/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Alleged Qu'ran errors/mistakes



Kt007
07-05-2012, 09:43 PM
The other thread was closed so, I'll post this here.

format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Alhamdulillah, that I havn't seen a single person claiming to be an "Ex-Muslim" have any real knowledge about the deen. I've seen countless of them get embarassed. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Please mention them with reference.<br>
<br><br>Salaam,<br><br>I think it will be best if we start with and then move along otherwise I think the subject might become confusing.<br><br>In Surah 41 verse 9 Allah says he created the earth first,&nbsp;and it goes on from verse 9 through to 12&nbsp;explaining&nbsp;this, and in verse 11 it says he turned/directed&nbsp;to the heavens and created the&nbsp;heavens and then he decked the lower heaven with lamps. I am confused, what is the 'lower heaven' and what are 'lamps' I don't see any 'lamps' do you? So the earth was created right, and then Allah created lamps? What are these lamps, are the&nbsp;genie&nbsp;lamps or some other lamps? &nbsp;<br>
<br>
<br>
And do you know why this happened?
<br><br>Presumably not to have&nbsp;different&nbsp;versions of the Qu'ran. He ordered the burning of them.&nbsp;<br>
<br>
This should be interesting, since even the majority (overwhelming majority) of Non-Muslim academics don't doubt the Qur'an we have today is the same one that Muhammad(pbuh) preached.
<br><br>The Qu'ran was complied over a long period of time, and their existed many versions at one time, and for this reason Uthman ordered the&nbsp;burning&nbsp;of all the rest of the copies which didn't match his version. The scholars (and I myself) agree since the Uthman's version the Qu'ran has not been changed.&nbsp;<br>
<br>
And what's this based on, your english translated, out of context, lack of scholarly knowledge, judgement?
<br><br>Well I did read English translations of the hadith.&nbsp;<br>
<br>
Feel free to post these "bad hadiths" and I'll explain the context for you. Since you obviously have no idea of it.
<br><br>OK.&nbsp;<br>


<br>
<br>
Why don't you prove this? Again, most modern day Academics reject this idea, including the famous historical Neurologist. But you probably didn't know this.
<br>
<br>note, I said it was my&nbsp;opinion. Those with&nbsp;temporal&nbsp;lobe&nbsp;epilepsy&nbsp;us ually&nbsp;claim to have a deeper understanding of the inner workings of the universe.&nbsp;<br>
<br>
<br>
Again, post your sources and I'll happily refute/explain it to you.&nbsp;<br>Again, post your sources. (btw I know exactly what you're talking about, but I doubt you yourself know, most likely just read anti-Islam websites who hide a lot of context.<br><br>But, anyhow, post your evidence.<br>
<br><br>Yes I will in the future.&nbsp;<br>


<br>
<br>
Well, "practicing Muslim" certainly doesn't mean someone who actually knows anything about his religion. Some people pray because they're told to, without learning the wisdom or why it is that they pray.<br>
<br>
And your last sentence sums your story up.
<br><br>Yeah I was a pretty errm&nbsp;liberal&nbsp;Muslim, though I did have&nbsp;brief&nbsp;periods when I changed.&nbsp;

P.S, I also wanted to say that one of the Muslim girls in the other tread needs to clam down, at least have some decorum, and I didn't expect such behaviour from Muslims girls, those who come from a respectable background.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Asiyah3
07-05-2012, 09:46 PM
There are no mistakes in the Qur'aan. God is perfect and His word is perfect. Unfortunately, I don't have time to discuss your points, but I just want to say one thing.

I have read anti-Islamic claims, and they didn't make sense. But I wonder why do they have to resort to destorting the translations of the Qur'aan? Why do they have to resort to lying? Do they think we will leave the truth and follow their falsehood?

As for you Kt007, sincerely saying this. Give yourself a chance. Learn Islam from Islamic sources. Wouldn't it be rather unwise for me to learn about atheists from those people who hate Atheists? They're answers would be biased, of course. Isn't it fair to learn a religion from it's people?

Seriously, give yourself a chance. If you would sit, and listen, guidance would enter your heart. You'd have the All-Merciful besides you. Your heart would be filled with contentment, comfort, joy and serenity, and you'd be protected by the All-Wise, All-Powerful. But if you block it (the path of guidance) yourself by your own hands, know that you are misleading yourself. And Allah, the Just, doesn't wrong anyone.
Reply

Kt007
07-05-2012, 09:49 PM
Sorry about typos, I am unable to edit my posts. Please keep your responses short and to the point, there is no point derailing with person attacks, and lack of decorum. If I am mistake and I've come to the wrong forum I will happy leave, I only came back because I was emailed and requested by the admins to come back, otherwise I didn't really have much reason to come back. So please at least try to respect me on a human level at least. Don't take why questions about Islam, as a person attack on you, am not here for that, if you're genuinely upset with anything I say, if you ask me to leave I will leave.
Reply

Kt007
07-05-2012, 09:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Asiyah3
There are no mistakes in the Qur'aan. God is perfect and His word is perfect. Unfortunately, I don't have time to discuss your points, but I just want to say one thing.
Sure, I was speaking for myself to my understanding (an I am not an expert on Islam, far from it) it has mistakes and errors, I've not been convinced with the counter arguments that this is not the case.

I have read anti-Islamic claims, and they didn't make sense. But I wonder why do they have to resort to destorting the translations of the Qur'aan? Why do they have to resort to lying? Do they think we will leave the truth and follow their falsehood?
If I lie, then you can pull me up on it, I can't speak for others. I know their is alot of anti-Islamic nonsense out there, and I would never quote anything which wasn't true from there. I actually make sure to check my sources that they come from a reliable source.

As for you Kt007, sincerely saying this. Give yourself a chance. Learn Islam from Islamic sources. Wouldn't it be rather unwise for me to learn about atheists from those people who hate Atheists? They're answers would be biased, of course. Isn't it fair to learn a religion from it's people?
Yes, I am happy to learn about Islam, I have nothing to fear from Islam, in fact if I am convinced by Islam I would be glad to repent and comeback to Islam. Atheism isn't a belief, just like bald isn't a hair colour.

Seriously, give yourself a chance. If you would sit, and listen, guidance would enter your heart. You'd have the All-Merciful besides you. Your heart would be filled with contentment, comfort, joy and serenity, and you'd be protected by the All-Wise, All-Powerful. But if you block it (the path of guidance) yourself by your own hands, know that you are misleading yourself. And Allah, the Just, doesn't wrong anyone.
I can't block anything, Allah is the one who guides those who wants and seals the hearts of those who he wants, those who Allah sends astray none can guide them. So, from an Islamic perspective free will is really just an illusion, its really upto Allah.
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
'Abd-al Latif
07-05-2012, 10:15 PM
Before I attempt to address these "errors", I'm interested to know what field of law you are studying.
Reply

Asiyah3
07-05-2012, 10:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Sure, I was speaking for myself to my understanding (an I am not an expert on Islam, far from it) it has mistakes and errors, I've not been convinced with the counter arguments that this is not the case.
Then I hope you'll read the responses coming from other members with an open mind, inshaAllah.

If I lie, then you can pull me up on it, I can't speak for others. I know their is alot of anti-Islamic nonsense out there, and I would never quote anything which wasn't true from there. I actually make sure to check my sources that they come from a reliable source.
I agree that all anti-Islamic sites are nonsense.

I can't block anything, Allah is the one who guides those who wants and seals the hearts of those who he wants, those who Allah sends astray none can guide them. So, from an Islamic perspective free will is really just an illusion, its really upto Allah.
Some people tend to have a misunderstanding that we have no control over our actions. This is not true. If we'd have no control over our actions, we couldn't be punished in Hell, as we wouldn't be responsible for our deeds. Allah created the human being with no sin. It is us who choose which path we take. Allah has given us the catalog, the sources of guidance -- the Qur'aan and Sunnah -- which show us the path to Paradise, and our success in both this life and the Hereafter. It is us who choose whether to follow that path or to reject it. The Qur'aan says:

"Verily, We showed him the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful. "

The Prophet SAAS delivered the message of Islam both to one of his best companions, Abu Bakr and to one of the most deviant men, Abu Lahab. What happened? Abu Bakr accepted the message of Islam, while Abu Lahab chose to reject it, and thus closed the door to guidance from himself.

Those misguided people, cause themselves to be misguided. They were shown the straight path, they chose do reject it out of their own free will. Hence, Allah misguided them.

As for those who seek a path to the truth, Allah (swt) guides them to the straight path, and forgives all their previous sins.
Reply

Kt007
07-05-2012, 10:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
Before I attempt to address these "errors", I'm interested to know what field of law you are studying.
Crime, however at the moment I am not studying, having a gap year from university I did two years before. Well technically I still studying but not at a university, if you get what I mean.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
07-05-2012, 10:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Crime, however at the moment I am not studying, having a gap year from university I did two years before. Well technically I still studying but not at a university, if you get what I mean.
Crime? I think you mean Criminal Law.

That's interesting. I have many books on this very subject. Tell me, have you witnessed any court proceedings?
Reply

Kt007
07-05-2012, 10:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Asiyah3
Then I hope you'll read the responses coming from other members with an open mind, inshaAllah.
Indeed.


I agree that all anti-Islamic sites are nonsense.
Can I make a slight correction, not anti-Islamic sites are nonsense that is simply untrue, there are reliable anti-Islamic websites, but I tend to try and make a distinction between anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim websites, I think you'll find the vast majority of anti-Muslim websites are simply their as a pretext to justify bigotry directed at the Muslim community, and are not generally created for the purpose of a genuine critique of Islam.

Some people tend to have a misunderstanding that we have no control over our actions. This is not true.
The verses in the Qu'ran are abundantly clear; surah 39 ayat 36.

If we'd have no control over our actions, we couldn't be punished in Hell, as we wouldn't be responsible for our deeds. Allah created the human being with no sin. It is us who choose which path we take. Allah has given us the catalog, the sources of guidance -- the Qur'aan and Sunnah -- which show us the path to Paradise, and our success in both this life and the Hereafter. It is us who choose whether to follow that path or to reject it. The Qur'aan says:

"Verily, We showed him the way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful. "

The Prophet SAAS delivered the message of Islam both to one of his best companions, Abu Bakr and to one of the most deviant men, Abu Lahab. What happened? Abu Bakr accepted the message of Islam, while Abu Lahab chose to reject it, and thus closed the door to guidance from himself.

Those misguided people, cause themselves to be misguided. They were shown the straight path, they chose do reject it out of their own free will. Hence, Allah misguided them.

As for those who seek a path to the truth, Allah (swt) guides them to the straight path, and forgives all their previous sins.
So let me get this straight you're saying that the message was given to those folks the truth, and yet they rejected the truth, so then Allah punished them by sealing their heats. Well, they clearly didn't think it was the truth otherwise it would have been irrational for them to not accept it. So the punishment isn't proportional to crime, and their is no chance or redemption, that seems extremely unjust. Since, if they were unable to see the truth when it was in plain sight to them, then one has to question where the faculties of these folks intact or where they simply brain-dead to reject Islam when they knew its the truth?
Reply

Kt007
07-05-2012, 10:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
Crime? I think you mean Criminal Law.

That's interesting. I have many books on this very subject. Tell me, have you witnessed any court proceedings?
Yeah, normally we just say crime, for sort, but yeah criminal law. Yes, I've witnessed a few court proceedings, not for anything too serious though, money laundering and drug dealing was maybe one of the biggest I sat in, it was a trail.
Reply

Kt007
07-05-2012, 10:48 PM
trial*
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-05-2012, 10:54 PM
Firstly, Greetings of peace,

Welcome on board!

I'd like to mention from what I've read, you mentioned your far from the 'knowledgeable', so what makes you make the following statement?

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
I can't block anything, Allah is the one who guides those who wants and seals the hearts of those who he wants, those who Allah sends astray none can guide them. So, from an Islamic perspective free will is really just an illusion, its really upto Allah.
I'll correct you on that..

"Verily, Allah is not ashamed to set forth a parable even of a mosquito or so much more when it is bigger (or less when it is smaller) than it. And as for those who believe, they know that it is the Truth from their Lord, but as for those who disbelieve, they say: "What did Allah intend by this parable?" By it He misleads many, and many He guides thereby. And He misleads thereby only those who are Al-Fasiqun (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah ).Those who break Allah's Covenant after ratifying it, and sever what Allah has ordered to be joined (as regards Allah's religion of Islamic Monotheism, and to practise its laws on the earth and also as regards keeping good relations with kith and kin ), and do mischief on earth, it is they who are the losers" [Al Qur'aan 1:26-27]

Regards to Allaah SWT sealing the hearts of one, this does not take away 'free will'..Allaah is not unfair, one believes at his own will and disbelieves by his own..

So as you chose to leave Islam, this was entirely your choice, was it not or is this simply an illusion? and on what basis? I do not know..

Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe [Al Qur'aan 2:6]

As for this verse, read this..

(6. Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.)

Allah said,

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ﴾

(Verily, those who disbelieve) meaning, covered the truth and hid it. Since Allah has written that they would do so, it does not matter if you (O Muhammad ) warn them or not, they would still have disbelieved in what you were sent with. Similarly, Allah said,

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ حَقَّتْ عَلَيْهِمْ كَلِمَةُ رَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ - وَلَوْ جَآءَتْهُمْ كُلُّ ءايَةٍ حَتَّى يَرَوُاْ الْعَذَابَ الاٌّلِيمَ ﴾

(Truly, those against whom the Word (wrath) of your Lord has been justified, will not believe. Even if every sign should come to them, until they see the painful torment) (10:96-97).

About the rebellious People of the Book, Allah said,

﴿وَلَئِنْ أَتَيْتَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ بِكُلِّ ءَايَةٍ مَّا تَبِعُواْ قِبْلَتَكَ﴾

(And even if you were to bring to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) all the Ayat, they would not follow your Qiblah (prayer direction)) (2:5).

These Ayat indicate that whomever Allah has written to be miserable, they shall never find anyone to guide them to happiness, and whomever Allah directs to misguidance, he shall never find anyone to guide him. So do not pity them - O Muhammad - deliver the Message to them. Certainly, whoever among them accepts the Message, then he shall gain the best rewards. As for those who turn away in rejection, do not feel sad for them or concerned about them, for

﴿فَإِنَّمَا عَلَيْكَ الْبَلَـغُ وَعَلَيْنَا الْحِسَابُ﴾

(Your duty is only to convey (the Message) and on Us is the reckoning) (13: 40), and,

﴿إِنَّمَآ أَنتَ نَذِيرٌ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَىْءٍ وَكِيلٌ﴾

(But you are only a warner. And Allah is a Wakil (Disposer of affairs, Trustee, Guardian) over all things) (11:12).

`Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said about Allah's statement,

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَآءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ ءَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ ﴾

(Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe) "That the Messenger of Allah was eager for all the people to believe and follow the guidance he was sent with. Allah informed him that none would believe except for those whom He decreed happiness for in the first place, and none would stray except those who Allah has decreed to do so in the first place.''
Reply

Kt007
07-05-2012, 11:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ
Firstly, Greetings of peace,

Welcome on board!

I'd like to mention from what I've read, you mentioned your far from the 'knowledgeable', so what makes you make the following statement?
Salaam, and thank you. Yes, I am not an scholar on Islam I have some understanding of Islam. But that is not to see I am completely unaware of Islam or the arguments.



I'll correct you on that..

"Verily, Allah is not ashamed to set forth a parable even of a mosquito or so much more when it is bigger (or less when it is smaller) than it. And as for those who believe, they know that it is the Truth from their Lord, but as for those who disbelieve, they say: "What did Allah intend by this parable?" By it He misleads many, and many He guides thereby. And He misleads thereby only those who are Al-Fasiqun (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah ).Those who break Allah's Covenant after ratifying it, and sever what Allah has ordered to be joined (as regards Allah's religion of Islamic Monotheism, and to practise its laws on the earth and also as regards keeping good relations with kith and kin ), and do mischief on earth, it is they who are the losers" [Al Qur'aan 1:26-27]
Once more it seems irrational only a fool or someone lacking in mental faculties would rebel against, the truth of Islam, when the person knew the truth, and knew the consequence of the being sent to eternal punishment. You believe in Islam, you believe it is the truth and presumably you don't rebel against it right? I on the other-hand am not convinced of the truth claim of Islam, so I am not rebelling against the truth, I am simply not believing in something which I find to be untrue. Not believe in something which isn't true is not the same as rebelling AGAINST the truth.

Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe [Al Qur'aan 2:6]
Well what was the point of sending a prophet then? You tell me? You think this makes Allah look good?

As for this verse, read this..

(6. Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.)

Allah said,

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ﴾

(Verily, those who disbelieve) meaning, covered the truth and hid it. Since Allah has written that they would do so, it does not matter if you (O Muhammad ) warn them or not, they would still have disbelieved in what you were sent with. Similarly, Allah said,

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ حَقَّتْ عَلَيْهِمْ كَلِمَةُ رَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ - وَلَوْ جَآءَتْهُمْ كُلُّ ءايَةٍ حَتَّى يَرَوُاْ الْعَذَابَ الاٌّلِيمَ ﴾

(Truly, those against whom the Word (wrath) of your Lord has been justified, will not believe. Even if every sign should come to them, until they see the painful torment) (10:96-97).

About the rebellious People of the Book, Allah said,

﴿وَلَئِنْ أَتَيْتَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ بِكُلِّ ءَايَةٍ مَّا تَبِعُواْ قِبْلَتَكَ﴾

(And even if you were to bring to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) all the Ayat, they would not follow your Qiblah (prayer direction)) (2:5).

These Ayat indicate that whomever Allah has written to be miserable, they shall never find anyone to guide them to happiness, and whomever Allah directs to misguidance, he shall never find anyone to guide him. So do not pity them - O Muhammad - deliver the Message to them. Certainly, whoever among them accepts the Message, then he shall gain the best rewards. As for those who turn away in rejection, do not feel sad for them or concerned about them, for

﴿فَإِنَّمَا عَلَيْكَ الْبَلَـغُ وَعَلَيْنَا الْحِسَابُ﴾

(Your duty is only to convey (the Message) and on Us is the reckoning) (13: 40), and,

﴿إِنَّمَآ أَنتَ نَذِيرٌ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَىْءٍ وَكِيلٌ﴾

(But you are only a warner. And Allah is a Wakil (Disposer of affairs, Trustee, Guardian) over all things) (11:12).

`Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said about Allah's statement,

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَآءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ ءَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ ﴾

(Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe) "That the Messenger of Allah was eager for all the people to believe and follow the guidance he was sent with. Allah informed him that none would believe except for those whom He decreed happiness for in the first place, and none would stray except those who Allah has decreed to do so in the first place.''
All you've done is proven what I've said, free will is an illusion.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-05-2012, 11:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
In Surah 41 verse 9 Allah says he created the earth first,*and it goes on from verse 9 through to 12*explaining*this, and in verse 11 it says he turned/directed*to the heavens and created the*heavens and then he decked the lower heaven with lamps. I am confused, what is the 'lower heaven' and what are 'lamps' I don't see any 'lamps' do you? So the earth was created right, and then Allah created lamps? What are these lamps, are the*genie*lamps or some other lamps?
From my understanding, it is the planets and stars that 'shine' or in other words considered 'lamps'...

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
versions of the Qu'ran. He ordered the burning of them
May I ask why? Please explain

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
The Qu'ran was complied over a long period of time, and their existed many versions at one time, and for this reason Uthman ordered the*burning*of all the rest of the copies which didn't match his version. The scholars (and I myself) agree since the Uthman's version the Qu'ran has not been changed
Compiled in exactly how many years?

So what is wrong with the 'uthmani' Qur'aan?

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Well I did read English translations of the hadith.
How about study it in it's original form? Did you study the arabic it was revealed in? There are words that can have multiple meanings..
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-05-2012, 11:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Salaam, and thank you. Yes, I am not an scholar on Islam I have some understanding of Islam. But that is not to see I am completely unaware of Islam or the arguments.
greetings of peace to you, and you are welcome..

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Once more it seems irrational only a fool or someone lacking in mental faculties would rebel against, the truth of Islam, when the person knew the truth, and knew the consequence of the being sent to eternal punishment. You believe in Islam, you believe it is the truth and presumably you don't rebel against it right? I on the other-hand am not convinced of the truth claim of Islam, so I am not rebelling against the truth, I am simply not believing in something which I find to be untrue. Not believe in something which isn't true is not the same as rebelling AGAINST the truth.
The point of me posting that verse is that Allaah does not guide without reason! Whether you believe or disbelieve, this is your choice indeed. To you are your ways, to me be mine.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Well what was the point of sending a prophet then? You tell me? You think this makes Allah look good?
The point of sending a 'messenger' was to guide one to the truth. A nation whom commited acts injustice, indecency, whom needed guidance etc etc, they were sent a messenger.

Nah, it shows free will. Read again 'Muhammad is to only CONVEY the message, people follow out of their will. In other words, he CANNOT force one to become muslim, if you are a muslim out of 'force', you are not one, simple.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
All you've done is proven what I've said, free will is an illusion.
No, this is incorrect. I've provided evidence to what the verse means. The verse is explaining how he Muhammad (saw) wanted all to believe, but Allaah has informed him that he cannot. These people simply choose not to.
Reply

Kt007
07-05-2012, 11:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ

From my understanding, it is the planets and stars that 'shine' or in other words considered 'lamps'...
Well it can't be THE planet i.e. planet earth, since Allah says he created the earth, so the earth was created before, and then there was a moment, when Allah turned towards the heavens and created the heavens (right) and then he decked the lower heaven with lamps, lamps would mean stars right?

May I ask why? Please explain
Why he demanded them to be burned/destroyed? Well we can only assume he wanted one version of the Qu'ran other versions must have been different.

Compiled in exactly how many years?
Many years, the message of Islam came to Muhammed over a long period of time. For a long time they were writing the verses on anything they could get their hands on, it wasn't until Uthman that a single unified Qu'ran was complied, this is why the Qu'ran no structure the verses are all over the place seemingly put in randomly, and many verses are repetitive.

So what is wrong with the 'uthmani' Qur'aan?
It's possibly has verses missing. Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, Hadith # 1934)
Narrated Aisha 'The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept
under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah (SAWW.) expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper." - here a goat's ate the verses of stoning and suckling.


How about study it in it's original form? Did you study the arabic it was revealed in? There are words that can have multiple meanings?
[/QUOTE]

I think one can understand Islam without needing to be able to read it in Arabic, majority of Muslims are non-Arabic speakers.
Reply

Kt007
07-05-2012, 11:47 PM
[QUOTE=Ğħαrєєвαħ;1530706]

:wa: and you are welcome..


The point of sending a 'messenger' was to guide one to the truth. A nation whom commited acts injustice, indecency, whom needed guidance etc etc, they were sent a messenger.
Then this is inconsistent with the verse: Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe [Al Qur'aan 2:6]

It makes the mission of the prophet pointless.

Nah, it shows free will. Read again 'Muhammad is to only CONVEY the message, people follow out of their will. In other words, he CANNOT force one to become muslim, if you are a muslim out of 'force', you are not one, simple.
Even if its the case to show to the Prophet it still makes his mission pointless, unless Allah didn't know until the last minute which of course isn't possible. The verse is clear on this. Warn them or DO NOT warn them.

No, this is incorrect. I've provided evidence to what the verse means. The verse is explaining how he Muhammad (saw) wanted all to believe, but Allaah has informed him that he cannot. These people simply choose not to.
Yeah, and it also makes sending a prophet pointless, its not hard to understand, they choose not because Allah has sealed their hearts.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-05-2012, 11:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Well it can't be THE planet i.e. planet earth, since Allah says he created the earth, so the earth was created before, and then there was a moment, when Allah turned towards the heavens and created the heavens (right) and then he decked the lower heaven with lamps, lamps would mean stars right?
Of course, what did you think the Qur'aan is sent to planet 'earth' lol, so it would obviously not apply to planet earth, other planets..

If I'm incorrect, someone feel free to correct me..

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Why he demanded them to be burned/destroyed? Well we can only assume he wanted one version of the Qu'ran other versions must have been different.
This does not answer my question. Why he demanded them to be destroyed, except for his? If you are unaware of the answer, perhaps there is some studying you should do, inshaa'Allaah..


format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Many years, the message of Islam came to Muhammed over a long period of time. For a long time they were writing the verses on anything they could get their hands on, it wasn't until Uthman that a single unified Qu'ran was complied, this is why the Qu'ran no structure the verses are all over the place seemingly put in randomly, and many verses are repetitive.
How many exactly?

not random at all, I don't believe 'fatiha - Opening' is not random start at all..

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
It's possibly has verses missing. Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, Hadith # 1934)
Narrated Aisha 'The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept
under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah (SAWW.) expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper." - here a goat's ate the verses of stoning and suckling.
This is interesting, i'm not gonna argue regards to the hadeeth as i'm no scholar, nor are you.

However, have you read all books of Ibn Majah?


format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
I think one can understand Islam without needing to be able to read it in Arabic, majority of Muslims are non-Arabic spe
I disagree.

In order to understand the Qur'aan, you'd need to study the arabic is was revealed, funny that, not all 'arabic speakers' understand the Qur'anic arabic well..
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 12:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ

Of course, what did you think the Qur'aan is sent to planet 'earth' lol, so it would obviously not apply to planet earth, other planets..
Right, so their weren't any lamps until the lower heaven was decked with lamps? Or did the lamps exist? the verses clearly seem to imply that the lamps came after the earth do you agree with this or do you disagree with this?


This does not answer my question. Why he demanded them to be destroyed, except for his? If you are unaware of the answer, perhaps there is some studying you should do, inshaa'Allaah..
Well their are number of argument for this main one being that those who memorised the Qu'ran were dying, so there was a need to compile it.

How many exactly?
About 23 years.

not random at all, I don't believe 'fatiha - Opening' is not random start at all..
Some of the chapters are though. Sometimes Qu'ran switches topic mid way through.

This is interesting, i'm not gonna argue regards to the hadeeth as i'm no scholar, nor are you.

However, have you read all books of Ibn Majah?
So you're trying to say Ibn Majah is unreliable.


I disagree.

In order to understand the Qur'aan, you'd need to study the arabic is was revealed, funny that, not all 'arabic speakers' understand the Qur'anic arabic well..
OK.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-06-2012, 12:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Then this is inconsistent with the verse: Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe [Al Qur'aan 2:6]

It makes the mission of the prophet pointless.
Really? Is that why the Masjid al haram exists till this day, with millions visiting every year, with individuals reverting to Islaam..

It is in fact only your own opinion, it does not change the facts.

Dude, the verse is explaining that we (all of muslims) cannot force one to be a muslim, there are those who choose not to, we cannot do anything about them, it is their CHOICE! They have been invited to the truth in the best of manners via Muhammad (pbuh), which you would know as muslims we believe is our role model, they still do not wish to. Even his uncle abu talib, was he forced to become Muslim? rest of his companions, relatives? Have you studied enough to call this pointless. Again, it is you and your opinion, and does not change the facts which you've no knowledge of ,as it seems.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Even if its the case to show to the Prophet it still makes his mission pointless, unless Allah didn't know until the last minute which of course isn't possible. The verse is clear on this. Warn them or DO NOT warn them.
Incorrect.

Read above.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Yeah, and it also makes sending a prophet pointless, its not hard to understand, they choose not because Allah has sealed their hearts.
You are incorrect.

It is after he (Muhammad PBUH) warned them, either way it didn't make any difference to them people. Note: Allaah is informing the prophet (pbuh), are you not aware God is All-knowing,i.e. knows the hearts of people, what they disclose and what they conceal?

So an example is , say someone says ' I believe ', but in their heart they really don't, they're intention is just to mess around, the people of course did not know, though Allaah (GOD), knows, he is informing his prophet..

Re-read my first post on this thread.

Chapter 2 verses 26- 27..
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 12:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ

Really? Is that why the Masjid al haram exists till this day, with millions visiting every year, with individuals reverting to Islaam..

It is in fact only your own opinion, it does not change the facts.
Am not convinced.

Dude, the verse is explaining that we (all of muslims) cannot force one to be a muslim, there are those who choose not to, we cannot do anything about them,
But if someone knows the truth, and chooses to ignore it knowing the punishment is eternal hell, seems a little too far fetched. That is like saying you know Islam is true 100% and yet you choose to disbelieve in it, noone is going to do that. The punishment is so great that even all of the wealth of the planet would still not be enough to reject it. Even if all of the wealth of the earth was offered to me to reject Islam (If I knew it was true) I wouldn't do it.

it is their CHOICE! They have been invited to the truth in the best of manners via Muhammad (pbuh), which you would know as muslims we believe is our role model, they still do not wish to.
They don't believe Islam to be true, you seem to think, not believing something to be true is the same as being against it. You can't believe in something you don't acknowledge to begin with. Its like me saying, if you don't believe in a flying unicorn which rules the universe then you'll be punished for eternity, you're going laugh right? because you don't believe the flying unicorn exists. But if you knew it did then you wouldn't reject it.

Even his uncle abu talib, was he forced to become Muslim? rest of his companions, relatives? Have you studied enough to call this pointless. Again, it is you and your opinion, and does not change the facts which you've no knowledge of ,as it seems.
They didn't believe he was telling the truth. You can't commit a crime against something you don't even acknowledged exists. It's a logical paradox.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-06-2012, 12:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Right, so their weren't any lamps until the lower heaven was decked with lamps? Or did the lamps exist? the verses clearly seem to imply that the lamps came after the earth do you agree with this or do you disagree with this?
According to the verses and tafsir they were created 'seperately', not going to get into which was created first or last.

Although, the verses 12 clearly states:

"Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him the All-Mighty, the All-Knower."

Meaning the heavens were completed with 2 last days, adorned with lamps which 'shine' on the people of 'earth'.. etc...Perhaps you should read the tafsir - Explanation of this verse to understand further, inshaa'Allaah, I sincerely hope you do take the time to do so..

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Well their are number of argument for this main one being that those who memorised the Qu'ran were dying, so there was a need to compile it
Okay we are getting there...

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
About 23 years.
Alhamdulilaah

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Some of the chapters are though. Sometimes Qu'ran switches topic mid way through.
So, as a muslim did you not see it important to seek knowledge as to why this may have been so?

It isn't a story book, Allaah revealed verses concerning certain events in the life of Muhammad (SAW)

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
So you're trying to say Ibn Majah is unreliable.
Do you have evidence I do?

This is not the reason I asked the question, I asked wanting to know whether you've read all of his other sources..
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-06-2012, 12:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Am not convinced.
That is fine, i'm not here to convince you, i'm simply trying to answer some questions..

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
But if someone knows the truth, and chooses to ignore it knowing the punishment is eternal hell, seems a little too far fetched. That is like saying you know Islam is true 100% and yet you choose to disbelieve in it, noone is going to do that. The punishment is so great that even all of the wealth of the planet would still not be enough to reject it. Even if all of the wealth of the earth was offered to me to reject Islam (If I knew it was true) I wouldn't do it.
I believe Islaam is 100% the truth, and I do not choose to disbelieve it, if your choosing to believe it but then your not accepting it's 100% truth, you either have some doubts.. Or let's say, you recieved an answer that makes sense, or is clear, but you still reject it, then this is just doesn't make sense, at least not to me.

There are some things one may not have knowledge of, they should go study, making them a student, a student of knowledge, but then someone comes along states something which they've never heard of, would you think they'd believe it or actually go study, ask the learned etc etc?

An example, we know air exists, but choose not to believe it as we do not see it, does this make sense? or make sense to deny? but there is proof that something is there and keeping us alive.. hmm, i'm not good with explanations.. hopefully, someone can explain..

If you wouldn't reject islaam though you were given all wealth, this would make you a believer, but it would be your faith/belief, it would rely upon you, accepting or not accepting, you are only benefiting yourself and nobody, you are not affecting the kingdom of the creator, this is your choice whether to take or not.. Or say if you did take it, but then you realised it was wrong of you, perhaps your greed got the better of you, perhaps materialistic? later you realised it's wrong, you'd repent with it's conditions i.e. sincerety, truth etc and inshaa'Allaah forgiven, indeed Allaah is all-mercyful..


format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
They don't believe Islam to be true, you seem to think, not believing something to be true is the same as being against it. You can't believe in something you don't acknowledge to begin with. Its like me saying, if you don't believe in a flying unicorn which rules the universe then you'll be punished for eternity, you're going laugh right? because you don't believe the flying unicorn exists. But if you knew it did then you wouldn't reject it.
This isn't about unicorns, it is about choice to believe in God and his messenger and that which was revealed unto him 'The Qur'aan', to have sincerety to at least learn or have the intention to do. Perhaps just in order to gain knowledge.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
They didn't believe he was telling the truth. You can't commit a crime against something you don't even acknowledged exists. It's a logical paradox
Whose commiting a crime? One of reasons he (Abu Talib) didn't accept was because he felt he was going to lower himself in society by rejecting the religion of his forefathers.. Did Muhammad (P) commit a crime against him? In fact it is known as the year of sorrow, where his uncle, and wife passed away.
Reply

Perseveranze
07-06-2012, 01:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007




Well what was the point of sending a prophet then? You tell me? You think this makes Allah look good?
Your first post is a mess and hard to understand, so I'm just quoting the next clear thing you said. You said the above in regards to this verse;


Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe [Al Qur'aan 36:10]

Unfortunatly, your lack of Islamic knowledge is quite big. The verse above has a context, it is referring to people like Abu Jahl, as that's when the verse was revealed. Abu Jahl, no matter what, would always disbelieve, regardless of the signs and proofs and would always redicule the Prophet(pbuh) and his message of monotheism.

And this verse goes in relation to these verses;


And [even] if We opened to them a gate from the heaven and they continued therein to ascend, They would say, "Our eyes have only been dazzled. Rather, we are a people affected by magic." (15:14-15)

Meaning there will be a group of people who will remain delluded by their own account for the whole of their life, and that even if you gave them the greatest of proofs they would still not believe.

And this is true, especially when I used to ask atheists; "If you saw Jesus(pbuh) perform a miracle right in front of you, like raising someone from the dead, would you believe?" - And the Atheist replied; "I'd thing it was some kind of special effects/trick".
Reply

Muhammad
07-06-2012, 02:29 PM
Greetings,

I came across something relevant to what you posted in your previous thread, so I'll share it here.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Personally, I feel that Muhammed used to have epileptic attacks, and from this he believed angels were speaking to him, eventually after the death of his first wife Kadijah he became more eccentric and erratic,
Taken from, The Messengers and the Messages in the Light of the Qur'an and Sunnah, 'Umar S. al-Ashqar.

Among the claims which those who disbelieve in the Messengers make is that what happened to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was some kind of epilepsy, or that the devils made some kind of contact with him. This is a lie, for these are two entirely different matters. The one who suffers an epileptic fit turns yellow, becomes light and loses his balance, as also happens to the one who is afflicted by the Shaytaan (Satan); as the Shaytaan may speak through his mouth and address the people present, and when he recovers from his loss of consciousness the person is unaware and does not remember anything that the Shaytaan (Satan) said on his lips to the people present. But in the case of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when the angel contacted him, caused his body to increase in size and his face was filled with light. Moreover, people sitting with him did not hear anything that was said, rather they heard a sound like the buzzing of bees around his head [1]. Afterwards the Messenger would stand up and he would be aware of everything that the angel had told him, and he was the one who would tell his Companions what had been revealed to him.

'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her and with her father) told us that, 'The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would receive revelation on an intensely cold day, and by the time it departed from him, his forehead would be dripping with sweat.' [2]

And she told us that his camel - if he received revelation whilst riding on it - would almost sink to its knees because of his weight [3]. One of the Sahaabah (Companions of the Prophet) mentioned that his thigh was beneath the thigh of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when revelation came to him. At the moment when revelation was coming to him, the thigh of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) almost crushed the thigh of the Sahabi (the Companion) [4].

Ya'laa ibn Umayyah told us that he witnessed an occasion when revelation came to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); before that he had wished that he could witness that (situation and) condition. He said: 'I came in and he was red in the face. He stayed like that for a while, then (this condition) departed from him.' [5]

[1] Tirmidhi, see Jaami' al-Usool, 12/41.
[2] Bukhari: Kitab Badu'al Wahy (See Fath al-Baari, 1/18).
[3] This has been referred to by Al-Bayhaqi in Ad-Dalaa'il, quoting from 'Aa'ishah. See Fath al-Baari, 1/21.
[4] Bukhari: Salaah, 12; Jihaad, 31; Nasaa'i: Jihaad, 4; Ahmad: 5/184.
[5] The hadith of Ya'laa is narrated by Bukhari and others. Bukhari: Kitaab Fadaa'il al-Qur'an. Fath al-Baari, 9/9.


You can also see:
The Prophet Muhammad(P) and the Slander of Epilepsy

Scientific investigation therefore reveals that the case of Muhammad(P) was not one of epilepsy. For this reason very few Orientalists have upheld this claim and these turn out to be the same authors who upheld the charge of forgery against the Qur’an. Obviously, in charging Muhammad (P) with epilepsy, their motivation was not the establishment of historical fact but the derogation of the Prophet(P) in the eyes of his Muslim followers. Perhaps, they thought, propagation of such views would cast some suspicion upon his revelation, for it was precisely the revelation that came as a result of the so-called epileptic fits. This, of course, makes them all the more blameworthy and, from the standpoint of science, positively in error.
Reply

Scimitar
07-06-2012, 02:33 PM
Bro KT007, why are you here again? :D

Scimi
Reply

CosmicPathos
07-06-2012, 02:53 PM
Moreover, one cannot make the diagnosis of epilepsy restrospectively without any physical exam, without any EEG ... without even taking patient's history. Yet how sure are these idiots of their diagnosis!
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 03:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Moreover, one cannot make the diagnosis of epilepsy restrospectively without any physical exam, without any EEG ... without even taking patient's history. Yet how sure are these idiots of their diagnosis!
You don't need testing for an isolated seizure as it is often a one time thing. Also very difficult for seizures to be diagnosed in adulthood, as it often presents in childhood unless of course a patient is a known alcoholic or has developed a space occupying lesion in which case( focal deficits or death) ensue shortly after or a short prodrome before hand and it is often olfactory (burning tires and such) not auditory or visual hallucination and if said hallucinations they don't last more than a few seconds to minutes certainly wouldn't give you suret al baqara in one setting. And lastly what does having a seizure prove under any circumstance? I'd actually like to follow that atheist epiphany through and chop of its head with one swift move-- you know how much I love the hunt!
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 04:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ

According to the verses and tafsir they were created 'seperately', not going to get into which was created first or last.

Although, the verses 12 clearly states:

"Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him the All-Mighty, the All-Knower."

Meaning the heavens were completed with 2 last days, adorned with lamps which 'shine' on the people of 'earth'.. etc...Perhaps you should read the tafsir - Explanation of this verse to understand further, inshaa'Allaah, I sincerely hope you do take the time to do so..
So they were created separately, the earth was created first and then the stars (lamps) were created. Which is wrong scientifically speaking since the sun (lamp) was formed shot time before the earth. And even if you say, well it was simultaneously since it was within the two day time frame then it is still wrong too. There is a gap, the earth was created about 4.5 billion years ago, the oldest star (lamp) in the universe is about 11 billion years old, so that means there is a huge gap of 6.5 billion years which is unaccounted for. Also not to mention Allah is mistaking meteoroids (presumably, because stars are not shooting around) as missiles which are fired against devils. So Allah is using stars (lamps) interchangeable with meteoroids, so this clearly implies a mistake in the understanding of cosmology they thought the stars are small objects when in reality stars are MASSIVE objects, and are no way similar size to meteoroids.


It isn't a story book, Allaah revealed verses concerning certain events in the life of Muhammad (SAW)
How do those verses benefit modern humans?

This is not the reason I asked the question, I asked wanting to know whether you've read all of his other sources..
Now I haven't read all his other sources.
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 04:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
So they were created separately, the earth was created first and then the stars (lamps) were created. Which is wrong scientifically speaking since the sun (lamp) was formed shot time before the earth. And even if you say, well it was simultaneously since it was within the two day time frame then it is still wrong too. There is a gap, the earth was created about 4.5 billion years ago, the oldest star (lamp) in the universe is about 11 billion years old, so that means there is a huge gap of 6.5 billion years which is unaccounted for. Also not to mention Allah is mistaking meteoroids (presumably, because stars are not shooting around) as missiles which are fired against devils. So Allah is using stars (lamps) interchangeable with meteoroids, so this clearly implies a mistake in the understanding of cosmology they thought the stars are small objects when in reality stars are MASSIVE objects, and are no way similar size to meteoroids.
Ansar Al 'Adl
The allegation is as follows:

Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].


Verses in question:


2:29 It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; Thumma (Then/Moreover) His design comprehended the heavens, for He gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect knowledge.
And
79:27-30. What! Are ye the more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? ((Allah)) hath constructed it: On high hath He raised its canopy, and He hath equally ordered it. Its night doth He endow with darkness, and its splendour doth He bring out (with light). And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse)
1. At first sight, it may seem as though these verses contradict because 2:29 mentions the earth before the heavens, while in 79:27-21, the situation is reversed. However, on closer inspection, we discover some significant differences:
A) 2:29 mentions the development of the heavens into seven layers, not their initial creation which is described in 79:27-31.
B) 2:29 describes the creation of the earth and its features while 79:27-31 only descibres the spreading of the earth

Thus, based on the two verses we know two things:

1. The creation of the earth preceded the formation of the heavens into seven layers
2. The creation of the heavens preceded the 'spreading' of the earth.
And a third point is logically concluded from the above:
3. The creation of the heavens preceded their formation into seven layers

However, it is not know from the verses whether the creation of the heavens preceded the creation of the earth or vice versa, or whether they occurred simultaneously. Some Qur'anic commentators took one view while others took another. What we do know is that the heavens and the earth were created and then subsequently the earth was spread and the heavens formed into seven layers. This interpretation is supported by the classical commentaries of the Qur'an. As Imaam Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273CE) states in his monumental Al-Jaami` le Ahkaam al-Qur'an when giving his opinion on the Qur'anic description:

I believe that what Qatada said is sound Allah willing: that Allah first created the smoke of heaven and then created the earth and directed Himself to heaven, which was smoke and [He] arranged it and then He smoothed out the earth. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 2003, vol. 1, p.200, emphasis added)

Imaam Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d. 1372CE) also distinguishes between the different stages in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim, while presenting a slightly different view:

It already has been mentioned previously in [the Tafsir of] Surat Ha Mim As-Sajdah that the earth was created before the heaven was created, but it was only spread out after the creation of the heaven. This means that He brought out what was in it with a forceful action. This is the meaning of what was said by Ibn Abbas and others, and it was the explanation preferred by Ibn Jarir [At-Tabari (d. 923CE)] (fn. At-Tabari 24:208). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 10, p. 350, emphasis added)

Thus, the commentators are agreed that the difference in verse 2:29 and verses 79:27-31 relates to the different stages in the creation of the heavens and the earth, with the earth's 'spreading' occurring after the creation of the heavens and the development of the heavens occurring after the creation of the earth. The commentators only differ regarding the creation of the earth preceding the creation of the heavens, or vice versa, or if they were both created simultaneously.

Scientific research describes the creation and formation of the earth in the following stages:

Differentiation in the first few 100's of millions of years led to the formation of the core and the mantle and a crust, and initiated the escape of gases from the moving interior that eventually led to the formation of the atmosphere and oceans.

The earliest Earth was probably an unsorted conglomeration, mostly of silicon compounds, iron and magnesium oxides, and smaller amounts of all the natural elements. It became increasingly hotter as the protoplanet grew.

...After loss of the hydrogen, helium and other hydrogen-containing gases from early Earth due to the Sun's radiation, primitive Earth was devoid of an atmosphere. The first atmosphere was formed by outgassing of gases trapped in the interior of the early Earth, which still goes on today in volcanoes.

For the Early Earth, extreme volcanism occurred during differentiation, when massive heating and fluid-like motion in the mantle occurred. It is likely that the bulk of the atmosphere was derived from degassing early in the Earth's history.

...Lava flowing from the partially molten interior spread over the surface and solidified to form a thin crust. This crust would have melted and solidified repeatedly, with the lighter compounds moving to the surface. This is called differentiation. Weathering by rainfall broke up and altered the rocks. The end result of these processes was a continental land mass, which would have grown over time. The most popular theory limits the growth of continents to the first two billion years of the Earth. (SOURCE)

The above description informs us that the earth was initially one mass and through differentiation and volcanic out-gassing, the early atmosphere formed. Then, cooling of the earth resulted in the formation of land mass.

These descriptions concur with the Qur'anic description that the earth (2:29) and the heaven (79:27) were created and were originally one mass and then separated (verse 21:30), the heavens were then developed into seven layers (verse 2:29) and the earth's crust was later spread out (79:30). The last description may be a reference to the cooling of the earth's crust, or it may be a reference to continental drift.

Thus, we find that the Qur'an does not contradict itself here, but instead contains accurate details regarding the formation of the earth in the stages.

2. According to an alternative interpretation, verse 2:29 is rendered as follows:
He is the One who created for you all that's inside earth (Matter), then turned to the sky and perfected seven universes therein, and He is fully aware of all things.
Therefore, verse 2:29 is taken to refer to the creation of the universe and it is not the creation of the earth being described here, but rather what is in the earth, or matter. And verse 79:30 is referring to the spreading of the earth, which has been defined before.

3. A third explanation argues on the understanding of thumma, which does not always indicate sequential order. The meaning of Thumma is explained very well by Moiz Amjad in his article entitled The Meaning of "Thumma" & "Yawm". Therefore, when verse 2:29 says that Allah created the earth and thumma He turned to the heavens, this could also be read as "Furthermore He turned to the heavens" which does not necessarily imply that the creation of the heavens is after the creation of earth. Critics argue that when it says God turned towards the heaven, this implies a sequential act. But this is not entirely true, as God could have turned to the heaven at any point in the past, not necessarily after the creation of the heavens. This point is emphasized in the classical tafsirs as well. Imaam Qurtubi writes:

In His words "then directed", the word "then" is simply a narrative aid and does not imply any time sequence in the matetrs referred to. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 2003, vol. 1, p.199)

Similarly, Imaam Ibn Kathir writes:

It is said that "Then" in the Ayah (2:29) relates only to the order of reciting the information being given, it does not relate to the order that the events being mentioned took place, this was reported from Ibn 'Abbas by 'Ali bin Abi Talhah. (fn. At-Tabari 1:437). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 1, p. 180)

Thus, this explanation is not in conflict with the traditional understanding of the earlier Muslims.

From the above points, it should be clear that these verses do not in any way constitute a contradiction.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/wh..._ansar_al__adl

WHEN YOU MAKE A 'SCIENTIFIC CLAIM' BACK IT UP WITH SCIENCE!






How do those verses benefit modern humans?
They serve as one of numerous examples to the transcendence & miraculous nature of the Quran.
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 04:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ

There are some things one may not have knowledge of, they should go study, making them a student, a student of knowledge, but then someone comes along states something which they've never heard of, would you think they'd believe it or actually go study, ask the learned etc etc?
Ask, that is what I am doing here right, I am asking. I've asked scholars before too.

An example, we know air exists, but choose not to believe it as we do not see it, does this make sense? or make sense to deny? but there is proof that something is there and keeping us alive.. hmm, i'm not good with explanations.. hopefully, someone can explain..
We know air exists, because we can prove it. The key point being proof.

If you wouldn't reject islaam though you were given all wealth, this would make you a believer, but it would be your faith/belief, it would rely upon you, accepting or not accepting, you are only benefiting yourself and nobody, you are not affecting the kingdom of the creator, this is your choice whether to take or not.. Or say if you did take it, but then you realised it was wrong of you, perhaps your greed got the better of you, perhaps materialistic? later you realised it's wrong, you'd repent with it's conditions i.e. sincerety, truth etc and inshaa'Allaah forgiven, indeed Allaah is all-mercyful..
Yeah I understand that, but I was saying something else.


This isn't about unicorns, it is about choice to believe in God and his messenger and that which was revealed unto him 'The Qur'aan', to have sincerety to at least learn or have the intention to do. Perhaps just in order to gain knowledge.
You can't believe in something without proof is my point, I am not convinced about the proof of Islam.


Whose commiting a crime? One of reasons he (Abu Talib) didn't accept was because he felt he was going to lower himself in society by rejecting the religion of his forefathers.. Did Muhammad (P) commit a crime against him? In fact it is known as the year of sorrow, where his uncle, and wife passed away.
Well Allah thinks it s a crime, if not believe in Allah wasn't a crime then why would he punish you for not believe in him? So, can you imagine, that is like me saying to you, that If you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster then you'll be punished for eternity, you're going to laugh right, since you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. To say Abu Talib didn't believe in Islam despite him knowing it was true, is just a Muslim narrative i.e. a spin on the story, there is no other option for a person to say anything but that to justify it.
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 04:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007

Well Allah thinks it s a crime, if not believe in Allah wasn't a crime then why would he punish you for not believe in him? So, can you imagine, that is like me saying to you, that If you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster then you'll be punished for eternity, you're going to laugh right, since you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. To say Abu Talib didn't believe in Islam despite him knowing it was true, is just a Muslim narrative i.e. a spin on the story, there is no other option for a person to say anything but that to justify it.
Celestial Teapots, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and Other Silly Atheist Arguments
Saturday, May 15, 2010, 1:40 AM
Joe Carter

[Note: While I had intended to avoid writing any more about atheism for a long, long time, I thought I'd add just a couple of more posts on the topic. It tends to be a bit slow around here on the weekend so I thought it couldn't hurt to extend the conversation for one more day.]
You have to pity the modern atheist who attempts to present arguments for her cause. Unmoored from any respectable intellectual tradition, each generation is forced to recreate anti-theistic arguments from scratch. The result is that the claims which they believe to be clever and ****ing often turn out to be—to use a technical philosophical phrase—just plain silly.

Take for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. According to Wikipedia, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter sent to the education board, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which resembles spaghetti and meatballs. He furthermore calls for the “Pastafarian” theory of creation to be taught in science classrooms, essentially invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of intelligent design. (The FSM has been popularized by the otherwise charming and intelligent folks at BoingBoing.)
What Henderson actually showed was (a) a profound ignorance of the design argument, (b) a profound ignorance of what the Kansas board was actually proposing, and (c) that OSU should require physics graduates to take courses in philosophy. But what Henderson was trying to get at, though he doesn’t seem clever enough to grasp his own point, is similar to what Bertrand Russell was arguing with his “celestial teapot” analogy. In the famous passage from “Is There a God?”, Russell writes:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Russell’s rather unoriginal argument has recently rehashed by atheism’s most unoriginal apologist, Richard Dawkins. Both Russell and Dawkins (and everyone else who uses this line of reasoning) attempt to argue along the lines that “If the existence of X (celestial teapots, FSMs, God) has not been disproven, it does not follow that X exists, or even that it is reasonable to believe that X exists.”
This point is both obvious and uncontroversial. The problem comes when they try to suggest, as philosopher William Vallicella says, “that belief in God (i.e., belief that God exists) is epistemically on a par with believing in a celestial teapot. Just as we have no reason to believe in celestial teapots, irate lunar unicorns (lunicorns?), flying spaghetti monsters, and the like, we have no reason to believe in God.”
Vallicella points out the key problem with this thinking: we have all sorts of reasons for believing that God exists. True, atheists may not find them compelling. But so what? “The issue is whether a reasoned case can be made for theism, and the answer is in the affirmative,” says Vallicella. “Belief in God and in Russell’s teapot are therefore not on a par since there are no empirical or theoretical reasons for believing in his teapot.”
Celestial teapots and FSMs do, however, differ on one key point. The celestial teapot is a contingent being, its coming into being and continued existence is contingent on the existence of something else (namely the universe). The teapot is a physical being whose existence is radically dependent on the existence of matter. The teapot could cease to exist without affecting the universe. But if the universe ceased to exist, so would the celestial teapot.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, however, is akin to God in that it is posited as a being that creates contingent beings. As Henderson claims in his letter, “We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.” If the FSM created the universe then the universe is radically dependent on the FSM. As I pointed out in my previous post, if the universe was created into existence then it is possible for the entire universe to go out of existence, to simply cease to exist. Its continued existence therefore requires a causal agent to keep it from ceasing to exist, to prevent its exnihilation. (Note: This would be true even if the universe has always existed and was uncaused (i.e., the view of steady-state cosmology).)
In his attempt to be clever, Henderson misses the point that his FSM is more philosophically plausible than what (I suspect) he actually believes. Presumably since he is a physicist, Henderson believes either that the universe was created from nothing (everything from nothingness) or that he subscribes to some alternate view such as the multiverse theory. The idea that (a) absolute nothingness (non-existence) created the universe and that (b) this nothingness sustains the universe from exnihilation (complete non-existence) is philosophically and scientifically absurd.
That leaves us with the second option, that the universe was created by something else, such as a Perpetual Universe Generator (PUG). In essence, the PUG plays the same roles as God or the FSM. Each is an entity that exists non-contingently and resides outside of the normal laws of the known physical universe. (The FSM is a creature comprised of stringy noodles while the PUG is a construct comprised of noodly theories about strings.) The only difference is that Henderson is positing an un-intelligent designer (nothingness, the PUG) while the alternatives are intelligent designers (the FSM, God).
Why exactly we are to prefer an unintelligent designer to an intelligent one is one of the questions that remains unanswered. Obviously, not all atheists believe that arguments must be intelligently designed; but that does not mean that all arguments for intelligent design* are without merit. Perhaps if they used their noodles for something other than creating spaghetti creatures they’d see that obvious point for themselves.
(Note: By “arguments for intelligent design” I do not mean merely argument for Intelligent Design theory but all arguments that claim that the the universe was created and sustained by a self-existing Being who possesses intelligence (or, a minimum, a Being that possesses teleological intention and the ability to act in accordance with that self-willed intention). In other words, arguments that are made by almost all forms of theism and deism.)
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fir...ist-arguments/


Sadly you lose credibility when your 'logic' as an atheist is borrowed and in an of itself its own form of indoctrination rather than borne out of free thought; and that was actually apparent from the get go anyway.
Usually a true free thinker contemplate, philosophizes, has impartiality, and open to possibility, not one who concocts, borrows, plagiarizes, condescends and professes accolades that are already born silly to somebody else.
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 04:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Greetings,
Salaam.


Among the claims which those who disbelieve in the Messengers make is that what happened to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was some kind of epilepsy, or that the devils made some kind of contact with him.
It was my opinion, since that is very hard to prove weather he had temporal lope epilepsy or not.


This is a lie, for these are two entirely different matters. The one who suffers an epileptic fit turns yellow, becomes light and loses his balance, as also happens to the one who is afflicted by the Shaytaan (Satan); as the Shaytaan may speak through his mouth and address the people present, and when he recovers from his loss of consciousness the person is unaware and does not remember anything that the Shaytaan (Satan) said on his lips to the people present. But in the case of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when the angel contacted him, caused his body to increase in size and his face was filled with light. Moreover, people sitting with him did not hear anything that was said, rather they heard a sound like the buzzing of bees around his head [1]. Afterwards the Messenger would stand up and he would be aware of everything that the angel had told him, and he was the one who would tell his Companions what had been revealed to him.

'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her and with her father) told us that, 'The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would receive revelation on an intensely cold day, and by the time it departed from him, his forehead would be dripping with sweat.' [2]

And she told us that his camel - if he received revelation whilst riding on it - would almost sink to its knees because of his weight [3]. One of the Sahaabah (Companions of the Prophet) mentioned that his thigh was beneath the thigh of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when revelation came to him. At the moment when revelation was coming to him, the thigh of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) almost crushed the thigh of the Sahabi (the Companion) [4].

Ya'laa ibn Umayyah told us that he witnessed an occasion when revelation came to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); before that he had wished that he could witness that (situation and) condition. He said: 'I came in and he was red in the face. He stayed like that for a while, then (this condition) departed from him.' [5]

[1] Tirmidhi, see Jaami' al-Usool, 12/41.
[2] Bukhari: Kitab Badu'al Wahy (See Fath al-Baari, 1/18).
[3] This has been referred to by Al-Bayhaqi in Ad-Dalaa'il, quoting from 'Aa'ishah. See Fath al-Baari, 1/21.
[4] Bukhari: Salaah, 12; Jihaad, 31; Nasaa'i: Jihaad, 4; Ahmad: 5/184.
[5] The hadith of Ya'laa is narrated by Bukhari and others. Bukhari: Kitaab Fadaa'il al-Qur'an. Fath al-Baari, 9/9.


You can also see:
The Prophet Muhammad(P) and the Slander of Epilepsy
I am sorry, but this is so non-scientific any silly that is is beyond addressing, it's going into the realms of the supernatural. Satan speaking through someone mouth, I mean this person believes Satan exists and Satan can take over the body of a human being and speak from their body, am I supposed to take this person seriously? How naive are Muslims that they are so gullible to believe anything another Muslim writes, do you not understand that this kind of thing doesn't give credible to Islam it makes it look more silly. I had one Muslim tell me Muhammed was the first man in space, because Muhammed said he went to the 7 heavens on a magic horse, am sure you know about that story.
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 04:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
It was my opinion, since that is very hard to prove weather he had temporal lope epilepsy or not.
You should back your opinion up or don't post it all together, in fact I delight in the opportunity of you going ahead with that thought. hearsay doesn't a logical argument make!
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
I am sorry, but this is so non-scientific any silly
You don't actually know how science works do you?
at any rate just so you're up to speed I have covered it a a little here:

the logic of statistics is you can never prove anything all you can do is disprove something!
if I want to prove a drug works, I can't, but what I can do is disprove that the drug doesn't work! Ahhhhhh the (double negative) that is the way to get to where you wanted!

we have a double blind randomized design to prove that a new wonder drug works, one half of the participants gets the wonder drug, the other half gets placebo
follow both groups and see when they will have relief from their symptoms,

1- the research design isn't flawed

now let's discuss the null hypothesis ..the 'null hypothesis is the opposite of what you want to find. group A fails to get over the sx. faster than group B.
with the null hypothesis we state it and then leave it alone .. we pass out pills and collect data next .. take the data feed it into the computer ..
what comes out T as in a t test, x^2, f etc etc.
we should only focus on the P value is key for making statistical decisions
we make decisions by putting a standard in place and comparing empirical evidence to it .. so that is what the P value is, the standard and the summary of the data .
this alpha criterion is something you decide before you make your research, you can set the value high or low, it is your discretion
people put the value of P at less than or equal to .05
a confidence interval of 95% means one is correct 95% of the time .. the other five percent is the time when one is wrong
a confidence interval of 95% corresponds exactly to a P value of </=0.05
95% chance of being right, 5 % chance of being wrong

outcomes for our study p=.02
.02 is under the bar which is very good because it means we get to 'reject the null hypothesis' because the null hypothesis is the opposite of what we are looking for .. if we reject the null hypothesis, the drug works!

is it possible that the drug works in the study but not out in the world?
yes possible though unlikely..

what this means is that we have made a type one error, or alpha error, this type of error basically states we rejected the null hypothesis but we shouldn't have . You'll never know for sure if you have made a type one error, all you know is the chance that you made a type one error that chance is found in the p value a .02 i.e a 2% chance .
p value is type one error
if the number for the p value gets too low, we'll take that chance

2nd outcome for the study, p=1.3 we are now above the bar, we can't reject the null hypothesis, we fail to reject the null hypothesis..
you never 'accept the null hypothesis'
same as 'jury logic' not that you are innocent, just that there isn't enough evidence to convict you . the chance for a type one error here? = 0 why? because to make a type one error you must first reject the null hypothesis.
however in this case we could have made a beta type error means, I didn't reject the null hypothesis but I should have .. in other words in the study the drug is crap, but out in the real world, it works well..
chance of making a type two error? we don't know.. can't look at P value because P value only tells us a type one error ONLY!

type one error is considered worse ..
which is worse looking at you and lying or simply forgetting to tell you something?
lying is worse, that is a type one error a 'sin of commission' because first do no harm is a physician's oath.

now you are giving this new drug because it has been approved and works great, the patient is now asking this drug works great in research, what is the chance it will work for me? best response is 'I don't know' this gives you statistical significance not clinical significance!

you can answer the patient by looking at the table the one that tells you, who got the drug, who didn't get the drug, got better, didn't get better
got drug got better 70%
got drug didn't get better 30%
no drug better 30%
not better no drug 70%

pt.s chance of getting better on drug
the answer here is 70% chance of getting better out of one hundred people that got the drug 70% of them got better!

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1337181

best,
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 04:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
Sadly you lose credibility when your 'logic' as an atheist is borrowed and in an of itself its own form of indoctrination rather than borne out of free thought; and that was actually apparent from the get go anyway.
Usually a true free thinker contemplate, philosophizes, has impartiality, and open to possibility, not one who concocts, borrows, plagiarizes, condescends and professes accolades that are already born silly to somebody else.
You can't even think for yourself, you're quoting a blog and a post by a non-Muslim, you really think that refutes everything, almost 1 millennia of philosophical thought? stop reading nonsense are try to actually pick something up which will increase your understand, stop reading these terribly badly written blog posts.

Do you have any idea of how stupid and weak that argument is he says, that Russles teapot and God or not on the same par, and his argument for this is, that God has empirical evidence which is utter-nonsense, since belief in God is based on faith, and not on empirical evidence. David Koresh, convinced his followers to commit mass suicide on the basis of that he was a messenger from God, yet folks believed him, since their belief was based on faith. So you're quoting sources, which don't understand logic or epistemology, and in his deluded mindset he believes he has debunked it. Please don't spam me with such nonsense, I am not going to waste my time with such logically fallacious content.
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 04:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
You don't actually know how science works do you?
at any rate just so you're up to speed I have covered it a a little here:

the logic of statistics is you can never prove anything all you can do is disprove something!
if I want to prove a drug works, I can't, but what I can do is disprove that the drug doesn't work! Ahhhhhh the (double negative) that is the way to get to where you wanted!

we have a double blind randomized design to prove that a new wonder drug works, one half of the participants gets the wonder drug, the other half gets placebo
follow both groups and see when they will have relief from their symptoms,

1- the research design isn't flawed

now let's discuss the null hypothesis ..the 'null hypothesis is the opposite of what you want to find. group A fails to get over the sx. faster than group B.
with the null hypothesis we state it and then leave it alone .. we pass out pills and collect data next .. take the data feed it into the computer ..
what comes out T as in a t test, x^2, f etc etc.
we should only focus on the P value is key for making statistical decisions
we make decisions by putting a standard in place and comparing empirical evidence to it .. so that is what the P value is, the standard and the summary of the data .
this alpha criterion is something you decide before you make your research, you can set the value high or low, it is your discretion
people put the value of P at less than or equal to .05
a confidence interval of 95% means one is correct 95% of the time .. the other five percent is the time when one is wrong
a confidence interval of 95% corresponds exactly to a P value of </=0.05
95% chance of being right, 5 % chance of being wrong

outcomes for our study p=.02
.02 is under the bar which is very good because it means we get to 'reject the null hypothesis' because the null hypothesis is the opposite of what we are looking for .. if we reject the null hypothesis, the drug works!

is it possible that the drug works in the study but not out in the world?
yes possible though unlikely..

what this means is that we have made a type one error, or alpha error, this type of error basically states we rejected the null hypothesis but we shouldn't have . You'll never know for sure if you have made a type one error, all you know is the chance that you made a type one error that chance is found in the p value a .02 i.e a 2% chance .
p value is type one error
if the number for the p value gets too low, we'll take that chance

2nd outcome for the study, p=1.3 we are now above the bar, we can't reject the null hypothesis, we fail to reject the null hypothesis..
you never 'accept the null hypothesis'
same as 'jury logic' not that you are innocent, just that there isn't enough evidence to convict you . the chance for a type one error here? = 0 why? because to make a type one error you must first reject the null hypothesis.
however in this case we could have made a beta type error means, I didn't reject the null hypothesis but I should have .. in other words in the study the drug is crap, but out in the real world, it works well..
chance of making a type two error? we don't know.. can't look at P value because P value only tells us a type one error ONLY!

type one error is considered worse ..
which is worse looking at you and lying or simply forgetting to tell you something?
lying is worse, that is a type one error a 'sin of commission' because first do no harm is a physician's oath.

now you are giving this new drug because it has been approved and works great, the patient is now asking this drug works great in research, what is the chance it will work for me? best response is 'I don't know' this gives you statistical significance not clinical significance!

you can answer the patient by looking at the table the one that tells you, who got the drug, who didn't get the drug, got better, didn't get better
got drug got better 70%
got drug didn't get better 30%
no drug better 30%
not better no drug 70%

pt.s chance of getting better on drug
the answer here is 70% chance of getting better out of one hundred people that got the drug 70% of them got better!

best,
Right I am not going to address any more of your copy and pastes, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I said Allah says something which is non-scientific. That means it contradicts science, therefore it is wrong. And your response was to post something which does not even address that. If you don't know what I am talking about then don't just start copy and pasting stuff to me, I am going to start ignoring it.
dicnce
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 05:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
You can't even think for yourself, you're quoting a blog and a post by a non-Muslim, you really think that refutes everything, almost 1 millennia of philosophical thought? stop reading nonsense are try to actually pick something up which will increase your understand, stop reading these terribly badly written blog posts.
Who can and can't think for themselves is really left up to the reader.
I am still waiting for you to backup what you say with what you claim to know!

Do you have any idea of how stupid and weak that argument is he says, that Russles teapot and God or not on the same par, and his argument for this is, that God has empirical evidence which is utter-nonsense, since belief in God is based on faith, and not on empirical evidence. David Koresh, convinced his followers to commit mass suicide on the basis of that he was a messenger from God, yet folks believed him, since their belief was based on faith. So you're quoting sources, which don't understand logic or epistemology, and in his deluded mindset he believes he has debunked it. Please don't spam me with such nonsense, I am not going to waste my time with such logically fallacious content.
Go back and read my post above on the null hypothesis, and double negatives and when you become familiar a little bit with science and less exasperated can you come & discuss with me 'scientifically' what can be or can't be proven. & what a golden opportunity - don't you want to prove to everyone how smart you're and how stupid I am.. I am totally up for that.. go ahead and give me the best you got!
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 05:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Right I am not going to address any more of your copy and pastes, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I said Allah says something which is non-scientific. That means it contradicts science, therefore it is wrong. And your response was to post something which does not even address that. If you don't know what I am talking about then don't just start copy and pasting stuff to me, I am going to start ignoring it.
dicnce
Your whole argument against the Quran and the prophet is a cut & paste. If you don't want to read or unable to refute what is written it is a different story all together and I can accept that. I have already read both sides, I have added my own points as you can see the statistics thread is authored by me-so what's your counter rebuttal outside of personal insults directed toward my person?
Like I said I'll be waiting!

best,
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 05:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
Your whole argument against the Quran and the prophet is a cut & paste. If you don't want to read or unable to refute what is written it is a different story all together and I can accept that. I have already read both sides, I have added my own points as you can see the statistics thread is authored by me-so what's your counter rebuttal outside of personal insults directed toward my person?
Like I said I'll be waiting!

best,
No, you seem to misunderstand, I don't appreciate content being copy and pasted to me, which has nothing to do with what I am actually talking about. Those contents deal with different subject matters. I can copy and past counter arguments to those, but I am not going to do that, since it will only end up in a copy and past war. I am not obliged to answer any of your posts so bear that in mind next time. The Qu'ran is simply wrong, even a Harry Potter book actually makes more sense. believing talking rocks Thats about the zenith of your intellect.
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 05:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
Who can and can't think for themselves is really left up to the reader.
I am still waiting for you to backup what you say with what you claim to know!
I've made myself clear, I think you don't understand. So, I'll leave it at that.


Go back and read my post above on the null hypothesis, and double negatives
No that does not adress my points, at best its a straw-man fallacy.

and when you become familiar a little bit with science and less exasperated can you come & discuss with me 'scientifically' what can be or can't be proven.
I would recommned the same for you, I think you're misconstruing my points, and you think you're refuting me, you're only refuting a figment of your imagination.

& what a golden opportunity - don't you want to prove to everyone how smart you're and how stupid I am.. I am totally up for that.. go ahead and give me the best you got!
Lets not get into this childish stupidity, we are not in high-school.
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 05:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
No, you seem to misunderstand, I don't appreciate content being copy and pasted to me, which has nothing to do with what I am actually talking about. Those contents deal with different subject matters. I can copy and past counter arguments to those, but I am not going to do that, since it will only end up in a copy and past war. I am not obliged to answer any of your posts so bear that in mind next time. The Qu'ran is simply wrong, even a Harry Potter book actually makes more sense. believing talking rocks Thats about the zenith of your intellect.
In what way are they not related? The only conclusion I can make of that is that your thought process is extremely linear as they have everything to do with what you've allegedly presented as your own.
The first on the creation of heaven & earth and the scientific view of that one shot. The second addresses your view on what it means to believe in God or not believe in God from a 'scientific' point of view, the third which is in fact authored by me has to do with what it means to 'prove' something scientifically, i.e when we're down to dollars and sense the fourth is challenging you to prove your claims against the prophet of epileptic seizures.
I have not been unjust to you, and notice I haven't so far insulted you personally with go read this or make a post on that by way of sizing you up when frankly it would be very easy for us to do. I don't want to take this thread down to the atheist low common denominator so how about you elevate your dialogue and make it up to par?
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 05:17 PM
My post count isn't going up?
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 05:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
I've made myself clear, I think you don't understand. So, I'll leave it at that.
don't understand what? I don't want to descend down to word play- do you or do you not have something of substance to impart per what is presented you, not how you personally feel toward me!




No that does not adress my points, at best its a straw-man fallacy.
I haven't seen points by you so far.
1- you bring a claim against the Quran, and we have refuted that
2- you bring another unoriginal claim about flying monsters and we had a good laugh at that
3- You speak of science as if a spokesperson and I have already shown how we approach things scientifically- I am yet to see you use the scientific method with anything you write.. you know outside of simply asserting!



I would recommned the same for you, I think you're misconstruing my points, and you think you're refuting me, you're only refuting a figment of your imagination.
I take from that, that you finally concede your surrender? Good- you could have spared much web space doing this from the get go!

best,



Lets not get into this childish stupidity, we are not in high-school.[/QUOTE]
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-06-2012, 05:31 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
So they were created separately, the earth was created first and then the stars (lamps) were created. Which is wrong scientifically speaking since the sun (lamp) was formed shot time before the earth. And even if you say, well it was simultaneously since it was within the two day time frame then it is still wrong too. There is a gap, the earth was created about 4.5 billion years ago, the oldest star (lamp) in the universe is about 11 billion years old, so that means there is a huge gap of 6.5 billion years which is unaccounted for. Also not to mention Allah is mistaking meteoroids (presumably, because stars are not shooting around) as missiles which are fired against devils. So Allah is using stars (lamps) interchangeable with meteoroids, so this clearly implies a mistake in the understanding of cosmology they thought the stars are small objects when in reality stars are MASSIVE objects, and are no way similar size to meteoroids.

What I stated was that the heaven was completed in the last 2 days as the verse states(41:12). It mentioned the lowest heaven was adorned with lamps ie..stars, now I suggest you read the explanation of this one verse alone if your sincere in learning.

The fact that the Qur'aan is from the creator of you and I, while Science is the discovery/research of man, what he did NOT create, nor owns, only of that which God has created and owns.

Your evidence regards to 'meteroids or the supposed mistakes, please?

Please see sister منوة الخيال previous post for more detailed explanation..#30


format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
How do those verses benefit modern humans?
Well, look at what is being promoted in this day and age and study what the Qur'aan forbids.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Now I haven't read all his other sources.
My point exactly, so how exactly did you come across that hadeeth? Was it after a lot of hard work? or the intention of refuting the faith itself?
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 05:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
In what way are they not related? The only conclusion I can make of that is that your thought process is extremely linear as they have everything to do with what you've allegedly presented as your own.
You're imagining things again.

The first on the creation of heaven & earth and the scientific view of that one shot.
What are you actually talking about? I don't think you even know what you're talking about. That has not been addressed, just saying its been addressed doesn't make it true.

The second addresses your view on what it means to believe in God or not believe in God from a 'scientific' point of view,
And I showed how utterly weak that argument was. Since belief is based on faith, and science is best on evidence and fact. The person who made that blog made a mistake on the understanding of how epistemology works. It is a perfectly valid counter argument to say that what you believe is as silly as one saying you should believe in the FMG forget the FMG we can say for example believe what the Shias say is true, as a Sunni you're not going to believe what the Shia is saying is true, these are subjects of faith, you have faith in your own particular sub ideology of Islam, you can never get two religious folks of different faiths to agree, that is simply the nature of faith, there is no evidence for it, just like there is no evidence for a invisible flying teapot. You have to understand how burden of proof works.

the third which is in fact authored by me has to do with what it means to 'prove' something scientifically, i.e when we're down to dollars and sense the fourth is challenging you to prove your claims against the prophet of epileptic seizures.
Well that was just my opinion, I can't prove Muhammed had epileptic attacks, but I don't think that it's beyond reason.

I have not been unjust to you, and notice I haven't so far insulted you personally with go read this or make a post on that by way of sizing you up when frankly it would be very easy for us to do. I don't want to take this thread down to the atheist low common denominator so how about you elevate your dialogue and make it up to par?
I think you started insulting me since yesterday, but lets leave subjects of 'feelings' out since these are completely subjective arguments. You can find me saying Islam isn't true as an insult to you personally, so lets leave these kinds of subjects out. If I've insulted you personally then I apologize, I want to learn the TRUTH and if I find truth in Islam, I would be the first person to retake my shahada and come back to Islam. Actually I was finding some of the responses really good, but then you started doing copy and pastes.
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 05:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
don't understand what? I don't want to descend down to word play- do you or do you not have something of substance to impart per what is presented you, not how you personally feel toward me!




I haven't seen points by you so far.
1- you bring a claim against the quran, and we have refuted that
2- you bring another unoriginal claim about flying monsters and we had a good laugh at that
3- you speak of science as if a spokesperson and i have already shown how we approach things scientifically- i am yet to see you use the scientific method with anything you write.. You know outside of simply asserting!



I take from that, that you finally concede your surrender? Good- you could have spared much web space doing this from the get go!

Best,



lets not get into this childish stupidity, we are not in high-school.
[/quote]

OK, I'll say I have surrendered if that makes you happy, since this conversation I am having with you isn't going anywhere.

I still don't feel my points have been addressed accurately.
Reply

Hulk
07-06-2012, 05:43 PM
Oh is there an issue with "science" and "religion" being opposites?

Religion in essence is the belief that the universe has a Creator. Science is the study of the universe. To say that Science and Religion are opposites is like saying a Macbook factory and a Macbook manual are opposites. It make's no sense does it? Yet some of these people think themselves so "intelligent".

That said, the question that comes to mind is whether or not this defense is Islam-Specific. I say this because when the person who make such false statements I doubt that when he thinks of religion he thinks of Islam, or if he is then he probably has insufficient knowledge on it. I imagine that their idea of religion is as so popularly imagined "an invisible man in the sky", such a sad case of intellectual laziness.

Anyway.. this is just a copy/paste from a thread I started months ago. I don't really like entertaining people who come on here wanting to "debate". Lots of ego involved which definitely shuts out reasoning imo.
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 05:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
You're imagining things again.
Imagining what? I don't like fragments and if this is the way you'll waste board space then might as well just leave the forum. I don't like my time wasted!



What are you actually talking about? I don't think you even know what you're talking about. That has not been addressed, just saying its been addressed doesn't make it true.
Which portions were hard for you to understand? You can't read Quran? or don't understand statistics or don't see a flaw in using the rehashed argument of spaghetti monsters?



And I showed how utterly weak that argument was. Since belief is based on faith, and science is best on evidence and fact. The person who made that blog made a mistake on the understanding of how epistemology works. It is a perfectly valid counter argument to say that what you believe is as silly as one saying you should believe in the FMG forget the FMG we can say for example believe what the Shias say is true, as a Sunni you're not going to believe what the Shia is saying is true, these are subjects of faith, you have faith in your own particular sub ideology of Islam, you can never get two religious folks of different faiths to agree, that is simply the nature of faith, there is no evidence for it, just like there is no evidence for a invisible flying teapot. You have to understand how burden of proof works.
You've shown nothing other than your ability to parrot what other indoctrinated atheists parrot. Use science to prove that God doesn't exist then and then use that same science to refute the Quran!
The whole argument with sunni and shia or which religion is irrelevant here and a complete non-sequitur. There's no point in discussing for instance ambiguous genitalia with someone who can't even fathom what this has to do with cholesterol.



Well that was just my opinion, I can't prove Muhammed had epileptic attacks, but I don't think that it's beyond reason.
then it is incumbent upon you to prove it and showcase what that means in the scheme of things all together.. because when it comes to not knowing what you're talking about, you're a poster child!



I think you started insulting me since yesterday, but lets leave subjects of 'feelings' out since these are completely subjective arguments. You can find me saying Islam isn't true as an insult to you personally, so lets leave these kinds of subjects out. If I've insulted you personally then I apologize, I want to learn the TRUTH and if I find truth in Islam, I would be the first person to retake my shahada and come back to Islam. Actually I was finding some of the responses really good, but then you started doing copy and pastes.
In what way have I insulted you? and let me get one thing clear here.
I am not interested in you accepting Islam or shahada- it doesn't aggrieve me one way or the other and everyone here will attest to that- what concerns me is you spreading fallacious, and false claims against Islam, Muslims, the prophet, the noble Quran on an Islamic forum without backing it up.

best,
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 05:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
OK, I'll say I have surrendered if that makes you happy, since this conversation I am having with you isn't going anywhere.

I still don't feel my points have been addressed accurately.
Not liking the responses you're receiving and being addressed accurately are two separate issues. I think you've been amply accommodated, refuted even humored. Like I said I don't wish to descend down to word play. If you have solid arguments then bring them and we'll do our best with what you bring. But don't assume, condescend, insult, waste web space and member time- I don't think anyone will take kindly to that!
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 05:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ
Greetings,

What I stated was that the heaven was completed in the last 2 days as the verse states(41:12). It mentioned the lowest heaven was adorned with lamps ie..stars, now I suggest you read the explanation of this one verse alone if your sincere in learning.
Could you provide an explanation, I am really having trouble understanding this.

The fact that the Qur'aan is from the creator of you and I, while Science is the discovery/research of man, what he did NOT create, nor owns, only of that which God has created and owns.
But how do I know Allah created me, you said creator of you and I, we have a pretty good understanding of who humans came about. I am just not convinced about the creation in the Qu'ran.

Your evidence regards to 'meteroids or the supposed mistakes, please?
So what else are the missiles thrown at devils, so who is throwing these shinning missiles at devils, is Allah sitting up there throwing around missiles? ^o)

Please see sister منوة الخيال previous post for more detailed explanation..#30
Yeah I wasn't convinced by her responses, in fact it just reinforced my own ideas. Your responses have been far more penetrative, and convincing, at least they seems to be genuine, and not an attempt at obscurantism, so I really respect that very much.


Well, look at what is being promoted in this day and age and study what the Qur'aan forbids.
Right, but those older verses are still in the Qu'ran though are they just in there as part of a story or as a rule?

My point exactly, so how exactly did you come across that hadeeth? Was it after a lot of hard work? or the intention of refuting the faith itself?
I cam across it a long time ago when I was a Muslim, I was debating with a non-Muslim and he mentioned it, coincidently that person was also an Ex-Muslim I hated his guts, so I thought he was making it up, so I made sure to check if he was telling the truth, it turned out he was and it was in the hadith, my argument then as a Muslim was, that those hadith are unreliable.


Masalaam.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-06-2012, 05:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Ask, that is what I am doing here right, I am asking. I've asked scholars before too.
Interesting, what did you ask them scholars? Do you have names in particular?

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
We know air exists, because we can prove it. The key point being proof.
So who created this earth? Who created humanity? all that is in existence? Science has proves much of what is created.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
You can't believe in something without proof is my point, I am not convinced about the proof of Islam.
That's true, but not all in cases. Again i'm not here to convince you. It takes one to believe.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Well Allah thinks it s a crime, if not believe in Allah wasn't a crime then why would he punish you for not believe in him? So, can you imagine, that is like me saying to you, that If you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster then you'll be punished for eternity, you're going to laugh right, since you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. To say Abu Talib didn't believe in Islam despite him knowing it was true, is just a Muslim narrative i.e. a spin on the story, there is no other option for a person to say anything but that to justify it.
No Allaah doesn't think it's a crime, you speak without understanding!

Study the Qur'aan and acknowledge what Allaah is stating many times and whose he referring to. Kafir -one who Covers the truth.

Are you one covering the truth? I do not know, what I do know is your understanding lacks very much, but what I do ask you is that what is your purpose in life, do you know?Who created you and this world you live in? created out of nothing and turn to nothing? If this what your belief is, i only disagree.

Whose arguing free will here? He chose to believe in that of his forefathers, though he loved his nephew (Muhammad (saw), why do you think Muhammad (P) spent all his life inviting people to Islam? Whose choice is it to accept? Did he force those he did invite, of course not. It IS YOUR will whether you want to either study Islam and understand each and every purpose, the purpose behind it etc etc, or just ignore all i've said and continue your life as it is. Also did not state Abu talib believed Islam being the truth, if that was the case he would been a muslim. He loved his nephew and gave him his rights as an uncle. If i'm incorrect, feel free to correct me on that.

Again, if you do not accept Islam as truth, that is your choice entirely, doesn't affect me. If you feel Islam isn't for you, that's fine with me.
Reply

Muhammad
07-06-2012, 06:02 PM
Kt007,

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
It was my opinion, since that is very hard to prove weather he had temporal lope epilepsy or not.
Indeed, it is very difficult to prove, hence one wonders why you hold such an opinion in the first place.

I am sorry, but this is so non-scientific any silly that is is beyond addressing, it's going into the realms of the supernatural.
Of course we are dealing with the supernatural; we are discussing revelation from God to a human being. My post mentions accounts of those who actually witnessed revelation coming down to the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him), and that the claim of epilepsy is sheer ignorance of the reality. Why did you ignore these points and instead attack the article for mentioning Satan, or bring in the issue of Israa wal Mi'raj. I am disappointed as I thought you were actually here for a discussion.

Please be warned that comments such as those in your post against Islam, Muslims and the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) will not be tolerated on this forum.
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 06:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
Oh is there an issue with "science" and "religion" being opposites?

Religion in essence is the belief that the universe has a Creator. Science is the study of the universe. To say that Science and Religion are opposites is like saying a Macbook factory and a Macbook manual are opposites. It make's no sense does it? Yet some of these people think themselves so "intelligent".

That said, the question that comes to mind is whether or not this defense is Islam-Specific. I say this because when the person who make such false statements I doubt that when he thinks of religion he thinks of Islam, or if he is then he probably has insufficient knowledge on it. I imagine that their idea of religion is as so popularly imagined "an invisible man in the sky", such a sad case of intellectual laziness.

Anyway.. this is just a copy/paste from a thread I started months ago. I don't really like entertaining people who come on here wanting to "debate". Lots of ego involved which definitely shuts out reasoning imo.
Salaam brother,

You see science deals with the natural world, while religion deals with the supernatural, i.e. things which are beyond the scope of science. So in essence these two subjects are separate. This is why some scholars never say Islam proves modern science, new the shift is towards saying that Islam does not negate modern science, I have read the works of a leading Islamic writer named Hamza Tzortzis and he constantly states that Islam doesn't negate modern science, though I have refuted Mr. Tzortzis, main argument i.e. the kalam cosmological argument.
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 06:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
You see science deals with the natural world, while religion deals with the supernatural, i.e. things which are beyond the scope of science. So in essence these two subjects are separate. This is why some scholars never say Islam proves modern science, new the shift is towards saying that Islam does not negate modern science, I have read the works of a leading Islamic writer named Hamza Tzortzis and he constantly states that Islam doesn't negate modern science, though I have refuted Mr. Tzortzis, main argument i.e. the kalam cosmological argument.
That's incorrect!
Islam is an entire way of life, it covers every aspect of man's life and his spiritual life. That is a complete system of politics, economics, social structure, philosophy,linguistics, ideology, inheritance and jurisprudence!
Even the mathematics of the Quran is taught in universities see here:
http://www.deltacollege.edu/dept/basicmath/Islamic.htm

so where do you get off speaking of natural vs. super natural? Some things can't be proven that's true but they can also not be disproved and that's where my post on the "null hypothesis' comes in. I really wish you'd stop making baseless statements with such authority without backing them up and as it is obvious you've very minimal knowledge of Islam as is!

best,
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 06:13 PM
I need to take a little break for a while. I can't promise when I'll be back though. Possibly tonight or maybe tomorrow evening, I am working on a project so it depends when I am able to complete the project. But do continue to post responses, I will read them and inshallah get back to you guys.

Masalaam.
Reply

Kt007
07-06-2012, 06:14 PM
oops I mean hopefully not inshallah! that's not a Freudian slip.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-06-2012, 06:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Could you provide an explanation, I am really having trouble understanding this.
Do you not know the heavens and earth were created in 6 days alltogether? in accordance to Qur'aan.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
But how do I know Allah created me, you said creator of you and I, we have a pretty good understanding of who humans came about. I am just not convinced about the creation in the Qu'ran.
How do YOU believe we came about?

The verses in the Qur'aan are clear, to agree or disagree is the readers choice.

Surah Al Alaq, and many more chapters.


format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
So what else are the missiles thrown at devils, so who is throwing these shinning missiles at devils, is Allah sitting up there throwing around missiles?
I asked for evidence that's all, regarding meteroids and the mistakes.

And why does this bother you? I assume you do not believe in 'devils'..

Instead of saying things the way you have, perhaps you could've shown more respect, since you was a 'muslim' at some point in the life of yours.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Yeah I wasn't convinced by her responses.
I suggest you read the sister's response if you've not, inshaa'Allaah

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Right, but those older verses are still in the Qu'ran though are they just in there as part of a story or as a rule?
Which older versions? I'll let you explain..

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
I cam across it a long time ago when I was a Muslim, I was debating with a non-Muslim and he mentioned it, coincidently that person was also an Ex-Muslim I hated his guts, so I thought he was making it up, so I made sure to check if he was telling the truth, it turned out he was and it was in the hadith, my argument then as a Muslim was, that those hadith are unreliable.
So was you debating a scholar of Islaam? any individual does not count.

I'm not going to get into whether the hadeeth is reliable or not, as i'd rather let those knowledgeable position answer, you know I don't want to be responding to something I do not know zero about. I wouldn't go operate on a patient knowing zero about what type of patient i'm dealing with. So by what authority did you conclude the hadeeth to be unreliable? By yours or one whose studied enough to know of it's content, context and authencity?
Reply

Perseveranze
07-06-2012, 06:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Well that was just my opinion, I can't prove Muhammed had epileptic attacks, but I don't think that it's beyond reason.
Actually, it is if you don't want to reject a lot of facts and nit pick scriptural evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Salaam.




It was my opinion, since that is very hard to prove weather he had temporal lope epilepsy or not.
Just so you know, it's an extremely minority opinion. Most Academics (western here) don't believe this theory. I think I already mentioned one of the great neurologists Owsei Temkin (I mention him by name because of his Academic credentials in the field surpasses others who have written on the subject) dispel the claim due to lack of evidence in his book The Falling Sickness: A History of Epilepsy from the Greeks to the Beginnings of Modern Neurology. He also said this claim was held was due to it originating from a Greek scholar (Theophanes) in the medevil period.

And from a psychological perspective, Tor Andrae (I mention tor for the same reason I mention Owsei) does the best refutation against the claim of being a mad man.

Also, Watt (who is the most Academically referenced Historian on Islam) concludes;


"It is incredible that a person subject to epilepsy, or hysteria, or even ungovernable fits of emotion, could have been the active leader of military expeditions, or the cool far-seeing guide of a city-state and a growing religious community; but all this we know Muhammad to have been." - W.Montgomery Watt, Richard Bell. "Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an"(1995) Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-7486-0597-5, pp 17-18;

Everyone's entitled to their opinion I guess, regardless of how weak it is :)
Reply

Hulk
07-06-2012, 06:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kt007
Salaam brother,

You see science deals with the natural world, while religion deals with the supernatural, i.e. things which are beyond the scope of science. So in essence these two subjects are separate. This is why some scholars never say Islam proves modern science, now the shift is towards saying that Islam does not negate modern science, I have read the works of a leading Islamic writer named Hamza Tzortzis and he constantly states that Islam doesn't negate modern science, though I have refuted Mr. Tzortzis, main argument i.e. the kalam cosmological argument.
Basically, science is the study of everything in existence. Right? I'm sure you'd agree to that. Yes, you can say that "science" and "religion" are separate subjects and I would agree with that but they are not opposite which is what seems to be the theme. I'm not trying to use "science" to prove the Quran. To me, all that is needed is simple logic.

The problem with the understanding of science is that it has come down to the only things that exist are the things that you can experience with at least one of your five senses. If you can't experience something with at least one of your five senses then it doesn't exist. That said, there are plenty of things that we cannot actually experience with our limited senses which we require external help. Take bacteria for example, we know it exists yet we can't actually sense it with any of our five sense unless we use something like a microscope. Does that mean that before the invention of the microscope, bacteria didn't exist? Of course not.

As a muslim, I believe that there are things beyond the scope of what my five senses can experience. Like I said in my previous post, the proof of a Creator is the creation. If you find a watch in the middle of a desert you can deduce that there is indeed a watch manufacturer, factory, designer, etc. Even if I can't perceive the watch manufacturer/factory/designer/etc with any of my five sense I can still come to a conclusion that it is indeed there.
Reply

CosmicPathos
07-06-2012, 06:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Actually, it is if you don't want to reject a lot of facts and nit pick scriptural evidence.



Just so you know, it's an extremely minority opinion. Most Academics (western here) don't believe this theory. I think I already mentioned one of the great neurologists Owsei Temkin (I mention him by name because of his Academic credentials in the field surpasses others who have written on the subject) dispel the claim due to lack of evidence in his book The Falling Sickness: A History of Epilepsy from the Greeks to the Beginnings of Modern Neurology. He also said this claim was held was due to it originating from a Greek scholar (Theophanes) in the medevil period.

And from a psychological perspective, Tor Andrae (I mention tor for the same reason I mention Owsei) does the best refutation against the claim of being a mad man.

Also, Watt (who is the most Academically referenced Historian on Islam) concludes;


"It is incredible that a person subject to epilepsy, or hysteria, or even ungovernable fits of emotion, could have been the active leader of military expeditions, or the cool far-seeing guide of a city-state and a growing religious community; but all this we know Muhammad to have been." - W.Montgomery Watt, Richard Bell. "Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an"(1995) Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-7486-0597-5, pp 17-18;

Everyone's entitled to their opinion I guess, regardless of how weak it is :)
Bro, could you share the quotes from that neurologist? Can we read his book on goodreads?
Reply

Perseveranze
07-06-2012, 09:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Bro, could you share the quotes from that neurologist? Can we read his book on goodreads?
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Unfortunately, I've tried to get a snippet of it on-line, but haven't been successful (I even tried to get this "ex-Muslim" who didn't believe me, to go to his library and scan up the pages (because he said his library has the book), but after he found out I was right he never bothered to reply back). This Neurologist website does a short review of it; http://mindhacks.com/2005/11/25/did-...have-epilepsy/

But in Owsie's book, he writes a good 3-4 pages on the subject, which I've tried to get it, but haven't been successful.

You can read part of Tor's analysis here though.
Reply

CosmicPathos
07-06-2012, 09:37 PM
bro, apparently this guy shows that the neurologist proved that Prophet had epilepsy (audubillah).

http://israfilnabeel.blogspot.ca/2012/06/test.html
Reply

StopS
07-06-2012, 10:11 PM
If I may, I would like to make a suggestion.

This thread, from what I see, was created to discuss portions of text in the Koran which could be considered erroneous or contradictory and how this can be either refuted or reconciled in 2012.

Unfortunately, some portions of the discussion were considered so interesting that the topic somehow changed direction and became, as is so often the case, a discussion about scientific processes and the origins of the texts.

I see some pretty strange concepts of what science is, who said what to whom and how this has no bearing on the central theme of the thread.
My suggestion would therefore be: make the necessary definitions regarding science, sources and method of revelation and only when everyone is talking about the same thing on the same level without personal attacks or challenges, decide of one common point and discuss this and then move on to the next one.

This ensures that everyone knows what they are talking about, at a similar level and what the outcome is. Whether Muhammad received a revelation in what condition is pretty much irrelevant as the contents of the revelation or message is what is the origin for the worldview and system of Islam.

I hope this is seen as constructive criticism and positive input.
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 10:21 PM
all topics naturally evolve as the subject matter changes direction. At any rate we have a thread with all said allegations refuted and can be found here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...s-quran-2.html
in fact this fellow's first allegation has already been refuted in that thread if folks would simply use the search feature, they can spare us and themselves all the trouble. Unless they've genuine queries and I am yet to see an original allegation from any atheist.
be that as it may.. what exactly is your concept of 'science' many atheists tote that term around and yet can't use the scientific method in application to what they write. I find that both unfortunate & unfair. You should never exempt yourselves from what you expect from others!
Reply

StopS
07-06-2012, 11:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
At any rate we have a thread with all said allegations refuted and can be found here:
Just trying to help. If this is already covered, ignore my suggestion.

I am yet to see an original allegation from any atheist.
Well, don't give up, there's a first time for everything.

what exactly is your concept of 'science' many atheists tote that term around and yet can't use the scientific method in application to what they write. I find that both unfortunate & unfair. You should never exempt yourselves from what you expect from others!
"many atheists"? Is that like: some say? Maybe I'll open up a thread with some definitions.

the logic of statistics is you can never prove anything all you can do is disprove something!

Religion in essence is the belief that the universe has a Creator. Science is the study of the universe. To say that Science and Religion are opposites is like saying a Macbook factory and a Macbook manual are opposites.
Do you consider these 2 statements to be correct?
Reply

جوري
07-06-2012, 11:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Just trying to help. If this is already covered, ignore my suggestion.
done!



Well, don't give up, there's a first time for everything.
I'd find it hard to give a d@mn under any circumstance!


"many atheists"? Is that like: some say? Maybe I'll open up a thread with some definitions.
Not sure this particular statement merited a comment!



Do you consider these 2 statements to be correct?
The statement I made is accurate when taken in context and I have gone into the statistics, I can't help if you don't understand what that means.


best,
Reply

Perseveranze
07-07-2012, 01:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
bro, apparently this guy shows that the neurologist proved that Prophet had epilepsy (audubillah).

http://israfilnabeel.blogspot.ca/2012/06/test.html
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Brother, no he doesn't lol, Subhanallah that guys trying to twist and hide it. Bro, read the actual scans, it proves my point even more.

A few important things;

1. That's an anti-islam website, do not take their interpretation at face value.

2. They scanned an incomplete section of what Owsei's book, there's more pages after 13, which the author for some reason or another has purposely left out.

3. They themselves never state that Owsei said Muhammad(pbuh) is epileptic, their argument is; "Owsei didn't say anything".

4. In what they do scan, Owsei does narrate the "battle of the epilepsy claim" without giving his own opinion, except in small cases in the footer. For example, he says;


Muir (721), p.6: "It was probably a fit of epilepsy; but Muslim legend has invested it with so many marvellous features as it makes it difficult to discover the real facts." Whereas the clause is true, there is no evidence for the alleged probability of an epileptic fit.

^His first clear disagreement to an event Islamaphobes have claimed was "epilepsy". Then on the last page that is scanned, he says even more clearly;


"Most modern Orientalist have abandoned the beliefs in the epileptic nature of Mohammed's inspirations. All biographical data apart, it is indeed hard to imagine that the Koran, a body of religious, legal, and social instruction should largely be the product of a succession of hallucinatory epileptic attacks."

And then, even more interestingly he says;


The case of Mohammed is instructive (useful) because it illustrates the danger of diagnosing epilepsy in history with disregard of the historical setting, merely on the basis of behavioural similarities. Only recently has the alleged bond between shamanism and epilepsy been dissolved. (bracket meaning by me)

^The above he's saying that it's wrong to say; "this person has epilepsy, because his behaviour is similar as this person", without knowing the historical context of that person.

If anything, from the above alone, it's clear that Owsei was not favourable of the Epileptic theory.

I know for sure now, that the person who wrote that article was the same guy who ran away from me on a youtube debate when I asked him to "scan up the book images". I remember he used the same arguments as the article of "genetic fallacy", meaning "Owsei didn't claim anything". He said he would and that he would get back to me (with the scans), but he never did, despite me asking him 2 weeks after.

Here now I see the guy doesn't scan the whole thing up and tries to misinterpret what Owsei said. He quotes Mindhacks (which is the same Neurologist website I showed him) of a Non-Muslim (it's clear from the way he's writing Muhammad(pbuh)) writing an article regarding Owsei dispelling the myth.

Furthermore, in many Wiki articles, Owsei is referenced as evidence against the Epilepsy claim. There's even a discussion on it here. I quote (from one of the non-muslim editors, who ironically in this case is telling a Muslim not to be offended if some people think Muhammad has epilepsy);

Just to be clear, it is not my opinion that TLE is a source of Muhammad's inspirational spells. I favour Owsei Temkin's argument that the whole association with epilepsy has arisen from slanderous remarks. Temkin is a highly respected author on the history of epilepsy. It should also be clear that the article itself does not claim that TLE is a source of the inspirational spells. It only states that "some researchers" believe this. There are people who hold all sorts of beliefs, some offensive, some nutty. Wikipedia doesn't align itself with those beliefs if all it is doing is reporting that they exist.
It would be really good if we had the full pages, because Owsei might've written a conclusion or something. But from what we can gather, and from what others can gather, it's clear that Owsei's opinion was unfavourable towards Epilepsy.
Reply

Muhammad
07-07-2012, 11:07 AM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
This thread, from what I see, was created to discuss portions of text in the Koran which could be considered erroneous or contradictory and how this can be either refuted or reconciled in 2012.

Unfortunately, some portions of the discussion were considered so interesting that the topic somehow changed direction and became, as is so often the case, a discussion about scientific processes and the origins of the texts.
That is because the initial post throws out claims regarding scientific processes and preservation of the Qur'an; alleged contradictions is only one part of it.

My suggestion would therefore be: make the necessary definitions regarding science, sources and method of revelation and only when everyone is talking about the same thing on the same level without personal attacks or challenges, decide of one common point and discuss this and then move on to the next one.

This ensures that everyone knows what they are talking about, at a similar level and what the outcome is.
I agree that we need to focus on one thing at a time, and ensure everyone is talking about the same thing. It is very difficult to keep track of the discussion otherwise, so thank you for suggesting this.

Whether Muhammad received a revelation in what condition is pretty much irrelevant as the contents of the revelation or message is what is the origin for the worldview and system of Islam.
It is a big difference between believing the Qur'an is a true revelation and believing it is the result of hallucinations or other causes. But I believe this argument has been dealt with and we can focus on some of the others now.
Reply

StopS
07-07-2012, 07:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
I'd find it hard to give a d*mn under any circumstance!
By now, any other reply would have disappointed me.

The statement I made is accurate when taken in context and I have gone into the statistics, I can't help if you don't understand what that means.
Maybe the statement is correct, but I hate to break it to you: your claim is faulty.

"the logic of statistics is you can never prove anything all you can do is disprove something!"

This is an absolute statement where I would not see a context dependent interpretation. But by all means, correct me if I am wrong. I don't understand what the "logic" of statistics is supposed to signify, but I don't consider that important.

Decisions are taken by mainly using logic, intuition and statistics.
Statistics is nothing more than mathematics describing procedures for getting results from an array of defined sample data.
Of course you can prove something using the interpretation of data. Example: I wrote down the fuel consumption of my car over a year which proves it used more than 10l/100 km.
Reply

جوري
07-07-2012, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by StopS

By now, any other reply would have disappointed me.
I take your feelings into consideration when I write!



Maybe the statement is correct, but I hate to break it to you: your claim is faulty.

"the logic of statistics is you can never prove anything all you can do is disprove something!"

This is an absolute statement where I would not see a context dependent interpretation. But by all means, correct me if I am wrong. I don't understand what the "logic" of statistics is supposed to signify, but I don't consider that important.

Decisions are taken by mainly using logic, intuition and statistics.
Statistics is nothing more than mathematics describing procedures for getting results from an array of defined sample data.
Of course you can prove something using the interpretation of data. Example: I wrote down the fuel consumption of my car over a year which proves it used more than 10l/100 km.
If you don't understand the corpus of what I'd written then why do you comment on it? You come in at the end like a deus ex machina and pick up a statement chop it and spin a tale?
There's no 100% anything in science and yes that statement is accurate! Thus I often find is fascinating when an atheist comes here and speaks for or against something with absolution alleging 'scientists, this and scientists that' and when that doesn't pan out they fall into all sorts of logical fallacies, appeals to authority.
Don't bring science into the picture at all when you clearly have no idea how science works or of its core principles, how we create synopsis, abstracts or guidelines and algorithms to tighten the confidence interval so that the data we present is as accurate as we can make it.
You like to argue for the sake of argument and I am yet to see anything substantive from you or the rest of the atheist clan!
Reply

StopS
07-08-2012, 10:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
I am yet to see anything substantive from you or the rest of the atheist clan!
You never will.
Reply

Al-manar
07-09-2012, 03:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
If I may, I would like to make a suggestion.

This thread, from what I see, was created to discuss portions of text in the Koran which could be considered erroneous or contradictory and how this can be either refuted or reconciled in 2012.

.
Greetings and welcome to the forum StopS ...

you are right , let's reset the topic .... you will find some of those members who like to address the person not the point ,so Its your duty to reward them skipping their posts....


you know for sure ,any religious scripture but been attacked ,including the Quran...

on the other hand you know too ,that in all religions ,no criticism but been countered "whether successfully or not" ......

now my suggestion to get back to the topic ,what are the top Quranic errors (from your point of view) ,that in spite of the muslims' rebuttals ,you are not convinced to be a refutation that cleared up the problems?


reagrds
Reply

StopS
07-10-2012, 04:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
Greetings and welcome to the forum StopS ...

you are right , let's reset the topic .... you will find some of those members who like to address the person not the point ,so Its your duty to reward them skipping their posts....

you know for sure ,any religious scripture but been attacked ,including the Quran...

on the other hand you know too ,that in all religions ,no criticism but been countered "whether successfully or not" ......

now my suggestion to get back to the topic ,what are the top Quranic errors (from your point of view) ,that in spite of the muslims' rebuttals ,you are not convinced to be a refutation that cleared up the problems?

reagrds
Thanks for your support. Unfortunately, people here don't seem to want a discussion about this topic. So I'll just leave it.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-10-2012, 05:37 PM
I am sure members do wish to discuss the topic

If you have questions or wish to discuss a certain topic, feel free to post away..
Reply

Ali_008
07-10-2012, 06:23 PM
:salamext:

“I guarantee a house in Jannah for one who gives up arguing, even if he is in the right; and I guarantee a house in the middle of Jannah for one who abandons lying even for the sake of fun; and I guarantee a house in the highest part of Jannah for one who has good manners.”
- Prophet Muhammad :saws:- reported by Imam Abu Dawud

Reply

جوري
07-10-2012, 06:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_008
:salamext:

“I guarantee a house in Jannah for one who gives up arguing, even if he is in the right; and I guarantee a house in the middle of Jannah for one who abandons lying even for the sake of fun; and I guarantee a house in the highest part of Jannah for one who has good manners.”
- Prophet Muhammad :saws:- reported by Imam Abu Dawud

I enjoyed this alot especially the comic .. I don't think however that this necessarily applies to the dissemination of false information about Islam or casting a blind eye to frank insolence against the religion or Islamic fundamentals especially not while using an Islamic medium for such an outlet.
I'd personally let it go were it not for two persistent verrucas acting as a morality squad with a BB gun!
One who has already professed sarcasm in his intro. And persists on asserting his scholarship and his instant yes man who proclaims the desire to skip over those who attack the person rather than the argument yet takes every opportunity to do just that!
It's not ok in my book and something by way of intro and personal history should indeed come into play when considering the information you're receiving as to the source!
Reply

Hulk
07-10-2012, 06:53 PM
Too many goofballs think they are qualified to debate.
Reply

tango92
07-10-2012, 07:35 PM
at the end of the day, islam is correct, Prophet muhamad pbuh is Haq. athiests are doomed, and muslims are saved

this has nothing to do with the thread
Reply

StopS
07-10-2012, 07:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_008
:salamext:

“I guarantee a house in Jannah for one who gives up arguing, even if he is in the right; and I guarantee a house in the middle of Jannah for one who abandons lying even for the sake of fun; and I guarantee a house in the highest part of Jannah for one who has good manners.”

Now that is a cool quote!
Reply

Ali_008
07-10-2012, 08:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
I enjoyed this alot especially the comic .. I don't think however that this necessarily applies to the dissemination of false information about Islam or casting a blind eye to frank insolence against the religion or Islamic fundamentals especially not while using an Islamic medium for such an outlet.
I'd personally let it go were it not for two persistent verrucas acting as a morality squad with a BB gun!
One who has already professed sarcasm in his intro. And persists on asserting his scholarship and his instant yes man who proclaims the desire to skip over those who attack the person rather than the argument yet takes every opportunity to do just that!
It's not ok in my book and something by way of intro and personal history should indeed come into play when considering the information you're receiving as to the source!
I completely understand what you're talking and agree with it. I know how the threads on this forum transform into verbal wars. I didn't go through all the posts. I just posted the Hadith as a reminder to all my Muslim brothers and sisters.

I hope the doubts are soon cleared and the non-Muslim fellas are blessed with guidance from Al-Hadi. I'll try to pitch in where I can. :popcorn:

:Alhumdill
Reply

Al-manar
07-10-2012, 10:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_008
:salamext:

“I guarantee a house in Jannah for one who gives up arguing, even if he is in the right; and I guarantee a house in the middle of Jannah for one who abandons lying even for the sake of fun; and I guarantee a house in the highest part of Jannah for one who has good manners.”
- Prophet Muhammad :saws:- reported by Imam Abu Dawud
you didn't put this noble Quranic verse into your consideration,Ali

Holy Quran 29:46 argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one ; we are devoted to Him.

A Muslim shouldn't be obsessed by debates ,but arguments with the best way "descent,informative" with non Muslims is something the Quran urges....

how many Muslims been victims to the misconceptions and allegations leveled against Islam. and been saved by the counter arguments of the Muslims with well knowledge...

you deny reading a Muslim arguments against some criticism of Islam? I doubt you (or any Muslim) would deny so....

I know Muslims that were on their way to leave Islam ,but thanx for the counter arguments of muslims that eliminated their doubts ...

I know,personally, some muslims who been saved from doubt after reading my articles and book...

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Thanks for your support.
civilized men like you should have the most respect and best treatment...

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Unfortunately, people here don't seem to want a discussion about this topic.
though the posts that follow your post proves your point ,it seems that me and sis Ğħαrєєвαħ (may be others too) ,would like to...

take care
Reply

جوري
07-11-2012, 12:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
you didn't put this noble Quranic verse into your consideration,Ali
Holy Quran 29:46 argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one ; we are devoted to Him.
And what does the noble book say of atheists who disrespect Islam, the prophet, misquote or omit or interpret at whim, mock customs, Islamic rituals and the sanctity of muslim women?

Let me refresh for you for you're ever the voice of reason who finds shneuda an asset and Gadaffi a martyr and apparently anti adhan atheists civilized ...truly it's as the prophet (PBUH) said, ''you're with whom you love''

Al-An'am (The Cattle) [6:68]

[RECITE]
[top] [next match]

Waitha raayta allatheena yakhoodoona fee ayatina faaAArid AAanhum hatta yakhoodoo fee hadeethin ghayrihi waimma yunsiyannaka alshshaytanu fala taqAAud baAAda alththikra maAAa alqawmi alththalimeena
Reply

Ali_008
07-11-2012, 03:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
you didn't put this noble Quranic verse into your consideration,Ali

Holy Quran 29:46 argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one ; we are devoted to Him.

A Muslim shouldn't be obsessed by debates ,but arguments with the best way "descent,informative" with non Muslims is something the Quran urges....

how many Muslims been victims to the misconceptions and allegations leveled against Islam. and been saved by the counter arguments of the Muslims with well knowledge...

you deny reading a Muslim arguments against some criticism of Islam? I doubt you (or any Muslim) would deny so....

I know Muslims that were on their way to leave Islam ,but thanx for the counter arguments of muslims that eliminated their doubts ...

I know,personally, some muslims who been saved from doubt after reading my articles and book...



civilized men like you should have the most respect and best treatment...



though the posts that follow your post proves your point ,it seems that me and sis Ğħαrєєвαħ (may be others too) ,would like to...

take care
I wasn't saying that we should refrain from highlighting what's right. I wanted to just remind us all that even when we're doing that we should be sure that it doesn't turn into an argument. After all, you can only deliver the message, you can't force the listener to believe it. Allah's Rasool :saws: wasn't able to get his uncles to accept Islam. We are mere half-educated Internet shaykhs. Just deliver the message. Don't make it a debate. If they have a doubt, clear it for them, but if they persistently refuse to believe or act unreasonable or like an ignoramus, you can leave with the assurance that you delivered the message.
Reply

StopS
07-11-2012, 07:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_008
After all, you can only deliver the message, you can't force the listener to believe it.
Yes, that is good advice and makes for a much more relaxed atmosphere.
The only caveat from my side is that this does not make the message true, factual or correct. It could be a belief without any convincing contents. In which case I would be a fool to blindly believe something where I wouldn't know that what I believe is really true.
Reply

Muhammad
07-13-2012, 04:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
The only caveat from my side is that this does not make the message true, factual or correct. It could be a belief without any convincing contents. In which case I would be a fool to blindly believe something where I wouldn't know that what I believe is really true.
Islam does not require us to believe without any proof or rationale. The Qur'an brings forward many arguments and signs, and presents them in different ways - challenging people to think and encouraging them to use their intellect. The Qur'an itself is a miracle proving the truth of its message. So the message that is delivered is one with firm evidences.
Reply

StopS
07-13-2012, 06:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Islam does not require us to believe without any proof or rationale. The Qur'an brings forward many arguments and signs, and presents them in different ways - challenging people to think and encouraging them to use their intellect. The Qur'an itself is a miracle proving the truth of its message. So the message that is delivered is one with firm evidences.
I was talking in general about delivering a message, not the Koran specifically.

You say the Koran "brings forward many arguments". Can you show an example of one?

Later you claim that "the message that is delivered is one with firm evidences". I can't think of one. Can you show an example of one?
Reply

Hulk
07-13-2012, 06:54 PM
Reply

StopS
07-13-2012, 07:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
Belief in God and Atheism
Oh dear! So many misconceptions!
If you do not believe in a god, you don't believe there is evidence for the existence of one. BUT: you don't know if there is a god. So even if you don't see evidence, there can still be a god.
Asserting that not believing automatically voids any god or concept of a god is fallacious.

Then, his "proof for the existence of god" is mere wishful thinking and an appeal to emotion. There is no proof, as much as he'd like there to be.

Wrong again. Of course most atheists today can understand theists because in today's environment most atheists were still brought up as believers. It will be different in a few decades.

Wrong again: there is no proof for either theists or the people reacting to the claims: atheists. And atheists require no proof, because they only react to claims. Believers are required to have faith, atheists aren't.

Wrong again: not every argument for atheism rests upon evil. That's totally ludicrous and shows he's only right about one thing: he does not understand non-theists.

What is it with this man? This is getting worse and worse. Why doesn't he ask an atheist what this is all about instead of spreading this nonsense? How can someone, who does not believe in the existence of a god, provide a definition for what there is no evidence for??? Oh come on, some basic logics is not asking too much, is it? The person making the claim needs to provide the definition and the proof.

And now conflating atheists and Christians is getting comical and totally absurd. No, sorry, this is not thought out at all. And I know he's capable of some good speeches. This is not one of them.
Reply

Hulk
07-13-2012, 08:04 PM
Why is it atheists require no proof for their claim? As I have said before, if you were to find a watch in the middle of a desert you wouldn't deduce that it came from nowhere would you? Of course not, you'd deduce that it had a designer, manufacturer, etc. I look around me and I see creation, and that is how I can deduce that there is a Creator. How can you deduce that there is no Creator? Because you can't see/hear/feel/touch/taste Him?
Reply

StopS
07-13-2012, 09:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
Why is it atheists require no proof for their claim? As I have said before, if you were to find a watch in the middle of a desert you wouldn't deduce that it came from nowhere would you? Of course not, you'd deduce that it had a designer, manufacturer, etc. I look around me and I see creation, and that is how I can deduce that there is a Creator. How can you deduce that there is no Creator? Because you can't see/hear/feel/touch/taste Him?
Because atheists don't make the claim. Atheists react to claims.
Theist = believes there is evidence for the existence of God.
A-Theist = opposite.

Show an atheist a god or stop believing in a god and atheism will immediately vanish by definition.

Oh dear, the tired watchmaker argument. If the sand looked like watches I would not notice, would I? You only see a watch because you know a watch.
No, you don't see creation. You see things you have no explanation for and substitute "I don't know" with "God".

Because humans are so badly equipped, we can't "see/hear/feel/touch/taste" most things. That's why we have developed science as a tool to help us discover the unknown. But this has nothing to with the super-natural you are relying on as an explanation.
Reply

جوري
07-13-2012, 09:28 PM
For brevity' sake and because my keyboard is malfunctioning what science have you that explains the world you find yourself in without loaning itself to some enfeebled fairy tale? If you're going to use science then I challenge you to use it all the way to explain in a demonstrable fashion the origin of life its perpetuation all the way to higher reticular function...
Can you do that?
Atheism is nothing more than a belief just another faulty one in a sea of.
It becomes incumbent upon you when you use terms like 'science' to back up a double negative - you've neither given a logical explanation to the world we find ourselves in nor have you conceded the obvious default conclusion while adhering to such things as the law of parsimony!
Yeah oh dear indeed!
I'd love for you to work your way up from a single celled organism and I'll bd generous enough to give you even that since a single cell is already complex as is and then have you work yourself up to a species any specie just adding amino acids to one another and somehow rendering them functional and giving them form. try denaturing and reannealing won't you pls.
My God won't I be the first front row and center applauding you as you claim your nobel.. Finally an atheist without tired rehashed rhetoric.
Reply

StopS
07-13-2012, 09:41 PM
Look, you have no clue what you are saying and I am not interested in exchanging insults. So, why don't we just ignore each other, ok?
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-13-2012, 09:46 PM
Greetings of peace,

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Oh dear, the tired watchmaker argument.
I believe that brother Hulk has a valid argument.

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
If the sand looked like watches I would not notice, would I? You only see a watch because you know a watch.
No, you don't see creation. You see things you have no explanation for and substitute "I don't know" with "God".
All things have an explanation for them, for example from where they originated.

It's not simply the 'i don't know' we substitute with God, we say that there was simply a creator for that which was created. In other words someone must have created it in order for it to exist, so therefore we do know. it can't have just 'popped' out of nowhere.

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Because humans are so badly equipped, we can't "see/hear/feel/touch/taste" most things. That's why we have developed science as a tool to help us discover the unknown. But this has nothing to with the super-natural you are relying on as an explanation.
.
I do not believe humans are badly equipped, we have eyes to see, ears to listen, brain to realize, heart to feel, live on planet earth where we have air to breath.

You see science hasn't all the answers, science is only what man discovered, not what he created, that's where it ends. We live on an earth given all that helps us live to the next day, but then what's our purpose? Just live on and on till it all ends? or is there a purpose we have?

Where did the first man come from? or how did first human step foot on earth?
Reply

Hulk
07-13-2012, 09:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Because atheists don't make the claim. Atheists react to claims.
Theist = believes there is evidence for the existence of God.
A-Theist = opposite.

Show an atheist a god or stop believing in a god and atheism will immediately vanish by definition.
I notice atheists love to place themselves in the position of "not having to explain anything", this is why many come to forums to "debate" isn't it? Whenever the question is placed upon them it's "I make no claims, you are the one making claims.".

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Oh dear, the tired watchmaker argument. If the sand looked like watches I would not notice, would I? You only see a watch because you know a watch.
I was just using a watch as an example, it can be applied to anything. Yes in such a situation the watch would stand out but in truth everything else can be analysed including the sand itself.

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
No, you don't see creation. You see things you have no explanation for and substitute "I don't know" with "God".
There's another claim which I'm sure you will say you don't need to have "proof" for because it is a "reaction to a claim". Yes there are many things in terms of science that I do not know but you don't need knowledge of science to deduce whether or not something has an origin. You're trying to say that theists use God as a "shortcut" to things they can't explain, but that isn't the case at all. As I said, I see a "work of art" and I believe that it has a Designer. Just because I know how the paint, strokes, shades, etc works doesn't make me think "oh I know how this works so that means it didn't come from a Designer". What kind of flawed logic is that?

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Because humans are so badly equipped, we can't "see/hear/feel/touch/taste" most things. That's why we have developed science as a tool to help us discover the unknown. But this has nothing to with the super-natural you are relying on as an explanation.
It's good that you are willing to admit that not everything in existence would be perceivable by purely our 5 senses alone. We do have tools that help us identify these things.

But according to your logic, if a microscope hasn't been invented yet, then you'd probably not believe that microscopic things like bacteria exists.

That said, I am not trying to place God in the realm of the tangible. I am just reminding you that our ability to perceive is very limited, and while we have developed tools to aid in perceiving the things we are not able to on our own it would be foolish to not even put into consideration that our tools have their limits as well.

I think if you get yourself out of the "supernatural" box you'd be able to see things a bit clearly. I'm not talking about superstitious things. I'm talking about a Creator that transcends what our five senses can perceive but yet our intellect can understand. There are no broken mirrors or black cats here. Look at fresh water fishes and salt water fishes, do you think they are aware of each other's existence? They're in totally "separate dimensions".

If my beliefs are something like believing that everytime thunder strikes an invisible Thor-like deity is out there doing using his hammer or whatnot to produce thunder and lightning then you would certainly prove me wrong by simply explaining to me how lightning and thunder works. But that is not by concept of belief, so your argument of me using God to explain what I don't understand holds no water.
Reply

StopS
07-13-2012, 10:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ
Greetings of peace,
Thank you, greetings.

I believe that brother Hulk has a valid argument.
That is well possible.

All things have an explanation for them, for example from where they originated.
Not really. What is the origin of the Higgs particle, a water puddle or the number 15?

It's not simply the 'i don't know' we substitute with God, we say that there was simply a creator for that which was created. In other words someone must have created it in order for it to exist, so therefore we do know. it can't have just 'popped' out of nowhere.
Why do you think "someone" must have created everything? Why not "something"? Oh, yes, everything could have popped out of nowhere. On the other hand, if you believe a super-natural entity, a creator, God, created everything, what material was used? What process? If a perfect creator would have created a solar system, would it have erratic orbits, asteroids crashing into planets and black holes devouring entire galaxies?

I do not believe humans are badly equipped, we have eyes to see, ears to listen, brain to realize, heart to feel, live on planet earth where we have air to breath.
I understand your point, but if you analyse what there is to see and what humans can see, it is not a lot. And we need glasses with eyes which fail and are badly developed with a blind spot and upside-down vision. The heart is there to pump blood and has a high failure rate. Planet Earth tries to kill humans and life in general with diseases, poisons, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, hail, radiation, droughts, tornadoes, epidemics, lightning, floods, avalanches, fires, asteroids, etc. etc

You see science hasn't all the answers, science is only what man discovered, not what he created, that's where it ends. We live on an earth given all that helps us live to the next day, but then what's our purpose? Just live on and on till it all ends? or is there a purpose we have?
I completely agree with you. Science is a tool, just like a hammer. Science observes, measures, analyses, describes our natural environment and is capable of making predictions. It has nothing in common with religion, so I would prefer to ignore it when discussion super-natural claims. Why do humans necessarily need to have a purpose? What is the purpose of a pig?

Where did the first man come from? or how did first human step foot on earth?
Man? Do you mean humans? Why is this a religious question? I could answer and then we spend time discussing evolution, which few people are qualified to discuss, which is why I would like to keep science out of this.
So my answer is: I don't really know. Do you know? Do you know the process?
Reply

StopS
07-13-2012, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
I notice atheists love to place themselves in the position of "not having to explain anything", this is why many come to forums to "debate" isn't it? Whenever the question is placed upon them it's "I make no claims, you are the one making claims.".
Hahaha, you make it sound as though I am just plain lazy. No, I am not. It is true by definition. And I am having a pleasant conversation with other people, where we might disagree on a detail, but we all share the same atmosphere and environment. Why poison it?

Do I come here to debate? Not really. If there really is something to debate, I am willing to engage in debating something, but not for the sake of debating. A word of advice: there is no such thing as "Atheists love to..." because there is no group identity of atheists. Atheists are all individuals and all very different.

I was just using a watch as an example, it can be applied to anything. Yes in such a situation the watch would stand out but in truth everything else can be analysed including the sand itself.
Ooops, that means I made a mistake. What I wanted to show is that the argument is incredibly wrong when you look at the premisses. A simple question: is a watch found in nature and replicates or forms itself? No, that is the difference and why this immediately fails. I know the examples with a phone or a 747, they are equally fallacious.

There's another claim which I'm sure you will say you don't need to have "proof" for because it is a "reaction to a claim". Yes there are many things in terms of science that I do not know but you don't need knowledge of science to deduce whether or not something has an origin. You're trying to say that theists use God as a "shortcut" to things they can't explain, but that isn't the case at all. As I said, I see a "work of art" and I believe that it has a Designer. Just because I know how the paint, strokes, shades, etc works doesn't make me think "oh I know how this works so that means it didn't come from a Designer". What kind of flawed logic is that?
The flaw is that there is no logic. But let me be very clear here: I do NOT know there is no creator. I do NOT exclude the absolute possibility that I am wrong and that a creator did in fact create the Universe and life. But until I see evidence I will say: I don't know. I know how nature works and how things changed over the last 3 billion years, but what happened before that: I don't know. You don't accept that and claim: I know what happened. But can you demonstrate that to me? No!

It's good that you are willing to admit that not everything in existence would be perceivable by purely our 5 senses alone. We do have tools that help us identify these things.

But according to your logic, if a microscope hasn't been invented yet, then you'd probably not believe that microscopic things like bacteria exists.

That said, I am not trying to place God in the realm of the tangible. I am just reminding you that our ability to perceive is very limited, and while we have developed tools to aid in perceiving the things we are not able to on our own it would be foolish to not even put into consideration that our tools have their limits as well.

I think if you get yourself out of the "supernatural" box you'd be able to see things a bit clearly. I'm not talking about superstitious things. I'm talking about a Creator that transcends what our five senses can perceive but yet our intellect can understand. There are no broken mirrors or black cats here. Look at fresh water fishes and salt water fishes, do you think they are aware of each other's existence? They're in totally "separate dimensions".

If my beliefs are something like believing that everytime thunder strikes an invisible Thor-like deity is out there doing using his hammer or whatnot to produce thunder and lightning then you would certainly prove me wrong by simply explaining to me how lightning and thunder works. But that is not by concept of belief, so your argument of me using God to explain what I don't understand holds no water.
No, I don't think I am that difficult. If I would have lived 150 years ago and Semmelweis would have told me to wash my hands I would have laughed - but thought about the possibility of his explanation. Bacteria have other means of proving their existence, as is documented in the Hindu Athartarveda, which suspects living organisms causing harm to humans ~2000 years ago.

So why would I want to invoke a super-natural origin? Because it provides comfort? The Koran mentions thunder, which is used to "smite" humans. Can thunder do that? No, so I need to find an explanation why the Koran would mention thunder as punishment for humans. That's when I start explaining this with knowledge and allegoric interpretations, because people did not know about the cause of thunder and it could just demonstrate the power of God as the noise is is pretty impressive. What other explanation is there?
Reply

جوري
07-13-2012, 11:28 PM
You'd indeed be the type to laugh at Ignaz some century or so ago as its indeed easy to fall into linear thoughts than abstraction and be a pioneer!
Natural as opposed to 'super natural' is already a standard that was borne of our imagination based on observation to which we compare things that fall off - it's already an imaginary baseline the rules would change outside our own planet ... It's not so unfathomable that what we conceive as natural is anything but miraculous but the abundance of 'natural' turns blind those whose heart is already dead.
You'll never have an answer to the last why. You can though not always explain the how but the why will leave so much unanswered ... And as stated until you can come up with a purely scientific and demonstrable way to explain or 'create' ex nihilo you are in absolutely no position to speak of what provides comfort .. Clearly your own beliefs as you've shared and displayed provid no explanation to the world we find ourselves in and your attempts to defend them are sophmoric at best ..
I am not writing this for you at any rate but for the Muslims and the guests!
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
07-14-2012, 12:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Thank you, greetings.
You are welcome. and sorry for the long response, no intention to bore anyone.

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Not really. What is the origin of the Higgs particle, a water puddle or the number 15?
Not sure what a higgs particle is, please enlighten me. Edit:See post after mine #100

Water puddle - can be caused by rain or water split by someone - created.

Number 15 - I don't know who or how it was created. Of course some human did create it in order to make things easier in our every day life. Perhaps you can correct me or add detail to my response.

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Why do you think "someone" must have created everything? Why not "something"? Oh, yes, everything could have popped out of nowhere. On the other hand, if you believe a super-natural entity, a creator, God, created everything, what material was used? What process?
In terms of 'everything' popping out of nowhere, could that mean us humans too? The first human came from nowhere? or exactly what are those things that came from nowhere?

According to the Qur'aan man was created of a clot of blood, clay/dust and water.

He has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood).[Al Qur'aan 96:2]

And it is He Who has created man from water, and has appointed for him kindred by blood, and kindred by marriage. And your Lord is Ever All-Powerful to do what He wills.[Al Qur'aan 25:54]

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
If a perfect creator would have created a solar system, would it have erratic orbits, asteroids crashing into planets and black holes devouring entire galaxies?
Evidence for any of this, please.

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
I understand your point, but if you analyse what there is to see and what humans can see, it is not a lot. And we need glasses with eyes which fail and are badly developed with a blind spot and upside-down vision. The heart is there to pump blood and has a high failure rate. Planet Earth tries to kill humans and life in general with diseases, poisons, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, hail, radiation, droughts, tornadoes, epidemics, lightning, floods, avalanches, fires, asteroids, etc. etc
I agree, although we cannot see a lot, but we do know a lot.

The Qur'aan does teach us about the unknown or the unseen.

Heart having a high failure rate, if that's the case why do you think people live years on? or the human race still in existence?

Regards to diseases in accordance to Islaam are a blessing for 'some', though not for all. For some it can be a removal of sins, and for others it can be a punishment. This is just in brief.

As muslims we have our answers, for example we have our trials or calamities, and during these trials are taught how to deal with them.


And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and fruits, but give glad tidings to As-Sabirun (the patient).Who, when afflicted with calamity, say: "Truly! To Allah we belong and truly, to Him we shall return."
They are those on whom are the Salawat (i.e. who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided ones.[Al Qur'aan 2: 155-157]

As muslims we believe we will be tested on earth, this life is a test and temporary indeed, regardless of whatever faith or walk of life you come from, we all know well that we'll be leaving earth one day. But while were on earth we try make the best out of it, as for muslims we strive to live in accordance to how our creator has taught us.

Hadith - Bukhari 7:564

I visited Allah's Apostle while he was suffering from a high fever. I touched him with my hand and said, "O Allah's Apostle! You have a high fever." Allah's Apostle said, "Yes, I have as much fever as two men of you have." I said, "Is it because you will get a double reward?" Allah's Apostle said, "Yes, no Muslim is afflicted with harm because of sickness or some other inconvenience, but that Allah will remove his sins for him as a tree sheds its leaves."

Poisons - Well, one may accidentally drink poison, or poisoned by someone in which case they're not at fault, rather the one who fed them the poison. God has nothing to do with human acts, but the person or victim has returned to his lord/creator, and he is not unjust. A person may also intentionally take poison, this is not the fault of earth or God, the person has been given a brain to use, they drank out of their own free will in which they're harming themselves and not the earth or anyone else.

In terms of natural disasters, please see the following videos as they're much better at explaining than myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK9u2fOmGvY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_deeNAIj2M

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
I completely agree with you. Science is a tool, just like a hammer. Science observes, measures, analyses, describes our natural environment and is capable of making predictions. It has nothing in common with religion, so I would prefer to ignore it when discussion super-natural claims. Why do humans necessarily need to have a purpose? What is the purpose of a pig?
Indeed, it does prove some of what the Qur'aan has stated, meaning the Qur'aan being revealed to a man centuries ago, but science has only many discoveries in recent times.

Is that saying we then have no purpose?

I think it's a very important question one should ask themselves at some point in life, i mean theres no harm in doing so?

format_quote Originally Posted by StopS
Man? Do you mean humans? Why is this a religious question? I could answer and then we spend time discussing evolution, which few people are qualified to discuss, which is why I would like to keep science out of this.
So my answer is: I don't really know. Do you know? Do you know the process?
Not really a religious question, just a general one.

If you do believe in evolution, either way, I'd still ask you, How did the first created being step foot on earth?

It's a little like that question that people often ask 'Which came first, the egg or the chicken?"
Reply

جوري
07-14-2012, 12:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ğħαrєєвαħ
Not sure what a higgs particle is, please enlighten me.
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...existence.html
Reply

Perseveranze
07-14-2012, 01:51 AM
LOL StopS... He's been banned in like 7 out of 10 Islamic forums for trolling/getting flamy.

I'm still amazed your still around lol
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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!