PDA

View Full Version : Islam is not a new religion



Insaanah
11-10-2010, 11:02 PM
Following on from this post: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1383162 , which I feel needs replying to from an Islamic prespective, I am creating this new thread here so as not to derail that thread. I am not sure where this should go, so if mods think it is better suited elsewhere, please feel free to move it.

Originally Posted by truth finder
Sometimes I meet and talk with some believers from fake Christianity. Some of the well-known such religions are Jehovah’s Witness and Mormons. I just want to talk about their familiar tactics, but this is also true with many other religions in the world. They accept part of the Bible and regard Jesus as one of the prophets, but not as a divine being. Since they have some overlap with the original belief, they have some foundation to start with. But because their religion is based on the previous belief (Christianity in this case), they lack their own unique origin. In order to compensate their lack of originality, they had to write their own scripture that is claimed to be the final revelation of God. In order to establish and justify their new religion, they also had to propose their own prophet who is claimed to be the final prophet of God. Their scripture and their prophet are claimed to be superior to the previous (the Bible and Jesus in this case). As a result, in order to promote their religion as the best religion in the world and to hide their sense of inferiority, they have to spend a lot of time and effort in attacking the original scripture and its belief instead of focusing on their own new religion. It is like a dirty trick in election. If a candidate realizes he/she cannot win the election with the policy, all he/she does is to damage the image of the opponent by criticizing everything negatively. It is like a foul scheme in coup d’état (coup in short). In order to establish their legitimacy, all they do is to damage the previous regime falsely for corruption and impurity for which they claim to be the solution.

This is not restricted only to Jehovah’s Witness and its cousins, but also to many other religions in the world. We have seen this familiar behaviour numerous times since Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago. Please take a moment to examine which religions belong to this class, namely, writing their own scripture and/or setting up their own prophet claiming the final word and/or prophet of God, and accusing the previous belief for corrupting the previous scripture to justify their new religion. To be honest with you, I would be very likely to follow the same tactic if I want to start a new religion, because history shows it has been working well.
I am glad you are not talking about Islam here, because Islam is not a new religion, but the religion that always has been. All the prophets of God came telling people to worship one God, and to associate none in His Divinity. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (peace be upon them all), and all the Prophets before them; none of them preached that God begot a son, or is part of a trinity. This has been unheard of. Then according to Christian belief, when Jesus (peace be upon him) came, God suddenly decided to announce to people that he had begotten some offspring, and was part of a trinity, amongst other things.

So, you can see it is not Islam that is new, but current day Christianity.

Islam comes confirming the message that always has been, that there is One God, with no associates whatsoever in His Divinity, and that we should obey the Messenger of the time. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the final messenger of God to all mankind till the end of time, and what he brought is unchanged and untampered with, and must be followed til the Day of Judgement.

We believe that prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) came to preach the same message that Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) had preached before him, and not to alter or abolish it. All the Prophets (peace be upon them) preached the same message that God had sent them to preach; to worship One God. The message didn't suddenly change when it came to Jesus (peace be upon him), with a trinity or God suddenly begetting offspring. The message is and was what it always has been, since the time of Prophet Adam (peace be upon him), the same message given to all the Prophets, culminating in the final Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him), namely to worship One God, with no associates whatsoever in His Divinity, and to follow the guidance God has sent.

We are saying to you, come closer to Jesus's original teachings, and the message that God sent him with, not the erroneous beliefs of people who never met him and came years after. The scripture that God gave Jesus (peace be upon him) was God's word. But Christians themselves admit that the Bible we have with us now is not the word of God, but mainly the word of man, and that some parts are written by people that never met Jesus (peace be upon him) and some parts, I think no one really knows exactly who wrote. The Qur'an confirms the original message of the scripture given to Jesus (peace be upon him) by God.

We believe in One, Eternal, Immortal, Indivisible God, with no sons, daughters, brothers, cousins, grandparents or any other relatives . A God who does not beget, nor is He begotten. The same message, given to all the Prophets from the beginning of time. No inconsistencies in the message.

Sure you have to have an element of faith, but by the same token, God does not ask us to believe insensible or disrespectful things about His nature.

Originally Posted by truth finder
If a candidate realizes he/she cannot win the election with the policy, all he/she does is to damage the image of the opponent by criticizing everything negatively. It is like a foul scheme in coup d’état (coup in short). In order to establish their legitimacy, all they do is to damage the previous regime falsely for corruption and impurity for which they claim to be the solution.
I believe that we do not need to that. The beauty and simplicity of Islam doesn't need that to be done.

However, we are saying to Christians, think outside your comfort zone and what you have been taught to believe. Think objectively. Look at God's message to mankind from the beginning of time. All we call to, is a return to the message of God, sent via his Messengers (including Jesus, peace be upon them all), and not any new message that differs from it.

Originally Posted by truth finder
they had to write their own scripture that is claimed to be the final revelation of God.
The Qur'an is the final book of God, to all mankind. It is 100% the word of God. There is no human author. Not a letter has changed. There are no versions. There are no contradictions. It is scientifically sound, as would be expected from the Creator of the universe. It confirms the original message that God sent in the earlier divinely revealed scriptures. Verses from the Qur'an are not to be afraid of. They are there, as Allah says, to confirm what was in the earlier scriptures that He sent, and to guide.

I hope that clarifies things for you regarding Islam.

Peace.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Perseveranze
11-11-2010, 12:43 AM
I wouldn't want Jesus(pbuh) or anyone to die for all my sins... Talk about a guilt trip.

Not to mention, if I knew someone else was taking the fall for all my mistakes, why would I bother changing my negative character or bother correcting my mistakes? Really does kind of give (in a moral sense) a bad message accross.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-11-2010, 03:47 AM
truthfnder said :
This is not restricted only to Jehovah’s Witness and its cousins, but also to many other religions in the world. We have seen this familiar behaviour numerous times since Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago. Please take a moment to examine which religions belong to this class, namely, writing their own scripture and/or setting up their own prophet claiming the final word and/or prophet of God, and accusing the previous belief for corrupting the previous scripture to justify their new religion. To be honest with you, I would be very likely to follow the same tactic if I want to start a new religion, because history shows it has been working well
Clearly, truthfinder's statement is not based on reality. (it actually makes me wonder if ANY christian has clear mind and able to see reality instead of trying to justify a human-god)
"JW and it's cousins" are not very popular (compared to other forms of christianity), so truthfinder's assertion that JW's tactic work well is extremely misplaced.

You know how to make your religion very popular during the time of roman and greek?

the teaching of Jesus pbuh was clearly not very popular, even among his own people, let alone the roman rulers.
Even when he left earth, his teachings who tried to correct the ways of the lost sheep of israel was still not popular, despite his miracles and so on.
His true followers were living difficult life from oppression.
the message of Monotheistm by jesus pbuh certainly did not sit well with the pervasive paganism of latin and greek society who worship human gods/goddeses

But then some rabbis and priests decided to tweak with jesus' real teachings to make it popular among the gentiles.
They decided that the laws that Jesus taught and religiously followed were no longer applicable to the gentiles
They changed and reinterpreted jesus' sayings and departure to elevate jesus pbuh into divine god-like being
They did not know what to do with the holy spirit, so they made it divine too, thus conforming with the trio gods of existing pagan religions of latin and greek.
Only after jesus made into god status and a trio of gods were formulated, christianity became extremely popular among the romans and greeks.

So truthfinder, that is the "tactic" and "recipe" to make Jesus' monotheist teaching into "hot" and "popular" among the pagans and deceived.
Reply

Hiroshi
11-13-2010, 08:17 AM
Originally Posted by Insaanah
The Qur'an is the final book of God, to all mankind. It is 100% the word of God. There is no human author. Not a letter has changed. There are no versions. There are no contradictions. It is scientifically sound, as would be expected from the Creator of the universe.
I certainly applaud the Islamic stand in rejecting the false trinity doctrine (Surah 4:171; Surah 5:73). But I do not find the Qur'an to be scientifically sound.

Surah 86:5-7, for example, tells us that human semen issues "from between the loins and the ribs". (Pickthal) That is not correct.
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Trumble
11-13-2010, 08:35 AM
Don't start that again! :hmm: You'll find someone will come up with a 'refutation' (I seem to recall it was some rather desperate and irrelevant waffle about the development of testes in the embryo) that will convince believers in 'Qur'anic science' but nobody else.

No religious work is 'scientifically sound' when subjected to objective analysis, including those of both your religion and mine. The whole point of religious works is to address the stuff that science can't!
Reply

Perseveranze
11-13-2010, 02:13 PM
Originally Posted by Hiroshi
I certainly applaud the Islamic stand in rejecting the false trinity doctrine (Surah 4:171; Surah 5:73). But I do not find the Qur'an to be scientifically sound.

Surah 86:5-7, for example, tells us that human semen issues "from between the loins and the ribs". (Pickthal) That is not correct.
Read this, it's a good post -

[B]Mohammad Ridzuwan
فَلْيَنظُرِ الإِنسَـنُ مِمَّ خُلِقَ
So, let man see from what he is created!

خُلِقَ مِن مَّآء دَافِقٍ
He is created from a water gushing forth

يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَآئِبِ
Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

(Quran 86:5-7)

__________________________________________________ ____________


>> Semen is composed of water and contains every needed nutrients for human body uses. Do you honestly think human testicles have the ability to produce all these nutrients needed? 95-98% of the components of semen are contributed from these glands:

Seminal vesicle (65-75%) >> amino acids, citrate, enzymes, flavins, fructose, phosphorylcholine, prostaglandins, proteins, vitamin C
Prostate gland (25-30%) >> acid phosphatase, citric acid, fibrinolysin, prostate specific antigen, proteolytic enzymes, zinc

Where is the location of these glands?
Between the spine and the rib cage!!!

You may want to see the diagram here for better understanding:
sydneyivf.com/Portals/0/images/male_repro.gif

And use your imagination to compile the above image into this diagram:
niadivas.com/files/067-Spine.jpg

To know more about semen composition and production, read more here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semen#Composition_of_human_semen


>> For your information, modern science has succeeded in recognizing the ability of human bone marrow (males') to produce sperm cells. The research was conducted by the researchers from the Universities of Göttingen and Münster and the Medical School of Hannover lead by Professor Karim Nayernia, an Iranian biomedical scientist and a world expert on stem cell biology. The news was publicized in 1997, 13 years ago.

Read more about it here:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6547675.stm


>> Another interesting fact to be noted here, the semen emission process and ejaculation process are still in harmony with the above Quran verses.

The emission process of semen is mediated by the sympathetic nervous system arising in the spinal cord at the thoracic 10 (ribs) to lumbar 2 (backbone) vertebra level. And the ejaculation process is mediated both by parasympathetic nervous system in sacral vertebra (image below) and somatic nervous system via pudendal nerve (the image is below).

Human sacral vertebra image:
dartmouth.edu/~humananatomy/figures/chapter_31/31-7_files/IMAGE002.JPG

Pudendal nerve image:
tipna.org/info/anatomical_images/ComparisonOfPudendalNerveDrawings.jpgp/color]


I recommend you to read this book for further detail:
amazon.com/Practical-Guide-Complete-Interpretation-Analysis/dp/0521799570
Reply

Hiroshi
11-13-2010, 02:47 PM
Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Read this, it's a good post -
A much simpler explanation is the fact that seventh century physicians wrongly believed that semen came from the kidneys. Human spermatozoa is produced only in the testicles. During sexual intercourse they don't "gush forth" or swim down from between the spine and the rib cage. Clever explanation though.
Reply

جوري
11-13-2010, 03:10 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Don't start that again! :hmm: You'll find someone will come up with a 'refutation' (I seem to recall it was some rather desperate and irrelevant waffle about the development of testes in the embryo) that will convince believers in 'Qur'anic science' but nobody else.

No religious work is 'scientifically sound' when subjected to objective analysis, including those of both your religion and mine. The whole point of religious works is to address the stuff that science can't!
Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Surah 86:5-7, for example, tells us that human semen issues "from between the loins and the ribs". (Pickthal) That is not correct.
Originally Posted by Hiroshi
A much simpler explanation is the fact that seventh century physicians wrongly believed that semen came from the kidneys. Human spermatozoa is produced only in the testicles. During sexual intercourse they don't "gush forth" or swim down from between the spine and the rib cage. Clever explanation though.

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun on Semen Production in the Noble Quran
by
Dr. Munir Munshey



This article is located at: http://www.--------------.org/Quran/...production.htm

And it is authored by Mr. Sam Shamoum


HE WRITES:

Since the verse is speaking of the moment of adult reproduction it can't be talking about the time of embryonic development. Moreover, since 'sulb' is being used in conjunction with 'gushing fluid', which can only be physical; and 'tara'ib' which is another physical word for chest or thorax or ribs, it can't be euphemistic. Therefore, we are left with the very real problem that the semen is coming from the back or kidney area and not the testicles.
The Quran implies that semen production takes place in the kidney or back area:

"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:" S. 86:5-7

My Response:

Did you notice the spin?

The Quran does not mention 'semen production' in verses 86:5-7. Nor anywhere else!
Another spin!

Verses 86:5-7 do not mention 'kidney'. Nor does any other verse! No such word in the Quran.

The Quran simply states that man is created from the ejaculated fluid, which is emitted from within the abdomen. (From "between the ribcage and the spine")

No mention of 'semen production' or 'kidneys'

Mr. Shamoum emphasized this sentence:

"Therefore, we are left with the very real problem that the semen is coming from the back or kidney area and not the testicles."
Does the above sentence not suggest that Mr. Shamoum thinks semen comes from the testicles? He seems to criticize the fact that the Quran disagrees with that!
One wonders! Does Mr. Shamoum think the semen is produced in the testicles? Or does he think that the semen comes from the testicles during coitus?
It does not matter! He would be wrong whether he meant the former, or the later!
Semen DOES NOT COME from the testicles, period! It is neither produced in the testicles, nor does it come from the testicles during the time of coitus!

And that is a scientific fact! Thirteen centuries ago even the scientific community thought that semen is produced in the testicles. A pity! Mr. Shamoum thinks so even today.

The semen contains many things. Between 95 to 98% of it consists of fructose, prostaglandin hormones, metal and salt ions, lipids, steroid hormones, enzymes, basic amines, and amino acids. All those are produced from the glands located in abdomen. Between 2 to 5% of it consists of the sperms produced in the testicles.

Does the Quran say the semen is produced in the kidneys?

Absolutely not!

It says simply that man is created from the liquid that is ejaculated. During coitus that liquid springs from the abdomen ("between the ribcage and the spine"). That is a scientific fact!

1400 years ago, even doctors thought semen springs from the testicles during coitus. They were wrong of course! Recent discoveries have proven them wrong!

Semen is stored in vesicles that lie in the abdomen. From there it is ejaculated during coitus. Lay people still think that the ejaculate comes from the testicles.

The Quran does not say where semen is produced. Just where it comes from during coitus!

In fact, if the Quran had said that the semen is produced in the abdomen, ("between the ribcage and the spine"), and not the testicles, it would still be accurate. At least 95 to 98% accurate! Only 2-5% of the semen is contributed by the testicles. The rest is produced in the glands located in the pelvic cavity.

But the Quran does not say where the semen is produced, because the Quran is not 98% accurate. It is 100% ACCURATE!

What does the Quran really say?

Question: What is it that man is created from? Answer:

(He is) created from the surging fluid! 87:6

The Exact Arabic words are just four: "Khuliqa minm Maain Daafiq"

Khuliqa = created ; Minm = from

Maain = liquid, fluid, juice, water ; Daafiq = anything that flows out, gushes out, pours out, wells out, sheds. (From the Hans Wehr Arabic to English Dictionary)

The Standard Arabic to Arabic dictionaries also mention: anything that surges or bounces. For instance a "daafiq" ball would be a "bouncing ball"

"Maain Daafiq" is a surging fluid, gushing water, the liquid that pours out, or any combination of the words for "maain" and "daafiq" mentioned above.

Famous translators have rendered these four words as:

"Created from a drop emitted" (Yusuf Ali). "Created from a gushing fluid" (Pickthal). "Water pouring forth" (Shakir). "Created from a fluid poured forth" (Zafraullah khan). "Spurt of water" (Hamidullah).
Arabic speakers can really appreciate the beauty of these four words!

The Quran does not use the word 'sperm', nor the word 'semen', nor does it say anything about the production of semen or sperm.

The emphasis is clearly on the word 'daafiq', the surging, the welling out, the pouring forth, the shedding, and the flowing out of the fluid.

Simply put, it is the ejaculate that fertilizes. And that is the simple truth. The simple scientific truth!
Please do not wave away this poignant statement!

Can the Sperm alone fertilize the human ovum?

Sperm alone cannot even move very well. They need energy to swim to the egg and penetrate it. That is provided by fructose, a sugar produced by the seminal vesicles.

Prostaglandin hormones are needed to suppress an immune response by the female against the foreign semen.

Zinc is needed to stabilize the DNA of the sperms.

Metal and salt ions are needed to make the pH of the vaginal cavity favorable for the sperm to survive.
Lipids, steroid hormones, enzymes, basic amines, and amino acids are also needed to perform vital functions.

The ejaculated fluid has all that is needed, including the sperms (2-5% sperms, 95-98% other ingredients). The statement of the Quran is absolutely correct!

Where does the semen spring from during coitus?

During coitus semen is ejaculated from the two storage areas called the seminal vesicles, and NOT FROM THE TESTICLES.

Let man look at (and bear in mind) the substance he is created from! (He is) created from the surging fluid, which springs from between the spine and the ribs! 86:5-7

What is definitely excluded is the scrotal pouch, which is below the spine! Semen does not spring from there during coitus!

Also excluded is the thorax, since it is not between the ribcage and the spine, but is rather inside the ribcage.
The area not excluded is the abdomen and the pelvic cavity! The Quran is 100% correct. Semen is stored in the seminal vesicles to be ejaculated during coitus.

The exact words of the Quran

The exact Arabic words: Bain usSulbe watTaraib
Sulb = backbone, loin, lower back; Taraib = ribs, breastbone, chest.
Bain = between, among, amidst

It is a phrase in Arabic that is similar to the English phrase, "somewhere between the front and the back"
It would mean that the semen springs from "somewhere between the front and the back" of the body. In other words, somewhere from inside the body!

If one was to insist upon the literal meaning, one would still find that the Quran is 100% correct literally, too. The seminal vesicles are anterior to the sacrum and coccyx (lower back, loin) and the ribs are anterior to the seminal vesicles.

If one was to draw a line from the tip of the coccyx, to the upper portion of the seminal vesicle _ either one of the two_ and extend the line forward it will catch the ribcage.

The seminal vesicles from which the semen spurts out during coitus, lies between the ribs and the coccyx!
(He is) created from the surging fluid! Which springs from between the spine and the ribs! 86:6-7

Why does the Quran simply not say, Abdominal cavity?

Only a creator of the universe can reveal words that remain precise and accurate for thousands of years even in this changing world. Every generation feels as if the Quran was revealed specifically for them, and only yesterday.
That is the miracle of the Quran! Its words seem always to be in agreement with what science has observed and determined with certainty.

An example!

The Quran asked the believers to say the following before mounting a horse, a camel or any other animal.

"Supreme is He Who tamed this for us. We could not have done it (otherwise). And we are certainly going to return to our Lord!" 43:13-14

When we get aboard a plane we get a feeling that these words were revealed in the jet age! The above is just a translation. The original Arabic words are more poignant!

The statements of the Quran about the creation of the world, and about the relativity of time and space are amazingly the modern concepts.

People in the seventh century AD had their own ideas about how human beings are conceived. Ibn Ishaq and others who lived in those times found the words of the Quran in compliance with the scientific knowledge of their time.

Ibn Kathir, was a scholar of the 13th century AD, and scientific perceptions had changed by then. The wordings of the Quran still seemed in sync with the latest scientific knowledge of his time.

Dr. Bucaille, a non-Muslim scholar was amazed at what he found in the Quran.

In the modern times we find the words of the Marvelous Majestic Quran amazingly in agreement with the 21st century knowledge.

That is possible because the words of the Quran exist exactly as revealed. The language of the Quran is alive and well! It is one of the six official languages of the United Nations. The original language of the bible was Aramaic which is dead as a doornail.

The Hindu and the Buddhist scriptures were originally written in languages whose names too have been forgotten!

Poetic license?

No literature in any language can equal the diction and eloquence of the Quran! It has rhythm, meter, and a sing-song quality. Yet it is not the work of a poet!

Poets achieve excellence by resorting to exaggeration. The Quran achieved the highest standard of eloquence and diction without any exaggeration. Everything is literally accurate!

That is what fills the believer with confidence. Just like the discourse of the Quran about the matters of this life, its description of the afterlife HAS TO BE just as accurate

Consider chapter 86 of the Quran (surah Najam).

This chapter has 17 very short verses; each verse has between 2 to 6 words. They have a rhythm and meter, and they rhyme in a specific manner. Yet the subject discussed is so profound! The Quran does not stray one bit from its message.

This is the subject matter of the 86th chapter, a total of less than 65 words in Arabic.

In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent
By the sky, and the night star! How would you know what the night star is? A bright star! There is no soul without a guardian over it. Let man look at the substance he is created from! Created from the surging fluid which springs from between the spine and the ribs! Indeed, He is capable of bringing man back to life (after his death).

That day secrets would be laid bare. (That day) man shall have neither strength, nor any helpers. (I swear) by the sky that repeatedly sends rain down. And by the earth that splits (and lets plants emerge). Indeed, this Qur'an is the statement that sifts (right from wrong). It is not an idle tale! They are hatching a nefarious plot. But I, too, shall devise a scheme! So give the unbelievers a little respite. Deal with them gently for a while.

Remember, this is just a translation! The original words can put a believer in an ecstatic state.
Mr. Shamoum quoted the translation of just about 15 of these words. These words ask you to look at how insignificant is the beginning of man. Would God have any difficulty resurrecting such an insignificant being?
The entire world of diction and eloquence should fall prostrate before these words! Leave aside the rest of the verses in that chapter, or the rest of the chapters of the Quran!

That is not an exaggeration either.



Return to Homepage

________________________________

On a separate note are you an embryologist/anatomist a linguist and a doctor? You really ought to get your knowledge from books, not answering Islam!
Reply

جوري
11-13-2010, 03:26 PM
an addendum to the above:
يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَائِبِ (86:7)
Basit - Hussari - Minshawi
Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttaraibi
Topics discussed in this Verse:
[Man:creation of]

86:7 (Asad) issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman]. [3] -


Note 3 (Quran Ref: 86:7 ) 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).(Quran Ref: 86:7 )

http://www.islamicity.com/quranSearch

So no matter how it is sliced it is absolutely 100% accurate.

You know what I find to be 'waffle' and 'not scientifically sound' People who are neither versed in the Quran, Science, language, history. exegesis-- coming and sharing their beliefs which has no foundation no proof or certainty and with such bravado. I'd do some extensive research lest I end up embarrassing myself and humiliating myself so publicly. Reminds me of the other christian fellow who stated that the sun is stationary, I mean even if you disliked the Quran so, at least keep yourself abreast of modern science so you are not perceived as some medieval git who is unable to take himself outside the beliefs they held in the christian dark ages!
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-13-2010, 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Don't start that again! :hmm: You'll find someone will come up with a 'refutation' (I seem to recall it was some rather desperate and irrelevant waffle about the development of testes in the embryo) that will convince believers in 'Qur'anic science' but nobody else.

No religious work is 'scientifically sound' when subjected to objective analysis, including those of both your religion and mine. The whole point of religious works is to address the stuff that science can't!
Why don't you simply write out the sentence, "I have closed my mind to the matter and will not be convinced by anything," and just be direct and honest about it?
Reply

Hiroshi
11-14-2010, 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


On a separate note are you an embryologist/anatomist a linguist and a doctor? You really ought to get your knowledge from books, not answering Islam!
You quoted Answering Islam. I didn't.


Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


Let man look at (and bear in mind) the substance he is created from! (He is) created from the surging fluid, which springs from between the spine and the ribs! 86:5-7

What is definitely excluded is the scrotal pouch, which is below the spine! Semen does not spring from there during coitus!

Also excluded is the thorax, since it is not between the ribcage and the spine, but is rather inside the ribcage.
The area not excluded is the abdomen and the pelvic cavity! The Quran is 100% correct. Semen is stored in the seminal vesicles to be ejaculated during coitus.

The exact words of the Quran

The exact Arabic words: Bain usSulbe watTaraib
Sulb = backbone, loin, lower back; Taraib = ribs, breastbone, chest.
Bain = between, among, amidst

It is a phrase in Arabic that is similar to the English phrase, "somewhere between the front and the back"
It would mean that the semen springs from "somewhere between the front and the back" of the body. In other words, somewhere from inside the body!

If one was to insist upon the literal meaning, one would still find that the Quran is 100% correct literally, too. The seminal vesicles are anterior to the sacrum and coccyx (lower back, loin) and the ribs are anterior to the seminal vesicles.

If one was to draw a line from the tip of the coccyx, to the upper portion of the seminal vesicle _ either one of the two_ and extend the line forward it will catch the ribcage.
The seminal vesicle is nowhere near the ribcage.
Reply

جوري
11-14-2010, 06:52 PM
Originally Posted by Hiroshi
You quoted Answering Islam. I didn't.
Actually you did, whatever 'answering Islam' posts is circulated amongst the ignorant.. and you know how I can tell of your ignorance?


The seminal vesicle is nowhere near the ribcage.
because you didn't even bother read what was posted here:

Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
an addendum to the above:
يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَائِبِ (86:7)
Basit - Hussari - Minshawi
Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttaraibi
Topics discussed in this Verse:
[Man:creation of]

86:7 (Asad) issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman]. [3] -


Note 3 (Quran Ref: 86:7 ) 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).(Quran Ref: 86:7 )

http://www.islamicity.com/quranSearch

So no matter how it is sliced it is absolutely 100% accurate.

You know what I find to be 'waffle' and 'not scientifically sound' People who are neither versed in the Quran, Science, language, history. exegesis-- coming and sharing their beliefs which has no foundation no proof or certainty and with such bravado. I'd do some extensive research lest I end up embarrassing myself and humiliating myself so publicly. Reminds me of the other christian fellow who stated that the sun is stationary, I mean even if you disliked the Quran so, at least keep yourself abreast of modern science so you are not perceived as some medieval git who is unable to take himself outside the beliefs they held in the christian dark ages!


you'd do yourself a great service reading before writing.. what do you think?

all the best
Reply

جوري
11-14-2010, 07:02 PM
further reading for the Muslims:

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...tml#post565501

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
To quote IslamToday fatwâ committee: It is inconceivable that the true word of Allah could ever contradict scientific fact, since the universe is Allah's creation, and Allah fully knows what He created. A Muslim, when faced with what appears to be a contradiction between the Qur’ân and a scientific fact knows there can only be two possibilities: 1. That which is being construed as a scientific “fact” is not in actuality a fact. 2. The verse that is being construed as being in conflict with science is being misinterpreted, misapplied, or misunderstood. Any claim being made that there is a contradiction between science and the Qur’ân has to be evaluated individually. The factuality of the scientific claim needs to be assessed as well as the true meaning of the verse that is supposedly at variance with it. It is an inarguable fact that sperm is created in the testicles. Therefore, we must make sure we are understanding these verses correctly. We must look carefully at the verses to ascertain exactly what the Qur’ân is saying and – more importantly – what it is not saying. There are some serious problems with this translation and the assumptions made therein. To begin with, these verses say nothing whatsoever about the creation of sperm or the creation of anything else. Consequently, they do not inform us of where the creation of sperm takes place. They merely say that the substances under discussion come out form the places being described. The word being used is “yakhruj” meaning “to exit, leave, come out, emerge”. It in no way implies anything related to creation or origination. Secondly, the phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.” Thirdly, the words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman, which is the area of her chest.” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary. Moreover, the word “sulb” should not necessarily be translated as “backbone”. This word has many possible meanings and backbone is only one of them. It is also quite commonly used to mean the loins of a man. This is how it is used elsewhere in the Qur’ân. Allah says: “Prohibited to you (for marriage) are…wives of your sons proceeding from your loins (aslâb, the plural of sulb).” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 23] There can be no problem with sperm coming out from the area of a man's loins. Likewise, when we look at the word being translated as “ribs” (tarâ’ib, the plural of tarîbah) we find that it is used linguistically for the general are of the chest and the abdomen. In al-Qâmûs, the famous classical dictionary of al-Fayrûzabâdî it is defined as a number of things: “the bones of the chest or what comes after the two collarbones or what comes between the collarbones and the chest or the four ribs to the right of the chest or the four ribs to the left of the chest or the hands, eyes and feet or the collarbones.” Some Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and some Successors had also provided many possible meanings, like the lower ribs and al-Dahhâk’s statement that it is the area between the breasts and feet and the eyes (a mere indication of centrality). This word clearly has a very broad and diverse definition. It is so ambiguous a word that the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) could not give it a precise definition. Scholars of Qur’ânic commentary have consistently admitted to there being at least three different possible meanings for this word as it is used in the verse. This is an admission that they do not know for certain what the tarâ’ib are, except that they generally agree it refers to an area of the woman’s body. It can apply to any region nearing the ribcage. Therefore, the area of the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, or the uterus can easily fit into the general area that is being indicated by these verses. What we are dealing with here is a gross error in translation and not a scientific error at all. This should answer your question. It should be noted that there are other explanations and interpretations of these verses that Muslim writers and scholars have proposed, of which we have quoted some here: http://www.islamicboard.com/152142-post6.html As for your studies on Islam, we highly encourage you make use of the excellent resources listed here: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...resources.html (Studying Islam - List of Resources) If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask. Regards
Reply

Hiroshi
11-15-2010, 09:04 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

because you didn't even bother read what was posted here:





you'd do yourself a great service reading before writing.. what do you think?

all the best
"No matter how it is sliced" is an admission that there are numerous ideas proposed concerning this strange passage in the Qur'an but Muslims cannot agree among themselves how to explain it.

Yusuf Ali has a footnote saying: "A man's seed is the quintessence of his body. It proceeds from his loins, i.e. from his back between the hip-bones and his ribs His back-bone is the source and symbol of his strength and personality. In the spinal cord and in the brain is the directive energy of the central nervous system, and this directs all action, organic and psychic. The spinal cord is continuous with the Medulla Oblongata in the brain."

You said also that the seminal vesicle in the man's body is what the verse is referring to.

But now you are telling me that the verse means that the gushing fluid proceeds from somewhere between the man's loins and the woman's pelvic arch. Most ingenious. I know of yet another explanation that Muslims have proposed quite different from these other three. I'm wondering if you are going to suggest that as well.
Reply

جوري
11-15-2010, 09:21 PM
Originally Posted by Hiroshi
"No matter how it is sliced" is an admission that there are numerous ideas proposed concerning this strange passage in the Qur'an but Muslims cannot agree among themselves how to explain it.

Yusuf Ali has a footnote saying: "A man's seed is the quintessence of his body. It proceeds from his loins, i.e. from his back between the hip-bones and his ribs His back-bone is the source and symbol of his strength and personality. In the spinal cord and in the brain is the directive energy of the central nervous system, and this directs all action, organic and psychic. The spinal cord is continuous with the Medulla Oblongata in the brain."

You said also that the seminal vesicle in the man's body is what the verse is referring to.

But now you are telling me that the verse means that the gushing fluid proceeds from somewhere between the man's loins and the woman's pelvic arch. Most ingenious. I know of yet another explanation that Muslims have proposed quite different from these other three. I'm wondering if you are going to suggest that as well.

There is NOTHING AT ALL STRANGE ABOUT THE PASSAGE. The words are broken down etymologically and scientifically by a medical doctor and a linguist. If you have a difficult time digesting the science or etymology of it, then the problem indeed lies with you, not with the passage-- there are always dictionaries and medical doctors for you to help you through this difficulty!

all the best
Reply

IAmZamzam
11-16-2010, 10:37 PM
Originally Posted by Hiroshi
"No matter how it is sliced" is an admission that there are numerous ideas proposed concerning this strange passage in the Qur'an but Muslims cannot agree among themselves how to explain it.

Yusuf Ali has a footnote saying: "A man's seed is the quintessence of his body. It proceeds from his loins, i.e. from his back between the hip-bones and his ribs His back-bone is the source and symbol of his strength and personality. In the spinal cord and in the brain is the directive energy of the central nervous system, and this directs all action, organic and psychic. The spinal cord is continuous with the Medulla Oblongata in the brain."

You said also that the seminal vesicle in the man's body is what the verse is referring to.

But now you are telling me that the verse means that the gushing fluid proceeds from somewhere between the man's loins and the woman's pelvic arch. Most ingenious. I know of yet another explanation that Muslims have proposed quite different from these other three. I'm wondering if you are going to suggest that as well.
I forget the specific name of the particular fallacy involved here but it is a form of non-sequitur in which it is seriously proposed that the mere existence or supposed existence of a lot of different beliefs or claims about something is evidence against one of them or against the thing itself, as if the odds of a solution being correct somehow decrease the more people propose other solutions. A sort of variation on the gambler's fallacy, and the same mistake atheists make when they speak of the huge number of religions the world has had as an indication that none of them are true.

Or maybe you're just pretending to rebut while really scoffing, I can't tell which. (The name of that fallacy, I think, is the appeal to ridicule.) In any case you haven't addressed any of the specific linguistic proof vale's lily has offered you.
Reply

Hiroshi
11-17-2010, 07:19 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I forget the specific name of the particular fallacy involved here but it is a form of non-sequitur in which it is seriously proposed that the mere existence or supposed existence of a lot of different beliefs or claims about something is evidence against one of them or against the thing itself, as if the odds of a solution being correct somehow decrease the more people propose other solutions. A sort of variation on the gambler's fallacy, and the same mistake atheists make when they speak of the huge number of religions the world has had as an indication that none of them are true.

Or maybe you're just pretending to rebut while really scoffing, I can't tell which. (The name of that fallacy, I think, is the appeal to ridicule.) In any case you haven't addressed any of the specific linguistic proof vale's lily has offered you.
Be serious. How many translations of the Qur'an read: "woman's pelvic arch" at Surah 86:7?
Reply

جوري
11-17-2010, 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Be serious. How many translations of the Qur'an read: "woman's pelvic arch" at Surah 86:7?

It isn't about the translations it is about what the word actually says.. firstly, translators aren't scholars nor etymologists. Pickthal who is to be admired was an englishman. Leopold Wiess who translated the Quran in a more readable style and was a former Jew lived with Bedouins for 20 years and in KSA before attempting to translate. Still with all of that there is a disagreement on some of his commentaries. If you want to know what the Quran says you'll need to be studied and need more than one source. Luckily the Arabic is always there unchanged!

all the best
Reply

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

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

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!