaille?....the Pharoah is not cloaked like the other mummies and maurice Bucaille proved that the Pahroah was dead drwoned as the Qur'an describes...and his body is the only one that is not cloaked like other mummies....


last but not least, it's easy to doubt things....but to prove things it will cost you sacrifices; it's easy for you to be synical about everything...because Matirialism spoilt your brain...and you forgot about spirituality...it's easy for me to say that you are only a robot who is writing this comments, not a human being...

[Mustapha@]

Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest scientist of all time, was a heretical Christian.
.

you see that the greatest scientists are creativists not atheists? :bump1:

[KashifB]

Good posts by aamirsaab, Qingu and Mustapha. Keep it up guys, I'm enjoying this. :popcorn:

[Vito]

Well-funded marketing. Those billionaire Saudis love to throw their money at putting up new madrassas in war-torn Africa.

Also, is the conversion rate high? Or is the total number of new Muslims high? Because if it's the latter, that is easily explained by the high Muslim birth rate.

But I will say that Islam has a very simple, direct appeal that is probably easy for people like me to underestimate. I can see how the "straight path" would be appealing for many people who feel lost or directionless in the modern world. The instant sense of community is also probably quite appealing. Of course, for the same reasons, lots of people join cults.

In any case, though, this just amounts to an appeal to popularity. "Everyone's doing it" won't convince me Islam is true anymore than it should convince you to get drunk with the "cool kids" under the bleachers. :)

Yes as I've said, convert %, and yea, I'm sure all of this is the result of marketing :rollseyes. My posts aren't aimed at trying to convince you to do anything.. I'm just stating facts. Look at all the things we must follow in Islam. There are so many guidlines (if you wanna call it that) that we must follow and lots of things that are not halaal yet, lots of people still accept this. This isn't like Scientology where one celebrity does it, and all of a sudden, 50 others follow or whatever.

So we don't get off topic anymore, I suggest you look at the convert threads and get a better picture of why people are doing it.

[Qingu]

the Qur'an is not only beautiful in language or style. but the message that brought as well...I told you that the Qur'an language is unique...even Quraysh Tribe speakers stood astonished because they discerned that the Qur'an words can not be writen by a human being...

I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously the Quran's words can be written by a human being, or else nobody would be able to copy those words onto new Qurans or onto the internet.

especially that Muhammed(pbuh) was an illiterate man, he did not know how to write or read...

Relevance? He could easily have dictated. Much of the Quran reads like spoken sermons.

who told you that it's laws are barbaric...

I came to this conclusion after reading them myself.

do you think the laws of todays are modern?...if so they should at least have prevented this economic crisis to spread....

Nice one. :)

This is a complete tangent, but one of the many reasons why I hate George Bush and the Republican party so much is because they had absolutely no respect for the law.

In any case, laws about economic regulation are not what I was referring to (incidentally, what does the Quran have to say about the regulatory structure of credit default swaps?).

so tell me the best law that you think is unbarbaric, is it marxism? is it darwinism? is it freudism? all these theories have been collapsed dude...

I'm a big fan of Nonzero, by Robert Wright.

And Darwinism has not collapsed. It has nothing to do with human laws, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. But it hasn't collapsed. Freud hasn't really either, though a lot of his ideas were wrong. And Marx made plenty of excellent points about the problems with capitalist society.

and the majority of modern scientists todays are creativits...

What is a "creativit"?

go and read the book The Hidden Face of God by Michael Card...

I don't see any book by that author.

I do see a book by that name written by Gerald Schroeder, a Jew who does not believe in Allah, or a God even closely resembling the God of the Bible?

Why are you citing this man, exactly?

And judging from the Amazon summary this looks like another restatement of the argument from design. To which atheists have long answered: anthropic principle.

I know that atheist want to make themselves special...but they are not in fact...Atheism is old-fashioned...

Feeling special? That's a new one. The way I usually hear it from religious people, the whole problem with atheism is that you don't feel special enough, because you're just a speck of dust in an uncaring universe. That's why you are supposed to want to believe in a loving, judging, personal God—to feel special.

In any case, any feelings of "specialness" I have do not come from my metaphysical views on the universe.

I think you have not seen the videos at all, because you are afraid from the truth.....

Actually it's because I am rarely on computers that can watch them.

for the embroyoly, I challenge you to give a Greek text that describes the embroyo as much as the accuracy of the Qur'an description...

Let's look at the Quran verse:

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed-like substance)...

First of all, this verse has an error: Humans were not formed from clay—that is a common Mesopotamian myth that predates the Bible.

Second, this verse is not remotely specific. What stage of the embryo is the "blood clot," and what stage is the "chewed-like substance")? I have no idea what this would refer to except perhaps the general appearance of the embryo at various stages (which would, incidentally, be obvious to anyone who has looked at miscarriages of various pregnant women).

If God wanted to get into detail, he could have talked about how the human embryo first forms an opening that becomes the anus, and then forms an opening that becomes the mouth. These openings then connect to form the digestive tract. He could have even gone on to point out that human embryos, along with those of animals with backbones, are different from the embryos of insects and shellfish, which form the mouth first and anus second. (Modern scientists refer to these two groups as "deuterostomes and protostomes," but simpler language obviously existed at the time—the Arabs had words for "mouth," "anus" and "opening."

God could likewise have mentioned the fact that human embryos have three "layers" or "shells" at first. If he really wanted to show off he could have talked about how the human embryo takes on traits of such animals as fish.

In short, there is a wealth of detailed information that could have been included in the Quran verse, but there's nothing except general, vague descriptions of two states of embryological development that would have been apparent from miscarriages.

As for previous writers who went into more depth about embryology—as far as I can tell, the only remarkable thing about the Quranic text on embryology is that it rejects preformation—that is, the idea that the embryo is simply a miniature version of you that grows in size. But Aristotle knew that this was not true. He believed, rightly, that the embryo develops from a mass of material and only comes to resembles the human (or animal) over time.

http://www.greektexts.com/library/Ar.../eng/1022.html

Now, I see that there are a bunch of Islamic websites that "respond" to the claim (not made by me) that the Quran "plagiarized" these previous Greek thinkers. They spend a lot of time pointing to errors in Aristotle and Galen. This isn't the point, though. The point is that the true things the Quran says about embryology—that the embryo develops slowly over time, and apparently involves blood—were well known since at least the time of Aristotle. (And the Quran has errors as well—it claims that semen comes from the wrong place on a man's body). Nobody is saying the Quran plagiarized—I'm saying the idea in the Quran was not particularly remarkable and had already been proposed by previous people.

for the Pharoah, i told you it's not a mummy. do you think you are clever than maurice bucaille?....the Pharoah is not cloaked like the other mummies and maurice Bucaille proved that the Pahroah was dead drwoned as the Qur'an describes...and his body is the only one that is not cloaked like other mummies....

Okay, now I'm just confused. Which Pharaoh is this? I was under the impression that Ramses II was widely believed to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. He is currently a mummy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RAMmummy.jpg

[Mustapha@]

Relevance? He could easily have dictated. Much of the Quran reads like spoken sermons.

but where did he brought those words if he were illiterate? and the Qur'an it's not read as a spoken cermons...it's a kind of worshiping...

And Darwinism has not collapsed. It has nothing to do with human laws, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. But it hasn't collapsed. Freud hasn't really either, though a lot of his ideas were wrong. And Marx made plenty of excellent points about the problems with capitalist society.

most modern scientist refute darwinism.. take a look at this
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.php

What is a "creativit"?

I mean creativists= who believe that there is a Creater
and Newton is one of them....

Actually it's because I am rarely on computers that can watch them.

so you should watsh them first...before misjudging those scientists

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed-like substance)...[/i]

First of all, this verse has an error: Humans were not formed from clay—that is a common Mesopotamian myth that predates the Bible.

[i]


there is no erros unless you believe in the Darwinist theory of evolution...that is refuted by modern Noble prize winners...

Second, this verse is not remotely specific.

if this verse is more specific...why do not God show Himsef to you? all what is essential is described in the verse and ask Mr. keith Moor about this...

miscarriages

you have stolen this lie from answering Islam website :bump1:

Okay, now I'm just confused. Which Pharaoh is this? I was under the impression that Ramses II was widely believed to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. He is currently a mummy:

why do not you ask Mr. Maurice bucaille about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaSfE1DW2-w

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bucaille

[Qingu]

but where did he brought those words if he were illiterate?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

I said that it doesn't matter if Muhammad was illiterate, because he could have easily just dictated the Quran to someone who could write.

Are you saying that, not only was he illiterate, he also didn't know how to speak? Or what?

most modern scientist refute darwinism.. take a look at this
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.php

Now you're bearing false witness. "Most" modern scientists do not refute darwinism at all. It is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community. I certainly don't see anything in your website that supports your claim.

I mean creativists= who believe that there is a Creater
and Newton is one of them....

Newton was also an insane alchemist who poked his eyeball to see how the light would refract, and likely had a homosexual fascination with a young Swiss physicist. What is your point?

so you should watsh them first...before misjudging those scientists

If you are a fan of their arguments, why don't you restate them here?

there is no erros unless you believe in the Darwinist theory of evolution...that is refuted by modern Noble prize winners...

Are you bearing false witness again? Which Nobel prize winner refuted Darwinism?

if this verse is more specific...why do not God show Himsef to you? all what is essential is described in the verse and ask Mr. keith Moor about this...

I would love to ask Keith Moor about this, and he is welcome to come on here and debate me. But I'm not talking to Keith Moor, I'm talking to you.

You made the claim that I should be impressed with this verse because it presented amazingly specific knowledge about embryology ahead of its time. It doesn't.

you have stolen this lie from answering Islam website :bump1:

First of all, I actually make a point not to read answering-islam. I'm not a fan of Christian apologetics sites.

Secondly, what claim? The word "miscarriage"?

Are you denying that ancient people who looked at miscarriages would have had an idea about what the Quran seems to talk about?

why do not you ask Mr. Maurice bucaille about this?

Again, if Mr. Bucaille would like to come onto the Islamic forum and debate me, I would be delighted to oblige.

Until then, why don't you make your own arguments? Or at least restate others' arguments in a way that I can actually interact with?

[Mustapha@]

Francis Collins, one of the two scientist who deviphered the DNA code, has announced that he had been an atheist until 30 years ago, but that he now believes in God.

The relevant report in the Turkish daily Vatan read:

"... Speaking to the Times about his book "The Language of God," 56-year-old Francis Collins said that he now believes in God and that ‘There is a rational basis for belief in God, and scientific advances draw man closer to God.’ The American scientist went on to state that he believes in miracles and angels; ‘I felt the presence of God while working in the laboratory. There is definitely a force greater than ourselves, and I believe in that. Deciphering DNA drew me a little clo0ser to God. I saw people wracked by disease. But I saw them miraculously restored to health. That is the work of God.’ Collins says that deciphering the human genome gave him the opportunity to see that it was the work of God. He went on to say: ‘When you make a major discovery you experience a moment of scientific rapture, because you have researched and discovered it. What I discovered was something that no human being had ever known before. But God has always known it….

DO YOU BELIVE THAT Francis Collins IS insane as well?

LINK:
http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/E..._/_08.04.2008_

[Mustapha@]

try to digest his quote:

"There is a rational basis for belief in God, and scientific advances draw man closer to God.":D

so more science leads to relegion, and less science leads to atheism...

the best scientists are creativists who believe that there is a creator for this universe...but i respect you because Christians are Christians because their parents are so, Jewis are Jewish because their parents are so....BUT for you even if your parents were Christians, I think( for the majority of Atheists are Christians, because they were not satisfied with the hoax of trinity or something like this, that's why they forsoke Christianity). even so you did not CARE about your parents and you chosed a trend that seemed to you more fashionable...lol
:D

[Mustapha@]

Until then, why don't you make your own arguments? Or at least restate others' arguments in a way that I can actually interact with?

because I'm still a student, but i believe in creativity. there were many ideas that were mines...and one day i will be able to silence people like you...that's why I'm interested in this field...but it think by the time I will be ready to debate with you...you will be gone to meet your Creator :laugh:...i'm not sure if you will remain atheist or you will convert like many atheists who are converting everyday to islam... :BeRightBack:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think it's obvious who's winning the "debate" here.

I'm just posting to point out that every time Mustapha@ talks about 'creativists', he probably means 'creationists'.

Peace

[Mustapha@]

Greetings,

I'm just posting to point out that every time Mustapha@ talks about 'creativists', he probably means 'creationists'.

Peace

yes lol exactly. it's just because sometimes when I'm writing fast, i can not concentrate on the word...given that I'm not an English native speaker...it was funny :)

Thank you

[Mustapha@]

hey czgibson, i see that you are atheist too...so I can say that you mean the i'm not the one who won the debate !!!

If so, it's just an imagination. because i provided him with many proofs and many scientist who believe in the Creator, Allah...I think that Qingu even never touched the microscope and he wants to debate with maurice bucaille. lol

[Mustapha@]

N.B: every time i wrote creativists, i wanted to say "creatists"
I'm sorry

[Qingu]

Francis Collins, one of the two scientist who deviphered the DNA code,

Collins didn't decipher the DNA code. You're thinking of Watson and Crick.

has announced that he had been an atheist until 30 years ago, but that he now believes in God.

But not Allah. And he still believes in evolution.

DO YOU BELIVE THAT Francis Collins IS insane as well?

No. His "God" doesn't sound anything like the personal God of religions like Islam or Christianity. It sounds more like Einstein's vague, universal-force God.

I call myself an atheist, but I'm not averse to the idea that the universe has some sort of "intelligence" or "direction." If you want to call that "God," then fine.

Just don't pretend that this guy supports anything you've claimed in this thread.

(Also, I don't think religious people are "insane"! I just think they're wrong.)

the best scientists are creativists who believe that there is a creator for this universe...but i respect you because Christians are Christians because their parents are so, Jewis are Jewish because their parents are so....BUT for you even if your parents were Christians, I think( for the majority of Atheists are Christians, because they were not satisfied with the hoax of trinity or something like this, that's why they forsoke Christianity). even so you did not CARE about your parents and you chosed a trend that seemed to you more fashionable...lol

You sure are assuming a lot about me. :)

As a matter of fact, my parents were sort-of-Jews.

because I'm still a student, but i believe in creativity. there were many ideas that were mines...and one day i will be able to silence people like you...that's why I'm interested in this field...but it think by the time I will be ready to debate with you...you will be gone to meet your Creator ...i'm not sure if you will remain atheist or you will convert like many atheists who are converting everyday to islam...

I think you are giving yourself too little credit. You are clearly an intelligent person and you're quire capable of making arguments. I hope you'll keep on questioning and looking for support for what you believe in your studies.

Also—how old do you think I am? Sheesh!

[aamirsaab]

That was supposed to be the funny part. :)

Oh in that case: Lol.

But it leaves out other prophets I don't believe in, including Zoroaster, Joseph Smith, and of course, the great and omnipotent Space Emperor Zargon.

It doesn't mention all of them - only about 25 by name from my recollection. My point was it's the only abrahamic religion that actually accepts the previous prophets.

Unless you can show how these scientists' beliefs about religion actually interacted with their scientific accomplishments, this seems rather irrelevant. I mean, you certainly wouldn't argue that Monistic Christianity is true because Isaac Newton was such a great scientist, would you?

I think the fact that Al-khawrizmi invented algebra during the golden age of Islam is proof enough, don't you?
Still, if it isn't, I have a couple of Ayats as backing a few points below.

What on earth are you talking about? How did the Quran help Europeans get out of the Dark Ages?

Whils Islam was at the forefrunt of pretty much every single academia, guess who was straggling behind in their own fecal matter?

Europe.

Islam comes along and freakin reinvents numeracy (making it easier to calculate) AND invents algebra - without which, the pc you used to type this reply wouldn't be able to run.

Now, I'm certainly willing to concede that Muslim scientists and philosophers helped the Europeans get out of the Dark Ages—not least because Muslims preserved the writings of ancient Greek philosophers and spread them to the Europeans. But again, this isn't a reflection of Islam, it's a reflection on the usefulness and value of scientific thought. (Incidentally, you could argue that the reason Islamic culture has been in a slump for the past 500 years is related to the fact that it hasn't produced much scientific thought during that time—whereas "The West" has.)

Which was BECAUSE of the teachings of Islam:

"We (Allah) will show you (mankind) Our signs/patterns in the horizons/universe and in yourselves until you are convinced that the revelation is the truth." [Qur'an, 41:53]

Encouraging exploration of this world.

Sura 2 Verse 282
Guidelines and information on conducting business contracts.

I happen to think morality has continued to progress since the time the Quran was written. (So does my girlfriend, especially with respect to women's status—she's not a fan of the passages that treat women as half-witnesses and half-inheritors, or the passage that compares women to fields that husbands can go into whenever they like.)

1) women are only half witnesses in relation to business transactions. Otherwise it is 1 for 1.
2) Er...you have to ask permission before you do anything like that to your wife in Islam...otherwise it is called rape. Which is a crime under sharia.

Muslims disagree. But then that's the whole point of religion, isn't it—to freeze moral norms to whatever time period your holy book was written...

Even if that moral norm is BETTER than modern norms?

Let me put it to you this way: Is your girlfriend happy with the way women are treated now? As sex objects used to sell sodding toothpaste and pretty much ANYTHING else? Or what about in business itself; the glass ceiling and different pay rates just because she is female?

Oh let's not end there either, remember the womens right movement (suffragettes/suffragists) started as a direct result of the way the West treated women - this was 40 years ago - 1.3 centuries AFTER Islam! Heck, need I remind you that the Porn Industry started and flourished in the Western world! I take it your girlfriend is not interested in showing her body that way - and neither would any self respecting person.

You say you prefer the modern western world's morals to the Qur'an's? I sincerely doubt that in light of the above paragraph.

... Enjoy your doritos.

Thanks, they were lovely.

[Mustapha@]

Also—how old do you think I am? Sheesh!

well i think you are between 26 and 35 years. even though that there is 9 years as a probablity...but i can not take the risk :)...because I heard you before talking about a g/f..I might be wrong, but at any rate thank you for your time...

:w:

[Qingu]

It doesn't mention all of them - only about 25 by name from my recollection. My point was it's the only abrahamic religion that actually accepts the previous prophets.

Huh?

Christianity accepted Jewish prophets. Mormonism accepts Christian and Jewish prophets.

This is standard practice in all major religions and many cults. It's called syncretism.

It's basically good marketing. If you're going to start a new religion, you don't want to alienate all the people who believe in older and contemporary religions. So the easiest thing to do is just say that all of their prophets were actually pointing to your religion.

I could give many examples, but I don't want to derail the thread.

I think the fact that Al-khawrizmi invented algebra during the golden age of Islam is proof enough, don't you?

What on earth do you think this proves?

Isaac Newton invented Calculus and discovered gravity during the golden age of European colonialism. Why would that say anything about the truth-value of European colonialism.

Whils Islam was at the forefrunt of pretty much every single academia, guess who was straggling behind in their own fecal matter?

Europe.

I have never understood why Muslims always bring this up.

Yes, you are absolutely correct! 600 years ago, Islamic society was much more advanced than Christian society.

600 years ago, Chinese society was much more advanced than Christian society as well.

Do you want a pat on the back or something? What have Muslims done for science in the past 600 years?

Islam comes along and freakin reinvents numeracy (making it easier to calculate)

Actually they just took what the Hindus already had and spread it around, but okay....

AND invents algebra - without which, the pc you used to type this reply wouldn't be able to run.

Other things required for the PC to run:
• Calculus, invented by non-Muslims
• Quantum mechanics, invented by non-Muslims
• Integrated circuits, invented by non-Muslims

I mean, again, I'm confused as to why you even think this is an argument for Islam in the first place. The fact that there were important Muslim scientists says as much about Islam as the fact that there were important Christian scientists says about Christianity.

And it's an odd argument to make seeing as Islam has been scientifically stagnant for about half of its history.

Which was BECAUSE of the teachings of Islam:

"We (Allah) will show you (mankind) Our signs/patterns in the horizons/universe and in yourselves until you are convinced that the revelation is the truth." [Qur'an, 41:53]

Encouraging exploration of this world.

All religions have verses like this.

Sura 2 Verse 282
Guidelines and information on conducting business contracts.

Seems like it would work fine for bronze-age desert nomads.

1) women are only half witnesses in relation to business transactions. Otherwise it is 1 for 1.

Also for witnesses.

Edit: sorry, I misread. Here are the verses that I was thinking of:

Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. -- Quran 4:11

... unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. -- Quran 4:176

2) Er...you have to ask permission before you do anything like that to your wife in Islam...otherwise it is called rape. Which is a crime under sharia.

Where does the Quran demand a woman's consent before sex?

Doesn't the Quran also say you can have sex with your slave-girls? (Well, assuming you are male)

Even if that moral norm is BETTER than modern norms?

How do you judge which is "better"?

I have an idea: let's see how many people would rather live in one society over the other. I notice a lot of Muslim immigrants to Western countries. Not too many the other way around.

Let me put it to you this way: Is your girlfriend happy with the way women are treated now? As sex objects used to sell sodding toothpaste and pretty much ANYTHING else? Or what about in business itself; the glass ceiling and different pay rates just because she is female?

Of course she's not happy about these things. And I'm not saying Western society is perfect. In this case, Western society doesn't live up to its own ideals of freedom and equality.

That said, I think it's hilarious that you brought up a "glass ceiling" when, just two paragraphs ago, you admitted that women are worth half as much as men as witnesses! I mean, are you seriously suggesting there wouldn't be a glass ceiling in Islamic society? Or are you saying that my girlfriend wouldn't have to worry about the glass ceiling in Islam because Islam would tell her not to care that she's worth half as much as men?

With all due respect, this just seems like an incredibly hypocritical line of criticism for you to bring up.

And (I just asked), she laughed at the prospect of choosing Islamic society over America.

Oh let's not end there either, remember the womens right movement (suffragettes/suffragists) started as a direct result of the way the West treated women - this was 40 years ago - 1.3 centuries AFTER Islam!

Really? Which Muslim countries could women vote in?

Heck, need I remind you that the Porn Industry started and flourished in the Western world! I take it your girlfriend is not interested in showing her body that way - and neither would any self respecting person.

That would explain why she doesn't buy or make pornography!

What's your opinion on male pornography, though?

You say you prefer the modern western world's morals to the Qur'an's? I sincerely doubt that in light of the above paragraph.

You're saying I should prefer the Quran's morals to the West because:

• Women in the West have a "glass ceiling" (which they have worse in the Quran)

• Women in the West sometimes sell things by looking sexy and make pornography (is this worse than being captured or purchased a slave-girl in the Quran)

Thanks, they were lovely.

I'm glad you enjoyed them. :)

[alcurad]

Huh?

I have an idea: let's see how many people would rather live in one society over the other. I notice a lot of Muslim immigrants to Western countries. Not too many the other way around.

but then Islamic concepts and morals are not being held up in those muslim countries. not to mention humans are never truly free to begin with. we confirm our submission to allah, and that eliminates all other forms of submission.
and women equaling half is in inheritance and other issues due to the situation back then, it couldn't have been otherwise to begin with, given the circumstances.
there are also verses about slaves and their treatment, but slavery is abolished mostly nowadays, that doesn't mean we'll omit those verses.

[Mustapha@]

Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. -- Quran 4:11

... unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. -- Quran 4:176

this is because women in Islam are not obliged to work. the man is the one who is obliged to work...and imagine that women will get their shares from inheritence plus here husband will be the one who will be obliged to work not her.so all what she gets will be for her...not like the western women who go out to work and they divide what they earn monthly with their husbands with percentage...both the wives and husbands should pay to survive...but this is not the case in Islam...al what women inherit will be theirs...this is apart from the problem of work of women in the west...

slave-girls? (Well, assuming you are male)

you should know that slavery demolished with the advent of Islam. for example in the past some sins were atoned by setting free a slave...so the companions of Muhammed(pbuh) set many slaves free...till there were no slavery in the Islamic community...nowadays for Muslims to atone some sins. and there is no slaves nowadays...they should fast some days or give alms to poors...( i think you will not like the idea of sin)...maybe you think that we are controled with the idea of sins...but you can see it as you like...

have an idea: let's see how many people would rather live in one society over the other. I notice a lot of Muslim immigrants to Western countries. Not too many the other way around.

it does not matter who immigrate to the other, but what's matter is the one who will be able to benefit...I think western societies benefit from Immigrants and the work force...and the Muslim immigrants benefit from spreading islam and gaining experience to retrieve our glory...i know that western societies are well developed, but that does not mean that we wont develop too...

there are even western immigrants who immigrate to Gulf countries especialy to the UAE and qatar...

And (I just asked), she laughed at the prospect of choosing Islamic society over America.

it's normal to laugh because the Islamic law will be something strange for her...she will laugh even if she knows that islamic law offer a protection for her honour...she laughed the same way when we say to a drugg addict " you should give up drugs, this will harm you.." and he laughs at this...she is addicted to immorality...she does not want to be cured...do you want her friends to make fun for her...because she is cured? so she choosed to laugh instead of being cured and be exposed to mockery by her friends...and by you...

Really? Which Muslim countries could women vote in?

even if you vote, you will have no voice...democracy is just a dream...they only create words and concepts to control people...

:BeRightBack:

[Qingu]

but then Islamic concepts and morals are not being held up in those muslim countries.

Of course, the "No true Scotsmen" defense. :)

and women equaling half is in inheritance and other issues due to the situation back then, it couldn't have been otherwise to begin with, given the circumstances.

So the Quran's law should be rewritten for modern times where women can hold jobs?

there are also verses about slaves and their treatment, but slavery is abolished mostly nowadays, that doesn't mean we'll omit those verses.

Would it be wrong to own slaves? As a Muslim, could you say I was acting unjustly if I bought a young girl from Thailand to use as a sex-slave?

[Qingu]

this is because women in Islam are not obliged to work. the man is the one who is obliged to work...and imagine that women will get their shares from inheritence plus here husband will be the one who will be obliged to work not her.so all what she gets will be for her...not like the western women who go out to work and they divide what they earn monthly with their husbands with percentage...both the wives and husbands should pay to survive...but this is not the case in Islam...al what women inherit will be theirs...this is apart from the problem of work of women in the west...

As I said above ... are you saying the law in the Quran should be rewritten in light of the fact that women can work nowadays?

Do you think it's fair that women get half the inherentance if they work just as much as their brothers?

you should know that slavery demolished with the advent of Islam.

Why did it take so long for Muslim countries to outlaw it?

1923 for Afghanistan, 1928 for Iran, 1962 for Saudi Arabia and Yemen....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboliti...avery_timeline

for example in the past some sins were atoned by setting free a slave...so the companions of Muhammed(pbuh) set many slaves free...till there were no slavery in the Islamic community...nowadays for Muslims to atone some sins. and there is no slaves nowadays...they should fast some days or give alms to poors...( i think you will not like the idea of sin)...maybe you think that we are controled with the idea of sins...but you can see it as you like...

I acknowledge the Quran's rather progressive views on slavery.

At the same time, it still condoned slavery. And there were still slaves in the Muslim world until the 20th century.

it does not matter who immigrate to the other, but what's matter is the one who will be able to benefit...I think western societies benefit from Immigrants and the work force...and the Muslim immigrants benefit from spreading islam and gaining experience to retrieve our glory...i know that western societies are well developed, but that does not mean that we wont develop too...

there are even western immigrants who immigrate to Gulf countries especialy to the UAE and qatar...

I certainly hope Muslim countries develop. But I think it's strange to say that Islam is better for societal on some grand basis than Western values when so many Muslims seem to want to escape from Islamic countries and move to Western countries. You'd think, if Islam was so great for society, they wouldn't want to move away from Islamic countries!

This is why Muslims like alucard often employ the No True Scotsmen argument—the reason Muslims emmigrate so much is because the Islamic countries are not real (tm) Islamic countries, even despite the presence of shariah law. A popular excuse is because there is no Caliphate. Though the Caliphate didn't really fare so well against the West either when it was around.

it's normal to laugh because the Islamic law will be something strange for her...she will laugh even if she knows that islamic law offer a protection for her honour...she laughed the same way when we say to a drugg addict " you should give up drugs, this will harm you.." and he laughs at this...she is addicted to immorality...she does not want to be cured...do you want her friends to make fun for her...because she is cured? so she choosed to laugh instead of being cured and be exposed to mockery by her friends...and by you...

It's interesting to see how you've projected the power dynamics of our relationship.

even if you vote, you will have no voice...democracy is just a dream...they only create words and concepts to control people...

Well, amir brought up the lack of female suffrage in the West as a flaw compared to Islamic society. So I was curious as to how women suffrage has historically worked out in Islamic societies.

And don't knock democracy. I worked my butt off to make sure Obama got into the White House instead of another despicable warmongering Republican. It's not perfect, but it's the best system we have.

[Mustapha@]

So the Quran's law should be rewritten for modern times where women can hold jobs?

but who told you that work of women will bring a good benifit for a society? do not you see the problems that occure because of women jobs...including adultery...delinquency of children who lack their mother's affection...when both the husband and the wife are at work...who will give affection to small kids...is it the baby sitter?....there are many things to say about this subject...

Would it be wrong to own slaves? As a Muslim, could you say I was acting unjustly if I bought a young girl from Thailand to use as a sex-slave?

what on the earth did you bring this information from...I think you are a good person...i think you know what a stereotype means...you should not judge a group because one of that group is a bad presentative...I think you grasped what i mean...if a person committ a sin that has nothing to do with relegion...you should criticize that person not the relegion that he disrespected...


:w:

[Mustapha@]

Do you think it's fair that women get half the inherentance if they work just as much as their brothers?

yes it's fair, taking into account that all what she inherits will be hers...and her husband will be obliged to work for her and for her kids...without taking any from what she inherits...

imagine I have two sisters...and i inhereted 50 % and they inherited 25 % for each one...when I marry I will be the one who will be obliged to work not my wife...and when they will marry they will not be obliged neither to work neither to give some of what they inherited to their husbands...but for me I will spend all my 50% on my wife and my kids...but my sisters will keep all their 25%...and their husband have no right to claim some from what they inherited, but they will be the ones who will work for them...in your opinion wont they be better than me?
did you grasp what i mean?

Why did it take so long for Muslim countries to outlaw it?

1923 for Afghanistan, 1928 for Iran, 1962 for Saudi Arabia and Yemen....

i told you that there is no slavery in Islam...and there are many verses in the Qur'an that buck up this...there is a well-known saying of Omar beno Al-khatab, the second caliphate in islam: " when did you enslave people while their mothers gave them birth free !"(this is my own translation)

so slavery in that country has nothing to do with Islam...and it's just a lie...the same lie that the USA made when it wantd to invade Iraq...they claimed that Iraq developed nuclair weapouns...where is the nuclair weapouns? and if there is a slavery in a country you should know that it has nothing to do with Islam...take this as an example, alcohol is prohibited in Islam, but there are many Muslim countries where alcohol is sold expressively...shall we say that alcohol is permitted in islam?

it's too late in here. take good care:)
:w:

[muslimapoclyptc]

Bs'd

How do we know that the Koran is true, and not the Jewish or Christian Bible, or the book of Mormon, or whatever other holy book of any religion?

Thanks,

Gold.

We know that the Qur'an is true and divine, because of its inimitability, as the Qur'an itself says, and as history has shown to be true.

Except for the parts where

• it refers to the existence of invisible magical spirits from Arabian mythology (djinn)

This isn't exactly a flaw or contradiction, since such beings are as real as death.

•*it claims that the entire world was covered in a flood and a man gathered all the million plus species onto an ark (11:40)

• it refers to the sun's orbit, usually in the same phrase as the moon's orbit, (13:2, 21:33, 36:40) along with places where the sun rises and sets (18:86)—just like most Mesopotamian myths

How exactly is saying that the sun has an orbit and that Zhul Qarnain found it setting into "murky water" a "flaw" or "contradiction"?

• it refers to splitting the moon into two pieces (54:1)

How exactly is this a flaw or a contradiction?

• it claims that the stars will "fall"; (81:2) and the lower sky has "lamps" in it (41:12)

The lower sky does indeed have "lamps" in it; stars, galaxies, etc. They're all over the place. Since it doesn't say that the stars would "fall" to the ground, it's not really a flaw or contradiction.

• it claims that humans are formed from a "gushing fluid" that comes from between your loins and ribs (86:5)

And indeed it does come from between the ribs and the backbone/loins. That is a fairly broad region after all, covering the entire torso and pelvic area.

This is exactly the kind of language you would expect from 7th-century desert nomads.

Of course, Muslims have all kinds of clever ways of interpreting these verses "metaphorically" or whatever so they don't seem as silly as they are—just like Christians interpret the Bible to seem less silly than it is.

I have no need to attach an metaphorical meaning to these ones. They're as clear as day for me.

I'm also a fan of the part in the Bukhari hadith that talks about Muhammad riding a magical flying donkey, al-Buraq.

What is it that makes you fan of it?

[Qingu]

but who told you that work of women will bring a good benifit for a society?

The entire history of the world post-Industrial Revolution.

do not you see the problems that occure because of women jobs...including adultery...

Adultery didn't exist before women had jobs?

Can you support your implication that it's increased because of women in the workforce?

delinquency of children who lack their mother's affection...

My mother raised me and she had a job.

Anything to support your implication that more children are delinquent because of working women?

Also: not all woman have, or want, children.

when both the husband and the wife are at work...who will give affection to small kids...is it the baby sitter?....there are many things to say about this subject...

And every woman I know would say that you are insulting their intelligence and worth as a human being by claiming they should not work.

what on the earth did you bring this information from...I think you are a good person...i think you know what a stereotype means...you should not judge a group because one of that group is a bad presentative...I think you grasped what i mean...if a person committ a sin that has nothing to do with relegion...you should criticize that person not the relegion that he disrespected...

I think you may have misunderstood me. Also, you may not be familiar with the verse from the Quran that explicitly allows you to have sex with your slave-girls. 23:1—

Successful indeed are the believers who are humble in their prayers, and who shun vain conversation, and who are payers of the poor-due; And who guard their modesty - save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy.

In light of this verse, could you—as a Muslim—say it is morally wrong for me to have sex with a slave-girl I purchased from Thailand? On what basis would you judge me as being in the wrong if I did that?

yes it's fair, taking into account that all what she inherits will be hers...and her husband will be obliged to work for her and for her kids...without taking any from what she inherits...

I fail to see the relevance? Will she be able to take what he inherits? And we are talking about a woman who works.

imagine I have two sisters...and i inhereted 50 % and they inherited 25 % for each one...when I marry I will be the one who will be obliged to work not my wife...

Again, we are talking about a world where women work. Not in the Islamic world of yesteryear where all women were expected to sit at home with the kids and cook all day.

If my sister works just as much as me, you think it's fair that she receives half of my inheritance?

i told you that there is no slavery in Islam...and there are many verses in the Qur'an that buck up this...

There are many verses in the QUran that allow you to have slaves.

The fact that the Quran encourages you to free your slaves on occasion does not mean "there is no slavery in Islam." That's absurd. It's like saying, because Budweiser encourages you to drink responsibly in its advertisements, Budweiser doesn't want you to drink beer.

so slavery in that country has nothing to do with Islam...and it's just a lie...the same lie that the USA made when it wantd to invade Iraq...they claimed that Iraq developed nuclair weapouns...where is the nuclair weapouns? and if there is a slavery in a country you should know that it has nothing to do with Islam...

This is a pretty terrible analogy.

take this as an example, alcohol is prohibited in Islam, but there are many Muslim countries where alcohol is sold expressively...shall we say that alcohol is permitted in islam?

Alcohol is prohibited in the Quran.

Show me where the Quran prohibits slavery. I understand that the Quran encourages you to free your slaves for penance. But do you see how that is entirely different from prohibition?

[Qingu]

This isn't exactly a flaw or contradiction, since such beings are as real as death.

Just like aliens and UFO's.

How exactly is saying that the sun has an orbit and that Zhul Qarnain found it setting into "murky water" a "flaw" or "contradiction"?

For the same reason it's a flaw when similar verses show up in Mesopotamian mythology. These verses clearly portray a universe where the sun revolves around the earth, as everyone believed during the time in which the Quran was written.

Now, you can of course split semantic hairs (so could a Mesopotamian apologist). But it's awfully strange that zero Muslims interpreted these verses to mean anything other than geocentrism ... until Copernicus showed up during the 1500's.

How exactly is this a flaw or a contradiction?

The moon splitting into two pieces? Because it's nonsense and did not happen.

The lower sky does indeed have "lamps" in it; stars, galaxies, etc. They're all over the place.

They are not actually in Earth's sky. They are thousands, millions, or billions of light years away.

Of course, people during the time the Quran was written though the lower sky was a solid dome or sphere, and that all the celestial objects were set into it. Which explains why the Quran says this is what they are.

Since it doesn't say that the stars would "fall" to the ground, it's not really a flaw or contradiction.

I'm not sure what else you think the word "fall" means. Is it possible to fall to a place other than the ground?

And indeed it does come from between the ribs and the backbone/loins. That is a fairly broad region after all, covering the entire torso and pelvic area.

Semen does not come from between the ribs and the backbone. It comes from your testicles.

I have no need to attach an metaphorical meaning to these ones. They're as clear as day for me.

You think semen comes from somewhere on your back, that stars and galaxes literally exist in Earth's lower sky, and that the sun actually revolves around the Earth?

What is it that makes you fan of it?

Because it's one of the most hilariously absurd things I've ever read. And it's unfortunate that we're talking on the internet, because I would love to see you answer this question with a straight face: Do you really believe Muhammad rode up into the sky on a magical flying donkey?

[Trumble]

Francis Collins, one of the two scientist who deviphered the DNA code, has announced that he had been an atheist until 30 years ago, but that he now believes in God.

The relevant report in the Turkish daily Vatan read:

"... Speaking to the Times about his book "The Language of God," 56-year-old Francis Collins said that he now believes in God and that ‘There is a rational basis for belief in God, and scientific advances draw man closer to God.’ The American scientist went on to state that he believes in miracles and angels; ‘I felt the presence of God while working in the laboratory. There is definitely a force greater than ourselves, and I believe in that. Deciphering DNA drew me a little closer to God. I saw people wracked by disease. But I saw them miraculously restored to health. That is the work of God.’ Collins says that deciphering the human genome gave him the opportunity to see that it was the work of God. He went on to say: ‘When you make a major discovery you experience a moment of scientific rapture, because you have researched and discovered it. What I discovered was something that no human being had ever known before. But God has always known it….

DO YOU BELIVE THAT Francis Collins IS insane as well?

I don't recall anybody suggesting anybody was insane. However, as you chose to mention Francis Collins, it might be worth having a little look at his book, which have read and indeed have my copy beside me as I type. I'd thoroughly recommend it, by the way, whichever side of the 'belief' fence you happen to sit on.

In one chapter Collins attacks atheism - specifically the view of it presented by Richard Dawkins. Admittedly I'm no fan of Dawkins, but Collins is convincing in his criticism particularly regard to the science, if rather less so regarding the philosophy. In the next chapter Collins attacks, indeed ridicules, creationism particularly the 'young earth' variety. In the chapter after that he does much the same regarding 'intelligent design'. Yes, you read that correctly.

The view Collins actually advocates is one he calls 'theistic evolution', about which he says;

"Yet theistic evolution is the dominant position of serious biologists who are also serious believers. That includes Asa Gray, Darwin's chief advocate in the United States, and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the twentieth-century architect of evolutionary thinking. It is the view espoused by many Hindus, muslims, Jews and Christians, including Pope John Paul II."

I'll let you research 'theistic evolution' for yourself, but you can probably work out the basics from name, and the fact that Collins specifically excludes 'intelligent design' from it.

Your original claim was not that some scientists believe in God (which only an idiot would deny, anyway) but that

most modern scientist refute darwinism

That is complete rubbish, regardless of the twaddle the likes of Harun Yahya like to peddle to the gullible. In fact, the vast majority of scientists accept Darwinism, including Collins. One reason for that, which you can gather from the quote I just gave, is that acceptance of Darwinian evolution is totally compatible with belief in God. What it may not be compatible with are the creation myths contained within certain religious writings, such as the Book of Genesis.

One reason your arguments are so unconvincing (and you are far from alone in this) is that, in failing to recognise that compatibility, you are hopelessly confusing two different issues. Darwinism is not an 'atheistic' belief, and being a 'Darwinist' (if there is such a thing) does not imply atheism. The inverse can't be true by definition.. there are obviously no atheist creationists! Collins, like millions of others, believes in God while also believing rejection of Darwinian evolution in favour of creationism to be totally irrational on the basis of scientific evidence which is overwhelmingly in favour of the former. A belief in creationism is therefore irrational unless you have such faith in the literal interpretation of whichever religious book it happens to be that that faith overrides all other considerations. That may well be the case for many who believe in God, but it is not the case for the vast majority of scientists, like Collins, who believe in God.

[aamirsaab]

Qingu. I'm not going to deal with all of your points since we're actually off topic. TBH we'd be here all week and I don't have that time or will to do so.

The reason why I raised such points was to answer the topic title: how do we know the Qur'an is true?

Now, you and I can argue on the moral issues raised by each and every point until Hell itself freezes over (or until the cows come home if you don't believe in hell) so there's no point in doing that (you can call this a cop-out of you want, I don't care - I'm not interested in debating with someone who clearly believes Islam is false - been there, done that, no point in doing it again.).

The points I were making should have indicated to you or anyone reading that there had to be at least some truth in the Qur'an. If it was a book of falsehoods, would it still be around 1400 years from its creation with approximately 1.5 billion (and increasing) following it, even with all the criticism it has received before, during and after its inception?

Somehow, I doubt it. Ultimately, it does come down to faith and belief. But since you lack any belief in Islam (and religion for that matter) there's little point in me trying to convince you - you won't/don't believe it anyway.

[muslimapoclyptc]

Just like aliens and UFO's.

You're claiming that it is a flaw of the Qur'an to say that something exists, that you don't believe does. This isn't an inherent flaw, nor a contradiction of the Qur'an. It's just your own personal opinion or belief.

The Qur'an also says God exists. But you don't really believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God. That isn't a flaw or contradiction in the Qur'an, it's your own personal opinion or belief.

For the same reason it's a flaw when similar verses show up in Mesopotamian mythology. These verses clearly portray a universe where the sun revolves around the earth, as everyone believed during the time in which the Quran was written.

Now, you can of course split semantic hairs (so could a Mesopotamian apologist). But it's awfully strange that zero Muslims interpreted these verses to mean anything other than geocentrism ... until Copernicus showed up during the 1500's.

However, the fact is, it still needs to be interpreted that way. At best, this only shows the flaw in its early interpretation, not in the statement itself. Both the sun and the moon do in fact have orbits, and that's all the Qur'an says.

The moon splitting into two pieces? Because it's nonsense and did not happen.

How is it nonsense, and how do you know it didn't happen?

They are not actually in Earth's sky. They are thousands, millions, or billions of light years away.

Of course, people during the time the Quran was written though the lower sky was a solid dome or sphere, and that all the celestial objects were set into it. Which explains why the Quran says this is what they are.

What makes you think that the "lower heavens" don't encompass that vast region?

I'm not sure what else you think the word "fall" means. Is it possible to fall to a place other than the ground?

dictionary definition of "fall"

Take your pick.

Semen does not come from between the ribs and the backbone. It comes from your testicles.

Which is between the ribs and the backbone. It's in front of the backbone and below the ribs (as is the the prostate gland and the bulbourethral gland). Hence, it's "between" them.

You think semen comes from somewhere on your back, that stars and galaxes literally exist in Earth's lower sky, and that the sun actually revolves around the Earth?

No, that's just what you interpret the Qur'an to be saying.

Because it's one of the most hilariously absurd things I've ever read. And it's unfortunate that we're talking on the internet, because I would love to see you answer this question with a straight face: Do you really believe Muhammad rode up into the sky on a magical flying donkey?

Yes I do. That's what he said, and I have no reason to deny it.

[Trumble]

Semen does not come from between the ribs and the backbone. It comes from your testicles.

Actually, the majority of it comes from the seminal vesicles, located between the bladder and the rectum.

As far as I understand it, the literal translation of the Arabic is between spine and rib-bones (which, despite muslimapoclypta's comment, is a ridiculous description of the location of the testicles), but there are several translations some of which might place it vaguely in the appropriate region. I don't think this one can really be treated as a 'contradiction', although it's hardly a startlingly accurate anatomical description, either.

[muslimapoclyptc]

Actually, the majority of it comes from the seminal vesicles, located between the bladder and the rectum.

As far as I understand it, the literal translation of the Arabic is between spine and rib-bones (which, despite muslimapoclypta's comment, is a ridiculous description of the location of the testicles), but there are several translations some of which might place it vaguely in the appropriate region. I don't think this one can really be treated as a 'contradiction', although it's hardly a startlingly accurate anatomical description, either.

How is it a ridiculous description?

Between the rib cage, and the tail-end of the spine, is a fairly broad region isn't it?

[Trumble]

Between the rib cage, and the tail-end of the spine, is a fairly broad region isn't it?

It is, but if you think of any imaginary line 'drawn' between any part of the spine and any part of any rib-bone none would pass anywhere near the testicles. Perhaps 'ridiculous' was too strong, for which I apologise. I don't really think the point is worth debating as I'm not anyone knows exactly how the Arabic words should be interpreted. As I said before, in the absence a Quran'ic Arabic scholar, the best interpretation seems to be that the description in the Qur'an doesn't mean much; it is not an 'error' but neither can it be viewed as imparting a scientific 'fact'.

[Qingu]

Now, you and I can argue on the moral issues raised by each and every point until Hell itself freezes over (or until the cows come home if you don't believe in hell) so there's no point in doing that (you can call this a cop-out of you want, I don't care - I'm not interested in debating with someone who clearly believes Islam is false - been there, done that, no point in doing it again.).

Oh, do not worry, I agree with you here. Both of our moral views stem from our worldviews and our experiences, and yours are different from mine. I don't think it's a cop-out to shelve this discussion. :)

The points I were making should have indicated to you or anyone reading that there had to be at least some truth in the Qur'an. If it was a book of falsehoods, would it still be around 1400 years from its creation with approximately 1.5 billion (and increasing) following it, even with all the criticism it has received before, during and after its inception?

Absolutely. And as I've said, I think the Quran was actually quite progressive for it's day, especially with regard to slavery, violent retribution, and the whole "tribal mentality." I think Islam was actually a great organizing force in its day, which probably raised a lot of people from poverty and ignorance.

Now here's my beef. I think there is also some truth in the Enuma Elish, and the Code of Hammurabi. These texts were written thousands of years ago, long before the Quran, and in their day they, too, were probably important in helping organize a barbaric society. I think there is some truth in the Mahabharata and the other Hindu texts—these, too, were important to the progress of their respective societies. (Earlier I qouted the creation hymn from the Rg Veda, which is, I think, one of the most beautiful religious texts I've read.)

But just because a book has some truths doesn't mean it's worth dedicating your entire life to following it. I don't believe any book is sacred. I don't believe any book has all the answers. So I think it's better to look at these books historically, see what morals worked out for society, and also see what morals no longer really fit with where we're going as humans.

[Mustapha@]

I think you may have misunderstood me. Also, you may not be familiar with the verse from the Quran that explicitly allows you to have sex with your slave-girls. 23:1—

Successful indeed are the believers who are humble in their prayers, and who shun vain conversation, and who are payers of the poor-due; And who guard their modesty - save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy.

wait wait, where did you bring this verse from? is it the FBA translation or what? show me the exact chapter because I could not find this verse in my Qur'an....you have to give me the chapter and the number of the verse...the number that you have given me...did not direct me to any like the verse that you make out....

Again, we are talking about a world where women work. Not in the Islamic world of yesteryear where all women were expected to sit at home with the kids and cook all day.

again i'm talking about a world where women do not work...and do not be deceived by the idea that work of women will bring a benifit for a society...I'm not against the work of women...but there are many problems that steem from this.....

There are many verses in the QUran that allow you to have slaves.

could show me one verse that say nthis? :blind:

The fact that the Quran encourages you to free your slaves on occasion does not mean "there is no slavery in Islam."

again I tell you that you should differentiate between relegion and people, you should differentiate between what Islam commands and the extent of people's committment to that command...Islam prohibt thieft...so If i stole you should not judge Islam because of me...modern law command you to respect traffic laws....if you did not do so, shall i blame the traffic laws or blame you...by the way do you have a car? :D:bump1: lol just kidding

Show me where the Quran prohibits slavery. I understand that the Quran encourages you to free your slaves for penance. But do you see how that is entirely different from prohibition?

Allah says:

Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. if that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful(Qur'an, 005:089)


"But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered,- (It is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: Thus are ye admonished to perform: and Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do"(Qur'an, 058:003)

so many Muslim in the past used to atone their sins by setting slaves free...and gradually the slavery demolished in that times...for example one of those slaves was Bilal(May Allah be plaised with him), he was a colored person and he was the first to make the Call Prayer in Islam...and he is one of the most beloved people in Islam...I hope this answered you question...

:w:

[Mustapha@]

I don't recall anybody suggesting anybody was insane. However, as you chose to mention Francis Collins, it might be worth having a little look at his book, which have read and indeed have my copy beside me as I type. I'd thoroughly recommend it, by the way, whichever side of the 'belief' fence you happen to sit on.

the article mentioned that Collins was Atheist 30 years...it might be the book that you have dates back when he was Atheist...

That is complete rubbish, regardless of the twaddle the likes of Harun Yahya like to peddle to the gullible.

Harun Yahya did not invent something by himself...but he uses many scientific prrofs, including modern scientists proofs in biology....and many others

loook at what Qingue said...he said that "Collins didn't decipher the DNA code. You're thinking of Watson and Crick."

[Trumble]

the article mentioned that Collins was Atheist 30 years...it might be the book that you have dates back when he was Atheist...

Please have the courtesy to actually read my posts before commenting on them. It is the book referred to in the article you quoted, 'The Language of God', first published in 2007. I made quite clear that in it Collins rejects atheism, creationism and intelligent design in favour of what he calls 'theistic evolution'.

loook at what Qingue said...he said that "Collins didn't decipher the DNA code. You're thinking of Watson and Crick."

He is quite right, of course, but I fail to see how that has any relevance at all. We are talking about the views of Francis Collins (the head of the human genome project), not Watson or Crick. Both of whom are atheists, incidently.

[muslimapoclyptc]

It is, but if you think of any imaginary line 'drawn' between any part of the spine and any part of any rib-bone none would pass anywhere near the testicles.

This is true. But, if you were to draw 1 imaginary line going vertically down from the ribs, and one imaginary line going horizontally from the end of the spine, they would intersect quite close to them.

Perhaps 'ridiculous' was too strong, for which I apologise. I don't really think the point is worth debating as I'm not anyone knows exactly how the Arabic words should be interpreted. As I said before, in the absence a Quran'ic Arabic scholar, the best interpretation seems to be that the description in the Qur'an doesn't mean much; it is not an 'error' but neither can it be viewed as imparting a scientific 'fact'.

Indeed. It also comes down to interpretation it would seem. The literal wording of it doesn't actually say that it is produced there, only that it "gushes forth" from there. Plus, the testicles alone are not the sole source of its production, nor are they where it is stored, and they are certainly not where it "gushes forth" from. It is stored in the seminal vesicles, and gushes forth from the ejaculatory duct, both of which are more accurately described as being "between the ribs and the backbone".

However, the Qur'an doesn't go into all this scientific detail, as the Qur'an is not a book of science, it is a book of divine guidance for mankind. If someone wants scientific information, they should consult with scientific sources.

The scientific proofs in the Qur'an are not science in themselves, just statements that are consistent with modern science, which may, or may not, also be consistent with outdated beliefs from the time-period of revelation.

[Imam]

These verses clearly portray a universe where the sun revolves around the earth,

That is not true and the proof .... me being Arabic speaker and studied it academically ....I never understood the verse either to portray a universe where the sun revolves around the earth nor the sun sets into "a body of water"

I was surprised when I first read that such verse is included in the so called Quranic errors.......

you ask why?


cause as a reader of the Quran ,I know well the difference between the Quran as telling me a story where I may read what people seen and what people done, and the Quran giving me direct statement while in the context of portraying the universe ...


The verse is obviously from the first category...it is part of a story which has time lines and locations


The verse under discussion is a scene from the story.....which has Its timing; at sunset and things Dhul-Qarnain have seen and done in the location where he saw the image of the sun setting in a dark body of water...


The verse means simply without employing a metaphor

that Dhul-Qarnain once had a contact with some people at the time of sunset and the location by a body of water where he saw the image of the sun setting ...

the verse clearly describe how Dhul-Qarnain viewed the scene....

That is why Not a single Muslim scholar interpreted this Noble Verse as the SUN SETTING INSIDE THE Murky spring water.


When Zul-Qarnain reached the furthest west and no populated land was left, he found the sun as if it sets in a dark spring, but it is not in reality. The same when sea traveler sees the sun as if it sets in the sea if he cannot see the shore while in reality it sets behind the sea.
(Ar-Razi, At-Tafsir-ul-Kabir, Volume 21, page 166)

He probably reached shore of the ocean and saw it like that because there was but water at the furthest of his sight that’s why He says “he found it set” and does not say “it sets”.
(Al-Baidawi, Anwar-ut-Tanzil wa Asrar-ut-Taw’il, Volume 3, page 394. Published by Dar-ul-Ashraf, Cairo, Egypt)


one doesn't need to go to such story to know the existence of orbits and rotation for all celestial bodies, as it is clearly described in the Quran:

Quran 21:33 " "It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: ALL (the celestial bodies) rotate , each in their orbit/celestial sphere ."


To be continued(Inshallah)

[Mustapha@]

:sl:

In one chapter Collins attacks atheism - specifically the view of it presented by Richard Dawkins.

I think that this message is more adressed to Qingu

In the chapter after that he does much the same regarding 'intelligent design'. Yes, you read that correctly.

well this is why we advocate that there must be a disigner...you call him a designer I call him Creator...and this Creator is Allah.

The view Collins actually advocates is one he calls 'theistic evolution', about which he says;


"Yet theistic evolution is the dominant position of serious biologists who are also serious believers. That includes Asa Gray, Darwin's chief advocate in the United States, and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the twentieth-century architect of evolutionary thinking. It is the view espoused by many Hindus, muslims, Jews and Christians, including Pope John Paul II."

I appreciate this, since Collins advocate the idea of creation....and thank you for this quote

That is complete rubbish, regardless of the twaddle the likes of Harun Yahya like to peddle to the gullible.

I think it's better to read harun yahya's book istead of misjudging him...because he does not invent things from vain, but he depends on scientifics proofs...and the proofs of other scientists....


:w:

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

for Quingu,

http://www.slideshare.net/speed2kx/t...n-presentation

it goes with these few lectures:

http://www.pleasantviewschool.com/me...f=/Al-Qur%27an

:w:

[Qingu]

That is not true and the proof .... me being Arabic speaker and studied it academically ....I never understood the verse either to portray a universe where the sun revolves around the earth nor the sun sets into "a body of water"

Very well.

Can you show me a single Muslim sccholar who thought the earth revolved around the sun, before the year, oh, 1550?

Surely if the Quran clearly avoids portraying a geocentric universe, the generations of Muslim scholars who studied the Quran and science would never think the sun revolved around the earth. Or at the very least, you'd think at least a few of them wouldn't (before Copernicus).[/QUOTE]

[Qingu]

wait wait, where did you bring this verse from? is it the FBA translation or what? show me the exact chapter because I could not find this verse in my Qur'an....you have to give me the chapter and the number of the verse...the number that you have given me...did not direct me to any like the verse that you make out....

It's the beginning of surah 23.

again i'm talking about a world where women do not work...

Then you are not responding to the hypothetical situation in my question.

could show me one verse that say nthis? :blind:

Surah 23, verse 6. "those who are rightfully theirs" refers to your slaves. I believe this is also translated sometimes as "those who are in your right hand." The phrase turns up lots of places in the Quran too (4:36, 24:31, 33:50).

Also, aren't you arguing that the Quran says you should try and release your slaves sometimes? Such commands presume you have slaves to release in the first place.

If the Quran said "o believers, if you sin, give out some of the beer and wine you have," obviously this would mean the Quran allows you to have beer and wine. Obviously it doesn't say anything like this about beer and wine because it blanket prohibits these things.

again I tell you that you should differentiate between relegion and people,

I'm mostly just going on what the Quran says. However, you'd think that Muslims would have gotten around to outlawing slavery a lot sooner than they did if the "religion" really prohibits slavery.

Allah says:

Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. if that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful(Qur'an, 005:089)


"But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered,- (It is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: Thus are ye admonished to perform: and Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do"(Qur'an, 058:003)

so many Muslim in the past used to atone their sins by setting slaves free...and gradually the slavery demolished in that times...

But slavery was allowed.

You could always get new slaves. Yes, the Quran encourages you to free these slaves on occasion. But it doesn't say you can't buy new ones. It doesn't say slavery is haram.

[Zamtsa]

That was supposed to be the funny part. :)


But it leaves out other prophets I don't believe in, including Zoroaster, Joseph Smith, and of course, the great and omnipotent Space Emperor Zargon.

The fact that the Quran is syncretistic with respect to other religions I don't believe in is not going to convince me that the Quran is true.


Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest scientist of all time, was a heretical Christian. Hindus have made amazing accomplishments in mathematics over history. Albert Einstein was a Jewish/secularist.

Unless you can show how these scientists' beliefs about religion actually interacted with their scientific accomplishments, this seems rather irrelevant. I mean, you certainly wouldn't argue that Monistic Christianity is true because Isaac Newton was such a great scientist, would you?


What on earth are you talking about? How did the Quran help Europeans get out of the Dark Ages?

Now, I'm certainly willing to concede that Muslim scientists and philosophers helped the Europeans get out of the Dark Ages—not least because Muslims preserved the writings of ancient Greek philosophers and spread them to the Europeans. But again, this isn't a reflection of Islam, it's a reflection on the usefulness and value of scientific thought. (Incidentally, you could argue that the reason Islamic culture has been in a slump for the past 500 years is related to the fact that it hasn't produced much scientific thought during that time—whereas "The West" has.)


As I said, all were good moral advances (it also was quite progressive in terms of slavery) ... for 7th century Arabia.

I happen to think morality has continued to progress since the time the Quran was written. (So does my girlfriend, especially with respect to women's status—she's not a fan of the passages that treat women as half-witnesses and half-inheritors, or the passage that compares women to fields that husbands can go into whenever they like.)

Muslims disagree. But then that's the whole point of religion, isn't it—to freeze moral norms to whatever time period your holy book was written. I prefer the morals of modern Western culture over the morals of the Quran. Though it's worth noting there is some overlap. Enjoy your doritos.

Process of human embryo as told by Galen was different then in Al Qur'an:


Hajj (22):5 O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection (consider) that We created you out of dust then out of sperm then out of a leech-like clot then out a morsel of flesh partly formed and partly unformed in order that We may manifest (Our Power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term then do We bring you out as babes then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die and some are sent back to the feeblest old age so that they know nothing after having known (much). And (further) thou seest the earth barren and lifeless but when We pour down rain on it it is stirred (to life) it swells and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs).

Al Mu'minun (23):14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot (leech like), then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!


Al Mu'min (40):67 It is He Who has created you from dust then from a sperm-drop then from a leech-like clot; then does He get you out (into the light) as a child: then lets you (grow and) reach your age of full strength; then lets you become old though of you there are some who die before; and lets you reach a Term appointed: in order that ye may learn wisdom.


Al Qiyamah (75):37 Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
38 Then did he become a leech-like clot; then did (Allah) make and fashion (him) in due proportion.
39 And of him He made two sexes male and female.


Al Alaq (96):2 Created man out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

[Imam]

Surely if the Quran clearly avoids portraying a geocentric universe, the generations of Muslim scholars who studied the Quran and science would never think the sun revolved around the earth. Or at the very least, you'd think at least a few of them wouldn't (before Copernicus).[/
.

Qingu : Claim: the Quran clearly portraying a geocentric universe


Imam :Verses ?

and don't forget ,we discuss what the Quran says compared with what modern science says.....

[Qingu]

Imam:

I'm not sure where you're quoting me from.

Did you see my last post? I'd appreciate a response.

[Imam]

my point is clear now?


I need internal evidence from the Quran that portraying a geocentric universe

[Zamtsa]

It's the beginning of surah 23.


Then you are not responding to the hypothetical situation in my question.


Surah 23, verse 6. "those who are rightfully theirs" refers to your slaves. I believe this is also translated sometimes as "those who are in your right hand." The phrase turns up lots of places in the Quran too (4:36, 24:31, 33:50).

Also, aren't you arguing that the Quran says you should try and release your slaves sometimes? Such commands presume you have slaves to release in the first place.

If the Quran said "o believers, if you sin, give out some of the beer and wine you have," obviously this would mean the Quran allows you to have beer and wine. Obviously it doesn't say anything like this about beer and wine because it blanket prohibits these things.


I'm mostly just going on what the Quran says. However, you'd think that Muslims would have gotten around to outlawing slavery a lot sooner than they did if the "religion" really prohibits slavery.


But slavery was allowed.

You could always get new slaves. Yes, the Quran encourages you to free these slaves on occasion. But it doesn't say you can't buy new ones. It doesn't say slavery is haram.

Turn out that antum do not know much about Islam. The religion of all Prophets. M. Pickthall Quran TranslationSurah Al-Balad Surah 90Mecca (35) 20 Ayahs


1 Nay, I swear by this city
2 And thou art an indweller of this city
3 And the begetter and that which he begat,
4 We verily have created man in an atmosphere:
5 Thinketh he that none hath power over him?
6 And he saith: I have destroyed vast wealth:
7 Thinketh he that none beholdeth him?
8 Did We not assign unto him two eyes
9 And a tongue and two lips,
10 And guide him to the parting of the mountain ways?
11 But he hath not attempted the Ascent
12 Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is!
13 (It is) to free a slave,
14 And to feed in the day of hunger
15 An orphan near of kin,
16 Or some poor wretch in misery,
17 And to be of those who believe and exhort one another to perseverance and export one another to pity.
18 Their place will be on the right hand.
19 But those who disbelieve Our revelations, their place will be on the left hand.
20 Fire will be an awning over them.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace, development and safe from guile be upon who follow the guidance).

[Qingu]

[B]Process of human embryo as told by Galen was different then in Al Qur'an:

First of all, the Quran doesn't go into much detail at all. It simply (and correctly) says the embryo changes shape over time.

So does Galen:

Genesis is not a simple activity of Nature, but is compounded of alteration and of shaping. That is to say, in order that bone, nerve, veins and all other tissues may come into existence, the underlying substance from which the animal springs must be altered; and in order that the substance so altered may acquire its appropriate shape and position, its cavities, outgrowths, and attachments, and so forth, it has to undergo a shaping or formative process. One would be justified in calling this substance which undergoes alteration the material of an animal, just as wood is the material of a ship and wax of an image.
(quote taken from a pro-Islam site)

Obviously Galen's statements about embryology are different than what the Quran says. This is because Galen supplies about 100 times more information about embryology than the Quran's two short lines about the subject do.

Now, much of Galen's information is wrong. But the point is, everything the Quran "gets right" about embryology—that the embryo changes shape over time, and that blood was involved—was known to Galen (and others before Galen).

So I'm failing to see how the Quran is special here.

[Qingu]

my point is clear now?


I need internal evidence from the Quran that portraying a geocentric universe

No, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Allow me to restate my point/question.

You are arguing that the language of the Quran does not portray a geocentric universe.

If you are correct, and the Quran does not portray a geocentric universe, then surely there must be some Muslim scholar (before Copernicus) who thought that the earth revolved around the sun.

So here is my question to you: Can you find any Muslim scholar, before Copernicus, who thought the earth revolved around the sun?

And if you can't—why did none of them realize the earth revolves around the sun, if the Quran is so clear in not portraying geocentrism?

Don't you think it's odd that, for almost a thousand years after this supposedly non-geocentric Quran was written, no Muslims realized the earth revolves around the sun—that is, until a European dude proved it? Why did so many great Muslim scholars misinterpret the Quran for so long?

[Zamtsa]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Rahiim.


Yasin (36):38 And the Sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him) the exalted in Might the All-Knowing.

This is not about Geocentris, but it is the newest found Theory, which said that the Sun, the Sun revolute to the Galaxy.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace, development and safe from guile be upon who follow the guidance).

[Mustapha@]

Also, aren't you arguing that the Quran says you should try and release your slaves sometimes? Such commands presume you have slaves to release in the first place.

not sometimes but always, because when islame came found that slavery was still existing. that's why came with this wise solution, which is freeing slaves as an atonement of sins....

But slavery was allowed.

yes slavery was allowed before islam, but with the advent of Islam it demolished gradually through sins atonement

You could always get new slaves. Yes, the Quran encourages you to free these slaves on occasion. But it doesn't say you can't buy new ones. It doesn't say slavery is haram.

It's not on occasion but always did. Iislam abolished slavery gradually. freeing slaves entails that you should not buy them. Islam does not say buy slaves. if so show it to me with evidence....

[Zamtsa]

Process of human embryo as told by Galen was different then in Al Qur'an:

Hajj (22):5 Ya_ ay yuhan na_su in kuntum fi raibihim minal ba'tsi fa in na_ khalaqna_kum min tura_bin sum ma min nutfatin sum ma min alaqatin sum ma min mudghatim mukhal laqatiw wa gairi mukhal laqatil linubay yina lakum wa nuqir ru fil arha_mi ma_ nasya_ u ila_ ajalim musam man sum ma nukhrijukum thiflan sum ma litablughu_ asyud dakum wa minkum may yutawaf fa_ wa minkum may yurad du ila_ arzalil umuri likaila_ ya'lama min ba'di ilmin sai a_ wa taral arda ha_midatan fa iza_ anzalna_ alaihal ma_ ah taz zat wa rabat wa ambatat min kul li zaujin bahij



Hajj (22):5 O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection (consider) that We created you out of dust then out of 1 drop of sperm (not maniy, maniy means sperm) then out of a leech-like clot then out a morsel of flesh partly formed and partly unformed in order that We may manifest (Our Power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term then do We bring you out as babes then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die and some are sent back to the feeblest old age so that they know nothing after having known (much). And (further) thou seest the earth barren and lifeless but when We pour down rain on it it is stirred (to life) it swells and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs).

Al Mu'minun (23):14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot (leech like), then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!


Al Mu'min (40):67 It is He Who has created you from dust then from a sperm-drop then from a leech-like clot; then does He get you out (into the light) as a child: then lets you (grow and) reach your age of full strength; then lets you become old though of you there are some who die before; and lets you reach a Term appointed: in order that ye may learn wisdom.


Al Qiyamah (75):37 Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
38 Then did he become a leech-like clot; then did (Allah) make and fashion (him) in due proportion.
39 And of him He made two sexes male and female.


Al Alaq (96):2 Created man out of a (Alaqah is leech like) clot of congealed blood:


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace, development and safe from guile be upon who follow the guidance).

Was Galen saying all that? Where is the verse showing that in detail?

[rpwelton]

Slavery gradually disappeared, just as alcohol was abolished step-by-step. You cannot suddenly change an entire people overnight by taking everything away from them that they used to base their livelihoods around. That is the reason why slavery was not abolished during Muhammad's time. Islam is a religion of ease, not a religion of difficulty.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that the slavery that existed back then was not like American slavery. Not to say that suddenly slavery is OK, but the slavery that existed then was not based on racism and slaves were able to earn their freedom. Quite different from the slavery most people think of when that word is mentioned.

[Qingu]

[B]Bismillahir Rahmaanir Rahiim.


Yasin (36):38 And the Sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him) the exalted in Might the All-Knowing.

This is not about Geocentris, but it is the newest found Theory, which said that the Sun, the Sun revolute to the Galaxy.

Right.

Similarly, you must believe that the ancient Greeks were not geocentrists, but rather were referring to the sun's revolution around the center of the galaxy. The same goes with the ancient Babylonians and Hindus, who also talked about the sun's "course" and "orbit."

Also, I pose the same challenge to you as I did to imam. Find me a single Muslim scholar, pre-Copernicus, who thought the earth revolved around the sun. A single one.

[Qingu]

Was Galen saying all that? Where is the verse showing that in detail?

Please write out the specific claims about embryology you think the Quran is making.

As far as I can tell, the only relevant claim these verses make is that the embryo changes form over time (that is, it doesn't start out as a "miniature human.") This is exactly what Galen says, and I did quote him.

[rpwelton]

Also, I pose the same challenge to you as I did to imam. Find me a single Muslim scholar, pre-Copernicus, who thought the earth revolved around the sun. A single one.

You probably won't find one. The reason is that the Qur'an is not a book of science, but a book of signs. It is meant to confirm phenomenon we can observe in nature which have only recently been explained, but it is not used as the explanation itself.

People don't go looking through the Qur'an to find scientific explanations for things.

[Zamtsa]

No, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Allow me to restate my point/question.

You are arguing that the language of the Quran does not portray a geocentric universe.

If you are correct, and the Quran does not portray a geocentric universe, then surely there must be some Muslim scholar (before Copernicus) who thought that the earth revolved around the sun.

So here is my question to you: Can you find any Muslim scholar, before Copernicus, who thought the earth revolved around the sun?

And if you can't—why did none of them realize the earth revolves around the sun, if the Quran is so clear in not portraying geocentrism?

Don't you think it's odd that, for almost a thousand years after this supposedly non-geocentric Quran was written, no Muslims realized the earth revolves around the sun—that is, until a European dude proved it? Why did so many great Muslim scholars misinterpret the Quran for so long?

Now I ask thee, when does the theory of Sun's revolution came to be found?. It was found way forward of the Heliosentris theory isn't it?

Okay, now, let's try to live at the time of Jahiliyyah people, if Allahu Ta'ala told them about the rotation of the earth, then they will be confuse.

These are the Miracle of Science in Al Qur'an:

National Geographic: The Iron (Fe) Came From Outer Space As In Al Qur'an


National Geographic just couple days back give the show that iron (Ferum) actually came down from the outer space. To show the similarities, here is from a scripture source :

We sent aforetime our messengers with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the Balance (of Right and Wrong), that men may stand forth in justice; and We sent down Iron (wa anzalna hadiid), in which is (material for) mighty war, as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help, Unseen, Him and His messengers: For Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might (and able to enforce His Will) (QS.Al Hadid 57:25).


There is no Book of Religion on earth that say this fact as Al Qur’an does

Here I post verses inside Al Qur'an which considered to be truthfully scientific by SCIENTISTS:

1. Al-Insân (76)

002. Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm (AMSYAJ), in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight.

Mani (sperm) is created through mingle of prostates and other male reproduction glands.
2. Adz Dzariyaat (51)
047. With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.

QUOTE: ."...the vastness of pace" IS THE THEORY OF EXPANSION OF UNIVERSE.

3. Al Hijr (15)
022. And We send the fecundating winds, then cause the rain to descend from the sky, therewith providing you with water (in abundance), though ye are not the guardians of its stores.

QUOTE: "... the fecundating winds..." IS THE THEORY OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN WIND AND THE SEA'S WATER WHICH VAPORISHES WITH THE CLOUD.

4. Al Jatsiyah (45)
005. And in the alternation of Night and Day, and the fact that Allah sends down Sustenance from the sky, and revives therewith the earth after its death, and in the change of the winds,- are Signs for those that are wise.

THAT VERSE IS ABOUT THE "LIFE AND DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE".
EL NINO HAPPENS BECAUSE "THE WIND STOP"
QUOTE: "... and in the change of the winds,..."

5. Al Baqarah (2)
022. Who has made the earth your couch, and the heavens your canopy; and sent down rain from the heavens; and brought forth therewith Fruits for your sustenance; then set not up rivals unto Allah when ye know (the truth).

QUOTE: "... the heavens your canopy..." MARK : A NORMAL PERSON WON'T REGARD THE SKY AS A CANOPY.
THE FACT: ATMOSPHERES BLOCK THE RADIATION OF THE SUN.

6. Al Furqan (25)
088. Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away: (such is) the artistry of Allah, who disposes of all things in perfect order: for he is well acquainted with all that ye do.

QUOTE: "...they shall pass away...". MARK: ONLY 21TH CENTURY PEOPLE WHO KNOWS THIS FACT

7. An Nahl 16
015. And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves;

QUOTE: "...lest it should shake with you..."
iF THERE MOUNTAINS DISSAPEARE, WE WILL NOT WALK COMFORTABLY, BECAUSE OF THE IMBALANCE CAUSED BY THE MOVEMENT OF SUBSTANCES BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH.

8. 056. Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

QUOTE: "...as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty..."

THE FACT: PEOPLE WHO GOT CERTAIN DEGREE BURN, COULD NOT FEEL THE HEAT OF THE FIRE BURNING IN THEIR SKIN ANYMORE, ONCE THEIR SKIN GOT ROASTED.

9. An Nazi'at(79)
030. And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse (DHAHAHA));

To some people they translated that word "dhahaha" as from the word "bunyan" which is the shape of ostrich's egg, the verse mentioned about the SHAPE OF OSTRICH'S EGG WHICH IS "GEOSPERIC" (THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH).
WHILE ISAIAH VERSE IN THE BIBLE MIGHT BE UNDERSTAND AS TELLING THAT THE SHAPE OF "EARTH" IS LIKE A "COIN".

THERE ARE STILL OTHERS LIKE THESE, THY COULD SEE THESE IN Zakir Naik vs William Campbell vcd. And Al Qur'an and Science (another vcd of Mr.Abdul Karim Naik)

YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE FLUX PROBABILITY THEORY TO DECLARE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF AL QUR'AN AS ALLAH'S WORDS, THE ONE AND ONLY.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace, development and safe from guile be upon who follow the guidance).

[Qingu]

Slavery gradually disappeared, just as alcohol was abolished step-by-step. You cannot suddenly change an entire people overnight by taking everything away from them that they used to base their livelihoods around. That is the reason why slavery was not abolished during Muhammad's time. Islam is a religion of ease, not a religion of difficulty.

But alcohol was commonly used by people during Muhammad's time, and the Quran did abolish alcohol overnight. It declares alcohol as haram.

Why doesn't it declare slavery haram?

EDIT: I'd also like to add that the slavery that existed back then was not like American slavery. Not to say that suddenly slavery is OK, but the slavery that existed then was not based on racism and slaves were able to earn their freedom. Quite different from the slavery most people think of when that word is mentioned.

This is a fair point. Nevertheless, as you say, slavery is not OK. Which is why people like me have a problem with books that seem to allow slavery, even with caveats and exceptions.

[Qingu]

Abdul, you're not responding to my posts. You're just copying and pasting from other sites, and the stuff you're copying and pasting is not really related to the discussion we're having.

If you'd actually like to have a discussion about this stuff, that would be wonderful. But I'm not going to spend time responding to you if you're just going to respond with unrelated copying and pasting.

(Just to respond briefly, though—the Quran is hardly the only ancient text to refer to "sky-iron" meteorites.)

[Zamtsa]

But alcohol was commonly used by people during Muhammad's time, and the Quran did abolish alcohol overnight. It declares alcohol as haram.

Why doesn't it declare slavery haram?


This is a fair point. Nevertheless, as you say, slavery is not OK. Which is why people like me have a problem with books that seem to allow slavery, even with caveats and exceptions.

Well thou could pretend to know about slavery in Islam, while I understimate your judgement about, who free slavery from the world?

12 Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is!
13 (It is) to free a slave,
14 And to feed in the day of hunger
15 An orphan near of kin,
16 Or some poor wretch in misery,
17 And to be of those who believe and exhort one another to perseverance and export one another to pity.

Because of these verses sound perfectly, there weren't any rebellion to Rasulullah 'alaihi Shalawatullahi wa Salaam regarding the forbiddance of slavery, Allahu Ta'ala already said that it was "the Ascent."

So if antum is the Prophet, then why not you yourself declare yourself as the number 1 man in history, which I know was adress to Muhammad 'alaihi Shalawtullahi wa Salaam, instead of a man named Qingu or whatever.

If you don't mind let's do Mubahalah, so that God will sent His curses to any of you or me who lied.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace, development and safe from guile be upon who follow the guidance).

[muslimapoclyptc]

No, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Allow me to restate my point/question.

You are arguing that the language of the Quran does not portray a geocentric universe.

If you are correct, and the Quran does not portray a geocentric universe, then surely there must be some Muslim scholar (before Copernicus) who thought that the earth revolved around the sun.

So here is my question to you: Can you find any Muslim scholar, before Copernicus, who thought the earth revolved around the sun?

And if you can't—why did none of them realize the earth revolves around the sun, if the Quran is so clear in not portraying geocentrism?

Don't you think it's odd that, for almost a thousand years after this supposedly non-geocentric Quran was written, no Muslims realized the earth revolves around the sun—that is, until a European dude proved it? Why did so many great Muslim scholars misinterpret the Quran for so long?

The obvious answer to that question:

The Qur'an is explicitly portraying neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism. It is unspecific about both, and hence, its statements regarding the subject can easily be interpreted to apply to either.

The fact that no Muslim conceived of heliocentrism, is simply because they had no reason to. There was nothing to support it in any of the religious texts, and the general assumption of everyone based on observation at the time, was that of geocentrism.

[Qingu]

The obvious answer to that question:

The Qur'an is explicitly portraying neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism. It is unspecific about both, and hence, its statements regarding the subject can easily be interpreted to apply to either.

But nobody ever interpreted it to apply to heliocentrism ... until the Europeans proved heliocentrism.

The fact that no Muslim conceived of heliocentrism, is simply because they had no reason to. There was nothing to support it in any of the religious texts, and the general assumption of everyone based on observation at the time, was that of geocentrism.

But you just said the Quran could "easily be interpreted" to support heliocentrism. Now you're saying there is "nothing to support it" in the Quran?

Your two statements seem contradictory to me.

Also, most ancient myths use the same language the Quran does to describe the movement of the sun and stars. Do you make these same arguments about how to interpret these texts? (Do you think, for example, that the Greek myths about Apollo driving the Sun across the sky are "unspecific" about being geocentrist or heliocentrist and could be interpreted either way?)

[north_malaysian]

If you accept that God writes books that would be one strategy. The problem with this is that many people do not accept that premise.

God didnt write the Koran... Koran is His words....

[Keltoi]

God didnt write the Koran... Koran is His words....

I understand that is the belief of Muslims. My point was that using that belief as a strategy to "prove" that the Qu'ran is "the" Word of God doesn't work outside the realm of Islam. Other faiths do not accept that premise.

[north_malaysian]

I understand that is the belief of Muslims. My point was that using that belief as a strategy to "prove" that the Qu'ran is "the" Word of God doesn't work outside the realm of Islam. Other faiths do not accept that premise.

ok.:D

[rpwelton]

I understand that is the belief of Muslims. My point was that using that belief as a strategy to "prove" that the Qu'ran is "the" Word of God doesn't work outside the realm of Islam. Other faiths do not accept that premise.

I don't understand why you would accept something as the "inspired" Word of God, but not the actual Word of God.

[Imam]

. Allow me to restate my point/question.

You are arguing that the language of the Quran does not portray a geocentric universe.

And you restarted the irrelevant!

What is the thread about?

How do you know if the Quran from God?

the objective person is the one who would focus on the internal evidence of the book..whether it is for or against the divine authority....

you try (and others too) to shift from the internal evidence to other external stuff eg; The Quranic laws ,the muslims countries etc........ all such issue are not crucial for determining whether the Quran is from God or not.....
as before arguing whether such law belongs to God or not ,one should test the validity of the source from which comes the law ...... whether it is inerrant,miracelous or not.....
discussing the Laws of a book before discussing its claims to be miracelous ,is just as putting the cart in front of the horse......

Your original argument was ,that the Quran is portraying the universe in a nomad like style...... and among your arguments,that the Quran portrays the a geocentric universe ....and cited verse18:83,which I refuted easily....

now it seems that you feel not qualified enough to argue for the internal evidence(whether for or against) so you shift to external issue....

I provided you with a simple,straight forward Quranic description of the celestial bodies as swimming each in its orbit with its own motion.... something that none the time the Quran was revealed could ever verify without advanced scietific equipments....it is inconceivable that a man living in the seventh century A.D. ... could have imagined that....

"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"


Now again to your claim ,Quran portrays the a geocentric universe ....
It is you who claim so, so The burden now on your shoulder to provide internal evidence direct eg, verse(s)...

They are not actually in Earth's sky. They are thousands, millions, or billions of light years away..

and there is nothing called in the Quran Earth's sky ...

the verse mentions the lower sky which it defines as such space which have anything can be seen by the naked eyes even if millions, or billions of light years away.....

.Please write out the specific claims about embryology you think the Quran is making.

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an Alaqa, then We made the Alaqa into mudgha .Quran, 23:12-14


No doubt The quran meakes a description that is unique ,simple,and conforms with present embryological knowledge.

How would Arabic speaker describe the staging of human embryo?

he would logically describe ,the location, looking and the function

Then We made the drop into an (Alaqa),

what is the meaning of Alaqa according the biggest ,oldest arabic dictionaries?

1-Lesaan AlArab
2-Alqamoos almuheet
3-Aljawhary
4-Mojam Alwaseet
5-makaees Allogha

It is:

لسان العرب

لفظة ( علقة ) مشتقة من ( علق ) وهو الالتصاق والتعلق بشيء ما. والعلقة: دودة في الماء تمتص

الدم، وتعيش في البرك، وتتغذى على دماء الحيوانات التي تلتصق بها، والجمع علق. وعلقت الدابة إذا شربت الماء فعلقت بها

العلقة. والعلق: الدم عامة والشديد الحمرة أو الغليظ أو الجامد

(لسان العرب جـ10 ص 267-268، الجوهرى جـ4 ص 1529،

مقاييس اللغة جـ4ص 125، المعجم الوسيط جـ2ص 623، القاموس المحيط جـ3 ص275، المفردات للأصفهانى ص 343)


in English

the word Alaqa is derived from (Alaq) which means to suspend to,stick to
another meaning a leech which sucks the blood from animals
another meaning blood clot

the meanings are clear and no excuse for non-Muslim to argue that he doesn't speak Arabic ....
as I quoted all what he needs from Arabic dictionaries..

Now let's apply ALL the meanings (I will not be selective) to the stage under discussion

as what I said before ,all what a person needs to do when describing something is to tell how it looks and how it works

1- the appearence of such stage,... embryo in such stage looks like

A- a clot of blood as the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week

B- A leech

2-the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others

What an amazing description !!!...... all the meaning that one ever needs to describe such stage in one shot (a word)...


I remember that day when I debated the Quranic foreknowledge of embryology with a Christian professor of Arabic who used to give lectures in Cairo university , and we reached at what is Linguistically, is the end of the discussion
I told him, just to insert other words in Arabic or non-Arabic(if you wish) ,clearer and more accurate than the word Alaqa to describe such stage

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an (..............)

till this moment he kept silent !!.... and I guess he would keep silent forever...

Now .... I ask you, who ever described such stage in such amazing specific way other than the Quran?


The other stage:

the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.”

and indeed the embryo in such stage looks like a chewed substance

who ever described the embryo in such stage other than the Quran as looks like a chewed substance ?


Where is in the work of Aristotle or Galen the embryo been described as a something has leech looking, that cling,stick to the womb, getting blood as nourishment from the womb?....and such thing becomes looks like a chewed substance as the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine...
Just where it been described such unique way outside the Quran?

The Quranic scientific foreknowledge of the embryology is obvious and stands firm , and no excuse for non-muslims who visit the thread that they don't understand Arabic,or that Mulsim are selctive when dealing with the meanings,as we already pointed out , using all the meanings of the word is the reason which makes it impressive ...

[Keltoi]

I don't understand why you would accept something as the "inspired" Word of God, but not the actual Word of God.

Well, to make it simple, I believe that Jesus Christ was the Word of God. So I do not accept that the Qu'ran is indeed the "actual" Word of God.

[Whatsthepoint]

Well, to make it simple, I believe that Jesus Christ was the Word of God. So I do not accept that the Qu'ran is indeed the "actual" Word of God.

God.
The Son of God.
The Word of God.
The Prophet of God.
Anything else?

[Keltoi]

God.
The Son of God.
The Word of God.
The Prophet of God.
Anything else?

I'm afraid I don't get your point.

[rpwelton]

Well, to make it simple, I believe that Jesus Christ was the Word of God. So I do not accept that the Qu'ran is indeed the "actual" Word of God.

My point is not about your belief in Jesus being the Word, but the Bible being the "inspired" Word. How do you rationalize that God inspired a book, but not that God's Words are a book (the Qur'an)?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

the objective person is the one who would focus on the internal evidence of the book..whether it is for or against the divine authority....

you try (and others too) to shift from the internal evidence to other external stuff eg; The Quranic laws ,the muslims countries etc........ all such issue are not crucial for determining whether the Quran is from God or not.....

Which amounts to about the same as saying "The Qur'an is demonstrably from God, as long as you ignore all other known facts".

as before arguing whether such law belongs to God or not ,one should test the validity of the source from which comes the law ...... whether it is inerrant,miracelous or not.....
discussing the Laws of a book before discussing its claims to be miracelous ,is just as putting the cart in front of the horse......

A snake eating its own tail might be a better visual simile, as your argument is completely circular.

What reason could any non-Muslim possibly have for accepting these arguments?

Peace

[muslimapoclyptc]

But nobody ever interpreted it to apply to heliocentrism ... until the Europeans proved heliocentrism.

That doesn't mean anything, as they had no reason to believe in heliocentrism at the time. What exactly would they have observed that would've made them think of heliocentrism as opposed to geocentrism?

But you just said the Quran could "easily be interpreted" to support heliocentrism. Now you're saying there is "nothing to support it" in the Quran?

Your two statements seem contradictory to me.

It's not contradictory. The Qur'an can easily be interpreted to support heliocentrism, because there's nothing to explicitly support geocentrism, and vice versa.

Also, most ancient myths use the same language the Quran does to describe the movement of the sun and stars. Do you make these same arguments about how to interpret these texts? (Do you think, for example, that the Greek myths about Apollo driving the Sun across the sky are "unspecific" about being geocentrist or heliocentrist and could be interpreted either way?)

It depends on what those texts are based on. If it were God's words that they were interpreting to mean geocentrism, then yes. If it were there own words, then no.

Since the belief is that the Qur'an is the verbatim word of God, it is beyond error. Therefore, if there's a conflict, then the error would either be in its interpretation or what it is in conflict with, and not in the text itself.

[Keltoi]

My point is not about your belief in Jesus being the Word, but the Bible being the "inspired" Word. How do you rationalize that God inspired a book, but not that God's Words are a book (the Qur'an)?

Again, it is a matter of faith. A Muslim accepts that Muhammad had the entirety of the Qu'ran spoken to him from an angel, making it a divinely authored text.

As a Christian, I do not accept or believe that. Since that is the case, I do not begin with the assumption that the Qu'ran is the dictated Word of the Creator. It isn't that I don't believe God has the ability to author a book if He so chose, obviously, but since I accept and have faith in the Old and New Testaments, I do not see that as God's nature. I say that because, as a Christian, I put my faith in Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ, who Christians believe was the "Word made flesh" didn't feel the need to write a book, it wouldn't make sense to a Christian if such a book was written so long after Christ was among us.

[Imam]

Greetings,

Which amounts to about the same as saying "The Qur'an is demonstrably from God, as long as you ignore all other known facts".

Peace

Greetings,


Are you one of those who would prefer to accept a book as divine based on its moral codes and laws?

or before verifying its laws,you would better verify its claims to be miracelous, inerrant?

for me I prefer the second approach ......

[Qingu]

the objective person is the one who would focus on the internal evidence of the book..

Okay. There's absolutely nothing in the "internal evidence of the book" to suggest a god wrote it. And certainly the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim that a god wrote it.

I provided you with a simple,straight forward Quranic description of the celestial bodies as swimming each in its orbit with its own motion.... something that none the time the Quran was revealed could ever verify without advanced scietific equipments....

Nonsense. The Quran's language here is exactly the same as every other myth. The Greeks also described the sun, moon and stars as going in orbits. So did the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Hindus—everyone.

"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"

All this verse claims is that the sun moves.

Again, so does pretty much every mythological and philosophical text in existence.

The Enuma Elish, an ancient Babylonian creation myth from 1400 B.C.:
"At the time of disappearance approach the course of the sun"

The Iliad:
"The sun was beginning to beat upon the fields, fresh risen into the vault of heaven from the slow still currents of deep Oceanus, when the two armies met."

Aristotle:
"The movements of the sun and moon are fewer than those of some of the planets."

The Bible repeatedly describes the sun as moving through the heavens. So do numerous Hindu myths. Why on earth do you think the Quran's claim here is "scientific" when all it's saying is the exact same thing that every ancient myth and philosopher says—that the sun moves?

Now again to your claim ,Quran portrays the a geocentric universe ....
It is you who claim so, so The burden now on your shoulder to provide internal evidence direct eg, verse(s)...

As I said, the language it uses is identical to the language every other myths use.

Are you saying that the Enuma Elish, the Iliad, Aristotle, and the Bible are not "geocentric" either?

it comes from the root ( كدر ) which means in most uses ,losing the glow and sometimes means fall...

Which does it mean in this context? My translators say "fall." Where on earth do you get the expertise to declare they're wrong?

and there is nothing called in the Quran Earth's sky ...

the verse mentions the lower sky which it defines as such space which have anything can be seen by the naked eyes even if millions, or billions of light years away.....

Really? Ancient Arabic had a word for outer space?

Surely you can produce another source that talks about outer space using this language, then.

No doubt The quran meakes a description that is unique ,simple,and conforms with present embryological knowledge.

Again, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about this description. As I've said throughout this thread. Please respond to the arguments I've already posted instead of restating your position.

I remember that day when I debated the Quranic foreknowledge of embroylog with a christian professor in Arabic

Why on earth do you think I should care? You're not convincing me.

Now .... I ask you, who ever described such stage in such amazing specific way other than the Quran?

Aristotle and Galen. They also went into much more detail. Furthermore, the Quran is incorrect that man was formed from clay. That is a Mesopotamian myth dating from ancient Babylon (see, for example, the Atrahasis epic).

And Imam—I'm still waiting for you to show a single Muslim scholar who believed the earth revolved around the sun, before Copernicus. Again, I am flabbergasted that there don't seem to be any such scholars, especially if the Quran is so obviously "not geocentric." Why do you think so many Muslims misinterpreted the Quran for a thousand years? And why do you think you know better than the scholars of the Abassid Dynasty and the Rashidun Caliphate?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Greetings,


Are you one of those who would prefer to accept a book as divine based on its moral codes and laws?

or before verifying its laws,you would better verify its claims to be miracelous, inerrant?

for me I prefer the second approach ......

I'm unlikely to accept any book as being divine, since I don't believe that anything divine exists at all.

Like I said before, I can't think of any reason why a non-Muslim would be convinced by your arguments.

Peace

[Qingu]

It depends on what those texts are based on. If it were God's words that they were interpreting to mean geocentrism, then yes. If it were there own words, then no.

Since the belief is that the Qur'an is the verbatim word of God, it is beyond error. Therefore, if there's a conflict, then the error would either be in its interpretation or what it is in conflict with, and not in the text itself.

This is entirely circular.

If I believed in ancient Greek mythology, I could say the exact same thing about ancient Greek myths. If you interpret them as geocentric, your interpretation is wrong, not the ancient Greek myths—because obviously the ancient Greek myths must be true, since they come from the Deathless Gods.

Also, you have a double standard. You and others have argued that the few correct things the Quran seems to says about science are "evidence" that it is miraculous. But when the Quran seems to say something incorrect, it's not evidence that the book is not miraculous—it simply means we're interpreting it wrong.

[muslimapoclyptc]

This is entirely circular.

If I believed in ancient Greek mythology, I could say the exact same thing about ancient Greek myths. If you interpret them as geocentric, your interpretation is wrong, not the ancient Greek myths—because obviously the ancient Greek myths must be true, since they come from the Deathless Gods.

You can, if they don't specifically say that the sun revolves around the Earth, and if their whole basis for geocentrism is interpretation and observation.

The whole issue is specification, and who said what. Do the ancient myths actually say that the sun revolves around the Earth? If so, then who specifically said this, and on what basis?

Your whole reasoning, is that since everyone in the 7th century believed in the geocentric model, then when the Qur'an claims that the sun and the moon have orbits, it is simply echoing what was a common belief at the time. This of course, is based on the presumption that the authorship of the Qur'an is neither perfect, nor divine, which is also (surprisingly enough) your conclusion.

Objectively, we have what is believed to be the perfect, verbatim word of God, saying that the sun and the moon have orbits, during a time when everyone believed that the sun and the moon orbited around the Earth. Today, we now know that the moon orbits the Earth, and the sun orbits the galaxy. Since the text itself can be interpreted both ways, the statement itself is quite ambiguous.

To someone who believes in the Qur'an, they've either accepted the current galactic orbit interpretation (like I have), or rejected the current heliocentric model and stuck with the geocentric one. To someone who doesn't believe in the Qur'an, they've accepted the earlier Earth orbit interpretation of the Qur'an, and hence further justify their rejection of it (like you have). To an objective individual, however, it's ambiguous, and really doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Also, you have a double standard. You and others have argued that the few correct things the Quran seems to says about science are "evidence" that it is miraculous. But when the Quran seems to say something incorrect, it's not evidence that the book is not miraculous—it simply means we're interpreting it wrong.

Actually, what I said, was that the Qur'an is not a book of science, it is a book of divine guidance for mankind. If someone wants scientific information, they should consult with scientific sources.

The scientific proofs in the Qur'an are not science in themselves, just statements that are consistent with modern science, which may, or may not, also be consistent with outdated beliefs from the time-period of revelation.

[Imam]

The Bible repeatedly describes the sun as moving through the heavens. So do numerous Hindu myths. Why on earth do you think the Quran's claim here is "scientific" when all it's saying is the exact same thing that every ancient myth and philosopher says—that the sun moves?

When The Quran tells me that ALL swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion, ALL for me means ALL including the earth ...

well,for the sake of argument , let's suppose that the verse instead of saying (All) it said (both)

How does that prove your point that the sun,moon,planets orbit the earth,according to the Quran?

How much time more we should wait for a direct textual proof that the Quran teaches a geocentrism universe?

which does it mean in this context? My translators say "fall."

your original argument, that such specific verse says that stars falls on earth and that is not what the verse says ,In this context I would choose the common meaning for the word(inkadarat) which been selected by Asad and others (and when the stars lose their light)

http://islamawakened.org/quran/81/2/default.htm

Really? Ancient Arabic had a word for outer space?

Surely you can produce another source that talks about outer space using this language, then.

The word (samaa) in Arabic , if alone, means a limitless sky ,and can only be said to be limited by using qualifiers....

In the eyes of God the lower sky means such in which one can view the stars ...even if millions of years far.....
The Qur'an mentions it several times along with the heavenly bodies of which it is composed.
the others 6 skies (alsamawat) are those that can't be viewed by the naked eyes

go consult a any Arabic speaker or dictionary and it would endorse what I have just wrote...

I advise you not to go to such arena of (Arabic) till you consult dictionaries and Arabic speakers,otherwise your situation would be embarrassing , as now...

And Imam—I'm still waiting for you to show a single Muslim scholar who believed the earth revolved around the sun, before Copernicus.

your quest is as silly as someone wondering why the Muslim scholars before the invention of microscopes didn't mention that the embryo looks and functions like a leech even if it is one of the meanings of the word (alaqa)......

Again, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about this description. As I've said throughout this thread. Please respond to the arguments I've already posted instead of restating your position.

restating my position?!

who is restating his position,now?!

It is you who are at it again ,restating the absurd concept that the Quranic description is of as value as the work of Galen. ...
you asked what is specific and unique

and I showed you in what sense the Quran is unique ,and supported my claims with the classic infamous Arabic dictionaries

I hope next time if you ever restate your position,you would show me what sense makes the Quranic description is as value as the work of Galen.
Just bring the work of Galen and let's make a comparison

[Mustapha@]

So I'm failing to see how the Quran is special here.

Guess what?

you will always fail to see how the Qur'an is special. because you are here with an intention that the Qur'an is not the words of Allah...It's the same thing for me if you gave me, for example, the best poem in the world...but if I had formed a misjudgement about it and if I had had the concept of "mine is better", of course I wont like it. because I'm the one who does not want to like it, not because it's bad...even its meaning is so wonderful and even if its wording is breath-taking...but if I did not like from the beginning and i had made prejudices I will just go through it with boredom. Thus it wont have any impact on me...and this is your case...just to try to get rid of those prejudices and misjudgements about the Qur'an...:shade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0op5MIyG3Xg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Ak-...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IspK651RpY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcNOaePZT68

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHuiFWYRAZM

[Mustapha@]

Take a look at those videos. you are not the only atheist in this world...those were ateists to and they converted to islam...and some of them are scientists and doctors...I gave them money to say this on the videos :p lol....(irony) did I?

[Whatsthepoint]

your original argument, that such specific verse says that stars falls on earth and that is not what the verse says ,In this context I would choose the common meaning for the word(inkadarat) which been selected by Asad and others (and when the stars lose their light)

http://islamawakened.org/quran/81/2/default.htm

What do you reckon this verse mans?
Walaqad zayyanna alssamaa alddunya bimasabeeha wajaAAalnaha rujooman lilshshayateeni waaAAtadna lahum AAathaba alssaAAeeri
And We had decorated/beautified, the sky/space (of) the present world with lights/stars , and We made it meteorites/shooting stars for the devils, and We prepared/made ready for them the/blazing/inflamed (inferno) torture.(67:5)

[aamirsaab]

What do you reckon this verse mans?
Walaqad zayyanna alssamaa alddunya bimasabeeha wajaAAalnaha rujooman lilshshayateeni waaAAtadna lahum AAathaba alssaAAeeri
And We had decorated/beautified, the sky/space (of) the present world with lights/stars , and We made it meteorites/shooting stars for the devils, and We prepared/made ready for them the/blazing/inflamed (inferno) torture.(67:5)

What translation are you using?
I just checked that verse on two seperate internet translations and they show up as this:

[67:5] We adorned the lowest universe with lamps, and guarded its borders with projectiles against the devils; we prepared for them a retribution in Hell.

Note the lack of meteorites etc.

[Trumble]

THIS ONE it seems, marked as 'literal'.

Surely an easy enough one for someone who knows Arabic to clarify? Missiles or projectiles (which would mean much the same thing in that context) seems the most common translation. I don't see any obvious reason not to translate as meteorite or shooting star if that is what the Arabic actually means; so why has nobody done so?

[aamirsaab]

THIS ONE it seems, marked as 'literal'.

Surely an easy enough one for someone who knows Arabic to clarify? Missiles or projectiles (which would mean much the same thing in that context) seems the most common translation. I don't see any obvious reason not to translate as meteorite or shooting star if that is what the Arabic actually means; so why has nobody done so?

It is most likely being used as a figure of speach or metaphorical usage (based on the many translations given in that link). Literal translations are such because they ignore the context of the verse and thus ignore metaphor completely - the translators (usually scholars) know this and thus translate the meaning so that it makes sense (i.e non literal translation), and that's why there's quite a big difference between the literal and the non-literal translations.

An example is:
meera sar nei kow (Common urdu phrase)

Literal translation:
my head, don't eat.

Non-literal translation in context:
You're giving me a head ache! (big difference between the original word!)

Yeah I know it's not arabic, but you get the point.

[Zamtsa]

Please write out the specific claims about embryology you think the Quran is making.

As far as I can tell, the only relevant claim these verses make is that the embryo changes form over time (that is, it doesn't start out as a "miniature human.") This is exactly what Galen says, and I did quote him.

You've asked about the Heliosentrism in the Qur'an, what Galen had not explain in detail about the human Embryo as Al Qur'an did. As in my earliers post, I challenge thee respected Qingu, to show me those details in a book other than Al Qur'an, and because those ayat are proven to be true by the 21st centuries Scientists.

Now I want to show thee, this ayat of Allahu kalam:


Ar Rahman (55):33 O ye assembly of Jinns and men! if it be ye can pass beyond the zones of the skies and the earth pass ye! not without authority shall ye be able to pass!

1420 years ago, Allahu Azza wa Jalla already said this.


Allahu kalam:

Fushilat (41):53 Soon will We show them Our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth) and in their own souls until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?

It's Allahu Tabaraka Ta'ala's power and might which created the brain of the founder of earth's rotation and the earth's rotation.

Al Qur'an in sciences are always right, Allahu 'Azza wa Jalla showed what He wills through His ayat:

1. Ayat Kauniyah (Ayat thorugh which He created)
2. Ayat Syari'ah (Ayat through His verses).

Allahu Jalla Jalaaluhu is the Witness of all things.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace, development and safe from guile be upon who follow the guidance).

[Zamtsa]

What do you reckon this verse mans?
Walaqad zayyanna alssamaa alddunya bimasabeeha wajaAAalnaha rujooman lilshshayateeni waaAAtadna lahum AAathaba alssaAAeeri
And We had decorated/beautified, the sky/space (of) the present world with lights/stars , and We made it meteorites/shooting stars for the devils, and We prepared/made ready for them the/blazing/inflamed (inferno) torture.(67:5)

Nothing difficult or which Muslim couldn't find for the answers. Unless it is ayat Mutasyabihat.

It is clear from Hadits such as in Shahih Al Jami' Ash Shaghir, that when Allahu Subhanahu wa Ta'ala decide something or command something, then there are Syaithan (Devil from Jin) who like to earsdrop the conversation of the Malaikat (Angels) in the 1 st Sky, so then they will be chase by the "Mashabih," which the Malaikat thrown.


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

[Qingu]

Your whole reasoning, is that since everyone in the 7th century believed in the geocentric model, then when the Qur'an claims that the sun and the moon have orbits, it is simply echoing what was a common belief at the time. This of course, is based on the presumption that the authorship of the Qur'an is neither perfect, nor divine, which is also (surprisingly enough) your conclusion.

I could make the exact same argument with the Greek myths. If you interpret the Greek myths as imperfect, that is only because you are presuming that they are not divine.

Recall that you are presumably trying to convince me that the Quran is perfect, divine, and true. And now it seems like you're saying that, before we can even have this debate, I should presume the Quran is perfect and divine? That's not an argument. In fact, it contradicts your argument. If the Quran is perfect and true, I shouldn't have to presume it's perfect in true to look at the evidence regarding its perfection and trueness. That's entirely circular.

Now, I happen to believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For example, take the following two claims:

1. I am wearing a sweatshirt.
2. I am an ancient Babylonian demon.

Now, either claim could be wrong. I could be lying about wearing a sweatshirt. I could be lying about being a demon. But claim #2 would probably take much more evidence to convince you than claim #1. In fact, you might be willing to believe claim #1 without any evidence at all—whereas you would be highly skeptical of claim #2.

Similarly, take the two following claims:

1. A 7th century text refers to the "orbits of the sun and moon" because the people who wrote it believed, like everyone else at the time believed, that the sun and moon orbit the fixed earth.

2. A 7th century text refers to the "orbits of the sun and moon" because an Arabian deity inspired it. This deity actually meant the sun's orbit around the galaxy (but not the moon's), despite the fact that nobody at the time had any idea what a galaxy was. Also, the deity neglected to clarify what He meant so for 1,000 years everyone reading the book thought He was referring to their orbit around the earth—until, finally, some European guy proved this view wrong.

Now, #1 seems perfectly reasonable to me. #2, not so much, and it's going to take a lot of evidence to convince me—just as it would take you a lot of evidence for me to convince you that I'm a Babylonian demon.

And in any case, if I don't believe #2 at first, it doesn't really make sense for you to say "that's because you don't presume #2 is true!" Of course I don't presume #2 is true—that's the whole point! You're supposed to convince me it's true.

Actually, what I said, was that the Qur'an is not a book of science, it is a book of divine guidance for mankind. If someone wants scientific information, they should consult with scientific sources.

The scientific proofs in the Qur'an are not science in themselves, just statements that are consistent with modern science, which may, or may not, also be consistent with outdated beliefs from the time-period of revelation.

So you disagree with your fellows on the board that the Quran's statements about "science" constitute "miracles"?

[Qingu]

When The Quran tells me that ALL swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion, ALL for me means ALL including the earth ...

No, these verses specify the celestial lights, not the earth.

How does that prove your point that the sun,moon,planets orbit the earth,according to the Quran?

Because this is the context of the language. It is the exact same language that every ancient text used to describe the motion of the celestial bodies.

Now, you are of course free to creatively interpret these verses to imply the sun orbits the center of the galaxy. This seems quite dishonest to me. When you interpret a text, you generally try to consider the author's intent. If Allah meant this verse to imply the sun orbits the Milky Way, why wouldn't He have said "the sun orbits around the circle of the Milky Way?" The ancient Muslims were quite familiar with the Milky Way, it was bright in the sky. It seems like for this verse to mean what you say it means, it would also mean that Allah deliberately misled Muslims for a thousand years when he could have easily said exactly what he meant.

In the eyes of God the lower sky means such in which one can view the stars ...even if millions of years far.....
The Qur'an mentions it several times along with the heavenly bodies of which it is composed.
the others 6 skies (alsamawat) are those that can't be viewed by the naked eyes

Really? Are these what these words meant in Arabic when the Quran was written?

Obviously not. Aristotle believed there were 7 heavens. Each one corresponded to the orbit (around the earth) of one of the seven visible celestial objects: the sun, moon, and five planets visible to the naked eye (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). (Picture here). This view, made popular by the Egyptian astromoner named Ptolemy, became common all across Europe and Asia, and would have been well-known to the Arabs in the 7th century.

Not surprisingly, the Quran uses the exact same language as the Aristotelian cosmology. Words have meaning. You are arguing that the ancient Arabic word for "lower sky" referred to a thing that nobody speaking at the time actually knew existed—outer space. Frankly, I think that's a dishonest argument.

your quest is as silly as someone wondering why the Muslim scholars before the invention of microscopes didn't mention that the embryo looks and functions like a leech even if it is one of the meanings of the word (alaqa)......

But Muslim scholars presumably believed that the embryo changes over time and looks like the Quran says it does at various stages. They weren't wrong about the embryo because of the way they interpreted the Quran verse.

But they were incredibly wrong about the shape of the universe, directly because of what the Quran says.

And again, words have meaning, and intent is important. The Muslims knew about the Milky Way. They had a word for it—"Darb Al-Tabana." If Allah meant the sun "swims" in its orbit in the Milky Way, why didn't he just say so?

It is you who are at it again ,restating the absurd concept that the Quranic description is of as value as the work of Galen. ...
you asked what is specific and unique

I want to know, in plain language, what exactly you think the Quran gets right about embryology.

Is it the general shape of the embryos at those two arbitrary stages?

Is it the general idea that embryos change shape over time (which was not believed by everyone)?

I mean, that's all I can think of. The verses don't really say much more than that. And, as I said, Galen and Aristotle said both of those things.
[/QUOTE]

[Imam]

What do you reckon this verse means?
(67:5)

Greetings Whatsthepoint

Good question from one of the non-Muslims whom I appreciate their proper style in writing and debating.....

I know how much the topic of The Quranic scientific foreknowledge ,means for you ....you had and still have curiosity about it ,and the proof your constant participation in the threads related to the topic .....

and believe me when I tell , most of those who were as you but finally adapted Islam ,are those who followed the same approach as you..... to be relaxed and not to argue with mockery and anger as some posts in the thread.....

before I explain the verse ,I would pray for God to lead you to the true path....cause you follow what God advised when getting his message ,is to listen and be relaxed without anger and to be objective.....

---------------------------------------------------------------
The matter of the verse is very simple, it doesn't need a metaphore ......

it is simple an example of how to interpret the Quran by the Quran...

Quran37: 6. We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,-7. (For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits,8. (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side,9. Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty,10. Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.



Quran 072.008
'And we (Satans)pried into the secrets of heaven; but we found it filled with stern guards and flaming fires. 'We used, indeed, to sit there in (hidden) stations, to (steal) a hearing; but any who listen now will find a flaming fire watching him in ambush.

the infamous old classic Quranic interpretation (Alqurtubi) ...... discussed the matter

In Arabic

الجامع لأحكام القرآن
سورة الملك

‏{‏ولقد زينا السماء الدنيا بمصابيح وجعلناها رجوما للشياطين وأعتدنا لهم عذاب السعير، وللذين كفروا بربهم عذاب جهنم وبئس المصير‏}‏

قوله تعالى‏{‏ولقد زينا السماء الدنيا بمصابيح‏}‏ جمع مصباح وهو السراج‏.‏ وتسمى الكواكب مصابيح لإضاءتها‏.‏ ‏{‏وجعلناها رجوما للشياطين‏}‏ أي جعلنا شهبها؛ فحذف المضاف‏.‏ دليلة ‏{‏إلا من خطف الخطفة فأتبعه شهاب ثاقب‏}‏الصافات‏:‏ 10‏]‏‏.‏ وعلى هذا فالمصابيح لا تزول ولا يرجم بها‏. ولا يسقط الكوكب نفسه إنما ينفصل منه شيء يرجم به من غير أن ينقص ضوءه ولا صورته‏

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/view...ID=136&CID=249



In English
(as I didn't find online English version of such basic interpretation,I translated it ,and anyone can verify the Arabic link above to see the original text compared with the translation)

The almighty saying(we beautified the lower heaven with lamps) he called the stars as lamps (we make it shooting) means we make its flaming fire shooting,and the clue for such abbreviation of the expression is the other verse which mentions the same topic
Quran37:10 Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.
and according to that the lamp never vanish and never been used itself as shooter, it is just something comes from its body but not the body itself without affect eg; a lack in its light or its form.


Peace

[Qingu]

It is most likely being used as a figure of speach or metaphorical usage (based on the many translations given in that link). Literal translations are such because they ignore the context of the verse and thus ignore metaphor completely - the translators (usually scholars) know this and thus translate the meaning so that it makes sense (i.e non literal translation), and that's why there's quite a big difference between the literal and the non-literal translations.

An example is:
meera sar nei kow (Common urdu phrase)

Literal translation:
my head, don't eat.

Non-literal translation in context:
You're giving me a head ache! (big difference between the original word!)

Yeah I know it's not arabic, but you get the point.

But how should we consider the context of the verses in the Quran?

It's my belief that we should consider them in the historical context in which they were written, and the culture in which the Quran was received. This culture really believed, like all cultures at the time, in geocentrism. They really believed that stars were tiny points of light set into a solid dome or sphere of the sky. So it seems to me that it makes a great deal of sense to interpret these words and verses in the way that they would have been understood by the culture that first read the Quran. This is also how scholars interpret ancient historical and religious texts across the board.

Now, some have suggested that we should not interpret the Quran in its historical and cultural context—that we should not interpret the Quran the same way as we interpret every other ancient historical/religious text. Instead, we should interpret the Quran in the sense that "everything the Quran says must be right no matter what," and that anything that seems wrong means you are interpreting the verse wrong. Which is all well and good if you're a Muslim who already believes the Quran. But this doesn't seem to be a very useful context in a debate about whether the Quran is true in the first place. It also seems to be special pleading, frankly.

[muslimapoclyptc]

I could make the exact same argument with the Greek myths. If you interpret the Greek myths as imperfect, that is only because you are presuming that they are not divine.

Of course you can. And if I wanted to counter that, I wouldn't bother with ambiguous statements that neither prove nor disprove anything.

Recall that you are presumably trying to convince me that the Quran is perfect, divine, and true. And now it seems like you're saying that, before we can even have this debate, I should presume the Quran is perfect and divine? That's not an argument. In fact, it contradicts your argument. If the Quran is perfect and true, I shouldn't have to presume it's perfect in true to look at the evidence regarding its perfection and trueness. That's entirely circular.

I'm actually not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just countering your argument that the Qur'an says that the sun orbits around the Earth, when in fact the Qur'an says no such thing.

If anything, it would in fact be you that is trying to convince me that the Qur'an is imperfect, man-made, and false.

I'm also not trying to say you should be anything. What I was trying to say, was that you are not objective, and are as biased as I am on this issue. You believe that the Qur'an is imperfect, man-made and false, while I believe that the Qur'an is perfect, divine and true.

Now, I happen to believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For example, take the following two claims:



Now, either claim could be wrong. I could be lying about wearing a sweatshirt. I could be lying about being a demon. But claim #2 would probably take much more evidence to convince you than claim #1. In fact, you might be willing to believe claim #1 without any evidence at all—whereas you would be highly skeptical of claim #2.

Actually, with claim #1, I wouldn't really care if it were true or not. With claim #2, however, I would be considerably more curious about.

Similarly, take the two following claims:



Now, #1 seems perfectly reasonable to me. #2, not so much, and it's going to take a lot of evidence to convince me—just as it would take you a lot of evidence for me to convince you that I'm a Babylonian demon.

And in any case, if I don't believe #2 at first, it doesn't really make sense for you to say "that's because you don't presume #2 is true!" Of course I don't presume #2 is true—that's the whole point! You're supposed to convince me it's true.

Actually, what I would say, is that you presume #1 to be true. The actual statement itself is actually ambiguous on the exact details. Hence, the argument against geocentrism being promoted in the Qur'an, is in fact a strawman.

1. A 7th century text refers to the "orbits of the sun and moon" because the people who wrote it believed, like everyone else at the time believed, that the sun and moon orbit the fixed earth.

In spite of the fact that text itself never actually says that the orbits are around the Earth, and basically says of itself, that it's divine guidance for the whole of mankind.

2. A 7th century text refers to the "orbits of the sun and moon" because an Arabian deity inspired it. This deity actually meant the sun's orbit around the galaxy (but not the moon's), despite the fact that nobody at the time had any idea what a galaxy was. Also, the deity neglected to clarify what He meant so for 1,000 years everyone reading the book thought He was referring to their orbit around the earth—until, finally, some European guy proved this view wrong.

Well, given that people could observe the sun and the moon as celestial objects at the time, it would make sense that God would mention them as his creation, and that he gave them both fixed orbits. Going into the exact details of those orbits is unnecessary to that point.

The fact that no one had any idea what a galaxy was at the time, is another good reason not to go into excessive details about it. Then you'd have to unnecessarily introduce new concepts, go into an unnecessary tangent and completely fly over everyone's heads with it.

The view that the sun orbits the Earth is just that; "a view". As popular as it may be, that's all it was. It's not in the Qur'an, nor does the Qur'an even go into the issue, since its emphasis was the fact the God created them with orbits, not the fact that they have orbits.

So you disagree with your fellows on the board that the Quran's statements about "science" constitute "miracles"?

No, I don't disagree. The Qur'anic statements can be seen as miraculous, since it's from the 7th century and is consistent with modern science. But that doesn't make the them science in themselves. The wording itself certainly isn't scientific, nor does it go into all the excessive details that scientific texts tend to do.

[aamirsaab]

But how should we consider the context of the verses in the Quran?....

For starters, don't cherry pick ayats from it. Read the surrounding verses and any others that relate to it (at the minimum) to gain a fuller understanding.

Your best bet is to ask a scholar or Imaam. Their job is to aid our (laymen) understanding of the Qur'an since they usually have a better understanding of Arabic AND are able to convert that message into English (or w/e language).

Visit a masjid, ask the imam, reflect on the answer. Rinse and repeat.

[Imam]

No, these verses specify the celestial lights, not the earth.

no it doesn't specify the celestial lights ...it mentions the sun and the moon ........afterwards it says All swimming in orbits ,it doesn't say both swimming....... and if one can safely include Mars etc.. under (all) so why to exclude the earth?


problem: The quran doesn't portrays the stars and planets as orbiting the earth.

resolved: a direct verse(s) to support otherwise.

and the fact you will never find a verse that way,
you should consider the discussion in that point to be over.....

But they were incredibly wrong about the shape of the universe, directly because of what the Quran says.

you assume much,prove less ,preach to excess your (author intent) theory

till this moment , apart from 2 verses which I already refuted ,you provided nothing that could support your claims .

in geocentrism. They really believed that stars were tiny points of light set into a solid dome or sphere of the sky.

God the almighty, we already knew why you the only time in the whole Quran describing an oath to be very great while swearing by the locations of the stars

Holy Quran[056:075] Nay, I swear by the positions of the stars ,And most surely it is a very great oath if you only knew;

Really? Are these what these words meant in Arabic when the Quran was written?Obviously not. Aristotle believed there were 7 heavens. Each one corresponded to the orbit (around the earth) of one of the seven visible celestial objects: the sun, moon, and five planets visible to the naked eye (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). .

you know how to be dishonest ? is when you give Arabic word a Greek flavor without linguestic proofs
where does it say in the Quran that the lower sky is a solid dome ?
you obviously mixing your cards here ,qingo...
one shouldn't feel wonder if Aristotle believed the lower sky is an orbit of the moon and the second orbit is for venus and so on till he finishes the seven celestial objects...
he choose the orbits 7 according to the number of the objects he knew
The quran is obviously different:

1- The lower heaven is which one can view with naked eyes the stars and planets.....

2- Aristotle's choice of the number 7 for the orbits based on the number of the objects Sun,Moon ,Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn , but the Quran doesn't say heaven means orbit neither the number 7 has something to do with the objects already mentioned....
the other heavens, according to the Quran can't be viewed ,and none knows what is therein,and the 7th heaven God and his angels ........ God choose the heavens to be 7 just cause he wanted them so...and he choose the week seven days just cause he wanted so ......
If Aristotle believed that the lower sky is the sky which one can view the stars, then his words are welcomed
but if he defined the lower sky as the moon orbit around the earth,then he is mistaken ,we judge the man by his own words ,not his own intention ,the same case in the Quran
certainly...... the word lower sky , is defined in the Quran as such sky which one can view stars therein........
If you still insist that in Arabic the qualifier( lower ) if added to ( heaven) would denote a specific size ,lenghth,wideth
prove it linguestically, if not .consider our discussion in such silly matter to be over.

I want to know, in plain language, what exactly you think the Quran gets right about embryology..

I not only think the Quran gets right about embryology but also gets it specific and unique........
If you want to skip the issue pretending that you didn't get my last post on the issue,as you wish..
but my post was clear in plain English and Arabic......... showing what is specific and what is unique .

I'm not such naive person who would believe a text to be unique without verifying the other texts too...... till this moment I never found a text that described embryology the same way the Quran does.....

the Quran indeed,has a unique description on embroyology and a strong witness that such description not based on human source....
before I would show you what other verses shows clearly scientific foreknowledge ....It is now your duty,to show what is not unique is the Quranic description compared with the work of Galen.
.

[back_to_faith]

Where is in the work of Aristotle or Galen the embryo been described as a something has leech looking, that cling,stick to the womb, getting blood as nourishment from the womb?....and such thing becomes looks like a chewed substance as the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine...
Just where it been described such unique way outside the Quran?

I want to know, in plain language, what exactly you think the Quran gets right about embryology.

[/QUOTE]


Qingu lost the debate hands down

and that is the fate of the die-dard atheists who whenever fail to quote the source for their allegations or understand its language ,resort hopelessley to
place the burden of prrof !

Thanx Imam for your great posts

peace

[Trumble]

Qingu lost the debate hands down

Really? I think quite the reverse is true. None of his most pertinent points were answered convincingly and several were not answered at all.

However, I appreciate that's probably impossible to see from your perspective and I'll accept aamirsaab and Imam's posts might be rather more convincing to someone with a perspective other than mine. That's the trouble with this sort of discussion, the actual subject matter is overwhelmed by the starting assumptions people bring with them, often totally without realising it. That's why, at the end of the day, muslims who accept the Qur'an contains 'miraculous knowledge' are amazed this doesn't convince others of its truth, while non-muslims are totally baffled some see 'science' in the text that, to them, simply isn't there. In other words, it convinces only those who are already convinced.

[Imam]

None of his most pertinent points were answered convincingly and several were not answered at all.

empty assertion.... but I can guess why

That's why, at the end of the day, muslims who accept the Qur'an contains 'miraculous knowledge' are amazed this doesn't convince others of its truth

I never feel amazed at those who deny the signs,as a matter of fact, I feel yawn anytime a non-muslim would deny such signs....

the same way I no longer feel amazed finding lots of new muslims who were amazed by the Quranic scientific pre-knowledge...
If you concentrate more,you would find out easily that my posts except one(which he skipped ) ,weren't discussing the scientific pre-knowledge but refuting some allegations ,and the substance he offered showed me obviously he is a reader of science but not qualified yet in the field of the Quran and its language.....

[Qingu]

Hm. I could have sworn I responded to Imam a week ago. Oh well.

no it doesn't specify the celestial lights ...it mentions the sun and the moon ........afterwards it says All swimming in orbits ,it doesn't say both swimming....... and if one can safely include Mars etc.. under (all) so why to exclude the earth?

Because it doesn't say the earth.

problem: The quran doesn't portrays the stars and planets as orbiting the earth.

resolved: a direct verse(s) to support otherwise.

You have supplied no such verse.

In fact, you simply posted a verse that talks about the sun, moon, and other lights in the sky ... and then assumed it was talking about the earth for no reason whatsoever.

Your logic is entirely circular. The Quran is true, so it's talking about the earth in this verse that doesn't mention the earth. How do we know the Quran is true? Because it's talking about the earth in this verse that doesn't mention the earth!

God the almighty, we already knew why you the only time in the whole Quran describing an oath to be very great while swearing by the locations of the stars

Holy Quran[056:075] Nay, I swear by the positions of the stars ,And most surely it is a very great oath if you only knew;

Relevance?

How does this show the Arabs did not believe the stars were tiny points of light?

Are you seriously arguing that the Arabs swore by the light-years coordinates and parsecs of Alpha Centuri?

you know how to be dishonest ? is when you give Arabic word a Greek flavor without linguestic proofs

Both texts talk about seven heavens.
Both texts refer to celestial objects' orbiting in those heavens.
The concept of "seven heavens" was popular and accepted across the region at the time the Quran was written.

I don't know what else you're looking for. Again, it seems your argument is "The Quran is true, so it can't mean what it seems to mean, because that would mean it is false."

1- The lower heaven is which one can view with naked eyes the stars and planets.....

Quote a verse to support this?

2- Aristotle's choice of the number 7 for the orbits based on the number of the objects Sun,Moon ,Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn , but the Quran doesn't say heaven means orbit neither the number 7 has something to do with the objects already mentioned....

Neither did the Jews writing at the time of Jesus (they also believed in "seven heavens," just like the Quran), but they are otherwise quite similar. I'm not saying the Quran is identical to Aristotle in every detail. I'm saying it reflects the basic belief of the time that the Earth was surrounded by seven heavens and that the celestial objects revolved around the Earth. You have not shown a single verse to dispute this claim, you've simply assumed that "lower heaven" in the Quran means visible space in the universe, which is nonsense and not an interpretation any Muslim scholar would have made for this text for 95% of Islam's history.

I not only think the Quran gets right about embryology but also gets it specific and unique........

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is specific and unique about it.

Though it's kind of funny to watch you repeatedly attempt to reverse the burden of proof:

"Why don't you tell me what's not specific and unique about it!"
"Prove these verses aren't talking about outer space!"

The difference is that one of us has supported our position with context and logic, and the other is simply repeating his assertions over and over.

[Imam]

You have supplied no such verse. .

that is laughable,it is you who asserted that The quran portrays the stars and planets as orbiting the earth. so the burden on your shoulder not mine ,my friend.....I'm supposed to refute you..... and you didn't provide a Quranic substance to be refuted....

Your logic is twisted. The Quran isn't true, so it's talking about the
the stars and planets as orbiting the earth but it doesn't mention that,Greeks did. hence the Quran is untrue.....

How does this show the Arabs did not believe the stars were tiny points of light? .

It doesn't need a great deal of wisdom of the reader of the Quran to know that God if swears by something is has a significance and if described to be very great while talking about locations of the star is something beyond imagination and beyong your tiny points of light......

but that is not the issue..... the issue is,How does you show that the Quran text Did believe the stars were tiny points of light?

Because it doesn't say the earth. .

and It doesn't mention the other countless similar object as well.....but one can understand that from the word (All) not (both)...
All could be stretched to everything that orbit.....

Both texts refer to celestial objects' orbiting in those heavens..

provide a Quranic text claims that heaven means orbit.....or seven heavens for seven planets.otherwise don't bother...

The lower heaven is which one can view with naked eyes the stars and planets ......
Quote a verse to support this?

I'm saying it reflects the basic belief of the time that the Earth was surrounded by seven heavens and that the celestial objects revolved around the Earth. You have not shown a single verse to dispute this claim.

another game, plz Imam place the burden of prrof !!
:D

you've simply assumed that "lower heaven" in the Quran means visible space in the universe, which is nonsense and not an interpretation any Muslim scholar .

as long as the verse tells obviously,the lower heaven was beautified by stars then the lower sky is simply,the one that has the stars ,without making any limit ,size etc......
and as I told you before,and it seems you never learn from the lessons, before you would argue for specific size the Quran may ever teach,just give us the textual ,linguestic support ....

The difference is that one of us has supported our position with context and logic, and the other is simply repeating his assertions over and over..

The difference is that one of us has supported his position with proof text and is qualified enough (Alhamdullilah)for the issues under discusion and another failed to give textaul supports and resorted hopelessley to the Greeks to help him understand the Quran.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is specific and unique about it.
Though it's kind of funny to watch you repeatedly attempt to reverse the burden of proof:

I would show you who is joking,and shifting the burden of proofs here:

Where is in the work of Aristotle or Galen the embryo been described as a something has leech looking, that cling,stick to the womb, getting blood as nourishment from the womb?....and such thing becomes looks like a chewed substance as the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine...Just where it been described such unique way outside the Quran?

and you still fancy yourself that still you wait

still waiting for you to tell me what is specific and unique about it.

:D
!!!

[Azy]

Not that I want to get embroiled in another heated argument, but...
---
See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another (71:15)
Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light (25:61)
Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge. (65:12)
It is He who created for you all that is in the earth, then He lifted Himself to heaven and levelled them seven heavens; and He has knowledge of everything (2:29)
Hast thou not turned thy vision to thy Lord?- How He doth prolong the shadow! If He willed, He could make it stationary! then do We make the sun its guide (25:45)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 418:

Narrated Salim's father:
The Prophet said, "Any person who takes a piece of land unjustly will sink down the seven earths on the Day of Resurrection."
---

How do you reconcile these with a non-geocentric view?
The heavens are above the Earth in layers, the moon and sun are in those layers above the earth, commands descend the heavens towards the Earth.
Shadows change shape throughout the day, but are guided by the sun.

Of course the cause of the shadows movement depends on your frame of reference. If it were a heliocentric reference frame then the spinning Earth would cause the shadows to change, but the Quran states that it is the Sun to blame, therefore it is using the Earth as a reference frame for the movement of the heavenly bodies, as the Sun causes shadows to change by apparently moving around the Earth.

[Qingu]

Imam, I'm not sure we're going to get any further, because we have fundamentally different views on how to interpret texts.

When I read a text, I interpret it keeping in mind the time in which it was written and the culture that produced it. I also operate by "Occam's Razor"—that is, the simplest explanation/interpretation is often the right one.

So when I read "seven heavens" in a text that was written at a time when everyone believed that there were seven layers of heaven that surrounded the earth like an onion, that is how I interpret that phrase.

"Assuming the Quran is false" does not enter into the equation for my interpretation. This is simply how I look at all ancient texts that I've read.

You would probably agree with my method of how to interpret texts—except for the Quran, which you have assumed is absolutely true. When you see a phrase like "seven heavens," you claim that one of the heavens refers to the entire space of the Einsteinian universe—a concept that (1) was unheard of during the time this text was written, (2) is not ever mentioned anywhere in the text itself, and (3) doesn't even make sense scientifically.

Then, when I ask you to support your claim that this is how we interpret this verse, you just reverse the burden of proof and say "prove it doesn't say that" (nevermind that you can't logically "prove" a negative assertion).

If you think your style of interpretation is intellectually honest, then I don't really know how to proceed from here. I would certainly love to see you debate a fundamentalist Christian or Hindu who interpret their texts with the same "methods" of interpretation that you use.

[Qingu]

I will respond to this:

Where is in the work of Aristotle or Galen the embryo been described as a something has leech looking, that cling,stick to the womb, getting blood as nourishment from the womb?

First of all, all the Quran says is that it looks like a leech. I don't see anything in the Quran about how the embryo gets blood from the womb, though I assume you can infer this from the word "leech."

But then, Aristotle explicitly says the embryo draws blood from the womb:

"The foregoing discussion will have made it clear that the female, though it does not contribute any semen to generation, yet contributes something, viz., the substance constituting the menstrual fluid (or the corresponding substance in bloodless animals)."

He also goes into much more details about the stages of the embryo's appearance than simply describing it as a "leech":

"How, then, are the other parts formed? Either they are all formed simultaneously - heart, lung, liver, eye, and the rest of them - or successively, as we read in the poems ascribed to Orpheus, where he says that the process by which an animal is formed resembles the knitting of a net. As for simultaneous formation of the parts, our senses tell us plainly that this does not happen: some of the parts are clearly to be seen present in the embryo while others are not."

....and such thing becomes looks like a chewed substance as the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine...Just where it been described such unique way outside the Quran?

Again, the Quran says absolutely nothing about "backbones" and "trunk structures." It simply says it looks like a chewed substance. That's it.

And see above—Aristotle goes into much more detail about how various parts of the embryo form.

Now, Aristotle gets a lot of stuff wrong, too. But the stuff he got right is found in the Quran—in a much simpler and vaguer form. I honestly have no idea how you can say the Quran's correct (and vague) statements on embryology are "miraculous" when Aristotle said the same things. Unfortunately, something tells me you'll keep on repeating your claim no matter what I say, though.

Just to be as clear as possible:

You are saying the Quran is miraculous because it correctly identifies embryos as

• Drawing blood from the womb
• Developing over time with organs and structures forming in stages.

So does Aristotle.

[muslimapoclyptc]

Not that I want to get embroiled in another heated argument, but...
---
See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another (71:15)
Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light (25:61)
Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge. (65:12)
It is He who created for you all that is in the earth, then He lifted Himself to heaven and levelled them seven heavens; and He has knowledge of everything (2:29)
Hast thou not turned thy vision to thy Lord?- How He doth prolong the shadow! If He willed, He could make it stationary! then do We make the sun its guide (25:45)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 418:

Narrated Salim's father:
The Prophet said, "Any person who takes a piece of land unjustly will sink down the seven earths on the Day of Resurrection."
---

How do you reconcile these with a non-geocentric view?
The heavens are above the Earth in layers, the moon and sun are in those layers above the earth, commands descend the heavens towards the Earth.
Shadows change shape throughout the day, but are guided by the sun.

Of course the cause of the shadows movement depends on your frame of reference. If it were a heliocentric reference frame then the spinning Earth would cause the shadows to change, but the Quran states that it is the Sun to blame, therefore it is using the Earth as a reference frame for the movement of the heavenly bodies, as the Sun causes shadows to change by apparently moving around the Earth.

The "sun guiding the shadows", obviously has to do with the sun's light, not its orbit. The "Heavens" is very general term, and really just refers to what is above the Earth. However, since the Earth is round, everything is "above" it. The fact that the sun and the moon are in the "heavens" (sky/space), doesn't really prove geocentrism. At best, it only suggests it.

[Qingu]

What would a text have to say to "prove" that it means geocentrism for you?

[Trumble]

empty assertion.... but I can guess why

I doubt it. Try actually reading my second paragraph....

If you concentrate more....

... and following your own advice.

[muslimapoclyptc]

When I read a text, I interpret it keeping in mind the time in which it was written and the culture that produced it. I also operate by "Occam's Razor"—that is, the simplest explanation/interpretation is often the right one.

So when I read "seven heavens" in a text that was written at a time when everyone believed that there were seven layers of heaven that surrounded the earth like an onion, that is how I interpret that phrase.

"Assuming the Quran is false" does not enter into the equation for my interpretation. This is simply how I look at all ancient texts that I've read.

You would probably agree with my method of how to interpret texts—except for the Quran, which you have assumed is absolutely true. When you see a phrase like "seven heavens," you claim that one of the heavens refers to the entire space of the Einsteinian universe—a concept that (1) was unheard of during the time this text was written, (2) is not ever mentioned anywhere in the text itself, and (3) doesn't even make sense scientifically.

The problem with your analysis of the Qur'an as just being an "ancient text", is that it is viewed (both by itself and by those who believe in it), that it is divine guidance for mankind until Judgment Day. Interpreting its texts in light of the beliefs at the time of its revelation, presumes that it isn't from God, but from man.

Furthermore, with regard to the 7 heavens:

Qur'an 41:12:
So He completed them in the form of seven heavens in two days, and He revealed to each heaven its function. And We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps for light and provided it with the means of protection. That is the decree of the Mighty, the All-Knowing.

So, clearly it says that the lowest Heaven (singular) was adorned with "lamps"/"lights"/stars (plural), hence it's clearly referring to the visible Universe.

So, reasons (1) and (2) are refuted, and as for reason (3), that's a matter of perspective.

Ultimately, what people knew about then is irrelevant. It isn't about what people knew in the 7th century, it's about what God says in the Qur'an in the 7th century.

[Qingu]

The problem with your analysis of the Qur'an as just being an "ancient text", is that it is viewed (both by itself and by those who believe in it), that it is divine guidance for mankind until Judgment Day. Interpreting its texts in light of the beliefs at the time of its revelation, presumes that it isn't from God, but from man.

But that's circular.

And the entire point of this thread is "how do we know the Quran is true." So "the Quran is true" cannot be our starting assumption.

Qur'an 41:12:
So He completed them in the form of seven heavens in two days, and He revealed to each heaven its function. And We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps for light and provided it with the means of protection. That is the decree of the Mighty, the All-Knowing.

So, clearly it says that the lowest Heaven (singular) was adorned with "lamps"/"lights"/stars (plural), hence it's clearly referring to the visible Universe.

It says lamps. It doesn't say stars.

And the Arabs had no idea what the "visible universe" was. I don't see "universe" anywhere in the Quran. I see a "heaven," which is the same word for "sky," that has "lamps" set into it. This is exactly what the Bible says. It is very similar to what Aristotle and every other ancient writer at the time of the Quran believed about the shape of the cosmos.

So—apart from simply assuming the Quran is from God, can do no wrong, and must match up with current science no matter what—what reason can you give for interpreting this verse to mean Einstein's visible "universe"?

Ultimately, what people knew about then is irrelevant. It isn't about what people knew in the 7th century, it's about what God says in the Qur'an in the 7th century.

Unless God didn't write the Quran.

How do we know that God wrote the Quran? Do you see how this is a problem?

And it's especially problematic because there are a lot of ancient texts that claim to be written from God. Are we supposed to interpret these texts normally, in the context of their cultures—or are we supposed to interpret them as if they were perfect and sent down from God(s)?

[Imam]

I will respond to this:


First of all, all the Quran says is that it looks like a leech. .

Yes it does and so it described the appearance of the embryo in such stage in a way neither aristotle nor any other source did....

where is it in Aristotle describing the emryo in such stage as a leech looking?

the same way the other stage , the appearance of a chewed substance. as The irregular surface showing somites, resembling teeth prints on a substance, which has been chewed The external appearance of this stage of embryonic development is, therefore, described as something which has no particular fixed features. It is characterised by irregularities on the surface with depressions and bulges. The only fixed feature in a "Mudghah" is the mark of a set of teeth, the row of somites which is characteristic of the embryo when it starts to show features of rapid shaping likened to the marks of the teeth.


a detailed refutation of that idea that the embryological development described in the Qur'an, has been plagiarised from the writings of ancient Greek physicians (A must read)

http://www.quranicstudies.com/articl...mbryology.html

What would a text have to say to "prove" that it means geocentrism for you? .

A text would have to say exactly as what Greek said to "prove" that it means geocentrism for me.

It says lamps. It doesn't say stars..

Quran
[037:006] We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty the stars


It seems you won't listen to my advice for you while approaching the Quran !!


Azy

I will respond to your post ,later when I have time
inshsAllah.....

[Qingu]

where is it in Aristotle describing the emryo in such stage as a leech looking?

Let me get this straight.

Aristotle describes the formation, at various stages, of the internal organs of the embryo, and explains that it draws blood from the mother's womb.

The Quran describes the embryo as "looking like a leech."

You seriously think the Quran's description is better than Aristotle's?

I mean, embryo's don't even look that much like leeches.

More like fishes or tadpoles—embryos have clearly defined heads and limbs, and for a time, a fish-like tail.

I thought the salient point about the "leech" comparison was that the Quran "miraculously" knew the embryo draws blood from the mother (which Aristotle also knew).

the same way the other stage , the appearance of a chewed substance. as The irregular surface showing somites, resembling teeth prints on a substance, which has been chewed

The problem with copying and pasting from websites is that you don't really know how to support what the website is saying.

Incidentally, that's the website I got my quotes from Aristotle. :)

Now, this is really just ridiculous. Your source is claiming that the Quran's characterization of the embryo as looking like a "chewed substance" is miraculous ... because ... wait for it ... certain indentations on the surface of the embryo look sort of like teeth marks!

I stand by my earlier statement. You've already decided to believe the Quran's statements on embryology are miraculous, and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I don't think there's much to add to this discussion, and I'm willing to let our readers decide for themselves which argument is more compelling.

A text would have to say exactly as what Greek said to "prove" that it means geocentrism for me.

But many cultures were geocentric. Not just the Greeks.

I mean, do you think the early Hindus were geocentric? Their texts are not exactly the same as the ancient Greek texts. What about the ancient Babylonians?

Quran
[037:006] We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty the stars

It seems you won't listen to my advice for you while approaching the Quran !!

Aha. On this particular point, it seems I was wrong, and I apologize.

Nevertheless, my broader point still stands—the idea of "seven heavens" in the Quran was popular in the ancient world, and it was not a heliocentric idea at all.

And lots of "seven heaven" stories put the stars and planets and moon and sun in different places. The traditional, scholarly placing (as in Ptolemy) is what I said earlier. But earlier Greeks believed that the top heavens were filled with water or flames. So did the Jews, writing during the time of Jesus—there are many apocalyptic texts that describe journeys through the seven heavens. When I was in school I even read an Islamic apocalyptic text (I believe it was an early Sufi) that described a similar journey through seven heavens.

Which is to say, I don't think the exact location of the celestial bodies in this framework is as important as the framework itself. And that framework—seven layers of heaven/sky surrounding the earth like an onion—is found in the Quran, and has always been understood to imply geocentrism.

[muslimapoclyptc]

But that's circular.

Not really. If you interpret the Qur'an as being subject to common beliefs at the time of revelation, you're assuming that it didn't come from God, but from man.

Likewise if you interpret the Qur'an as not being subject to common beliefs at the time of revelation, you're assuming that it is from God, and meant for the whole of mankind, from the 7th century to Judgment Day.

And the entire point of this thread is "how do we know the Quran is true." So "the Quran is true" cannot be our starting assumption.

True. But, what you are discussing is something a bit more specific. You are actually trying to interpret statements in the Qur'an based on common beliefs of the 7th century

It says lamps. It doesn't say stars.

It's still referring to illuminated celestial objects in the sky (which certainly includes stars), and it's still saying that they're in the lowest heaven.

And the Arabs had no idea what the "visible universe" was. I don't see "universe" anywhere in the Quran. I see a "heaven," which is the same word for "sky," that has "lamps" set into it. This is exactly what the Bible says. It is very similar to what Aristotle and every other ancient writer at the time of the Quran believed about the shape of the cosmos.

Everyone knows what the visible Universe is; it's everything you can see around you, hence "visible". In the sky, they would've seen a bunch of lights (some obviously bigger than others). The Qur'an says that all those lights are in the lowest heaven. These "lights", as we now know today, are a variety of different objects, such as other planets, stars, and even galaxies. Since that's basically what the visible Universe consists of, then obviously, that's what it's referring to.

So—apart from simply assuming the Quran is from God, can do no wrong, and must match up with current science no matter what—what reason can you give for interpreting this verse to mean Einstein's visible "universe"?

See above.

Unless God didn't write the Quran.

But, that in itself is a presumption. When you analyze ancient texts, you analyze them under the presumption that they're all the works of men, regardless if they claim otherwise. That's why your argument is biased, and hence flawed.

How do we know that God wrote the Quran? Do you see how this is a problem?

As I said on my first post of this thread, in reply to the original post:

We know that the Qur'an is true and divine, because of its inimitability, as the Qur'an itself says, and as history has shown to be true.

And it's especially problematic because there are a lot of ancient texts that claim to be written from God. Are we supposed to interpret these texts normally, in the context of their cultures—or are we supposed to interpret them as if they were perfect and sent down from God(s)?

You're supposed to interpret them based on their claims. If they're not claiming divine authorship or anything special like that, interpreting it in the context of its culture is only logical.

If its claiming divine authorship, then you analyze this claim, based on what it offers as proof to back it up. If it offers nothing, then the objective thing to do, would be to analyze it, while being open to both views of it being divine and of it being man-made.

[Qingu]

Not really. If you interpret the Qur'an as being subject to common beliefs at the time of revelation, you're assuming that it didn't come from God, but from man.

Likewise if you interpret the Qur'an as not being subject to common beliefs at the time of revelation, you're assuming that it is from God, and meant for the whole of mankind, from the 7th century to Judgment Day.

But you can say the exact same thing about almost all ancient religious texts.

You interpret the Iliad, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Ramayana, and the Bible in exactly the same way I do—in the context in which they were received by their respective cultures. The only difference is that you think your religion's text deserves special treatment, and I do not.

Obviously, if I decided to interpret the Epic of Gilgamesh as if it was divinely inspired (as it claims to be), I would have a different interpretation of it than you do. What would you say to this? "You're wrong, because the Epic of Gilgamesh doesn't actually come from God and the Quran does?" That's not convincing. We need a consistent standard for how to read and look at texts. We can't just arbitrarily decide that certain texts are "exempted" and must be true no matter how we read them.

True. But, what you are discussing is something a bit more specific. You are actually trying to interpret statements in the Qur'an based on common beliefs of the 7th century

Which seems to make a lot of sense to me, since that is when the book was written, and much of what it says is identical to common beliefs in the 7th century.

It's still referring to illuminated celestial objects in the sky (which certainly includes stars), and it's still saying that they're in the lowest heaven.

Yeah, in my last post I admitted I made a mistake here. It does say the stars are in the lowest heaven. But the structure of "seven heavens" is the same as that found in many other texts, dating from the ancient Greeks.

Everyone knows what the visible Universe is; it's everything you can see around you, hence "visible". In the sky, they would've seen a bunch of lights (some obviously bigger than others). The Qur'an says that all those lights are in the lowest heaven. These "lights", as we now know today, are a variety of different objects, such as other planets, stars, and even galaxies. Since that's basically what the visible Universe consists of, then obviously, that's what it's referring to.

No. The Arabs had absolutely no idea that the stars were actually flaming balls of gas, billions of times bigger than the Earth, that existed in vast stretches of empty (well, semi-empty, according to QM) space.

The Arabs thought the stars were points of light set into the sky. The word for "sky" is the same as the word for "heaven." The Arabs thought these points of light could fall down to earth. Which is exactly what the Quran says.

Incidentally, if "the entirety of the universe" is the "first heaven" then what is Earth's sky? The zero'th heaven?

But, that in itself is a presumption. When you analyze ancient texts, you analyze them under the presumption that they're all the works of men, regardless if they claim otherwise. That's why your argument is biased, and hence flawed.

It is not a presumption.

My position when I read an ancient text: "God may or may not have written this."

Your position (with the Quran): "God wrote this."

One position is presumptuous. The other does not presume anything either way.

Also, are you denying that your argument is "biased and henced flawed"?

As I said on my first post of this thread, in reply to the original post:

We know that the Qur'an is true and divine, because of its inimitability, as the Qur'an itself says, and as history has shown to be true.

A completely subjective and untestable standard. What would constitute "imitating" the Quran?

Has anyone ever imitated the Epic of Gilgamesh?

You're supposed to interpret them based on their claims. If they're not claiming divine authorship or anything special like that, interpreting it in the context of its culture is only logical.

If its claiming divine authorship, then you analyze this claim, based on what it offers as proof to back it up. If it offers nothing, then the objective thing to do, would be to analyze it, while being open to both views of it being divine and of it being man-made.

Very well. The Epic of Gilgamesh claims to be inspired from gods.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that it is not?

Also, you are clearly not open to "both views" of the Quran being divine or being man-made.

[Imam]

this is really just ridiculous. Your source is claiming that the Quran's characterization of the embryo as looking like a "chewed substance" is miraculous.

yes it is,and it will stand firm as the most accurate word to describe the embryo in such stage ,till you provide someone else described it that way,or to provide us with another Arabic word that would be more accurate....

I mean, embryo's don't even look that much like leeches.

http://www.scientificillustrator.com...ects/leech.jpg

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-l...-0-0-0-0-0.jpg

More like fishes .

That is fun .......

and which kind of fish would you recommend for the verse?

and you ever thought how fish get nourishment compared to the leech and hence compared to the embryo in such stage?

I would not tell you to be factual ...I will let the readers judge whether the leech or your fish would be more accurate to describe not only the appearance but the way it stick,suspend and gets nourishment ..

just as you said let the readers judge......

[Qingu]

Imam,

Very cute (20,000 species of fish and you went out of your way to find the weirdest-looking ones, didn't you?) but there are a number of important differences between human embryos and leeches.

The most important difference is that humans, like all vertebrates, are deuterostomes. Leeches, like most invertebrates*, are protostomes. The difference between protostomes and deuterostomes is one of the most basic divisions in the animal kingdom. Protostome embryos develop mouths first and anuses second (protostome means "mouth first"). Deuterostome embryos develop anus first and mouth second (it means "mouth second").

*the exceptions are starfish and sea squirts. They're more closely related to humans than insects and leeches are!

Now, early human embryos look like wormy, undifferentiated masses. So do leeches. So do a lot of fish (such as lampreys)

The reason I brought up fish is because fish, like humans, are vertebrates, and their embryos develop in similar stages. For example, human embryos develop gill slits—the structures that eventually become gills in fishes! That would be something that, if it appeared in an ancient, pre-scientific text, I would be impressed by.

But simply pointing out the fact that human embryos look like leeches (which, again, would have been obvious to anyone who had ever looked at a miscarriage) is just not impressive at all, Imam. In fact, comparing human embryos (which are deuterostomes) to leeches (which are protostomes) seems to miss a fundamental aspect of embryology.

I don't really know how to make this any clearer to you. You can blame it on Iblis putting a cloud over my mind or something, but I'm just not impressed.

[Imam]

Imam,

Very cute (20,000 species of fish and you went out of your way to find the weirdest-looking ones, didn't you?)

Nice that you finally got it !!!
20,000 species of fish with huge differences in external appearance

I did exactly what you and those alike would do if the verse said fish instead of leech ,there would be ample photos to show Muslims that a fish appearance is elastic description......

fish is not as accurate as leech to describe the embryo in such age
and by no mean specific....fish has lots of forms ..square, round etc........
and claiming it to be specific is nothing but a mockery,we are not comparing fish with human ..we are comparing the external appearance of the embryo in such stage with a leech ...and any honest person would suggest it indeed looks more similar to the leech than anything else ...eg;fish etc......

the word leech enough alone to describe the external appearance of the embryo in such stage..while fish is not specif alone....

a fish doesn't get nourishment as the leech .
and the embryo in such stage doesn't get nourishment as a fish...
a fish doesn't stick sucking blood as the leech do.....

that is why a fish would not be impressive as a leech to describe such stage...

,but I'm just not impressed.

and I respect your choice and I never intended to convince you of anything ...my posts basically for the Muslims who would seek some enlightenment in their sacred text....
and at first and at last ...the readers who would balance and judge..

You can blame it on Iblis putting a cloud over my mind or something

not yet for me to think so...but I think if you not to be impressed by the other verses that contains scientific pre knowledge,then I can't help but to guess so..

[Qingu]

a fish doesn't get nourishment as the leech .

Lampreys do. :)

Disgusting creatures, really.

I see your point, and it's a fair one. I think you might have missed mine, though. The reason comparing an embryo to a fish is impressive is because, until very recently, nobody really knew about the similarities. It wasn't until the 1800's that people discovered that human embryos have gill slit-like structures (like fishes). And it wasn't until very recently, within the past few decades, that we discovered the difference between deuterostome and protostome embryological development (fish, like all vertebrates, are deuterostome).

Whereas, people knew that embryos looked sort of like leeches and depended on blood in the womb since ancient times.

and I respect your choice and I never intended to convince you of anything

Well, at the very least, I hope my debate here has helped you understand why atheists reject the arguments you put forth. Peace be upon you.

(By the way, what's the proper way for an atheist like me to say "peace be upon you" to Muslims? Is it considered offensive when a kufr says that phrase? I do really like the sentiment of the saying.)

[Imam]

Two reasons the word Lamprey couldn't be used to describe such stage

1- the meaning of such word in Arabic is invented and a modern one,and has never been used by Arabs till modern times....

The modern name is أنكليسات البحر

Just consult all the ancient Arab dictionaries and search for such manufactured word أنكليسات
and you will never find it .....

I think it would be wise for the Quran author to use a word that has well known meanings...

2-Even if the word أنكليسات was known then,still The word (alaqa) the most accurate as one of its meanings is (something suspended) which أنكليسات wouldn't convey ...alaqa ,would convey

1-appearance
2-position
3-nourishment

and no other Arabic word would do the Job instead

that is why I said before it is the best word...

people knew that embryos looked sort of like leeches

What people?
such stage never been described as leech looking by any source other than the quran neither (chewed substance) been used other than the Quran.....

look Qingu I have a good proposal to finish that debate......

1-To find a Greek source described the embryo in such stage as leech appearance and the other stage as chewed substance.

2- To give satisfactory explanation ,why the Quran copied from the Greek the correct parts and avoided their mistakes?


those are the basic questions that formed the cloud of blind faith,in the matter under discussion, on my mind ....

If only I find a satisfactory answers,I promise you ,not only to modify my thoughts and skip such issue,but I will advice the Muslim readers not to include the such verse in the list of the many verse that contain scientific Quranic pre-knowledge...........

[Qingu]

Imam, again, I think you're confused about what I'm actually saying here.

I'm not saying the Quran actively plagiarized from Greek sources. I would not be surprised if the Quran is the only ancient text to describe embryos as looking like leeches.

I am simply saying that I don't find that comparison compelling, because it's not any more insightful about embryology than, for example, the stuff Aristotle wrote about embryos.

Consider: Why are you claiming the "leech" description is miraculous? Is it because the Quran is the only text to describe an embryo like a leech? No, that makes no sense. It's supposedly because that description provides compelling insights about embryology unknown to people of the time—that embryos depend on blood in the womb, and that they look like gross little inhuman blobs.

But, Aristotle knew both of those aspects of embryology too, and wrote about them. So do you see why I don't think it's miraculous? The Quran isn't describing something that was unknown at the time. It was just using somewhat original language to describe it. That's not a miracle, and it's not even as informative as earlier works about embryology.

[Imam]

I'm not saying the Quran actively plagiarized

.

I'm afraid that the cloud of blind faith would never evaporate

Due to not giving satisfactory explanation ,why the Quran copied from the Greek the correct parts and avoided their mistakes,and hence suggesting neither actively nor passaivley plagiarized the Greeks ,and hence proving that all the meanings mentioned from the way it gets nourishment ,its location,its appearance from another source (divine),and the fact that no Greek source described the embryo in such stage as leech appearance and the other stage as chewed substance.

Just let me enjoy my blind faith :D

The discussion is over ..and peace for all

[Hamayun]

I'm afraid that the cloud of blind faith would never evaporate

Due to not giving satisfactory explanation ,why the Quran copied from the Greek the correct parts and avoided their mistakes,and hence suggesting neither actively nor passaivley plagiarized the Greeks ,and hence proving that all the meanings mentioned from the way it gets nourishment ,its location,its appearance from another source (divine),and the fact that no Greek source described the embryo in such stage as leech appearance and the other stage as chewed substance.

Just let me enjoy my blind faith :D

The discussion is over ..and peace for all

That sums it up really. Jazakallah Bro.

I don't think anything beneficial can be added to this debate now.

[muslimapoclyptc]

But you can say the exact same thing about almost all ancient religious texts.

You interpret the Iliad, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Ramayana, and the Bible in exactly the same way I do—in the context in which they were received by their respective cultures. The only difference is that you think your religion's text deserves special treatment, and I do not.

Obviously, if I decided to interpret the Epic of Gilgamesh as if it was divinely inspired (as it claims to be), I would have a different interpretation of it than you do. What would you say to this? "You're wrong, because the Epic of Gilgamesh doesn't actually come from God and the Quran does?" That's not convincing. We need a consistent standard for how to read and look at texts. We can't just arbitrarily decide that certain texts are "exempted" and must be true no matter how we read them.

Objectively, you can't really make definitive conclusions about ambiguously worded statements, regardless of context. What ever conclusions you make, can only be your opinion.

Which seems to make a lot of sense to me, since that is when the book was written, and much of what it says is identical to common beliefs in the 7th century.

It's only identical on a superficial basis, and that's not enough to make a definitive conclusion about it.

Yeah, in my last post I admitted I made a mistake here. It does say the stars are in the lowest heaven. But the structure of "seven heavens" is the same as that found in many other texts, dating from the ancient Greeks.

Which is irrelevant, and to be expected, since Prophet Muhammad wasn't the first Prophet to be sent as a Messenger of God to people, but the last. It only makes sense then, that Islam today would have some theological similarities with its predecessors.

No. The Arabs had absolutely no idea that the stars were actually flaming balls of gas, billions of times bigger than the Earth, that existed in vast stretches of empty (well, semi-empty, according to QM) space.

The Arabs thought the stars were points of light set into the sky. The word for "sky" is the same as the word for "heaven." The Arabs thought these points of light could fall down to earth. Which is exactly what the Quran says.

It's irrelevant what the Arabs thought or knew about. What's relevant is what the Qur'an actually says, regarding what they observed, not what they knew. Plus, the term "fall" has different meanings, and doesn't necessarily mean to literally fall to the ground.

It's interesting how the Qur'an doesn't clarify these issues. It most certainly would have, if that's what it really intended to convey, and not just leave it up to people to figure it out for themselves.

Incidentally, if "the entirety of the universe" is the "first heaven" then what is Earth's sky? The zero'th heaven?

Obviously, everything that's visible in the Earth's sky would all be part of the "first heaven".

It is not a presumption.

My position when I read an ancient text: "God may or may not have written this."

Your position (with the Quran): "God wrote this."

One position is presumptuous. The other does not presume anything either way.

Except you determine it's divine authorship, based on how similar its wording is to common beliefs at the time, instead of letting it be almost timeless, as it was intended to be.

Also, are you denying that your argument is "biased and henced flawed"?

No. I'm not. I'm just saying yours is also the same way.

A completely subjective and untestable standard. What would constitute "imitating" the Quran?

Perhaps you might try reading through the link I gave?

Has anyone ever imitated the Epic of Gilgamesh?

That's irrelevant, as I doubt the Epic of Gilgamesh challenges people to do so, if they don't believe in its divinity.

Very well. The Epic of Gilgamesh claims to be inspired from gods.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that it is not?

First, who physically wrote down the EoG?

Second, what does the EoG offer as proof of its divinity?

Third, what guarantee is there, that it hasn't been tampered with between its time of revelation and when it was written down?

Based on that, you can determine its credibility as a divine source. Uncertainty in any of these = a substantial decrease in credibility.

Also, you are clearly not open to "both views" of the Quran being divine or being man-made.

Obviously, since I'm a Muslim. If I were open to both views, I'd be an Agnostic.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

First, who physically wrote down the EoG?

Second, what does the EoG offer as proof of its divinity?

Third, what guarantee is there, that it hasn't been tampered with between its time of revelation and when it was written down?

Based on that, you can determine its credibility as a divine source. Uncertainty in any of these = a substantial decrease in credibility.

Out of interest, how would you answer those questions if they referred to the Qur'an?

From my point of view, there is just as much reason to believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is divine as there is to believe the same about the Qur'an.

Peace

[جوري]

Except for the parts where

• it refers to the existence of invisible magical spirits from Arabian mythology (djinn)

I find that refreshing from a man who expects us to subscribe to(abiogensis)

or hailing panspermia

as scientific!


however to get back to the matter, many things exist 'scientifically' that are invisible to you!

further excellent reading on the subject of jinns--

http://www.irfi.org/articles/article...c_analysis.htm

Here we can discuss Jinn in more detail.

The Qur'an & Modem Science: JINN*

This chapter is very thought provoking and intended to stimulate thinking and further research among Muslim Scholars, Scientists and Students.*

The Qur'an mentions about Jinns in several places. The Qur'an specifically says that human beings are made of clay and also made of water. These statements are scientifically correct. With regard to the Jinns, the Qur'an also says that they are made from a flame of fire. A.Yusuf Ali, the well-known English Translator of the Qur'an, says in his note #929 that jinn is simply "a spirit" or an invisible or hidden force. It is also mentioned in the book ARABIAN NIGHTS that they become personified into fantastic forms, which we will see later as possible.

The Qur'an says: *

And the jinn race,

We had created before, from the fire of a
Scorching wind. Surah XV: 27*
In note 1967, Yusuf Ali says, "Hidden or Invisible forces are aptly typified as arising 'from the fire of scorching winds'.*
he scientific definition of the Jinns is given in the Qur'an as:*
*
And He created

Jinns from fire free of smoke.

Surah LV: 15*
*
There is a whole Surah LXXII, called Jinn or the Spirits in the Qur'an.

Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, another translator of the Qur'an from England, gives another meaning of Jinns. He says another meaning of Jinns is foreigners (Aliens) which means they are extraterrestrial (from outside the earth). The reader must keep in mind these definitions of the Jinns to understand their scientific nature given in this article.*


Currently held view is that in the whole universe only planet Earth harbors intelligent beings such as humans who are made of clay and water. In 1927, Sir Francis Younghusband wrote a book titled Life in the Stars (John Murray, London). In this book he describes the inhabitants in the stars as beings with angelic qualities. Our Sun is also a star.*


No religion in the world except Islam has the concept of Jinn. On Earth all life is made of Carbon and water. Living things on Earth need energy for their activities. Some of these activities are chemical reactions, which need a supply of energy. This supply of energy comes from the foods we eat, particularly the sugars. Fat is also a source of (stored) energy. When sugars (glucose) are oxidized with oxygen they are converted into water, carbon dioxide and energy. This is a process called respiration. Similarly creatures elsewhere in the universe such as the sun or stars need energy. For those in the sun, the sun itself supplies the energy.*


LIFE IN THEE SUN*


Based on the laws of Physics and Chemistry scientists argue the existence of creatures in the sun. The outermost part of the sun is called the Chromosphere and Corona. The temperature here is 4000 degrees centigrade. Underneath the corona lies the Photosphere where the temperature is 5700 degrees centigrade which is the temperature on the surface of the sun. Inside the Photosphere lies the Plasma Interior. Here the temperature is 30,000 degrees centigrade. At this temperature the atoms lose their electrons which wander freely. The density of the hot gases is equal to that of air at the surface of Earth. Halfway towards the center of the sun the temperature rises to several million degrees centigrade. Here the electrons are completely removed from their atoms and move freely, leaving the atomic nuclei behind as positively charged Ions. These separated positive and negative (ions) move independently of each other and this state of matter is called Plasma. Plasma could be interpreted as the smokeless Fire described in the Qur'an. At the center of the sun is the core where the temperature reaches ten million degrees and the density is five times greater than that of solid gold. That is the density of the core, which is greater than any material found on Earth. In the core the nuclear fusion reactions occur resulting in the fusion of hydrogen nuclei into Helium nuclei plus liberation of energy which we receive as the sunlight. The Hydrogen Bomb works based on nuclear fusion whereas the Atomic Bomb works based on nuclear fission (splitting of the atomic nucleus).*
*

Scientists (G. Feinberg and R.Shapiro, LIFE BEYOND EARTH Published by William Morrow and Co., Inc., New York, 1980) predict that there is the highest probability of finding life in the Plasma of our Sun or any star. They call these creatures as Plasmabeasts. Plasmabeasts can be construed as nothing but the Jinns. Life on Earth is called Chemical life, whereas the life in the Plasma of the Sun is based on Physical life. In the Plasma, the positively charged ions and the freely floating electrons (negative ions) are both acted on by intense magnetic forces present in the sun (star). The Jinns are interpreted to be composed of patterns of magnetic force, together with groups of moving charges in a kind of symbiosis. The possible inhabitants of Plasmaland (place of inhabitants) or Jinns have a more complex basis for their life involving charges as well as magnetic forces. The positive and negative ions interact and respond to the presence of magnetic forces. The stable structure and movement of the Jinns is influenced by the magnetic forces. In Physics we know that the moving charges influence the motion of these electrical charges or ions. This situation is similar to the influence of proteins and nucleic acids in Earth life. Finally these processes result in a favored form. For this to take place supply of free energy is required which is obtained from the flow of radiation within the sun. Therefore the Jinn can be construed to use radiant energy in their vital processes.**

•*it claims that the entire world was covered in a flood and a man gathered all the million plus species onto an ark (11:40)

Except it doesn't claim the 'whole world' was covered by the flood

حَتَّى إِذَا جَاء أَمْرُنَا وَفَارَ التَّنُّورُ قُلْنَا احْمِلْ فِيهَا مِن كُلٍّ زَوْجَيْنِ اثْنَيْنِ وَأَهْلَكَ إِلاَّ مَن سَبَقَ عَلَيْهِ الْقَوْلُ وَمَنْ آمَنَ وَمَا آمَنَ مَعَهُ إِلاَّ قَلِيلٌ {40}
[Pickthal 11:40] (Thus it was) till, when Our commandment came to pass and the oven gushed forth water, We said: Load therein two of every kind, a pair (the male and female), and thy household, save him against whom the word hath gone forth already, and those who believe. And but a few were they who believed with him.

as well further evidenced by

وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحًا إِلَى قَوْمِهِ فَقَالَ يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُم مِّنْ إِلَهٍ غَيْرُهُ أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ {23}
[Pickthal 23:23] And We verily sent Noah unto his folk, and he said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other Allah save Him. Will ye not ward off (evil)?
I believe 'illa qawmih' as in his own folk doesn't equal the whole world? you should investigate a little before you cut and paste?

• it refers to the sun's orbit, usually in the same phrase as the moon's orbit, (13:2, 21:33, 36:40) along with places where the sun rises and sets (18:86)—just like most Mesopotamian myths

again actually reading what you cut and paste can save you a whole lot of public embarrassment?

اللّهُ الَّذِي رَفَعَ السَّمَاوَاتِ بِغَيْرِ عَمَدٍ تَرَوْنَهَا ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى عَلَى الْعَرْشِ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لأَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى يُدَبِّرُ الأَمْرَ يُفَصِّلُ الآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُم بِلِقَاء رَبِّكُمْ تُوقِنُونَ {2}
[Pickthal 13:2] Allah it is Who raised up the heavens without visible supports, then mounted the Throne, and compelled the sun and the moon to be of service, each runneth unto an appointed term; He ordereth the course; He detaileth the revelations, that haply ye may be certain of the meeting with your Lord.


وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ {33}
[Pickthal 21:33] And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

لَا الشَّمْسُ يَنبَغِي لَهَا أَن تُدْرِكَ الْقَمَرَ وَلَا اللَّيْلُ سَابِقُ النَّهَارِ وَكُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ {40}
[Pickthal 36:40] It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.


حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْمًا قُلْنَا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّا أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّا أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْنًا {86}
[Pickthal 18:86] Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.

it is a metaphorical description evidenced by
هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ {7}

so far each in its own cosmic path?

[Pickthal 3:7] He it is Who hath revealed unto thee the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

• it refers to splitting the moon into two pieces (54:1)

so? a miracle to the people of its kind and historically reported

The moon has appeared to split in half according to MANY eye witnesses!The incident relating to King Chakrawati Farmas is documented in an old manuscript in the India Office Library, London, which has reference number: Arabic, 2807, 152-173. It is quoted in the book “Muhammad Rasulullah,” by M. Hamidullah:

“There is a very old tradition in Malabar, South-West Coast of India, that Chakrawati Farmas, one of their kings, had observed the splitting of the moon, the celebrated miracle of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) at Mecca, and learning on inquiry that there was a prediction of the coming of a Messenger of God from Arabia, he appointed his son as regent and set out to meet him. He embraced Islam at the hand of the Prophet, and when returning home, at the direction of the Prophet, died at the port of Zafar, Yemen, where the tomb of the “Indian king” was piously visited for many centuries.”

The old manuscript in the 'India Office Library' contains several other details about King Chakrawati Farmas and his travel.

• it claims that the stars will "fall"; (81:2) and the lower sky has "lamps" in it (41:12)

suret at takwir has to do with signs of the end.. hasn't occurred yet.. it would help to read it all in context

AT-TAKWIR (SHROUDING IN DARKNESS)

THE EIGHTY-FIRST SURAH

Total Verses: 29
MECCA PERIOD

Introduction

THE conventional designation of this very early surah(most probably the seventh in the order of revelation) is derived from the verb kuwwirat, which occurs in the first verse and introduces the symbolic image of the Last Hour and, hence, of man's resurrection.

IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MOST GRACIOUS, THE DISPENSER OF GRACE:

81: 1
WHEN THE SUN is shrouded in darkness,

82: 2
and when the stars lose their light,

81: 3
and when the mountains are made to vanish,*

* See 20:105-107 and the corresponding note 90; also note 63 on 14:48.

81: 4
and when she-camels big with young, about to give birth, are left untended,

81: 5
and when all beasts are gathered together,*

* I.e., when they crowd together in terror of the manifestation of the Last Hour, or as Mu’tazili commentators maintain - in order to be indemnified by God for man's cruelty to them (Razi). It is also said that the animals which were loved by human beings will live in the hereafter together with those who loved them (Zamakhshari). This interpretation is evidently based on 6:38 - "there is no beast that walks on earth and no bird that flies on its two wings which is not [God's] creature like yourselves" - followed almost immediately by the wordss, "Unto their Sustainer shall they [all] be gathered."

81: 6
and when the seas boil over,

81: 7
and when all human beings are coupled [with their deeds],*

* I.e., when none will be able to divest himself of responsibility for his past deeds.

81: 8
and when the girl-child that was buried alive is made to ask

81: 9
for what crime she had been slain,*

* The barbaric custom of burying female infants alive seems to have been fairly widespread in pre-Islamic Arabia, although perhaps not to the extent as has been commonly assumed. The motives were twofold: the fear that an increase of female offspring would result in economic burdens, as well as fear of the humiliation frequently caused by girls being captured by a hostile tribe and subsequently preferring their captors to their parents and brothers. Before Islam, one of the foremost opponents of this custom was Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl, a cousin of Umar ibn al-Khattab and spiritually a precursor of Muhammad (cf. Bukhari, Fada'il Ashab an-Nabi on the authority of Abd Allah ibn Umar); he died shortly before Muhammad's call to prophethood (Fath al-Bari VII, 112). Another man, Sa‘sa‘ah ibn Najiyah at-Tamimi - grandfather of the poet Farazdaq - achieved equal fame as a saviour of infants thus condemned to death; he later embraced Islam. Ibn Khallikan (II, 197) mentions that Sa‘sa‘ah saved about thirty girls by paying ransom to their parents.

81: 10
and when the scrolls [of men's deeds] are unfolded,

81: 11
and when heaven is laid bare,

81: 12
and when the blazing fire [of hell] is kindled bright,

81: 13
and when paradise is brought into view:

81: 14
[on that Day] every human being will come to know what he has prepared [for himself].

81: 15
BUT NAY! I call to witness the revolving stars,

81: 16
the planets that run their course and set,

81: 17
and the night as it darkly falls,

81: 18
and the morn as it softly breathes:

81: 19
behold, this [divine writ] is indeed the [inspired] word of a noble apostle,*

* By "calling to witness" certain natural phenomena which are familiar to man because of their permanent recurrence, attention is drawn to the fact that what we call "laws of nature" are but the observable elements of God's plan of creation - a plan in which His revelations (referred to in this and the subsequent verses) play a decisive role: and so, by implication, the divine writ granted to Muhammad is as intrinsically "natural" as any other phenomenon, concrete or abstract, in the realm of God's creation.

81: 20
with strength endowed, secure with Him who in almightiness is enthroned*

* Lit., "with Him of the throne of almightiness". It is to be noted that the Qur'anic term ‘arsh- of which the above is the earliest occurrence in the order of revelation - invariably signifies God's absolute sovereignty and almightiness (cf. note 43 on 7:54).

81: 21
[the word] of one to be heeded, and worthy of trust!

81: 22
For, this fellow-man of yours is not a madman:*

* See surah 68, note 3. The characterization of Muhammad as "this fellow-man of yours" is meant to stress his absolute humanness, and thus to counteract any possibility on the part of his followers to deify him. (See also note 150 on 7:184.)

81: 23
he truly beheld [the angel - beheld] him on the clear horizon;*

* This is evidently a reference to the Prophet's vision of the Angel Gabriel which ended the break in revelation (fatrat al-wahy) mentioned in the introductory note to surah 74. See also 53:5 ff. and the corresponding notes.

81: 24
and he is not one to begrudge others the knowledge [of whatever has been revealed to him] out of that which is beyond the reach of human Perception.*

* Sc., "and so he conveys this revelation to you".

81: 25
Nor is this [message] the word of any satanic force accursed.*

* For my occasional rendering of shaytan as "satanic force", see first half of note 16 on 15:17.

81: 26
Whither, then, will you go?

81: 27
This [message] is no less than a reminder to all mankind –

81: 28
to everyone of you who wills to walk a straight way.

81: 29
But you cannot will it unless God, the Sustainer of all the worlds, wills [to show you that way].*

* I.e., "you can will it only because God has willed to show you the right way by means of the positive instincts which He has implanted in you, as well as through the revelations which He has bestowed on His prophets": implying that the choice of the right way is open to everyone who is willing to avail himself of God's universal guidance. (Cf. a similar passage in 76:29-30.)

• it claims that humans are formed from a "gushing fluid" that comes from between your loins and ribs (86:5)

It says:
(6) he has been created out of a seminal fluid

(7) issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].*

* The plural noun tara'ib, rendered by me as "pelvic arch", has also the meaning of "ribs" or "arch of bones"; according to most of the authorities who have specialized in the etymology of rare Quranic expressions this term relates specifically to female anatomy (Taj al-'Arus).



I suggest you open an embryology and anatomy book before cutting and pasting this one..

This is exactly the kind of language you would expect from 7th-century desert nomads.

The Quran in its entirety is written like a poem.. verses sometimes revealed 18 years apart yet fit in perfectly in terms of context, rhyme, meaning, transcendence. The fact that Nomadic Arabic was at its peak of poetry.. poets from all regions used to display their work on the ka3ba yet none were able to produce a verse like it, is its own testament to its miracle. I can go on but given how much effort you put into your cut and paste, you are not worth the time!

Of course, Muslims have all kinds of clever ways of interpreting these verses "metaphorically" or whatever so they don't seem as silly as they are—just like Christians interpret the Bible to seem less silly than it is.

metphorically or correctly? It would really pay if you'd simple research what you paste before blindly sharing it with the rest of us.. you should with some respect accept that some of us are fluent in Arabic and have memorized the book!

I'm also a fan of the part in the Bukhari hadith that talks about Muhammad riding a magical flying donkey, al-Buraq.

Al buraq is not a donky.. out of his journey whether you believe it took place or not were many a predictions that occured or yet to occur, and that is a testament to the event.

further reading on the subject

INTRODUCTION


Another miraculous aspect of the Qur'an is its prediction of future events, all of which have so far been fulfilled. This is one of the proofs that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah. In the following pages, we will dwell on some of these events.


THE VICTORY OF BYZANTIUM


An astonishing prediction is found in the first verses of Surat ar-Rum, which refers to the Byzantine Empire, the eastern part of the later Roman Empire: The Byzantine Empire, which had met with a great defeat, would soon gain victory.



Alif, Lam, Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will be victorious within three to nine years. The affair is Allah's from beginning to end. (Qur'an, 30:1-4)



These verses were revealed around 620, almost 7 years after the idolatrous Persians had severely defeated Christian Byzantium in 613-14. In fact, Byzantium had suffered such heavy losses that it seemed impossible for it even to survive, let alone be victorious again. Following their defeat of the Byzantines at Antioch in 613, the Persians seized control of Damascus, Cilicia, Tarsus, Armenia, and Jerusalem. The loss of Jerusalem in 614 was particularly traumatic for the Byzantines, for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed and the Persians seized the "True Cross," the symbol of Christianity.174 In addition, the Avars, Slavs, and Lombards also were posing serious threats to the Byzantine Empire. The Avars had reached as far as the walls of Constantinople. Emperor Heraclius ordered the gold and silver in churches to be melted and turned into money in order to meet the army's expenses. When this proved insufficient, bronze statues were melted down in order to mint more money. Many governors had revolted against Heraclius, and Byzantium was on the point of collapse.175 Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Armenia, which had earlier belonged to Byzantium, were invaded by the idolatrous Persians.176






The Dead Sea basin where Byzantium was defeated by Persians. Above is a satellite photograph of the region. The Lake of Lut region, which is the lowest region of the world, is 395 meter below the sea level.



In short, everyone was expecting Byzantium to be destroyed. But during this time, the first verses of Surat ar-Rum were revealed, announcing that Byzantium would triumph in 3 to 9 years. This predicted victory seemed so impossible that the Arab polytheists thought it would never come true.






On top a satellite photograph of the Dead Sea basin. The altitude of the Dead Sea could only be determined with modern measurement techniques. These measurements led to the discovery that this region is the "lowest region on the Earth."



Like all the other predictions in the Qur'an, however, this one also came true. In 622, Heraclius gained a number of victories over the Persians and conquered Armenia.177 In December 627, the two empires fought a decisive battle at Nineveh, some 50 kilometres east of the Tigris river, near Baghdad. This time too, the Byzantine army defeated the Persians. A few months later, the Persians had to sue for peace with Byzantium, which obliged them to return the territories they had taken from it.178


The Byzantine victory was completed when Emperor Heraclius defeated the Persian ruler Khosrow II in 630, recaptured Jerusalem, and regained the "True Cross" for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.179 In the end, "the victory of the Romans" proclaimed by Allah in the Qur'an miraculously came true within the verses' stated "three to nine years" time frame.


Another miracle revealed in these verses is the announcement of a geographical fact that could not have been known by anyone at that time: that the Romans had been defeated in the lowest region of Earth. This Arabic expression adna al-Ard is interpreted as "a nearby place" in many translations. However, this is not the literal meaning, but rather a figurative interpretation. The word adna, derived from the word dani (low), means “the lowest”. The word ard means “the world.” Therefore, adna al-ard means "the lowest place on Earth."


Some interpreters of the Qur'an, considering the closeness of the region in question to the Arabs, prefer the "closest" meaning of the word. However, the actual meaning indicates a very important geological fact: The Dead Sea, one of the regions in which the Byzantines were defeated in 613-14, is the lowest region on Earth.180


As stated earlier, for Christian Byzantium, the loss of the True Cross was the heaviest blow in that defeat in Jerusalem, located near the shores of the Dead Sea.




The Byzantines and the Persians actually fought at the Dead Sea basin, which is situated at the intersection point of the lands belonging to Syria, Palestine, and Jordan. At 399 meters below sea level, the Dead Sea is the "lowest" place on Earth's surface.181


However, as only modern measuring methods and equipment can prove this fact, it would have been impossible for anyone living at that time to realise this truth. Yet, the Qur'an states clearly that this region was the "lowest land" on Earth and thereby provides further evidence that it is the Word of Allah.



THE PRESERVATION OF PHARAOH'S BODY


As we shall see later on, Pharaoh regarded himself as a deity and responded with slanders and threats to Prophet Musa's (as) calls for him to believe in Allah. This arrogant attitude lasted until he was faced with the threat of death through drowning. The Qur'an relates that Pharaoh immediately turned to belief when faced with Allah's punishment:



We brought the tribe of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his troops pursued them out of tyranny and enmity. Then, when he was on the point of drowning, he [Pharaoh] said: "I believe that there is no god but Him in Whom the tribe of Israel believes. I am one of the Muslims." (Qur'an, 10:90)



However, this last-minute conversion was not accepted, for it was not sincere. According to the Qur'an, Allah exclaimed:



"What, now! When previously you rebelled and were one of the corrupters? Today we will preserve your body so you can be a Sign for people who come after you. Surely many people are heedless of Our Signs." (Qur'an, 10:91-92)



The information that Pharaoh's corpse would serve as a sign for later generations may be regarded as an indication that his body would not decay. On display in the Royal Mummies Chamber of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is a mummified body believed to be that of this tyrant. In all likelihood, Pharaoh's body floated to shore after being drowned, was found and mummified by the Egyptians, and then carried to a previously prepared burial chamber.182



THE CONQUEST OF MAKKAH



Allah has confirmed His Messenger's vision with truth: You will enter the Masjid al-Haram [Sacred Mosque] in safety, Allah willing, shaving your heads and cutting your hair without any fear. He knew what you did not know and ordained, in place of this, an imminent victory. (Qur'an, 48:27)



One night in Madinah, the Prophet (saas) dreamed that the believers would enter the Sacred Mosque and walk around the Ka`bah. After he awoke, he gave this good news to the believers, for those who had migrated from Makkah to Madinah with him had not been able to return since.


In Surat al-Fath 27, Allah revealed to the Prophet (saas) that He would help and support him, that the dream was true, and that the believers would enter Makkah. A short while later, with the Treaty of Hudaybiyah and the conquest of Makkah, the believers entered the Sacred Mosque in complete safety, just as the dream had foretold. That was how Allah showed that it had been His will that the Prophet's (saas) dream be fulfilled.


On closer consideration, this verse can be seen to announce yet another victory that will take place before Makkah's capture: the capture of the Khyber Fortress, which was under the control of the Jews, before they entered Makkah.183


Other verses that give the glad tidings of Makkah's conquest are given below:



He held their hands back from you, and your hands from them in the valley of Makkah, after giving you the upper hand over them. Allah sees what you do. (Qur'an, 48:24)


Truly We have granted you a clear victory, so that Allah may forgive you your earlier errors and any later ones, complete His blessing upon you, and guide you on a Straight Path. And so that Allah may help you with a mighty help. (Qur'an, 48:1-3)



Surat al-Isra' 76 states that the unbelievers cannot stay in Makkah:



They were very near to scaring you from the land with the object of expelling you from it. But had they done so, they would only have remained there a short time after you. (Qur'an, 17:76)



The Prophet (saas) entered Makkah and conquered it in 8 ah (630). Two years later, all of the unbelievers left Makkah, just as Allah had said that they would. Another point that should be noted here is that when the Prophet (saas) gave that good news to the believers, it looked totally out of the question. In fact, the situation pointed in quite the opposite direction, and the polytheists appeared quite determined never to let the believers enter Makkah. As a result, those who had doubts in their hearts began to doubt the Prophet's (saas) words. Yet, the Prophet (saas) trusted in Allah, paid no attention to the doubters' words, and told people what Allah had revealed to him. The Qur'an confirmed his words, and the prediction was fulfilled shortly afterwards.



THE TRIBE OF ISRAEL WILL BECOME VERY HAUGHTY



We decreed in the Book for the tribe of Israel: "You will twice cause corruption on Earth and you will reach [a degree of] great haughtiness. When the promised first time came, We sent against you servants of Ours possessing great force, and they ransacked your houses, rampaging right through them. It was a promise that was fulfilled. Then once again We gave you the upper hand over them, supplied you with more wealth and children, and made you the most numerous group." (Qur'an, 17:4-6)



As these verses reveal, the Children of Israel were to cause two corruptions over the world. After the first one, during which they adopted a very high level of haughtiness, Allah sent a powerful army against them. Indeed, when the Jews killed Prophet Yahya (as) and set a trap to kill Prophet 'Isa (as) ("reaching to a degree of great haughtiness"), they were exiled shortly afterwards from Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 and wandered all over the world.


When that verse was revealed to the Prophet (saas), the Jews were living under very difficult conditions in various countries and had no state of their own. Yet, Allah told the Children of Israel that one day they would recover their strength. At that time, however, there seemed to be almost no chance that this would really happen. Many centuries later, however, the Jews returned to Palestine and established the State of Israel in 1948. Today, Israel possesses military and political power and keeps the Middle East in great turmoil because of its Zionist ideology and harsh treatment of Palestinian Muslims and Christians.


This is a sign of the Children of Israel's second "corruption." However, this wicked behaviour clearly does not apply to the entire Jewish people, among whom there are many individuals of good conscience and common sense who do not agree with Israel's Zionist and anti-Arab policies.


In this and other verses, we notice that almost no one could believe that such things would ever come about. But Allah willed their fulfilment, and thereby provided believers with more proof that the Qur'an is a miraculous book revealed by Him for their benefit.



THE EXPLORATION OF SPACE


Humanity's exploration of space was accelerated with the Soviet satellite Sputnik on 4 October 1957, which carried aloft the first man to ever leave Earth's atmosphere: Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin. On 20 July 1969, the American astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first human being ever to set foot on the Moon.


In fact, the Qur'an revealed that such developments and achievements would one day be realised. For instance, Allah draws our attention to this in the following verse:



O company of jinn and human beings. If you are able to pierce through the confines of the heavens and Earth, pierce through them. You will not pierce through, except with a clear authority. (Qur'an, 55:33)



The Arabic word sultan, translated here as "a clear authority," has other meanings as well: force, power, sovereignty, dominion, law, path, permission, give leave, justify, and proof.


Careful examination reveals that the above verse emphasizes that humanity will be able to move into the depths of Earth and sky, but only with a superior power. In all likelihood, this superior power is the superior technology employed in the twentieth century, for it enabled scientists to achieve this great feat.





THE VOYAGE TO THE MOON



And [I swear by] the moon when it is full, you will mount up stage by stage! What is the matter with them, that they have no faith? (Qur'an, 84:18-20)



After referring to the Moon, the above verses then say that people will mount up stage by stage. The term tarkabunna comes from the verb rakiba, (to mount, walk on a path, follow, embark upon, set about, participate, or rule). In the light of these meanings, it is very likely that the expression "you will mount up stage by stage" refers to a vehicle to be boarded.


Indeed, the astronauts' spacecraft pass through each layer of the atmosphere one by one, and then begin to pass through the Moon's gravitational field. Thus, the Moon is reached by moving through individual layers. In addition, the swearing by the Moon in Surat al-Inshiqaq 18 further strengthens this emphasis, meaning that the verse may well be a sign that humanity will travel to the Moon. (Allah knows best.)



MODERN MEANS OF TRANSPORT



And horses, mules, and donkeys both to ride and for adornment. And He creates other things you do not know. (Qur'an, 16:8)



The above verse indicates that in addition to the animals mentioned here, people will have various unknown (to them) means of transport. The following verse points to the fact that there will be such mass modes of transport as ships:



A Sign for them is that We carried their families in the laden ship. And We have created for them the like of it, in which they sail. (Qur'an, 36:41-42)




PLANE TECHNOLOGY



And to Sulayman We gave the fiercely blowing wind, speeding at his command toward the land that We had blessed. And We had full knowledge of everything. (Qur'an, 21:81)



As the above verse relates, Allah placed the wind under Prophet Sulayman's (as) command and allowed him to use it as a vehicle. There is a strong possibility of an indication here that, as in Prophet Sulayman's (as) time, wind energy will also be used in the technology of the future.



And We gave Sulayman power over the wind-a month's journey in the morning and a month in the afternoon... (Qur'an, 34:12)



The expression "a month's journey in the morning and a month in the afternoon" may be drawing attention to the fact that Prophet Sulayman (as) moved rapidly between different regions perhaps by using a technology similar to an airplane, or developed wind-powered vehicles that could cover long distances quickly. (Allah knows best.) There is thus a strong possibility that these verses point to modern airplane technology.



IMAGE TRANSMISSION



He who possessed knowledge of the Book said: "I will bring it [the Queen of Saba's throne] to you before your glance returns to you." And when he [Sulayman] saw it standing firmly in his presence, he said: "This is part of my Lord's favour, to test me to see if I will give thanks or show ingratitude." (Qur'an, 27:40)






[He is] the Originator of the heavens and earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, “Be!” and it is.
(Qur’an, 2:117)



"He who possessed knowledge of the Book" told Prophet Sulayman (as) that he could bring the Queen of Saba's throne to him very quickly. This is a possible reference to the transmission of images with present-day advanced technology. Another verse on the subject reads:



A demon of the jinn said: "I will bring it to you before you get up from your seat. I am strong and trustworthy enough to do it." (Qur'an, 27:39)



In our day, text, pictures, and films can be sent anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds, thanks to the Internet and advances in computer technology. For instance, carrying the Queen's throne to Prophet Sulayman's (as) court very quickly may well refer to the fact that it will be possible to send a three-dimensional picture or image in the blink of an eye over the Internet.

According to scientists, the teleportation of atoms and molecules, as well as larger bodies, may become possible in the near future. By this method, the item's material characteristics are removed from one location and transferred in every detail and atomic sequence to another location, where they are reconstructed. If this technology becomes operational one day, time and space will no longer represent an obstacle to travel and objects will be able to be transported anywhere in a single moment without traversing any physical distance.184


In 1998, physicists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) working with two European groups transported a photon. The scientists formed a copy of the photon by reading its atomic structure and then transmitted that information a distance of 1 metre. In another recent teleportation experiment, Ping Koy Lam of the Australian National University (ANU) and other researchers transmitted a laser ray a short distance.185


Indeed, according to a CNN report on 17 July 2002, a group of physicists from the National Australian University in Canberra split a laser ray and "transmitted" it several metres. Ping Koy Lam, the team's head, stated that they had not yet succeeded in transmitting matter in its atomic state, but that such a thing was not impossible and may become a reality in the future.


According to a study published in the science journal Nature, Eugene Polzik of Denmark's University of Aarhus, and his colleagues performed successful experiments on a large number of atoms, using laser rays and quantum physics.186 In his analyses of teleportation's potential, published in the journal Scientific American, Australian physicist Anton Zeilinger states that far more complex systems could be teleported without violating the laws of physics.187


As the Qur'an reveals in "We will show them Our Signs on the horizon and within themselves until it is clear to them that it is the truth" (Qur'an, 41:53), these scientific advances may represent a part of the technologies indicated in the Qur'an, all of which reveal its miraculous aspects.



SMELL TRANSFERENCE



He [Yusuf] said: "No blame at all will fall on you. Today you have forgiveness from Allah. He is the Most Merciful of the merciful. Go with this shirt of mine and cast it on my father's face, and he will see again. Then come to me with all your families." And when the caravan went on its way, their father said: "I can smell Yusuf's scent! You probably think I have become senile." (Qur'an, 12:92-94)



Today, scientists state that teleporting atoms and scent molecules may be possible in the near future. In Surah Yusuf 94, Prophet Yusuf's (as) father says that he can smell his son's scent. Scientists also say that it will soon be possible to send scents in the same way as pictures and three-dimensional images are sent. Therefore, this verse might be a sign of an advanced technology developing from the current research into transmitting scent.


Like our other sense perceptions, smell forms in the brain. For example, a lemon peel's molecules stimulate the nose's scent receptors, which then transmit them in the form of electrical signals to the brain for analysis. Therefore, when the scent's signal is artificially formed in another form, the scent can be perceived in the same form. Indeed, the "electronic nose" is one of the research areas showing that this may well be possible in the near future.


A human being's scent perception system makes it possible for a trained nose to name and distinguish some 10,000 odours. Professionals in the perfumery business who have received special chemical training are able to sniff a scent that contains 100 different odorants and then list the ingredients.188 This superior creation in the human nose has encouraged many scientists to design similar equipment. Efforts are underway in various research and development centres to replicate this human scent perception system. The models developed on this basis are termed "the electronic nose."


The human nose's receptors are composed of proteins; those in its electronic counterpart are composed of a series of chemical receptors. Each receptor is designed to detect different odours; the more their distinguishing capacities are enhanced, the more difficult production becomes and the greater the cost. The signals collected by the sensors are turned into binary codes, by means of electronic systems, and then sent to a computer. The electronic systems can be thought of as imitating the nerve cells responsible for scent detection, and the computer as the brain. The computer is programmed to analyse the data and thus interprets the binary code signals.


Electronic noses are currently being used in the food, perfumery, and chemical industries, as well as in medicine. Universities and international organizations are also providing major support for such projects. Nevertheless, as stated by Julian W. Gardner of the University of Warwick, researchers are still in the early stages of this technology.189



THE USE OF ELECTRICITY



And We made a fount of molten copper flow out for him. (Qur'an, 34:12)



One of Allah's great blessings to Prophet Sulayman (as) was "a fount of molten copper." This can be understood in several senses. By the use of melted copper, it may be referring to the existence, at his time, of an advanced technology that employed electricity. We know that copper is one of the best metals for conducting electricity and heat, and thus constitutes the basis of the electrical industry, which uses much of the copper produced in the world. The expression "flow out" may indicate that electricity can be used in many fields. (Allah knows best.)



ARTESIAN WELLS



We divided them up into twelve tribes-communities. We revealed to Musa, when his people asked him for water: "Strike the rock with your staff." Twelve fountains flowed out from it, and all the people knew their drinking place. And We shaded them with clouds and sent down manna and quails to them: "Eat of the good things We have provided for you." They did not wrong Us; rather, they wronged themselves. (Qur'an, 7:160)




A closed artesian aquifer is confined by an overlying impermeable body of rock, which prevents any water from filtering down into the aquifer. Instead, water enters the tilted aquifer layer through a recharge area, where the aquifer rock is exposed at higher elevations. The flow in an artesian aquifer resembles water flowing through a J-shaped tube. Water added on the tube’s long side provides enough pressure to drive the water upward on the tube’s shorter side.


The above verse describes how Prophet Musa's (as) people asked him for water and how he provided places where each tribe could drink. Clearly, his people were suffering from a shortage of water. Such shortages still exist, for more than 1 billion people today lack access to clean water, and 2.4 billion still live without improved sanitation. According to projected estimates, by 2025 about 5 billion people will not have access to sufficient amounts of water.190 Every year, some 12 million people die from water scarcity; 3 million of whom are children who die from waterborne diseases.191


Today, 31 countries, comprising 8 percent of the world's population, face chronic freshwater shortages. By 2025, this number is expected to rise to 48 countries.192 According to UN predictions, renewable freshwater will become an even more limited resource by 2025, and the number of 131 million people experiencing water problems will rise to either 817 million (according to low population growth projections) or 1.079 billion (according to high population growth projections).193


Groundwater, the largest source of fresh water on Earth, represents more than 90 percent of the readily available freshwater reserves194 and is therefore of vital importance to meeting the water needs of up to 2 billion people.195 It constitutes the primary source of water for up to 50 percent of the American population, a figure that rises to 95 percent in rural areas.196 Groundwater is also the safest and most reliable source of fresh water. At the same time, this water can be used to produce geothermal energy and save energy by using heat pumps.


When the water sucked up from the soil meets an impermeable underground layer, it collects there and forms a water source. This water is then brought to the surface by the artesian method. Artesian springs are formed by sedimentary rocks that can store underground water.


The fact that artesian wells are drilled in rocky areas runs parallel to the description in the Qur'an. Given that Allah commanded Prophet Musa (as) to strike the rock, Surat al-A`raf 160 may be indicating this method. (Allah knows best.) The verb idrib, translated as "strike," can also mean "to raise, to open." Thus, this verse may be describing a water source being opened by the raising of the rock. As a result, pressurized water may have emerged, as described in the verb inbajasat (to pour out, flow freely, bubble up, flow), just as happens with artesian wells. If sufficient pressure forms, water can continue to flow to the surface without the need for a pump.


Allah is He Who created the heavens and the earth and sends down water from the sky and by it brings forth fruits as provision for you… (Qur’an, 14:32)


It is particularly striking that current solutions for dealing with water scarcity use underground water resources. In fact, one of the most effective methods of doing so is the artesian well. In other words, we might be copying Prophet Musa's (as) example of striking or lifting the rock without even knowing it. Surat al-A`raf 160 may therefore be a reference to artesian wells, the first of which was opened in 1126 in the French region of Artois. (Allah knows best.)



THE ARMY-ANT IN TECHNOLOGY



Then, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant said: "Ants! Enter your dwellings, so that Sulayman and his troops do not crush you unwittingly." (Qur'an, 27:18)



The "Valley of the Ants" refers to a special place and special ants. In addition, the fact that Prophet Sulayman (as) could hear the ants talking among themselves may contain striking references to future developments in computer technology. The present-day term "Silicon Valley" refers to the centre of the world of technology. It is most significant that a "valley of the ants" appears in the account of Prophet Sulayman's (as) life. Allah may be drawing our attention to the advanced technology of the future.


Furthermore, ants and other insect species are widely used in advanced technology as models in robot projects and are intended to serve in a wide range of areas, from the defence industry to technology. The verse may also be referring to these developments.


Latest Developments in Miniature Technology: Army-Ant Robots


The best known project using ants as a model are the "Army-Ant Robot" projects being carried out independently in several countries. One study being carried out by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Virginia State University seeks to develop small, inexpensive, and simple physically identical robots that can be used as a robot army. Project officials explain these robots' functionality in the following terms: "The way they behave as a group, in a coordinated manner, perform a series of physical actions, and take joint decisions." These robot armies' mechanical and electrical designs have been based on the behaviour of an ant community. They are called the "army-ant" robots because of their similarities to their insect counterparts.


The "army-ant" robot system was originally designed as a "material-carrying system." According to this scenario, several small robots would be charged with jointly lifting and carrying objects. It was later decided that they could be used for other tasks. One report describes other tasks to which they might be assigned in the future:



Nuclear and hazardous waste cleanup with robotic "swarms," mining (including material removal and search-and-rescue), mine sweeping (both land and water), surveillance and sentry, planetary surface exploration and excavation.197



In a report by Israel A. Wagner, an expert on ant robot technology, the ant robot projects were described in these terms:



Ant-robots are simple physical or virtual creatures designed to cooperate in order to achieve a common goal. They are assumed to have very limited resources of energy, sensing and computing, and to communicate via traces left in the workspace or on the ground, like many insects naturally do…


The distribution of work among multiple a(ge)nts can be made by either a central controller who sends orders to the agents, or by an a-priori agreement on a certain partitioning that, if obeyed by the agents, eventually leads to a completion of the given mission. A third way, used throughout the current work, is to design the behavior of individuals such that cooperation will naturally emerge in the course of their work, without making a-priori decisions on the structure of the cooperation. The specific application that we address is covering, which is also known as exploring or searching. This variety of names hints to the many applications this problem might have: from cleaning the floor of a house to mapping an unknown planet or demining a mine field.198



As can be seen in these examples, an ant's social lifestyle forms the basis of many projects, and the various ant-based robot technologies are providing benefits for human beings. That is why it is so important that ants and their valley are referred to in the Qur'anic account of Prophet Sulayman's (as) life. The term "ants" in the verse may refer to an army consisting of robots, future developments in robot technology, and how robots will play an important role in human life. For example, they may perform many arduous tasks and thus make people's lives more comfortable. (Allah knows best.)



ATOMIC ENERGY AND FISSION



Allah splits the seed and kernel. He brings forth the living from the dead, and produces the dead out of the living. That is Allah, so how are you misguided? (Qur'an, 6:95)



The terms "seed" (al-habb) and "kernel" (an-nawa) in the above verse may indicate the splitting of the atom. Indeed, the dictionary meanings of an-nawa include "nucleus, centre, atomic nucleus." Furthermore, the description of bringing forth the living from the dead can be interpreted as Allah creating matter from dead energy. Producing the dead out of the living may refer to energy (dead) emerging from matter (living), since the atom is in motion. (Allah knows best.) That is because as well as "living," al-hayy can also mean "active, energetic." With its meaning of "non-living," al-mayyit, translated above as "dead," may very probably refer to energy.


Scientists define energy as the capacity for doing work. Matter, the material that comprises all things on Earth and in the universe, consists of atoms and molecules that can be seen to be in motion under an electron microscope. In the early twentieth century, Albert Einstein (d. 1955) theorised that matter could be converted into energy, suggesting that the two were inter-related at the atomic level.199 This may be the bringing forth of the dead from the living, as described above, or, in other words, obtaining energy from matter, which is in motion at the atomic level. In addition, yukhriju, translated as "bringing forth," also means "bringing out, emitting" (as in the case of electrical waves). Therefore, the terms in this verse may be indicating the form of energy obtained from the atom. (Allah knows best.)



Today, atomic nucleus can be split into smaller nuclei by means of nuclear fission.


Scientists can now split the atom by dividing its nucleus. Taking Einstein's theories as their starting point, they obtained energy from matter in the 1940s by means of nuclear fission, the process of splitting the atomic nucleus. The verb faliqu in Surat al-An`am 95, translated as "to split," may be a reference to fission's dictionary meaning: the process of splitting (the atom's nucleus). When this process takes place, enormous amounts of energy are released.


The words in Surat al-An`am 95 are very wise in terms of their meanings. The phenomena described in this verse bear a very close resemblance to the splitting of the atom's nucleus in order to obtain atomic energy. The verse may therefore be a reference to nuclear fission, which was only made possible by twentieth-century technology. (Allah knows best.)

and

Information about the unknown the Prophet (saas) revealed in the hadiths




O my people! You are about to conquer Egypt. Keep the welfare of the conquered people in view. You shall have to abide by the divine covenant that their life and property and their honour should be protected.212




In the hadiths, the Prophet (saas) gave the good news that Egypt would be conquered. At the time when he communicated that message, Egypt was under the dominion of the Byzantines. Furthermore, the Muslims had yet to attain any great power. Yet, these words of the Prophet (saas) came true, and, not long after his death, the Muslim armies under the command of Amr bin al-As conquered Egypt in 641 A.D., during the caliphate of Omar. That is one example of the Prophet (saas) accurately knowing the unknown.




Kisra (Khosrau, King of Persia) will die; there will be no Kisra after him, and Qaisar (Caesar, King of Rome) will die; there would be no Qaisar after him, but, by One in Whose Hand is my life, you will spend their treasures in the cause of Allah.213




The word "kisra" that appears in this hadith was a name that used to be used for kings of Persia. The title "caesar" was used for the Roman Empire. The Prophet (saas) gave the good news that the Muslims would come into possession of the treasures of both these rulers.


What needs to be stressed here is that when the Prophet (saas) related that fact, the Muslims still lacked the necessary economic, military and political strength to effect such a great conquest. Furthermore, at that time, the Persian and Byzantine Empires were the two most powerful states in the Middle East. For that reason, such an event was out of the question, at the time when the Prophet (saas) delivered those tidings. However, things actually happened as the Prophet (saas) predicted they would. Iran was conquered during the time of Omar and all its goods seized. The kingdom of the Persian "kisra" thus came to an end.


The death of "caesar" and the reversion of his treasuries to the Muslims came about with the capture of important Roman centers, particularly during the time of the Muslim caliphs. Starting with the time of Abubakr, important centers under the dominion of "caesar" such as Jordan, Palestine, Damascus, Jerusalem, Syria and Egypt were conquered. The capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror in 1453 meant the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the end of the title of "caesar."214





Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror's capture of Constantinople and the collapse of the Roman Empire meant the end of the title of Caesar.



In his book The Venture of Islam, the American researcher M. G. S. Hodgson describes the Muslim capture of territories belonging to Byzantium and the Persian Empire:


"Muhammad, an Arab of Mecca, sets up a religiously organized society in Medina, and expands it over much of the Arabian peninsula to march with and even locally replace Sasanian and Roman power."215


In this way, these important conquests, that seemed to be totally impossible at the time of the Prophet (saas) both politically and economically, actually happened, as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (saas) by Allah.




Great Allah sent many tribulations to Kisra by his son Shireveyh, who killed him in this month, on this night at this hour!216


In the near future, my religion and its sovereignty will reach Kisra's throne.217




The Prophet (saas) decided to invite the rulers to turn to Islam, and sent one of his companions, Abdullah bin Hudhaafah, to the Kisra, the Persian King, as an ambassador. The Persian Kisra, swollen with pride, rejected the Prophet (saas)'s offer. He even sent two ambassadors of his own to the Prophet (saas), telling the Muslims to submit to him. The Prophet (saas) first invited these two ambassadors to accept Islam. Then he called them into his presence the next day to learn their decision.218


The next day, the Prophet (saas) told the two ambassadors what Allah had revealed to him:


"Great Allah sent many tribulations to Kisra by his son Shireveyh, who killed him in this month, on this night, at this hour!"219


He also personally told them:


"Tell him that my religion and my empire will reach far beyond the kingdom of Kisra; and say to him from me: Enter Islam, and I will confirm you in what you have, and I will appoint you king over the people of Yemen."220


The ambassadors then returned to Yemen and described what had gone on. Badhan said:


"We will see what happens next. If what he said is true, then he is the prophet whom Allah has sent."221


He then turned to his men and asked what they thought of him. The ambassadors had been greatly impressed by the Prophet (saas), and said:


"We never saw a ruler more majestic, more fearless and less guarded than him. He walked humbly amongst the people."


Badhan waited for a while to see whether the Prophet (saas)'s words about the ruler would come true or not. In that way, he said, he could be sure that Muhammad (saas) was Allah's messenger. A short while later, a letter reached Badhan from the ruler's son, Shireveyh: "I killed Kisra. When this letter reaches you, take the oath of the people in my name. Regarding what Kisra wrote to you, wait and do nothing until a new command from me."222


When Badhan and his men worked it out, they realized that all this had happened just as the Prophet (saas) had said it would.223 Badhan came to believe after that great miracle, and accepted Islam. He was followed by the Yemeni Abna.224 Badhan became the first governor appointed by the Prophet (saas), and the first Persian governor to be a Muslim.225


It is a historically documented fact that in 628 the Prophet (saas) sent a letter of invitation to the Persian King Kisra, and that he was killed by his son that same year.226




The Prophet (saas)'s hadiths regarding the signs of the end times


Many details of what the Prophet (saas) said would happen before the last days have reached us. These events are happening one by one in our own time, proving to be yet another miracle of the Prophet (saas). These events, that are happening 1,400 years after the Prophet Muhammad (saas), were explained in great detail, as if he had witnessed them himself.






These are the Prophet (saas)'s prophecies regarding the signs of the end times and the last day, taken from the hadiths:




The Last Hour will not come unless there is much bloodshed.227






Near the establishment of the Hour there will be much Al-Harj, and Al-Harj means killing…228


The day of Judgment will not come until people openly deny Allah.229


Great cities will be ruined, and it will be as if they had not existed the day before.230




Gains will be shared out only among the rich, with no benefit to the poor.231











(Left)Acts of violence and terror, one of the signs of the final times, are continuing with increasing violence all over the world.The parallel between the warning issued by the Prophet (saas) in the past and the events being experienced today reveals to us one of the miracles of this blessed man. (Right) The wars in many countries of the world, in which innocent people are killed for no reason, are another of the portents of Doomsday related by the Prophet (saas).



People will indulge in homosexuality and lesbianism.232

There will be prevalence of open illegal intercourse.233




The Hour (Last Day) will not be established until murders will increase.234




Pity poor Taliqan (a region in Afghanistan) that at that place are treasures of Allah, but these are not of gold and silver but consist of people who have recognised Allah as they should have.235




There is an indication in the hadith that Afghanistan will be occupied during the end times. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan took place in 1979, or 1400 according to the Hijri calendar. In other words, it coincided with the start of the fourteenth century under the Hijri calendar.





These pictures show examples of the oppression suffered by the people of Afghanistan during the invasion by the Russian army in 1979.



It (Euphrates) will uncover a mountain of gold (under it).236




Soon the river "Euphrates" will disclose the treasure (the mountain) of gold, so whoever will be present at that time should not take anything of it.237





The Reichstag (German Parliament) after its destruction in 1945. The picture below shows the same building in 1999, after reconstruction. Many buildings are being restored and brought back to their former appearance in the same way.



The rebuilding of the ruined places in the world, and the ruination of constructed places are signs and portents of Doomsday.238



There are two signs of our Mahdi; ...and those signs are that moon will eclipse in the first night of its fixed nights of eclipse and sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the fixed days for its eclipse, during the month of Ramadhan.239


There will be two eclipses of the sun in Ramadan before the Mahdi emerges.240

There will be two eclipses of the Moon in Ramadan...241






The common points emerging from the above three hadiths are:


1. There will be solar and lunar eclipses during the month of Ramadan.


2. These will be spaced about 14-15 days apart.


3. The eclipses will be repeated twice.


In line with those calculations, there was a lunar eclipse in 1981 (Hijri 1401), on the 15th day of Ramadan, and a solar eclipse on the 29th day of the month. There was a "second" lunar eclipse in 1982 (Hijri 1402) on the 14th day of Ramadan, and a solar eclipse on the 28th day of the month.




It is also particularly significant that in that particular instance, there was a full lunar eclipse in the middle of the month of Ramadan, a most striking prophecy.







Before he comes, a comet spreading light will come from the East.242


The birth of that star will follow the eclipse of the Sun and Moon.243


A tailed star will be born from the East and spread its light. Its daily direction will be from East to West.244




- In 1986 (Hijri 1406), in other words at the start of the 14th century, Halley's comet passed by the Earth. The comet is a bright, shining star.


- It travels from East to West


This happened after the lunar and solar eclipses of 1981 and 1982 (1401-1402)




People will go on the hajj with no imam at their head. When they descend to Mina, the tribes will savage each other like dogs and there will be great wars. To such an extent that feet will be covered in a lake of blood.245






A fire will appear in the sky from the East and a redness will cover the sky for three or seven days in a row.246


A fire will enfold you. That fire is currently extinguished in the valley called Berehut. People will be enfolded in that fire with terrible suffering. That fire will burn and destroy people and belongings. For eight days it will rage over the world like wind and cloud. The heat of night will be fiercer than that of day. That fire will stretch from the heads of man to the highest heavens, and there will be a terrible noise like thunder between the earth and sky, he said.247




- The burning oil in Kuwait led to the deaths of people and animals. According to experts, half a million tons of oil went up into the atmosphere as smoke. Every day, more than 10,000 tons of soot, sulphur, carbon-dioxide and large quantities of hydrocarbons with their carcinogenic properties hang suspended over the Gulf. It is not just the Gulf, but the world itself that is burning.248


- Two wells that were set alight produced as much oil as Turkey does in one day, and the smoke from them can be seen from Saudi Arabia, 55 kilometres away.249


- Continuing news of disaster from the Gulf: Hundreds of oil wells set alight in Kuwait are still burning fiercely. Experts say it will be "exceedingly difficult to put those fires out," and it is said that the fires will affect a wide area from Turkey to India for the next 10 years.


The fire and smoke coming from the wells constantly pollute the atmosphere. Daytime resembles night in Kuwait. The brown smoke that rises together with the flames remind one of the sky as the autumn turns into winter … It will take at least a century for Kuwait to be completely habitable again. The smoke that rises with the flames is visible from miles away, totally blocking out the sky and making the country unfit to live in. The wealthy are abandoning Kuwait.250






He(The Mahdi) will not come until there is a portent from the Sun.251






The solar eclipse of August 11, 1999 was the last of the century. During this eclipse, the likes of which take place only every 400 years, the sun, the moon and the world align. It was the first time that so many people had been able to watch and study an eclipse for so long a duration. Below are some newspaper headlines regarding the phenomenon. This can be interpreted as the "portent from the Sun" referred to in the hadith. (Allah knows best, of course).


Before the Hour comes, there will be a tribulation like patches of dark night...252


The word "tribulation (fitna)" implies anything that turns peoples' reason and hearts away from the true path, or war, incitement, chaos, disorder and conflict. The tribulation in the hadith will leave smoke and dust behind it, we learn.




Furthermore, the way that tribulation is described as "darkness" in the hadith, can be seen as an indication that its origins are unclear, that it is unexpected. Looking at it from that regard, it is probable that the hadith is referring to the world's worst terrorist attack, on the cities of New York and Washington in the United States on September 11, 2001.




The inhabitants of Egypt and Sham would kill their ruler and his commands…253

The people of Sham will take prisoner the tribes of Egypt.254


Today, the states in the region in question include Israel. That is why the hadith could be pointing to the war between the State of Israel and Egypt, and the invasion of Egyptian territory.






The Hour (Last Day) will not be established until ... earthquakes will be very frequent.255


There are two great events before the day of Judgment ... and then years of earthquakes.256








*

The signs of the end times are coming one after the other




In the hadiths that have come down to us from the Prophet (saas), news is given concerning the end times and the Golden Age of Islam. When we compare these signs with the things that are taking place in our time, we can see many indications that we are living through the End Times and which also herald the arrival of the Golden Age of Islam.


We must make it clear that some of the signs pointed to in the hadiths that we have been considering in this chapter may have been witnessed to one extent or another throughout the 1,400-year history of Islam, in some part of the world. That does not mean, however, that those were the end times. Because, in order to describe one period as the End Times, all the signs of the last day need to happen at the same time, one after the other. That situation is referred to in a hadith:


"Signs following one another like bits of a necklace falling one after the other when its string is cut."257


In the hadiths, the beginning of the End Times is described as when discord grows, and war and conflict are on the increase, when there is chaos and moral degeneration rears its head and people turn away from the morality of religion. At the time in question, natural disasters will occur all over the world, poverty will reach unseen levels, there will be a large increase in the crime rate, and murder and brutality everywhere. Yet this will be only the first stage. During the second phase, Allah will rescue mankind from this chaos and replace it with a blessed existence full of plenty, peace and security.








The Hour will not be established … till the people compete with one another in constructing high buildings.258




The Last Day will not be established until... time will pass quickly.259




Great distances will be traversed in short spans of time.260




The Last hour will not come before time contracts, a year being like a month, a month like a week, a week like a day, a day like an hour, and an hour like the kindling of a fire.261






The century we are living in has seen the capability of constructing supersonic aeroplanes, and the ability, thanks to trains and other improvements in means of transport, to make journeys in a few minutes that would once have taken months, and in great comfort. What this hadith indicates is also taking place in this manner.


Communication between continents would take weeks hundreds of years ago, but is now a matter of seconds, thanks to the Internet and improvements in technology. Goods that used to take weeks to arrive, following a long journey, can now be delivered at a moment's notice. Billions of books can now be printed in the time it would take to write a single letter just a few centuries ago. As well, other technological developments have meant that we no longer waste large amounts of time on cooking, cleaning and child minding.


One could go on citing similar examples. Yet, the important thing here, of course, is that the signs of Doomsday, as set out by the Prophet (saas) in the seventh century, are now happening one by one.




The last hour will not come before the end of a man's whip speak to him.262




The whip is known as a tool used in earlier times when riding or guiding pack animals such as horses or camels. When we look closely at this hadith, we can see that the Prophet (saas) is making a comparison. Let us ask people living at the present time a question, "Is there a modern implement that talks and resembles a whip?"


The most logical reply to that question is the mobile telephone, with its long antenna, or similar communications equipment. If we bear in mind that mobile or satellite phones are comparatively recent developments, then the wisdom behind the Prophet (saas)'s description of 1,400 years ago is even clearer. That is just one more indication that we are living through the period prior to Doomsday.






There will be no Judgment ... until a person's own voice speaks to him.263




The message in the hadith is quite clear: A person's hearing the sound of his own voice is another sign of the end times. There is no doubt that in order to hear the sound of one's one voice, one first needs to record it, and then to play it back to himself. Sound recording and reproduction equipment are products of the twentieth century. That development marked a scientific turning point, and led to the birth of the communications and media industries. Sound reproduction is nearly perfect now, thanks to computer and laser technologies.








In short, the electronic gadgets of our time, microphones and speakers, allow us to record sound and play it back, and are also manifestations of that related in the above hadith.




The sign of that day: A hand will be extended from the sky, and people will look and see it.264




The sign of that day is a hand extended in the sky and people stopping to look at it.265




The Arabic word for "hand" in the above hadiths is "yed." As well as "hand," the dictionary also provides such meanings as "power, force, strength, means etc." It is probable that in these hadiths the word is used in those senses.






The idea of a "power, force, strength or means" extending from the sky and looked upon by people might not make much sense in the context of past ages. Yet, it sheds considerable light on equipment such as the television, camera and computer, which have become such an indispensable parts of modern life, as described in the hadiths. In other words, the "hand" mentioned in these hadiths is used in the sense of force. It clearly points to pictures coming down from the sky in waves, in other words television broadcasting.






People will reap 700 measures of wheat for every one they sow … People will throw down a few handfuls of seeds and reap 700 handfuls … Although much rain will fall, none will be wasted.266








The Prophet (saas) provided many other details of the technological advances that will accompany the end times. Attention is also drawn in the hadiths to the move towards modern agricultural techniques, the development of new production methods, seed improvement research, and increasing production as a result of better use of rainwater by building new dams and artificial lakes.


At that time ... life spans will grow longer.267




Fourteen centuries have passed since the Prophet (saas) brought forward that news. The average expected lifespan is much higher now than it has been at any other time in recent history. A great difference can be seen even between the figures for the beginning and the end of the twentieth century. For instance, it is estimated that a baby born in 1995 will live some 35 years longer than one born around 1900. Another striking example on the same subject is that in the recent past very few people lived to be 100, whereas now it is a great deal more common.




*

*



****






208. Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, 1997, p. 287-299
209. Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, 1997, p. 287-299
210. Elmalili Hamdi Muhammad Yazir, Kuran-ý Kerim Tefsiri (Qur'an Tafsir)
211. Imam Taberi, Taberi Tefsiri, (Tafsir at-Tabari)
212. Al Hafiz ibn al-Dayba al-Shaybani,Taysir al-'usul ilaJami al-'usul, Volume 15, p. 420
213. http://lists.isb.sdnpk.org/pipermai...ril/000341.html
214. http://www.mustakiim.de/Islam/IslamTarihi/bilgi5.htm
215. M.G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, Volume1, Ýz Publications, Istanbul, 1993, p.61
216. http://www.najaco.com/islam/compani...ophet/sahmi.htm
217. Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum,(The Sealed Nectar), http://www.quraan.com/Raheeq/32.asp
218. http://cyberistan.org/islamic/chosroes.html
219. http://www.najaco.com/islam/compani...ophet/sahmi.htm
220. hhttp://cyberistan.org/islamic/chosroes.html
221. http://cyberistan.org/islamic/chosroes.html
222. http://www.najaco.com/islam/compani...ophet/sahmi.htm
223. Salih Suruç, Kainatýn Efendisi Peygamberimizin Hayatý, (The Life of the Prophet (saas)), Yeni Asya Publications, Istanbul, 1998, p.225
224. http://cyberistan.org/islamic/chosroes.html
225. Salih Suruç, Kainatýn Efendisi Peygamberimizin Hayatý, (The Life of the Prophet (saas)) Yeni Asya Publications, Istanbul, 1998, p.225
226. H.G. Wells, A Short History of the World, http://www.bartleby.com/86/41.html; http://www.encyclopedia.com/printablenew/25555.html
227. Sahih Bukhari Hadith
228. Sahih Bukhari Hadith
229. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-zaman, p. 27
230. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-zaman, p.38
231. Tirmidhi Hadith
232. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanzul Ummaal
233. Sahih Bukhari Hadith
234. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2 no: 146
235. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-zaman, p.59
236. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 235
237. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 235
238. Ismail Mutlu, Kýyamet Alametleri, (Signs of the Last Day), Mutlu Publications, Istanbul, 1999, p.138
239. Ibn Hajar Haytahami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi'alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p.47
240. Imam Sarani, Olum-Kýyamet- Ahiret ve Ahir Zaman Alametleri, (Death, Judgment and Resurrection), Bedir Publications, Ýstanbul, p.440
241. Ibn Hajar Haytahami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi'alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 54
242. Ibn Hajar Haytahami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi'alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 54
243. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-zaman, p.32
244. Imam Rabani, Mektubat-ý Rabbani, (Maktubat Imam Rabbani) Translated by Abdulkadir Akcicek, Istanbul Daðýtým A.S., Istanbul, 2/1170
245. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-zaman, p.35
246. Ýsmail Mutlu, Kýyamet Alametleri, (The Signs of the Last Day) Mutlu Publications, Ýstanbul, 1999, s.166
247. Ýmam Sarani, Ölüm-Kýyamet- Ahiret ve Ahir Zaman Alametleri, (Death, Judgment and Resurrection), Bedir Publications, Ýstanbul, p.461
248. Necati Özfatura, Kurtlar Sofrasýnda Ortadoðu, Adým Publications, 1983, p.175
249. Hurriyet Newspaper, 23 January 1991
250. Necati Özfatura, Kurtlar Sofrasýnda Ortadoðu, Adým Publications, 1983, p.175
251. Ibn Hajar Haytahami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi'alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 47
252. Sunan Abu Dawud Hadith
253. Ibn Hajar Haytahami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi'alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 49
254. Ibn Hajar Haytahami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi'alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 49
255. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 17, Number 146
256. Ahmad Diya'al-Din al-Kamushkhanawi, Ramuz al-Ahadith, 187/2
257. Tirmidhi Hadith, Number 1447
258. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Number 237
259. Sahih Bukhari Hadith
260. Sahih Musnad Hadith
261. Tirmidhi Hadith
262. Tirmidhi, Number1450
263. Al- Qurtubi al-Tezkirah
264. Ibn Hajar Haytahami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi'alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 53
265. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Al-Burhan fi Alamat al-Mahdi Akhir al-zaman, p. 69
266. Ibn Hajar Haytahami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi'alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 43
267. Ibn Hajar Haytahami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi'alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 43

all the best

[جوري]

Bs'd

How do we know that the Koran is true, and not the Jewish or Christian Bible, or the book of Mormon, or whatever other holy book of any religion?

Thanks,

Gold.

In Islam the Torah, scroll of Abraham, psalms of David, the injeel are all in fact books from God.. you should question however how true they are to their original form

The Argument of Jeremiah 8:8 Still Standing!

Jeremiah 8:8

8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

& while on the subject--The book of the Mormon looks an awful lot like the bible.. you see your question could be easily answered if you yourself would take the time to do your homework.
after reasoning, you need draw your own conclusion. I don't think anyone needs to convince you of anything, least of which when your mind is already made up.. as you can see by some of the hilarious cuts and pastes that atheists bring forth and allege are from the Quran, refuted in less than 3 mins, that the easiest thing in fact to do is validate evidence for yourself, instead of asking someone to do it for you.. that way you can have facts before you and not some shmuck's opinion!

cheers

[جوري]

Greetings,


Out of interest, how would you answer those questions if they referred to the Qur'an?

From my point of view, there is just as much reason to believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is divine as there is to believe the same about the Qur'an.

Peace

I am rather curious as to the similarities you draw between the Quran & the epic of the Sumerian king -- care to elaborate on what you have written?
I don't open a genetics book for instance and assume it to speak of Katsukawa Shunshō-- thus you have rather piqued my curiosity.
One book claims it is from God and challenges me to disprove that fact as well offer you guidance on how to live your life and the other of the building of a sanctuary of the goddess nillil-- thus I am not following--

Logic would dictate that if I desired to draw similarities or prove one book faulty, I'd do so by reading the book and disproving it based on its own merits. Meeting with all the variables then and now that would define it as a mere book or in fact what it claims!
and in doing so it would be best to have some plausible facts and not conjectures of whether this is a significant find, or well it could have been plagiarized.
Prove it as they say.. I am all too enchanted Christendom's obfuscation as to whether or not women had souls or are akin to animals, to the discovery that hand washing prevents infections by Dr. Semmelweis sometime in the mid 19th century to ponder some cockeyed conclusion as doled by one of you!

all the best

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I am rather curious as to the similarities you draw between the Quran & the epic of the Sumerian king -- care to elaborate on what you have written?
I don't open a genetics book for instance and assume it to speak of Katsukawa Shunshō-- thus you have rather piqued my curiosity.
One book claims it is from God and challenges me to disprove that fact as well offer you guidance on how to live your life and the other of the building of a sanctuary of the goddess nillil-- thus I am not following--

Logic would dictate that if I desired to draw similarities or prove one book faulty, I'd do so by reading the book and disproving it based on its own merits. Meeting with all the variables then and now that would define it as a mere book or in fact what it claims!
and in doing so it would be best to have some plausible facts and not conjectures of whether this is a significant find, or well it could have been plagiarized.
Prove it as they say.. I am all too enchanted Christendom's obfuscation as to whether or not women had souls or are akin to animals, to the discovery that hand washing prevents infections by Dr. Semmelweis sometime in the mid 19th century to ponder some cockeyed conclusion as doled by one of you!

all the best

You seem to condemn obfuscation, but other than that I'm afraid I haven't a clue what you're going on about.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,

but other than that I'm afraid I haven't a clue what you're going on about.

Peace

which part was difficult for you to understand?

[Azy]

The "sun guiding the shadows", obviously has to do with the sun's light, not its orbit. The "Heavens" is very general term, and really just refers to what is above the Earth. However, since the Earth is round, everything is "above" it. The fact that the sun and the moon are in the "heavens" (sky/space), doesn't really prove geocentrism. At best, it only suggests it.

Well yes, it is obviously talking about the sun's light and the change in the direction of the light, which is a result of the relative movement of the bodies. The part I was interested in is the end where it places the responsibility for the change in shadows with the Sun ("and has made the sun their guide") which can only be interpreted as a geocentric view rather than heliocentric because as we all know the shadows change due to the movement of the Earth, not the Sun.

As for the heavens yeah, it just refers to what is above the Earth, but it speaks of 'layers' of heaven, and commands descend through these layers to the Earth, i.e. the Earth is at the bottom of the layers. Layers of the heavens extending out from Earth sounds pretty geocentric to me. Throw in the fact that the Sun appears to be barely mentioned in the creation, secondary to heaven and Earth, and is placed as a lamp for the Earth, I can't see any reason to agree with you that this isn't geocentric.

[Imam]

The part I was interested in is the end where it places the responsibility for the change in shadows with the Sun ("and has made the sun their guide") .

As for the heavens yeah, it just refers to what is above the Earth, but it speaks of 'layers' of heaven, and commands descend through these layers to the Earth, i.e. the Earth is at the bottom of the layers..

Greetings,
I thought that What Bro Muslimapoclyptic posted cleared the matter with you....

but I don't think yet...

would you plz ......post the verse again (and has made the sun their guide)


and posting the verse that tells , the layers of heaven have the earth in their bottom.


thanx

[Azy]

Link to my first post with links to relevant verses.

What Brother Muslimapoclyptic posted doesn't really address the problem fully.

[NazariteofEhyah]

Bs'd

How do we know that the Koran is true, and not the Jewish or Christian Bible, or the book of Mormon, or whatever other holy book of any religion?

Thanks,

Gold.

Shalama,

In every religion and the like, there's one consistancy. This is the claim to be the 'truth'. For example the Torah is the first book, and then other books appear from time to time amongst pious men. However one must question the wisdom of having so many 'book's each claiming to be the truth, this causes a logical shortful. Why, with so many truth claims, its best to sick the one without question. I'd have to believe that the Torah and NT are the absolute truth, apart from the man made belief in Son of God, which is due to philosophical design. Believing that other books also reveal the truth, well is in fact contractory to the absolutness of the Torah and NT. As for the Qur'an I have discussed it, but I prefer to the Torah and NT.

[Imam]

As for the heavens yeah, it just refers to what is above the Earth.

yes what is above the round earth (tell me if you doubt the Quran viewing the earth to be round)

but it speaks of 'layers' of heaven, and commands descend through these layers to the Earth i.e. the Earth is at the bottom of the layers..

Quran - 65:12
God is who created seven heavens and of the earth the like of them the command/matter descends among them

there is not the slightest hint,in the verse,that Earth is at the bottom of the heavens layers,cause there is not one single verse teaches that earth is the center of the universe,nor the lower heaven means an orbit.....
the verse obviously teaches that the Almighty's command is wherever you go in the universe,where the seen and the unseen...earth,the seven heavens etc....

for Greeks seven planets>>> seven orbits>>>seven heavens



for the Quran Seven heavens ,the lower we can view partly (as we can't view all the stars that been beautified with)

and the reason for the number seven is as I said before

Allah choice so
the week is seven days..

Hell has seven doors:

15:44 To it are seven gates: for each of those gates is a class assigned.

he made the wind against some sinners for seven nights:
69:7 He made it rage against them seven nights

He made the Oft-repeated verses seven:
15:87 And We have bestowed upon thee the Seven Oft-repeated (verses) and the Grand Qur'an.


other verse

2:261 The parable of those who spend their substance in the way of Allah is that of a grain of corn: it groweth seven ears..

it places the responsibility for the change in shadows with the Sun .

The verse literally:

Do you not see to your Lord how He extended the shade ? And if He willed, He would have made it still then We have made the sun a proof/evidence/ of it

The classic interpretations:


1- (Ibn katheer)
Arabic
http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/Di...ora=25&nAya=45

English:
The almighty saying,(then We have made the sun a proof of it) As things to be known by their opposites, the same case without the sunlight we wouldn't have known what shad is.
the same exact interpretation is repeated by the other classic tafseers
(Alqurtobi,Altabari,Aljallalen).....


peace

[Azy]

there is not the slightest hint,in the verse,that Earth is at the bottom of the heavens layers

As for the heavens yeah, it just refers to what is above the Earth.

yes what is above the round earth

1- The lower heaven is which one can view with naked eyes the stars and planets.....

The lowest heaven is one which surrounds the Earth on all sides, and you say it is above us.
Where are we in relation to the heavens if we are below the lowest heaven?
At the bottom.

The verse literally:
Do you not see to your Lord how He extended the shade ? And if He willed, He would have made it still then We have made the sun a proof/evidence/ of it

Why is it that all those translators have got it wrong?
If the Quran is simply talking about the contrast between light and dark and knowing shadow then what is the relevance of the phrase "And if He willed, He would have made it still"?

The first part (in all the translations) speaks of changing the shadow's shape in some way, then the second part speaks of making it still. Is it not obvious that this speaks of movement rather than simply knowing what shadow is?

[Imam]

Where are we in relation to the heavens if we are below the lowest heaven?
At the bottom.

we are included in the lowest heaven....

to make the matter clearer:

If You ask where is the location ,according to the Quran, of The round Earth in the lowest heaven,Is it nort,south etc...?

There is no Quranic Data...

If You ask what is the lowest heaven in relation to the round Earth?

It is the one that is beautified with the Stars without any data of its size.....

Why is it that all those translators have got it wrong?

Not all, and the rule I believe to be valid while translating the Quran is to translate it literal if there is nothing in the verse make a hint for a metaphor....

I didn't invent the literal translation....you can find it in the link....

The first part (in all the translations) speaks of changing the shadow's shape in some way

It doesn't mention a changing of shape ,It does say look at the extended shad , that if God wills ,would make it still(permenantly exists)

That is what also wrote the classic interpreatators:

eg;

(Alqurtobi) and (Altabari) and (inb katheer) and (Aljallalen)

http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/Di...ora=25&nAya=45
أي دائما مستقرا لا تنسخه الشمس

English
The almighty saying (would make it still) means He could make it permenant and never be cancelled by the ray....

[muslimapoclyptc]

Greetings,


Out of interest, how would you answer those questions if they referred to the Qur'an?

From my point of view, there is just as much reason to believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is divine as there is to believe the same about the Qur'an.

Peace

Well, let's see...

Q1) The Qur'an was written down on leather, parchment, scapulae (shoulder bones of animals) and the stalks of date palms, at the time of revelation, from the Prophet's dictation. When it was written down, it would be read back, to make sure that there weren't any mistakes. After the Prophet's death, it was codified, and Caliph 'Uthman made several bound copies of the Qur'an, to send to major Islamic provinces.

Q2) The Qur'an offers its inimitability as proof of its divinity, and which history has shown to be true.

Q3) Because it was written down in the presence of the Prophet, and was memorized as well (and still is). Also, it was (and still is) recited in prayer, so forgetting it isn't likely. It also means that it was exoteric, since everyone would've known at least part of it in order to perform their prayers properly.

Well yes, it is obviously talking about the sun's light and the change in the direction of the light, which is a result of the relative movement of the bodies. The part I was interested in is the end where it places the responsibility for the change in shadows with the Sun ("and has made the sun their guide") which can only be interpreted as a geocentric view rather than heliocentric because as we all know the shadows change due to the movement of the Earth, not the Sun.

The responsibility for the change is with the sun's light. The Earth's rotation may be the catalyst, but it's still the sun's light that creates shadows and guides them. The Earth's rotation doesn't determine shadows on its own. Rather, it is the sun's position, relative to a particular point on Earth, that determines shadows. Whichever one moves, is irrelevant to that point.

As for the heavens yeah, it just refers to what is above the Earth, but it speaks of 'layers' of heaven, and commands descend through these layers to the Earth, i.e. the Earth is at the bottom of the layers. Layers of the heavens extending out from Earth sounds pretty geocentric to me. Throw in the fact that the Sun appears to be barely mentioned in the creation, secondary to heaven and Earth, and is placed as a lamp for the Earth, I can't see any reason to agree with you that this isn't geocentric.

Communicating with people on Earth, and saying that commands descend through the sky above them, to where they are, doesn't mean geocentrism. What is above the Earth, has to "descend" down to it to reach it. That's just a matter of fact. Furthermore, for a revelation that was sent specifically to Earth, for those living on Earth, it makes sense that it would distinguish the Universe that way; into the "heavens/sky" above them, and the "land/Earth", which they're on. You're just trying to read into something what simply isn't there.

[Azy]

we are included in the lowest heaven....

First you said it was above us, now we're in it...
And We have built above you seven strong (heavens) (78:12)
He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things. (2:29)

Not all, and the rule I believe to be valid while translating the Quran is to translate it literal if there is nothing in the verse make a hint for a metaphor....

I didn't invent the literal translation....you can find it in the link....

It doesn't mention a changing of shape ,It does say look at the extended shadow , that if God wills ,would make it still(permenantly exists)

But that isn't what the literal translation says.

Do you not see to your Lord how He extended/spread the shade ? And if He willed/wanted, He would have made it still/motionless, then We made/put the sun on it (as) a proof/evidence. (25:45)

In your interpretation 'extended' is an adjective describing the shadow and 'still' means remain.
In the literal translation 'extended' is a verb in the past tense meaning 'made longer', while 'still' means stationary.

The responsibility for the change is with the sun's light.

Mmm, no it isn't. The light travels out in a straight line from the source, it is the movement of the object blocking the light that is responsible for the shadow.

The Earth's rotation may be the catalyst

What does this even mean?

but it's still the sun's light that creates shadows and guides them.

or this?

The Earth's rotation doesn't determine shadows on its own. Rather, it is the sun's position, relative to a particular point on Earth, that determines shadows. Whichever one moves, is irrelevant to that point.

Which is more or less what I said a couple of posts ago, and from our point of view it is irrelevant, but the Quran says it's due to the Sun.

Communicating with people on Earth, and saying that commands descend through the sky above them, to where they are, doesn't mean geocentrism. What is above the Earth, has to "descend" down to it to reach it. That's just a matter of fact. Furthermore, for a revelation that was sent specifically to Earth, for those living on Earth, it makes sense that it would distinguish the Universe that way; into the "heavens/sky" above them, and the "land/Earth", which they're on. You're just trying to read into something what simply isn't there.

It's not just a matter of that, it's that the heavens (the universe with all it's contents) and the Earth are treated as separate entities.

And what's all that seven Earths business about?

[muslimapoclyptc]

Mmm, no it isn't. The light travels out in a straight line from the source, it is the movement of the object blocking the light that is responsible for the shadow.

But there would be no shadow if there were no light.

What does this even mean?
or this?

It means that while the Earth's rotation may be the catalyst to the change in shadows, it's still the sun's light that creates them, and it's angle that determines the shape of the shadow.

Which is more or less what I said a couple of posts ago, and from our point of view it is irrelevant, but the Quran says it's due to the Sun.

It is due to the sun, since the sun is what creates the shadows. Whatever angle the sun shines on an object, determines the shape of its shadow. It has nothing to do with geocentrism, nor heliocentrism.

It's not just a matter of that, it's that the heavens (the universe with all it's contents) and the Earth are treated as separate entities.

Of course it is, since its addressing those who live on Earth, which is why Earth is distinguished from everything else that's around it.

And what's all that seven Earths business about?

It's probably referring to the 7 layers of the Earth's crust.

[Imam]

First you said it was above us, now we're in it...
[

Yes both are true..... if we are living on such round earth then the lower heaven is what is above me,you,others ..... at the same time we are included in such heaven..

Just draw a diagram putting a ball(earth) in heaven and it doesn't need wisdom to realize the meaning..

In your interpretation 'extended' is an adjective describing the shadow.[

Yes we have in the verse the extended shade that God extended all over...

but what is that shade that God extended?

How the classic commentaries understood such shade to be,and what linguestic and Quranic basis they depend on?

the item (God extended shade) been referenced by the classic commentators as :

the shade in the period from Dawn till sunrise

that is mentioned in all classic tafseers and the meaning referenced to some of the famous prophet's companions eg;Ibn Abbas:


Alqurtubi
قال الحسن وقتادة وغيرهما : مد الظل من طلوع الفجر إلى طلوع الشمس . وقيل : هو من غيوبة الشمس إلى طلوعها . والأول أصح


Ibn Katheer
: " ألم تر إلى ربك كيف مد الظل " ؟ قال ابن عباس وابن عمر وأبو العالية وأبو مالك ومسروق ومجاهد وسعيد بن جبير والنخعي والضحاك والحسن وقتادة : هو ما بين طلوع الفجر إلى طلوع الشمس

Altabari

{ الظِّلّ } وَهُوَ مَا بَيْن طُلُوع الْفَجْر إِلَى طُلُوع الشَّمْس . وَبِنَحْوِ الَّذِي قُلْنَا فِي ذَلِكَ قَالَ أَهْل التَّأْوِيل . ذِكْر مَنْ قَالَ ذَلِكَ : - حَدَّثَنِي عَلِيّ , قَالَ : ثنا عَبْد اللَّه , قَالَ : ثني مُعَاوِيَة , عَنْ عَلِيّ , عَنِ ابْن عَبَّاس , قَوْله : { أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى رَبّك كَيْفَ مَدَّ الظِّلّ } يَقُول : مَا بَيْن طُلُوع الْفَجْر إِلَى طُلُوع الشَّمْس . * -حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّد بْن سَعْد , قَالَ : ثني أَبِي , قَالَ : ثني عَمِّي , قَالَ : ثني أَبِي , عَنْ أَبِيهِ , عَنِ ابْن عَبَّاس , قَوْله : { أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى رَبّك كَيْف مَدَّ الظِّلّ } قَالَ : مَدَّهُ مَا بَيْن صَلَاة الصُّبْح إِلَى طُلُوع الشَّمْس . - حَدَّثَنَا ابْن حُمَيْد , قَالَ : ثنا يَعْقُوب , عَنْ جَعْفَر , عَنْ سَعِيد بْن جُبَيْر , فِي قَوْله : { أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى رَبّك كَيْفَ مَدَّ الظِّلّ وَلَوْ شَاءَ لَجَعَلَهُ سَاكِنًا } قَالَ : مَا بَيْن طُلُوع الْفَجْر إِلَى طُلُوع الشَّمْس . - حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّد بْن عَبْد اللَّه بْن بَزِيع , قَالَ : ثنا أَبُو مِحْصَن , عَنْ حُصَيْن , عَنْ أَبِي مَالِك , قَالَ : { أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى رَبّك كَيْفَ مَدَّ الظِّلّ } قَالَ : مَا بَيْن طُلُوع الْفَجْر إِلَى طُلُوع الشَّمْس . - حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّد بْن عَمْرو , قَالَ : ثنا أَبُو عَاصِم , قَالَ : ثنا عِيسَى , وَحَدَّثَنِي الْحَارِث , قَالَ : ثنا الْحَسَن , قَالَ : ثنا وَرْقَاء جَمِيعًا , عَنِ ابْن أَبِي نَجِيح , عَنْ مُجَاهِد , قَوْله : { كَيْف مَدَّ الظِّلّ } قَالَ . ظِلّ الْغَدَاة قَبْل أَنْ تَطْلُع الشَّمْس . * - حَدَّثَنَا الْقَاسِم , قَالَ : ثنا الْحُسَيْن , قَالَ : ثني حَجَّاج , عَنِ ابْن جُرَيْج , عَنْ مُجَاهِد , قَالَ : الظِّلّ : ظِلّ الْغَدَاة . - قَالَ : ثني حَجَّاج , عَنِ ابْن جُرَيْج , عَنْ عِكْرِمَة , قَوْله : { أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى رَبّك كَيْفَ مَدَّ الظِّلّ } قَالَ : مَدَّهُ مِنْ طُلُوع الْفَجْر إِلَى طُلُوع الشَّمْس . - حُدِّثْت عَنِ الْحُسَيْن , قَالَ : سَمِعْت أَبَا مُعَاذ يَقُول : أَخْبَرَنَا عُبَيْد , قَالَ : سَمِعْت الضَّحَّاك يَقُول فِي قَوْله : { أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى رَبّك كَيْفَ مَدَّ الظِّلّ } يَعْنِي مِنْ صَلَاة الْغَدَاة إِلَى طُلُوع الشَّمْس .

Verify the link...

http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/Di...ora=25&nAya=45


apart from defining the shade ,the rest of the texts refer to the names of the companions who defined it so,that is why I didn't translate it....
I just let it for those who know Arabic or interested to verify my claims....


according to that, the shade from Dawn till sunrise is not the shadow that the sun's light creates,but that which when sun's light comes it goes....

The Tafseers based that meaning on the similar phrase mentioned in another verse in the Quran:

While God is describing paradise

Quran 56:30 In shade extended(believers are always staying)..



Ofcourse some people without reading the classic commentaries may understand the verse to be dealing with the shadows of buildings etc....

but even if that is the intended meaning,I think Bro Muslimapoclyptic explained why it is still can't be against science...


I would like to thank you Azy for highlighting such new issue to the arena of Quran and science....

really it is nice finding new issues......and hope you continue the discussion bringing more and more difficulties.

peace

[Azy]

really it is nice finding new issues......and hope you continue the discussion bringing more and more difficulties.

I'd love to continue but I think we've reached a point where I can't argue with you on the details of the meaning because I can't read the original Arabic text.

Thanks for being patient with me :) (you too muslimapoclyptc)

[Hamayun]

There is one simple answer...

Q: Why do we know the Quran is true???

A: The character of Muhammad (pbuh)

This may not be proof enough for you unbelievers but for Muslims this carries more weight than any of the "scientific theories" mentioned in this thread.

Peace :)

[Uthman]

Edit

[Whatsthepoint]

There is one simple answer...

Q: Why do we know the Quran is true???

A: The character of Muhammad (pbuh)

This may not be proof enough for you unbelievers but for Muslims this carries more weight than any of the "scientific theories" mentioned in this thread.

Peace :)

He was a capital fella, I have to admit that.

[Hamayun]

Edited.. Didn't mean to cause offence.

Mr Whatsthepoint: Thanks for playing nice :)

[Imam]

:sl:

I would suggest another answer..:smile:

Q: Why do we know the Quran is true???

answer: The Quran

or what is called the internal evidence..
for me I have found more than enough internal evidence suggests it to be from a divine origin...... The Quran has more than just spiritual teachings and laws...


:w:

[syilla]

hi!

Q: How do we know that the Koran is true?

A: Because everytime i read the quran, it'll always give me an answer, advise and made me think deeper. And anyone who really sincere in reading and learning quran will know that it will never comes to an end. :)

[Thinker]

Q1) The Qur'an was written down on leather, parchment, scapulae (shoulder bones of animals) and the stalks of date palms, at the time of revelation, from the Prophet's dictation. When it was written down, it would be read back, to make sure that there weren't any mistakes. After the Prophet's death, it was codified, and Caliph 'Uthman made several bound copies of the Qur'an, to send to major Islamic provinces.

Why did Uthman destroy the original text after he 'codified' it? And, where are the original copies that Uthman created and why can they not be examined?

[Thinker]

hi!

Q: How do we know that the Koran is true?

A: Because everytime i read the quran, it'll always give me an answer, advise and made me think deeper. And anyone who really sincere in reading and learning quran will know that it will never comes to an end. :)

Could it be that you always find the answer because the Qur'an is so ambiguos that anyone can find the answer that they WANT to find and that's how we get Muslim 'A' saying it is a book commanding him to make war and Muslim 'B' saying it is a book of peace?

And, if the Qur'an always has the answer why has there been 1300 years of scholars and hadith interpretting it?

[Imam]

Could it be that you always find the answer because the Qur'an is so ambiguos that anyone can find the answer that they WANT to find

It seems that you feel that the Quran is ambiguous, but you have a golden chance to ask those who studied it academically to clarify it for you .. The Quran being inerrant has only one answer...

if you claim for a specific Quranic errancy,begin a thread in refutation section....

and that's how we get Muslim 'A' saying it is a book commanding him to make war and Muslim 'B' saying it is a book of peace?

A Muslim 'C' (who studied it objectively) saying it is a book commanding both (war &peace) making peace is the rule and war in necessity...

[جوري]

life isn't monochromatic, you have contrast.. how else would one tell the difference?
If we didn't have night, we'd only know of day, if we didn't have war you wouldn't know of peace, if you didn't have cold you wouldn't know of warmth.. if you didn't have sickness you wouldn't know of health, if you didn't have pain you wouldn't know of pleasure if you didn't have death you wouldn't know of life.. the secret to it is balance.. It is the human condition.
war could be about mischief and destruction but it can also be a medium to overthrow wickedness and establish justice.
Just simple observation and common sense.. Maybe it is cooler when the chinese speak of dualistic cosmology the Yin-Yang than when a Muslim explains why both verses are present in the Quran..
It isn't difficult to read things in context, and I believe it would shed light on the matter.. I don't think it per se Muslim number one is pillaging war-like monger
while b is a Pacifist.. If they are both equally read, they should reach the exact same conclusion to any given situation. Abu bakr (rA) had a completely different personality from Umar Ibn Ilhtab (RA) but when it came to the nitty of it, their understanding of Islam was complete!

My humble two cents

[AntiKarateKid]

Could it be that you always find the answer because the Qur'an is so ambiguos that anyone can find the answer that they WANT to find and that's how we get Muslim 'A' saying it is a book commanding him to make war and Muslim 'B' saying it is a book of peace?

And, if the Qur'an always has the answer why has there been 1300 years of scholars and hadith interpretting it?

I see your problem with the Quran now. You think the religion derived form it is subjective to whomever is reading it.


Well theres a simple solution to this. Ready?

Knowlege. Instead of us google scholaring we simply ask the scholars of Islam for their proofs, read tafsirs and hadiths, learn arabic and it's linguistic nuances and after we have done all of this, we would have completely erased ambiguities.

Too much work for you? Then don't try to intepret the Quran without the help of knowlegeable scholars.So.... lol at you for citing abmbiguity in the Quran with your ambiguous knowlege of it?

[muslimapoclyptc]

Why did Uthman destroy the original text after he 'codified' it?

To standardize the Qur'an in the Quraishi Arabic dialect. When Uthman got hold of all of the Qurans that were written in different dialects, and in some cases were altered to sound exactly like the other dialects, he ordered for them to get burnt because they did not use the proper Arabic that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and in some cases their words were different because of this dialect difference. He then compiled all of the Noble Surahs (Chapters) of the Noble Quran that were already written during the time of Prophet Muhammad in the city of Medina and formed what we call today the one true copy of the "Noble Quran".

And, where are the original copies that Uthman created and why can they not be examined?

There are many old copies of the Qur'an, that are purported to have been one of the 'Uthmanic copies, such as:

the one in Uzbekistan, the one in Turkey, and the one in Russia. You also have the one in Egypt, which is the perhaps the oldest one, and is either an 'Uthmanic copy, or an exact copy of the original. And obviously, you can see it, and look through it, as is apparent in the images.

[Qingu]

To all the Muslims claiming that we need to ask Muslim scholars how to interpret the Quran before we criticize it or disbelieve it:

Did you ask Hindu scholars how to interpret the Vedas before you decided to disbelieve them?

How about Scientologist scholars before you decided to reject Dianetics?

Again, there is a clear double-standard here. Muslims freely reject every single religious text except the Quran, usually without reading or even skimming them, and rarely if ever consulting scholars who believe in the texts for their interpretations. And yet you guys seriously expect unbelievers to consult Islamic scholars before forming an opinion on the Quran?

[جوري]

what the..
Have you read any of the replies posted you?
The lowest common denominator expects that would at least read what you cut and paste before calling attention to your clamant needs, quote correctly or at least check what it is that you are quoting and alleging so when someone puts a the whole verse in context for you your, you are not so disturbed alleging acrobatics.
You haven't read the Quran as is apparent from your former cut and paste, yet you come accusing others of not reading of Scientology or Hinduism etc.. Do pls tell, what should we call that, if not short of an immature defense mechanism by which your own traits and emotions are attributed to others in a massive sweep.


God.. the majority of atheists disgust me on every level!

[Khalil_Allah]

Just like people don't get the Bible, people aren't going to get the Qur'an. If you really want to understand what's going on here, you have to put it in perspective. We have Muhammad saws, and we have this revelation. He claims to have been visited by the angel Gabriel and told to recite these words, as they were the final revelation from God (who had spoken to Jesus and Moses, etc.).

How do we know it's the truth? Prove it? Shouldn't we have to prove first that God exists? Or that Muhammad saws was really hearing from an angel?

Man, just listen to the message and understand the context in which it was revealed. I recommend starting like the Prophet saws. You don't know how to read Arabic, but you can understand a little if you get an Arabic dictionary. Grab a Qur'an with NO translation. Figure out how to get to Surah 96; al-Alaq (there are 114 surahs). Get your dictionary and find out the meaning of "iqra bismi rabbika allathee khalaq" "khalaq al-insana min alaq" "iqra wa rabbuka al-akram" "allathee alama bil qalam" "alam al-insana ma lam yaAllam."

If you think Muhammad saws just made this stuff up, then remember that he couldn't read. Why would his first revelation concede that men were taught with the pen? But God says... Read in the name of your lord!

Now, comes the next important part. Remember that God didn't reveal the Qur'an to our Prophet saws for his own sake. It is for all of us. EVERYONE. Now you see God is telling you to read.

And if you struggle through this thing, trying to understand the Arabic, trying to understand the context through which Muhammad saws would understand it, and then trying to understand what it means to you.... then comes your reward. Then comes your satisfaction that you have found the truth. It just happens. Struggle in spite of Muslims, to prove them all wrong once and for all, and you'll get the same result.

"Iqra wa rabukka al-akram":statisfie

Then comes the fun part... then you fix your voice as best as it can sound, and you recite until it flows off of your tongue like music. And you will come to see that this book is put together like nothing you've ever imagined. Everything seems to be so masterfully and purposely in its place. Not just that it makes sense in terms of Arabic language, but it flows like poetry you've never heard.

"allathee Alama bil qalam" "Alam al-insana ma lam yaAllam."

I wish that Muslims read this moreso than non-Muslims. :)

Salaam!

[syilla]

Could it be that you always find the answer because the Qur'an is so ambiguos that anyone can find the answer that they WANT to find and that's how we get Muslim 'A' saying it is a book commanding him to make war and Muslim 'B' saying it is a book of peace?

Actually as a muslim, we are being teach to follow the quran and hadith but if we can not find any solutions in it then we have to think ourselves the solutions. However, we still have to be firm in our aqeedah.

I'm merely answering it through my own experience :).

Could it be that you always find the answer because the Qur'an is so ambiguos that anyone can find the answer that they WANT to find and that's how we get Muslim 'A' saying it is a book commanding him to make war and Muslim 'B' saying it is a book of peace?

Well actually, if you really want to find answers in quran and hadith according to islam...you have to learn all the principles of islam before you really want to learn the quran. Which mean years of studying.

Islam accept difference opinions but it should never be outside of aqeedah. Like education, they have different method and different ways of doing it.
Thats why people do conferences or meetings to gather everyone from different background to give their ideas on how their interpretation on things.

And, if the Qur'an always has the answer why has there been 1300 years of scholars and hadith interpretting it?

I think it is kinda cool... so islam is always up-to-date.

p/s:- i have two date lines to meet...the submission date is next week. :laugh: and i'm still learning to be a better muslim

[Thinker]

It seems that you feel that the Quran is ambiguous...

If it is unambiguous why do you need scholars to interpret it and why is there abbrogation?

A Muslim 'C' (who studied it objectively) saying it is a book commanding both (war &peace) making peace is the rule and war in necessity...

Exactly my point. . . Muslim 'A' can find the answers that he wants to hear from the war verses and Muslim 'B' can find the answers she wants from the peace verses.

[Thinker]

I see your problem with the Quran now. You think the religion derived form it is subjective to whomever is reading it.

That's another way of puttting it

Then don't try to intepret the Quran without the help of knowlegeable scholars.So.... lol at you for citing abmbiguity in the Quran with your ambiguous knowlege of it?

Ah . . .there's the 'scholars' again!! How many 'scholars' are there, which one should I choose? It appears to me that there is a 'scholar' out there for every interpretation you might want to find. And they are able to find the interpretation that Muslim 'A' or Muslim 'B' wants to hear bacause it is ambiguous and contradictory.

And before someone tells me that there is ambiguity and contradiction in the Bible, don't bother because I'll agree with you and they are there because the Bible (as is the Qu'ran) is the product of men who are fallible.

[muslimapoclyptc]

If it is unambiguous why do you need scholars to interpret it and why is there abbrogation?

People who have studied the Qur'an in depth are obviously going to be more knowledgeable about it than those who have not, and whose knowledge of it, is confined to the cherry-picking of ayats. This is why, when questions arise, people should consult with those who are knowledgeable.

The best tafsir (exegesis) is the explanation of the Qur'an by the Qur'an. Many of the questions which may arise out of a certain passage of the Qur'an have their explanation in other parts of the very same book, and often there is no need to turn to any sources other than the word of Allah, which in itself contains tafsir.

If it isn't explained in the Qur'an, then the next best source, would be the explanation of the Qur'an by Prophet Muhammad. There are numerous examples of explanations of the Qur'an by the Prophet, who either himself asked the Angel Gabriel for explanations of matters not clear to him, or who was asked by the Companions about the Qur'an.

If it isn't in either source, then the next step, would be to refer to the reports of the Sahabah. Then, for further clarification, consider the reports of the Tabi'un.

Ultimately though, none of these sources match the explanation of the Qur'an by the Qur'an itself, and by the Prophet.

For information on this:

Interpreting the Text

With regards to abrogation, I'm sure that you've notice, that it is only every applied to the laws/commands/customs governing society. That's because, as the situation changes, old laws/commands/customs get replaced by newer, better-suited ones:

Thoughts on Abrogation

Exactly my point. . . Muslim 'A' can find the answers that he wants to hear from the war verses and Muslim 'B' can find the answers she wants from the peace verses.

While someone who's actually studied the Qur'an in-depth, is going to have a better understanding of both of those verses, than both Muslim 'A' and Muslim 'B'.

[Thinker]

With regards to abrogation, I'm sure that you've notice, that it is only every applied to the laws/commands/customs governing society. That's because, as the situation changes, old laws/commands/customs get replaced by newer, better-suited ones

I am talking about later verses in the Qu'ran abrogating earlier verses. And, no it's not just those on inheritance which not only changed during Muhammads lifetime but are still being changed today; why is that - did someone make a mistake!! And then there's the verse saying nothing that comes later abrogates anything said earlier!!

[جوري]

A reply to an earlier post I can't find at the moment, as well as others can all be found here:
Alleged Internal Contradictions in the Qur'an
By : Ansar Al-'Adl

Throughout the history of humanity, we see a continued pattern. Our Lord and Creator created us out of love, and placed us on this planet as His Viceroy, to enjoin what is good and to forbidwhat is evil. We maintain our loving connection with God through sincere worship to Him. Humanity is being tested through this life on earth. Those of us who believe in God and do righteous deeds will be rewarded in the next life. But those who persist in evil, even after recieving warnings, will be punished in the next life.

Man has continually deviated from the true path of righteousness, to become enslaved by his personal desires. Thus, God appoints Prophets and Messengers among humanity, who recieve divine revelation, to call people back to the path of truth, the path of loving submission to Our Creator. God's Messengers recieved the word of God, His message and commandments for humanity.

Muslims believe all of God's Messenger preached the same message of Islam (submission to the One God). This includes Prophet Adam, Prophet Noah, Prophet Abraham, Prophet Moses, Prophet Jesus, and God's final messenger Prophet Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon them all.

The Qur'an is God's last revelation to humanity, revealed to Prophet Muhammad pbuh, and is the spoken words of God, which He has vowed to preserve throughout time. All previous messages including the Torah and the Injeel were only intended for their respective nations and served as test for their respective nation to preseve the message. Unfortunately, this test was not succesfully completed and the previous messages have become corrupted, tampered and mixed with the work of human beings. This is why God has sent the Qur'an to confirm the truth, but reject all deviation that has crept in. It is a criterion. The test of the Qur'an is not its preservation, but in spreading the message to all nations.

Much has been said about the Qur'an, and both Muslims and Non-Muslims have praised it for its perfection and beauty. One may read about what has been said about the Qur'an, here.

The question arises, how can one be assured that a book is from God?

There are a number of reasons and much evidence which proves that the Qur'an is the word of God. These have been explored in many books, and on many websites, including here.For the purpose of this article, we will examine one of those reasons - consistency.

We must remember that the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad pbuh over a period of 23 years. During that time, he passed through widely diverse periods of struggle and peace. It is inconceivable that any human being would be able to remain consistent in their teachings and thoughts during this period of time. All human beings go through development and evolution in their thoughts and works. It is natural to obsevre such changes, and we would expect to see even greater changes in the teachings of a man through periods of persecution, peace, migration, success, suffering, unity, support, opposition, etc.

Yet the Qur'an is free of all such human defficiencies and inconsistencies. And the only reason is because it is a revelation from Our Creator, Most Merciful.

20:4 A revelation from Him Who created the earth and the heavens on high.
69:41-43 It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe! Nor is it the word of a soothsayer: little admonition it is ye receive. (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.

The Qur'an, itself, provides us with this criteria to use in evalutating its claim of divine origin:

4:82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy/inconsistency.

This criteria is acknowledged in previous revelations as well.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace...."

God is perfect, and therefore we should expect inerrancy and perfection in His words. This article will demonstrate, God willingly, that the Qur'an is free of such inconsistencies and human deficiencies, and therefore can only be the word of God, Glorified and Exalted.

Often, we will see that there are multiple interpretations and explanations of certain verses. Consequently, we shall frequently present more than one explanation, each being sufficient to refute the allegation on its own.

• The Inheritance Law
• The Number of Angels Speaking to Mary
• On The Length of God's Days
• The Number of Gardens in Paradise
• The Number of Groups on Judgement Day
• Who Takes the Soul at Death
• The Number of Wings on Angels
• The Number of Days Taken to Create the Universe
• Was Creation Quick or Slow
• Which was created first: the Heavens or Earth ?
• 'Called Together' or 'Ripped Apart'?
• The Time Taken to Destroy the 'Aad
• What was Man Created from?
• Where is Allah
• On the Origin of Calamity
• The Mercy and Guidance of Allah
• Will there be Inquiry in Paradise?
• Are Angels Protectors
• Is Everything Devoutly Obedient to Allah?
• Does Allah Forgive Shirk?
• Did Abraham Commit Shirk?
• Worshipping the Same or a Different God?
• The Sequence of Events in the Calf-worship of the Children of Israel
• Guilt of Aaron in the Calf-Worship?
• Was Jonah Cast on the Desert Shore?
• The Reference to the Injeel at the time of Moses
• Concerning the Food for the Inhabitants of Hell
• Forgiveness for Slander of Chaste Women
• How the Disbelievers will Recieve their Record on Judgement Day
• Can Angels Disobey - the case of Iblis
• Can Angels Disobey - the case of Harut and Marut
• Angel Gabriel and the 'Holy Spirit'
• Confirming the Old Revelation or Substituting it?
• The Qur'an's Pure Arabic and the Presence of Foreign Words
• The Qur'an Being Contained in Previous Revelations
• Lot's Wife Being Called 'an Old Woman'
• The Response of Lot's Nation
• Is the Punishment and Mercy of Allah Arbitrary?
• The Fate of Noah's Family
• Was Noah Driven Out?
• Regarding Pharoah's Fate
• Pharoah's Repentance
• Abrogation and the Unalterable Word of God
• Whom Allah Guides
• Salvation for Non-Muslims

[muslimapoclyptc]

I am talking about later verses in the Qu'ran abrogating earlier verses. And, no it's not just those on inheritance which not only changed during Muhammads lifetime but are still being changed today; why is that - did someone make a mistake!! And then there's the verse saying nothing that comes later abrogates anything said earlier!!

There is no mistake. Like I said, as the situation changes, laws/commands/customs are changed accordingly. This isn't just about inheritance, it's in general. This applies to both the earlier revelations being abrogated by the Qur'an, and ayats within the Qur'an being abrogated by others:

Qur'an 2:106:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?

Qur'an 16:101:
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and God knows best what He reveals,- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

The verses you are talking about, actually says that no one can abrogate God's words. Obviously, this doesn't mean that God himself can't do this, just that others besides God have no authority to do so:

Qur'an 6:115:
The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.

Qur'an 18:27:
And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him.

[Imam]

[QUOTE=Thinker;1107248]If it is unambiguous why do you need scholars to interpret it?

you responded Exactly as what I expected you would say....

Now I would like you to give me your conception of (Quranic interpreatation)

Is it to clear ambiguity? if so give me some examples of Quranic vague laws,spritual teachings that seems like a secret code needs scholars to interpret it...
If you continue only assertions ,one then would guess where is such ambigiouty enmate...

Exactly my point. . . Muslim 'A' can find the answers that he wants to hear from the war verses and Muslim 'B' can find the answers she wants from the peace verses.

If from the same verse your words may have some merit....

[Tara x]

Iv read that the Quran has not changed since the day it was revealed?

[Thinker]

There is no mistake. Like I said, as the situation changes, laws/commands/customs are changed accordingly. [/I]

Thank you for your reply to my post

My most recently deleted posts were deleted because I was told that I am not allowed to ‘interpret’ the Qu’ran as there are ‘scholars’ for that and I am not a scholar. I asked for explanation and got none! Before this post is deleted I would like to say . . . I am not quite sure how the moderators define interpret but I can’t see how anyone can examine/study anything without forming a view on what it is or what it means. In the case of a book with so many ambiguities, this is sometimes called interpretation. What follows is not my ‘interpretation’ it is the view I have formed from my examination and study of the evidence. Whether it is the correct view or not or whether anyone agrees with my view or not is a matter for them; (I presume) we are all allowed our own view?

Take the below verses and tell me that the Qu’ran is clear and unambiguous. . .

Qur'an 2:106: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?

Qur'an 16:101: When We substitute one revelation for another,- and God knows best what He reveals,- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

How is it possible to substitute something with something else without abrogating the former? Is it good enough to say the words ‘None of Our revelations do We abrogate’ when substitution is de facto abrogation.

Next question is why does Mohammed need to iterate those verses and in fact do it twice (presuming there was a period of years between them)? In my opinion, because he was reciting a verse and someone who then pointed out to him that it contradicted an earlier verse! Now you say but things changed (albeit in an area and at a time when little changed for hundreds of years). Surely God (being a God) knows the future and knows how things will change and God (being a God) can not make a mistake but Mohammed being a man can!

[Thinker]

Alleged Internal Contradictions in the Qur'an
[*]The Inheritance Law

Ah . . . most revered Skye,

I’ve also had posts deleted because they are topics which have already been discussed so I will fight back the urge to start a debate on which way is east and the location of heaven etc.!! And you know I would not take you on in debate because I will lose :smile: That said. . . .

First point I would like to make is that the reason your list is so long and the reason these questions keep coming up is because the text is ambiguous and contradictory.

Next, I did take a quick peak at Inheritance, I looked at the answer given and my notes.

The verse (4:11) in question says:

4:11. God (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance):
to the male, a portion equal to that of two females:
if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half.
For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children;
if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third;
if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth.

Dieing leaving two daughters, two parents and a wife adds up to an impossible one and one sixth i.e. one sixth more than exists.

The scholars answer to this in your post is . . . . .
The first major point to note is that there are two types of inheritors. The first category are those who have received a fixed inheritance, which includes the spouse and the parents. The second category includes those who take their share AFTER the shares of the first category are distributed. This includes siblings and children.
So if we understand this, we know that the parents and the wife would receive their amount, and the daughters would get a share of what remains.

He is saying that the daughters, two or more, their share is (NOT) two-thirds of the inheritance it is two thirds of what remains after the other get theirs. That is NOT what the verse says! Again, is this another example of the Qu’ran’s ambiguity or did someone make a mistake?

Next (my notes made some time back) show me that the Qur’an mentions nine persons entitled to a share but ‘scholars’ have since added a further three making a total of 12!! Again, is this another example of the Qu’ran’s ambiguity or did someone make a mistake?

[alcurad]

. .

Qur'an 2:106: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?

a quick reply; the verse 2:106 you quote is not translated correctly, rather it means:
"we do not abrogate or cause a verse to be forgotten but bring a better one or one like it...".

and the qur'an's ambiguity is necessary for it to survive the test of time, any and all have the right to interpret, provided they have enough knowledge.
try not to build too many assumptions without much backing, although here you had an inaccurate translation.

[Thinker]

and the qur'an's ambiguity is necessary for it to survive the test of time,

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. It's also sometimes called smoke and mirrors!

[Thinker]

muslimapoclyptc thank you for your posts,

I am not sure if I replied to this post

I asked . . . Why did Uthman destroy the original text after he 'codified' it?

You replied . . . To standardize the Qur'an in the Quraishi Arabic dialect. When Uthman got hold of all of the Qurans that were written in different dialects, and in some cases were altered to sound exactly like the other dialects, he ordered for them to get burnt because they did not use the proper Arabic that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and in some cases their words were different because of this dialect difference. He then compiled all of the Noble Surahs (Chapters) of the Noble Quran that were already written during the time of Prophet Muhammad in the city of Medina and formed what we call today the one true copy of the "Noble Quran".

So why did he destroy the original text? You have Muslims today up in arms if anyone defaces a modern day copy of the Qu’ran and Uthman destroyed the original copy!!

And, if it was, as you say, written in different dialects how can you claims that the Qu’ran you read today is the same as the original?

I asked . . . And, where are the original copies that Uthman created and why can they not be examined?

You replied . . . There are many old copies of the Qur'an, that are purported to have been one of the 'Uthmanic copies, such as:

the one in Uzbekistan, the one in Turkey, and the one in Russia. You also have the one in Egypt, which is the perhaps the oldest one, and is either an 'Uthmanic copy, or an exact copy of the original. And obviously, you can see it, and look through it, as is apparent in the images.

None of these copies have been proven to be an original Uthman, some of them have been altered and why are the pages not photographed and published?

Isn’t it all just a little bit suspect?

[alcurad]

it hasn't much to do with different dialects, actually the different dialects are incorporated in learning the qur'an, atleast if you go to higher level studies. not much differences in meaning occur either way.
since the Arabs were generally illiterate and didn't have an unambiguous text-no dots etc- in the first place, not all the companions who attempted to write down the qur'an actually wrote it correctly, or they didn't have a clearly organized text, as in a verse would be written then explanations and commentary would interspersed between the verses, almost to a degree that a person not well versed in such matters would extremely confused in trying to read what was actually written.
the unification of the script of the qur'an occurred with the approval of the companions, not to mention that if anything were indeed altered it would have been challenged right away.not to mention, mostly the qur'an was memorized, even if something were amiss in the written copies, it would not have taken long to expose it.

[alcurad]

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. It's also sometimes called smoke and mirrors!

no, it's called bias, we all have it, it's very difficult to let go of, rearing it's head whenever a threat appears!

[Thinker]

it hasn't much to do with different dialects, actually the different dialects are incorporated in learning the qur'an, atleast if you go to higher level studies. not much differences in meaning occur either way.
since the Arabs were generally illiterate and didn't have an unambiguous text-no dots etc- in the first place, not all the companions who attempted to write down the qur'an actually wrote it correctly, or they didn't have a clearly organized text, as in a verse would be written then explanations and commentary would interspersed between the verses, almost to a degree that a person not well versed in such matters would extremely confused in trying to read what was actually written.
the unification of the script of the qur'an occurred with the approval of the companions, not to mention that if anything were indeed altered it would have been challenged right away.not to mention, mostly the qur'an was memorized, even if something were amiss in the written copies, it would not have taken long to expose it.

Thank you for a well balanced answer and one which, although might not agree with all you say, without being 'picky,' I have difficulty in faulting.

And the reason for destroying the original text?

[muslimapoclyptc]

Take the below verses and tell me that the Qu’ran is clear and unambiguous. . .

Qur'an 2:106: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?

Qur'an 16:101: When We substitute one revelation for another,- and God knows best what He reveals,- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

How is it possible to substitute something with something else without abrogating the former? Is it good enough to say the words ‘None of Our revelations do We abrogate’ when substitution is de facto abrogation.

The Qur'an is not saying revelations aren't abrogated, it's saying that revelations aren't abrogated without being substituted with another one. Hence, whatever revelation is abrogated, another replaces it.

Next question is why does Mohammed need to iterate those verses and in fact do it twice (presuming there was a period of years between them)? In my opinion, because he was reciting a verse and someone who then pointed out to him that it contradicted an earlier verse! Now you say but things changed (albeit in an area and at a time when little changed for hundreds of years). Surely God (being a God) knows the future and knows how things will change and God (being a God) can not make a mistake but Mohammed being a man can!

The first verse is talking about all abrogated verses being substituted with something similar or better. The second verse is obviously refuting the disbelievers who try to say that the Qur'an is a forgery, because it uses abrogation. So, i'm not sure what you mean by iteration. Can you clarify?

muslimapoclyptc thank you for your posts,

I am not sure if I replied to this post

I asked . . . Why did Uthman destroy the original text after he 'codified' it?

You replied . . . To standardize the Qur'an in the Quraishi Arabic dialect. When Uthman got hold of all of the Qurans that were written in different dialects, and in some cases were altered to sound exactly like the other dialects, he ordered for them to get burnt because they did not use the proper Arabic that was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and in some cases their words were different because of this dialect difference. He then compiled all of the Noble Surahs (Chapters) of the Noble Quran that were already written during the time of Prophet Muhammad in the city of Medina and formed what we call today the one true copy of the "Noble Quran".

So why did he destroy the original text? You have Muslims today up in arms if anyone defaces a modern day copy of the Qu’ran and Uthman destroyed the original copy!!

He didn't destroy the original copy, he destroyed the ones in the other Arabic dialects, so as to standardize the Qurayshi dialect for the Qur'an, since it was the one that the Prophet himself spoke.

And, if it was, as you say, written in different dialects how can you claims that the Qu’ran you read today is the same as the original?

Because the dialect that was used the most and the one that the Prophet himself used, was the Qurayshi one. This is also the one that the Qur'an today is written in.

Plus, I can also say that the Qur'an is the same, since it was memorized, and often recited in its entirety.

Inscription + Memorization + Frequent recitation = 100% Preservation

I asked . . . And, where are the original copies that Uthman created and why can they not be examined?

You replied . . . There are many old copies of the Qur'an, that are purported to have been one of the 'Uthmanic copies, such as:

the one in Uzbekistan, the one in Turkey, and the one in Russia. You also have the one in Egypt, which is the perhaps the oldest one, and is either an 'Uthmanic copy, or an exact copy of the original. And obviously, you can see it, and look through it, as is apparent in the images.

None of these copies have been proven to be an original Uthman, some of them have been altered and why are the pages not photographed and published?

Isn’t it all just a little bit suspect?

Not really. Those manuscrips are obviously rare, old, and probably very delicate. But regardless, people can and do still look through them, so them being photographed and published isn't really necessary.

Plus, the one in Egypt is either an 'Uthmanic copy, or an exact copy of one.

Also, what exactly do you mean that they have been altered?

[AntiKarateKid]

I think "Thinker" is just latching onto Quran conspiracy theories.

[Thinker]

The Qur'an is not saying revelations aren't abrogated, it's saying that revelations aren't abrogated without being substituted with another one. Hence, whatever revelation is abrogated, another replaces it.

OK so if you agree that some verses are abrogated that poses the question why wasn’t it right first time, God knows everything including the future and he can’t make mistakes?

He didn't destroy the original copy, he destroyed the ones in the other Arabic dialects, so as to standardize the Qurayshi dialect for the Qur'an, since it was the one that the Prophet himself spoke.

So if he didn’t destroy the original Bukhari (6:61:510) is not true and the original fraghments are still existence – so where are they?

Also, what exactly do you mean that they have been altered?

I believe I read somewhere that punctuation was added later to those old manuscripts.

[Thinker]

I think "Thinker" is just latching onto Quran conspiracy theories.

I didn't know (for this questions) there was a conspiracy theory to latch onto, I believed I'd thought of it myself, please point me to where I might find those perpetrating this idea so that I might compare notes.

[Mukafi7]

It is not our place to question the Qur'an. Maybe that is why it is called Belief/Faith. Some things you have to accept without question and you cannot be selective about it.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Some things you have to accept without question

Why?


Peace

[Mukafi7]

Don't take this as jugment, but If you are still wondering/asking "Why" you may no be ready then.

[Thinker]

It is not our place to question the Qur'an. Maybe that is why it is called Belief/Faith. Some things you have to accept without question and you cannot be selective about it.

I was raised as a Catholic and attended a Catholic school. I was told the same thing, don't question; have faith. And I was told about hell for people who didn't follow the scriptures. And I believe that many years earlier there were people killed for questioning being labled as heratics and blasphemers. I beleive it is inherent in human beings to question things, God made us that way.

[Mukafi7]

I agree that it is in our nature to quesitons certain things to make sense out of them. However, some things we need to accept, it is part of the faith.

for example, a kid growing up learns that the color red is actually red simply because his mom and dad tell him that this is red. The kid grows-up knowing that a certain color is red without questioning it. Eventually, we all agree that red is "red" although we larned it from many different source (our parents). Now I know this is not the same, but I am trying to convey that some things in life you have to accept and they have a way of woking themselves out in time.

[alcurad]

abrogation/substitution of verses occurs since Islam wa and continues to be a gradual process, you don't just get the entire spectrum of beliefs, prohibitions and commands in one go, rather as situations change, so did revelation.

in the case of the gradual restriction of wine consumption leading to it's forbidding, no verse was omitted since the earlier ones still applied, such as "do not 'come close' to prayer while you are drunk",i.e do not drink if the time of prayer is imminent, this was the first restriction.
while it seems quite obvious, still it was needed for that society, etc. such commands needed the authority of God himself behind them, since the issues being dealt with were deeply rooted in society and so on.

other verses were somewhat altered, so they weren't really omitted, rather a few words changed, since there was no need for a new verse. such as the verse for stoning for adulterers, which was changed afterwords.

not many verses were abrogated/substituted,this was the exception. all of these as far as I know were concerned with punishments, rules and so on, nothing to do with creed.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Thinker,

Many of the points you raise have been addressed at length in other parts of the forum. I hope you will take the time to read such material.

Why does the Qur'an need to be explained:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...nderstand.html

Abrogation:

The issue of naskh [abrogation] has been explained by brother Saheed bin Waheed in an article. This saves me so allow me to cite him:

The English word “abrogation” literally signifies annulment, nullification or cancellation. However, in Islaamic terminology that is used in Glorious Qur’aan, it means expiration of the period of the validity of a practical injunction”. Following are the root letters and words derived from them, with their use in Glorious Qur’aan at four occasion

Readers must know that in Arabic, commonly a noun or a verb has three radical letters. But some nouns and verbs have four or five radical letters. However, many additional letters are added to them in usage.


A radical letter is that which remains intact through all the changes and derivations of the word. An additional letter is that which is subjected to changes in different forms and derivations, as is the case above.



The words, which have three radical letters, are called ath-thulathi (trilateral). Therefore, the occurrence of Naskh نسخ (abrogation) is related only to injunctions that are not eternal and are equal with regard to the possibility of their existence or non-existence.

Abrogation can never be taken to mean that Allaah commanded or prohibited something and then thought better of it and decided to cancel His former command. This is impossible because it involves attributing ignorance to Allaah (Allaah forbid). Also it is not possible for Allaah to command or prohibit something and then without any change in time, subject or conditions to abrogate His injunction since that would lead to attributing imperfection to Allaah. Allaah is FREE of any imperfection whatsoever.


What the Naskh نسخ/Mansookh منسوق signified is that Allaah knows that a certain injunction will remain valid for people up to certain time and then cease to be applicable. When that specific time is reached, a new command is sent which seems to either abrogate or change the former injunction but which, in fact, does nothing but mark the expiration of its validity. Since the former command did not have a specific period of validity attached to it, we take the new injunction as a cancellation of the former.

Example:

An employer might command one of his employees to do certain task with the intention of asking him to do some other task after one year, without, however, disclosing his intention to the employee. After the completion of the year, when employer ask the employee to do the other job, the employee might think that employer have changed or amended his orders, even though it is not the case, in fact, employer has not made any changes or amended his plans. Like all other changing phenomena around us, these apparent changes or amendments in the divine injunction are part of Divine Wisdom, whether we know its significance or not.


Therefore, the literal meaning of Naskh نسخ is replacement of one thing by another thing. Technical meaning from Islaamic point of view is “Lifting the Law of Shariah by reasons of Shariah.”


That is why Allaah (SWT) says in Glorious Qur’aan 16:101:

وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَكَانَ آيَةٍ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا أَنْتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

And when We change a Verse (of the Qur’ân,) in place of another - and Allâh knows best what He sends down - they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سل&#1605 are but a Muftari! (Forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...s-alike-2.html

Also see this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/13...brogation.html

I am talking about later verses in the Qu'ran abrogating earlier verses. And, no it's not just those on inheritance which not only changed during Muhammads lifetime but are still being changed today; why is that - did someone make a mistake!!

Your post here demonstrates that you do not understand the concept of abrogation in the Qur'an at all. One of the conditions of abrogation is that only Allaah (swt) has the right to abrogate any command that originated from Him, either in the Qur'an or through the tongue of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Therefore nothing can be "changed" today as this religion was completed and perfected during the life of the Final Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

And then there's the verse saying nothing that comes later abrogates anything said earlier!!

Please quote me this verse.

This is all I have time for right now.

Peace.

[جوري]

Ah . . . most revered Skye,

I’ve also had posts deleted because they are topics which have already been discussed so I will fight back the urge to start a debate on which way is east and the location of heaven etc.!! And you know I would not take you on in debate because I will lose :smile: That said. . . .

First point I would like to make is that the reason your list is so long and the reason these questions keep coming up is because the text is ambiguous and contradictory.

The text is neither ambiguous nor contradictory.. it is a matter on whether or not you understand the bare minimum. You shouldn't sign up for calculus if you haven't taken remedial math, or worst yet if you don't believe in math as a subject that can govern our life all together?

Next, I did take a quick peak at Inheritance, I looked at the answer given and my notes.

The verse (4:11) in question says:

4:11. God (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance):
to the male, a portion equal to that of two females:
if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half.
For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children;
if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third;
if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth.

Dieing leaving two daughters, two parents and a wife adds up to an impossible one and one sixth i.e. one sixth more than exists.

for starters I don't know what 'dieing' means, there is no such word

The scholars answer to this in your post is . . . . .
The first major point to note is that there are two types of inheritors. The first category are those who have received a fixed inheritance, which includes the spouse and the parents. The second category includes those who take their share AFTER the shares of the first category are distributed. This includes siblings and children.
So if we understand this, we know that the parents and the wife would receive their amount, and the daughters would get a share of what remains.

He is saying that the daughters, two or more, their share is (NOT) two-thirds of the inheritance it is two thirds of what remains after the other get theirs. That is NOT what the verse says! Again, is this another example of the Qu’ran’s ambiguity or did someone make a mistake?

The Quran is giving you the formula, from which you are to derive the correct answers.
No different than you having a continuity equation

from which you are to derive the conservative transport of some kind of quantity. The Quran repeatedly tells you as early as chapter II, that if something is over your head that you seek knowledge from the people of knowledge. Given that the subject deals with math, I am justified in using it as an analogy!

Next (my notes made some time back) show me that the Qur’an mentions nine persons entitled to a share but ‘scholars’ have since added a further three making a total of 12!! Again, is this another example of the Qu’ran’s ambiguity or did someone make a mistake?

Perhaps indeed, and I believe it is you =)

see all the previous replies given you on the matter, I don't want to repeat the same thing over and over, though indeed this does call to mind another member who couldn't understand the concept of lunar calendar being longer than the solar one, quoting me articles and articles, until finally one explained to him that having less days per week makes for more weeks per month.. I still have my doubts he actually walked away understanding the matter..

so in truth I am not sure where you are finding problems with the given explanation?


The Inheritance Law
By : Ansar Al-'Adl

The allegation is as follows: And it just doesn't add up: Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Qur'anic inheritance law. When a man dies, and is leaving behind three daughters, his two parents and his wife, they will receive the respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife [4:12] which adds up to more than the available estate. A second example: A man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters, then they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available property.
The verses mentioned are the following:

4:11-12 Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females; if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left a child; if no child, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. The distribution in all cases (is) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah. and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.

4:176 They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye go astray. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.

1. The first major point to note is that there are two types of inheritors. The first category are those who have recieved a fixed inheritance, which includes the spouse and the parents. The second category includes those who take their share AFTER the shares of the first category are distributed. This includes siblings and children.

So if we understand this, we know that the parents and the wife would recive their amount, and the daughters would get a share of what remains. This explanation on its own solves the problem, because:
-1/3 for the parents together
-1/8 for the wife
-And for the daughters 2/3 of what remains = 2/3 of 13/24=13/36 of the total amount

So what remains after is 13/72 of the original amount. This remaining portion is to be given to whoever the deceased person appointed as their heir. The deceased can choose to have it given in charity or to the local masjid etc. If they have not specified any destination for the remaining wealth then it is given to the closest male relative.

After understanding this, it become clear that the allegation is based on ignorance of the fact that siblings and children get the remaining wealth after the parents and spouse have taken their share. Islamic rulings come from both the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

2. Let us now address the specific claims. The first claim is that 2/3 (daughters) +1/3 (parents) +1/8 (wife) will add up to more than available. But the truth is that the Qur'an does not specify what the parents and the wife will recieve if there are three daughters. The Qur'an states that the parents get 1/6 each if the deceased left a child. And the wife gets 1/8 if the deceased left a child. Both times it is singular, but in the proposed scenario, there are three daughters, not one.
Some confusion may have caused this misunderstanding because in some translations, the word walad (child) is mistranslated as children. But in most translations like Pickthall, Asad, Shakir, Daryabadi, Irving, etc. the word has been correctly translated in the singular form.

3. The second claim is that 1/3 (mother) + 1/4 (wife) + 2/3 (two sisters) also adds up to more than available. Again, one of the shares being used is not mentioned in the Qur'an. The number 2/3 is derived from verse 4:176, which speaks of a Kalalah, a man who leaves no descendants nor ascendants. In other words, the mother's share is not mentioned in this scenario. Verse 4:176 is for the deceased who does not have any children nor parents. So the problem is once again, confusing values from different scenarios.

4. One may also object that in the case of a deceased with no descendants nor ascendants, verse 4:12 appears to allocate 1/6 of the wealth to the brother and sister each (or 1/3 together), while verse 4:176 gives 2/3 to the same group in the same scenario. The first point that may be mentioned in response to this is that verse 4:12 speaks of a brother and a sister, while verse 4:176 speaks of two sisters and no brothers. So again, this is a confusion of two different cases. Secondly, there is a prevalent interpretation mentioned in the tafsir that verse 4:12 speaks of a brother and sister from the mother, while verse 4:176 speaks of full siblings. It is mentioned by Ibn Kathir commenting on verse 4:12:

Allah says,
(But has left a brother or a sister), meaning, from his mother's side, as some of the Salaf stated, including Sa`d bin Abi Waqqas. Qatadah reported that this is the view of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq.

Hence, this was how it was explained by Prophet Muhammad to his companions, and his Sunnah is a source of rulings in Islam. Some commentators take the view that verse 4:12 gives instructions on the inheritance for others that the deceased may nominate.

5. The last point that needs to be mentioned here is in regards to the inheritance of women in comparison to men. Many may wonder why the womna recives half of that given to the man. The answer has been provided by muslim scholars. Ibn Kathir explains in his tafsir:

The people of Jahiliyyah used to give the males, but not the females, a share in the inheritance. Therefore, Allah commands that both males and females take a share in the inheritance, although the portion of the males is twice as much as that of the females. There is a distinction because men need money to spend on their dependants, commercial transactions, work and fulfillling their obligations. Consequently, men get twice the portion of the inheritance that females get.

Dr. Zakir Naik further elaborates:

In Islam a woman has no financial obligation and the economical responsibility lies on the shoulders of the man. Before a woman is married it is the duty of the father or brother to look after the lodging, boarding, clothing and other financial requirements of the woman. After she is married it is the duty of the husband or the son. Islam holds the man financially responsible for fulfilling the needs of his family. In order to do be able to fulfill the responsibility the men get double the share of the inheritance. For example, if a man dies and after giving the shares of other relatives, if the children (i.e one son and one daughter) inherit Rs. One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, the son will inherit One Hundred Thousand rupees and the daughter only Fifty Thousand rupees. Out of the one hundred thousand which the son inherits, as his duty towards his family, he may have to spend on them almost the entire amount or say about eighty thousand and thus he has a small percentage of inheritance, say about twenty thousand, left for himself. On the other hand, the daughter, who inherits fifty thousand, is not bound to spend a single penny on anybody. She can keep the entire amount for herself. Would you prefer inheriting one hundred thousand rupees and spending eighty thousand from it, or inheriting fifty thousand rupees and having the entire amount to yourself?

And an additional explanation is provided by Moiz Amjad:

The Qur'an says:
You know not who among your children and your parents are nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of Allah. Indeed Allah is wise, all knowing.

Obviously, the extent of help and co-operation which a person receives from his parents, children and other close relatives cannot, normally, be paralleled by any other association. Undoubtedly, the world has always considered the kins of a deceased as the rightful beneficiaries of the wealth that he leaves behind. But certain issues, in this regard, have always remained unresolved. For instance, who among the relatives is nearest with respect to the benefits he holds for the deceased, and how should the shares of inheritance be calculated on this basis. It is not that the human endeavour in this regard has fallen prey to lack of application, rather it is due to certain inherrent limitations of the human mind which have made this task beyond its reach. Love, hatred, prejudice and other emotions have made it very difficult for the human intellect to come to grips with this challenge. Consequently, the wise and the all knowing has Himself guided mankind in this regard to relieve them from the disorders which have originated and can originate on this account.

Thus, the basic principle on which the shares of the various relatives of the deceased have been assigned is the benefit that accrues or can accrue from these relations to the deceased.

After having examined the claims, we find that they are built on misunderstandings. The Qur'an does not address the cases mentioned, and the reason is because the Qur'an gives the general details, while the Prophet Muhammad's teachings go in more detail in explaining the Qur'anic concepts. If the reader requires further clarification, they may examine the articles provided at the start.

cheers

[جوري]

Addendum.

Islam - The Quran's Inheritance (f)Law

Expert: Dr. Hussein Labib - 11/21/2005

Question
Quran 4:11 (Yusufali)

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.

Quran 4:12 (Yusufali)

In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.


Let us suppose that a man dies and leaves behind:

3 daughters
2 parents
1 wife
0 debts and legacies

According to the verses stated above these people would get the following shares:

3 daughters ---> 2/3 of the share
2 parents ---> 1/3 of the share (or 1/6 each)
1 wife ---> 1/8 of the share


Do the math: 2/3 + 1/3 + 1/8 = 9/8 = 1.125. The distribution of the property adds up to more than the available property

Answer
my dear imran,a primary school kid can calculate it very simply,also the example mentioned is partially wrong regarding the parents, the mother will inherit 1/6 and the father will take the rest.let us go to your example,assume that the money left is 48000$,the calculation will be as follow :
3 daughters 16/24{2/3} + the mother 4/24{1/6} + wife 3/24{1/8} + the father will take the rest of 24 shares = 1/24.
now each of the 24 shares equals 2000$,accordingly the daughters will inherit 32000${2/3 of 48000 $},the mother will inherit 8000${1/6 of 48000$},the wife will inherit 6000${1/8 of 48000$} and the father will inherit 2000${the rest of inheritance}.
best wishes.

[muslimapoclyptc]

OK so if you agree that some verses are abrogated that poses the question why wasn’t it right first time, God knows everything including the future and he can’t make mistakes?

This is of course assuming that abrogation means that a mistake was made, which isn't necessarily true. It isn't about it being "right" or "wrong". As I said before, as circumstances change, the revelations regarding them get abrogated with better-suited ones. Even though the revelations come from God, they are meant for people.

So if he didn’t destroy the original Bukhari (6:61:510) is not true and the original fraghments are still existence – so where are they?

Actually, in Bukhari 61:510, it says that the original copies were returned to Hafsa after they were copied, and then all the other copies were ordered to be burnt.

Where they are now is anyone's guess.

I believe I read somewhere that punctuation was added later to those old manuscripts.

What was added later (the diatrical marks for example), was to help those unfamilliar with the arabic text, to read it more correctly.

[جوري]

more on the matter as taught in basic mathematics in some U.S colleges

Islamic

Inheritance Mathematics

Description:

This lesson describes how a woman’s estate is divided among her beneficiaries according to Islamic inheritance law. The method involves adding and subtracting fractions which represent the parts of the woman’s estate, keeping in mind that sons receive twice as much as daughters, and a stranger’s share must be paid first.
Curriculum Objectives:

To reinforce the skills of fraction addition, subtraction and multiplication.
To introduce students to complex problem solving.
To expose students to a mathematical process from a non-European culture.
Key Words:

algebra
inheritance
fractions
problem solving
representations
Suggested Use:

Islamic Inheritance Mathematics could be used in a basic skills mathematics, prealgebra or algebra course to use complex problem solving to reinforce the concepts and skills of fraction addition, subtraction and multiplication.

ISLAMIC INHERITANCE

MATHEMATICS

A major Arab mathematician named Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi wrote an influential textbook in about 820 called Hisab al-jabr w’al-muqabala (Calculation by Restoration and Reduction) that is known today as the Algebra. This book was the starting point for Arab work in algebra, and it is credited for giving the subject its name. Al-Khwarizmi was probably born in Soviet Central Asia but he did most of his work in algebra in Baghdad, where he was an astronomer and head of the library at the House of Wisdom.
Al-Kwarizmi was a Muslim and the second half of his book Algebra contains problems about the Islamic law of inheritance. According to the law, when a woman dies her husband receives one-quarter of her estate, and the rest is divided among her children so that a son receives twice as much as a daughter. If the woman chooses to leave money to a stranger, the stranger cannot receive more than one-third of the estate without the approval of the heirs. If only some of the heirs approve, the approving heirs must pay the stranger out of their own shares the amount that exceeds one-third of the estate. Whether approved by all heirs or not, the stranger’s share must be paid before the rest is shared out among the heirs.
Here is an example problem from Al-Kwarizmi’s Algebra:
A woman dies leaving a husband, a son, and three daughters. She also leaves a bequest consisting of 1/8 + 1/7 of her estate to a stranger. She leaves $224,000. Calculate the shares of her estate that go to each of her beneficiaries.
Solution: The stranger receives 1/8 + 1/7 = 15/56 of the estate, leaving 41/56 to be shared out among the family.
The husband receives one-quarter of what remains, or 1/4 of 41/56 = 41/224.
The son and the three daughters receive their shares in the ratio 2:1:1:1 so the son’s share is two fifths of the estate after the stranger and husband have been given their bequests and each daughter’s share is one fifth. (2+1+1+1=5).
If the total estate is $224,000, the shares received by each beneficiary will be:
Stranger: 15/56 of $224,000 = $60,000.
Husband: 41/224 of $224,000 = $41,000.
Son: 2/5 of ($224,000 - 101,000) = $49,200.
Each daughter: 1/5 of ($224,000 - 101,000) = $24,600.
TOTAL = $224,000.

YOUR PROJECT:

1. Solve the following Islamic law inheritance problem.
A woman’s estate totals $72,000. She dies leaving a husband, two sons and two daughters. In her will, she leaves a bequest of 1/9 + 1/6 of her estate to a stranger. Calculate how much of her estate each of her beneficiaries will receive.
2. Write out all of your calculations.
3. Check to make sure your beneficiary sums equal the total estate.
References: Islamic Inheritance Mathematics

Gullberg, Jan. (1997). Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Joseph, George Gheverghese. (1991). The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics. London: Penguin Books.
Nelson, D., Joseph, G. and Williams, J. (1993). Multicultural Mathematics: Teaching Mathematics from a Global Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.



http://www.deltacollege.edu/dept/basicmath/Islamic.htm

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Don't take this as jugment, but If you are still wondering/asking "Why" you may no be ready then.

I expect you are quite right. :)

Peace

[Thinker]

Greetings Thinker,

Many of the points you raise have been addressed at length in other parts of the forum. I hope you will take the time to read such material.

Why does the Qur'an need to be explained:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...nderstand.html

.

Greetings respected adminstrator,

Thank you for your post I will take some time to read through the links.

And, thank you for not deleting my posts in this thread and on that subject I have noticed, over recent weeks, a sharp decline in the number of my posts being deleted I'd like to think that's because you and your colleagues have become to know and accept me as a genuine person and I'd like to thank you for that also.

Respect

[Thinker]

Answer
my dear imran,a primary school kid can calculate it very simply,also the example mentioned is partially wrong regarding the parents, the mother will inherit 1/6 and the father will take the rest.let us go to your example,assume that the money left is 48000$,the calculation will be as follow :
3 daughters 16/24{2/3} + the mother 4/24{1/6} + wife 3/24{1/8} + the father will take the rest of 24 shares = 1/24.
now each of the 24 shares equals 2000$,accordingly the daughters will inherit 32000${2/3 of 48000 $},the mother will inherit 8000${1/6 of 48000$},the wife will inherit 6000${1/8 of 48000$} and the father will inherit 2000${the rest of inheritance}.
best wishes.

Thank you Skye that's a much better answer than the earlier one which (forgive be but) I thought displayed a little anger.

The above answer appears to be coming from a scholar (not that I don't regard you as a scholar)? If so is it your opinion that this answer is or is not at odds with the answer given by the scholar in your post yesterday (the one with the list).

That scholar says the anomaly is answered as follows

The first major point to note is that there are two types of inheritors. The first category are those who have recieved a fixed inheritance, which includes the spouse and the parents. The second category includes those who take their share AFTER the shares of the first category are distributed. This includes siblings and children.

So if we understand this, we know that the parents and the wife would recive their amount, and the daughters would get a share of what remains. This explanation on its own solves the problem, because:
-1/3 for the parents together
-1/8 for the wife
-And for the daughters 2/3 of what remains = 2/3 of 13/24=13/36 of the total amount

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...orious%20Quran

[جوري]

Thank you Skye that's a much better answer than the earlier one which (forgive be but) I thought displayed a little anger.

The above answer appears to be coming from a scholar (not that I don't regard you as a scholar)? If so is it your opinion that this answer is or is not at odds with the answer given by the scholar in your post yesterday (the one with the list).

That scholar says the anomaly is answered as follows

The first major point to note is that there are two types of inheritors. The first category are those who have recieved a fixed inheritance, which includes the spouse and the parents. The second category includes those who take their share AFTER the shares of the first category are distributed. This includes siblings and children.

So if we understand this, we know that the parents and the wife would recive their amount, and the daughters would get a share of what remains. This explanation on its own solves the problem, because:
-1/3 for the parents together
-1/8 for the wife
-And for the daughters 2/3 of what remains = 2/3 of 13/24=13/36 of the total amount

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...orious%20Quran

Greetings.. Thanks for reading

I am not a scholar, one has to go to school to become a scholar in such matters. I might be a scholar in a different field but certainly not religion, that is why I am here so I can learn along with everyone else.

I had to consult with two people about the verse. But the above as explained by Br. Ansar and as you now understand is correct. There was a whole book of mathematics by
Abu Abdullah Muhammed ibn Musa al Khwarizmi - Mathematics and the ...

that deals in great depth with the topic of inheritance according to Islamic Jurisprudence and as you can you see from the previous link that it is also taught in American universities..

Not to be rude or anything but the hateful websites allegation that this isn't proper mathematics are hosted by Hindus and Christians whose only justification to man or cow worship is to find error in Islam where none exists!

peace

[Grace Seeker]

Bs'd

How do we know that the Koran is true, and not the Jewish or Christian Bible, or the book of Mormon, or whatever other holy book of any religion?

this is a question i put to christians all the time when doing the da'wah stall (da'wah means invitation to islam) because they qoute the bible, we qoute the Quran.

how do we know which book is true when they differ on so many different matters?

many books claim to be the book of God, but how can we independently varify which is a true book of God and which not?

the book itself saying it is true is not in itself a proof, that is totally circular in reasoning. so we have to have something other than this.

so could we just see if we agree, the creator does not lie, the creator does not make mistakes. do we agree with these two ideas?

if we do then it becomes easier to varify which is the true book of God as it should therefore have no contradictions or mistakes in it.

If you accept that God writes books that would be one strategy. The problem with this is that many people do not accept that premise.

if a book claims to be the true book of God then it would therefore be without flaw or contradiction, as only God is perfect, only God is capable of writing a book without flaws.

This assumes that God is also not desiring to deceive people. What if God did desire to deceive people, then might he not write a book filled with errors or half truths? Or do you contend that God would never try to deceive people into believing something was true that was not in fact true?

[Chuck]

This assumes that God is also not desiring to deceive people. What if God did desire to deceive people, then might he not write a book filled with errors or half truths? Or do you contend that God would never try to deceive people into believing something was true that was not in fact true?

Why would God fill a scripture with errors? He can give responsibility to an ummah, and ummah may not be able to fulfill the responsibility to protect scripture, but this is not God filling scripture with errors.

Some Christians said to me that saving Jesus(pbuh) was deception too as in the Quran, but to quietly save a life of a person and filling scripture with errors on purpose are two completely different things.

[Grace Seeker]

Why would God fill a scripture with errors?

I didn't say that God did. But Dawud_uk left attempted to provide an analysis of what God must have done, which was only valid if we presuppose that God is not one to deceive us. I hardly think that God would intentionally deceive either. But I didn't want to make that assumption on Dawud's behalf, and was hoping that he might speak for himself on the matter.

But since he is not here, what do you say. Would God intentionally deceive people?

Notice I did not ask just about the book that God would give to people, but about God's character as to whether we could trust not just the book he might give us, but any other acts that God might do as well to be equally non-deceptive.

[Chuck]

Well, I gave you my answer that God would not purposely fill errors a scripture. But it is possible God can deceive as a punishment. What you make of following verse in the bible?

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be ****ed who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-12&version=9;

[Grace Seeker]

Well, I gave you my answer that God would not purposely fill errors a scripture. But it is possible God can deceive as a punishment. What you make of following verse in the bible?

I see your point. I had not considered that before. Seems out of character from what I know about God as revealed in the rest of scripture, but it is very plain that God is actually causing people to believe a lie, albiet as punishment for refusing to believe the truth, but still God brings this on them as a divine act in their lives. Very interesting.

[Azy]

I see your point. I had not considered that before. Seems out of character from what I know about God as revealed in the rest of scripture, but it is very plain that God is actually causing people to believe a lie, albiet as punishment for refusing to believe the truth, but still God brings this on them as a divine act in their lives. Very interesting.

Forgive me if I've missed something simple here but if they weren't believing the truth then they were already believing a lie before God 'punished' them with it.

[Grace Seeker]

Forgive me if I've missed something simple here but if they weren't believing the truth then they were already believing a lie before God 'punished' them with it.

In the passage that Chuck referenced, the punishment was to give them over to that lie they were believing so that they are now prevented from finding the truth even if they were to decide the wanted to. In other words, since they loved the lie, let them live and die in it. God doesn't cause them to love the lie initially, but eventually does condemn them to it for perpetuity.

[Chuck]

In the passage that Chuck referenced, the punishment was to give them over to that lie they were believing so that they are now prevented from finding the truth even if they were to decide the wanted to. In other words, since they loved the lie, let them live and die in it. God doesn't cause them to love the lie initially, but eventually does condemn them to it for perpetuity.

Just a Correction: it doesn't say God won't guide them again if they repent and want to find the truth. It just says that Gods make them go deeper as a punishment and their lies become true to them. My be not the best explanation but you may get my point.

Similar passage is in the Quran chapter 2:

002.008

Muhsin Khan: And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day" while in fact they believe not.

Yusuf Ali: Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.

Sahih International: And of the people are some who say, "We believe in Allah and the Last Day," but they are not believers.



002.009

Muhsin Khan: They (think to) deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, and perceive (it) not!

Yusuf Ali: Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!

Sahih International: They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not.



002.010

Muhsin Khan: In their hearts is a disease (of doubt and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease. A painful torment is theirs because they used to tell lies.

Yusuf Ali: In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).

Sahih International: In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.



002.011

Muhsin Khan: And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers."

Yusuf Ali: When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"

Sahih International: And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."



002.012

Muhsin Khan: Verily! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not.

Yusuf Ali: Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.

Sahih International: Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.



002.013

Muhsin Khan: And when it is said to them (hypocrites): "Believe as the people (followers of Muhammad Peace be upon him , Al-Ansar and Al-Muhajirun) have believed," they say: "Shall we believe as the fools have believed?" Verily, they are the fools, but they know not.

Yusuf Ali: When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.

Sahih International: And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Should we believe as the foolish have believed?" Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it] not.



002.014

Muhsin Khan: And when they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe," but when they are alone with their Shayatin (devils - polytheists, hypocrites, etc.), they say: "Truly, we are with you; verily, we were but mocking."

Yusuf Ali: When they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe;" but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: "We are really with you: We (were) only jesting."

Sahih International: And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We believe"; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, "Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers."



002.015

Muhsin Khan: Allah mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly.

Yusuf Ali: Allah will throw back their mockery on them, and give them rope in their trespasses; so they will wander like blind ones (To and fro).

Sahih International: [But] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly.



002.016

Muhsin Khan: These are they who have purchased error for guidance, so their commerce was profitless. And they were not guided.

Yusuf Ali: These are they who have bartered Guidance for error: But their traffic is profitless, and they have lost true direction,

Sahih International: Those are the ones who have purchased error [in exchange] for guidance, so their transaction has brought no profit, nor were they guided.



002.017

Muhsin Khan: Their likeness is as the likeness of one who kindled a fire; then, when it lighted all around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness. (So) they could not see.

Yusuf Ali: Their similitude is that of a man who kindled a fire; when it lighted all around him, Allah took away their light and left them in utter darkness. So they could not see.

Sahih International: Their example is that of one who kindled a fire, but when it illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness [so] they could not see.