PDA

View Full Version : Is it ok to believe in certain aspects even though Science says different



crimsontide06
10-04-2017, 09:00 PM
Is it ok to say "I believe in something from the Sunnah" even though I believe that Science has disproved it? Or to go along with something even though you feel it is wrong?

Let's take three issues to give you an example of what I mean.

1. Zam Zam water; in the Quran or sunnah..I am not sure which..it says to drink it, that it is pure..etc. I believe the sunnah says that you must have good intentions about the water when you drink it. You must not think "this water will harm me".

Now, science has proven that the water has been contaminated by lead..etc BUT... if a believer still drinks it and has belief in what God says, that it will NOT harm them...then it will be safe for them.

2. Halal slaughter; Science has proven that Halal slaughter gives great pain and suffering to animals(animals here in America are stunned/knocked out so they do not feel the pain), but I must believe in Halal slaughtering. I would not kill an animal myself, I'd buy if I ever had the resources. Currently, there is no halal food around here.

3. The hardest part about the seerah,for me, is the marriage of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to Aisha. I understand that culture, times..etc are different, people were different 1400 years ago, they matured differently..etc. it's just hard to overlook it because of how I see kids of the same age, today. Especially when in the sunnah Aisha herself talks about playing with dolls and other kids.

Is it ok to say "Ok...this is a child BUT because it is the prophet (peace be upon him) it is OK". Basically, he gets a pass.

I am not disputing any of these things or saying any of it is wrong. I am asking, is it ok to say "Ok, science/nature says this is wrong but I am Muslim so I am going to go with it/believe it anyway."

I am looking for advice, so forgive me if you think I have said something wrong.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Search
10-05-2017, 03:36 AM
:bism: Bismillah Ir-Rehman Ir-Raheem (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl:

1. Zam Zam water sold in certain countries like the U.K. has been found to contain contamination, but Zam Zam water is prohibited from being sold as a commercial product internationally, which means that likely almost all of the products marketed as Zam Zam are not the genuine article. That is to say, the Zam Zam water you find in your local food stores are most likely just falsely so labeled. Also, the article that I read on this subject made sure to extrapolate that as evidence of even genuine Zam Zam water thereby "appear[ing]" contaminated as well, which is facially a ridiculous claim. If I manufacture a chocolate under the Hershey's label and it tastes bad, that chocolate cannot be used as evidence to mean that likely the genuine Hershey's chocolate is also bad-tasting.

2. Muslims do not engage in halal (divinely permissible) slaughter for the reason that it is assumed to be painless for animals. We do it because the halal slaughter has a spiritual component, which is why we invoke the name of Allah with "Bismillah" before proceeding to slaughter the animal. This necessarily means that regardless of whether there is some pain that some animals might feel at the time of halal slaughter due to perhaps imperfect human hands implementing the procedure, the former does not negate the latter comprising of general injury and extreme pain that animals incur at the time of stunning before they are rendered immobile or unconscious for slaughtering. Killing animals is never a friendly process to the animal regardless of how humanely a person makes the end happen, though I do see that some studies show halal slaughter is found to be more humane than stunning. That said, to be honest, I'd say if anyone is so conscious as to not give any injury to animals, then that person should consider becoming vegetarian/vegan because that is truly the completely animal-friendly choice an individual can make.

3. Today, kids at the age of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) do not get married. That is for many, many reasons. For example, one of the reasons is that today marriages are no longer a traditional arrangement of tribes and families strengthening and maintaining ties and friendships. However, during that time, marriages occurred because they served the purpose of literally binding families and tribes in friendships or alliances that would be beneficial for the long-term. So, today, children are typically not arranged to be married, but that was literally what many families have been doing for centuries long before even 7th century Arabia; children were then considered the property of the parents to do with as they please and so many families arranged marriages in even Christian nations for this purpose even if the person had not hit puberty with the understanding that the groom would be able to begin a proper married life once the female child started menstruating. Moreover, people back then had a very high mortality rate and no responsibility or expectation of attaining any formal education as the better-off families either had enough wealth or owned enough property to live their entire life for generations on that wealth or property and females generally had only marriage as a career option. So, in many different cultures (including European culture), centuries ago, a girl bride that was not married by her late teens was considered an old maid. Therefore, betrothals were conducted not in keeping the girl's age in mind but her usefulness in cementing old or new political or otherwise-motivated alliances. Why else would, for example, Margaret Beaufort, daughter of sole heiress of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, been married to John de la Pole when she was either one or no more than three years old?

As a former atheist, I will tell you that science is a parochial tool. Science is meant to accommodate new tools, knowledge, discoveries, all used for and dependent on building blocks of successes of seekers, which means that science is by its evolving and conditional and worldly nature is neither nor meant to be ever be rendered either perfect or complete in any human lifetime. Therefore, science is best considered a tool that can inform our current human knowledge in the worldly affairs; however, science is a useless tool to attain higher spiritual growth or informing our spiritual leaning and compass. Science is a thing of the world, and religion is an otherworldly article. To presume or treat science and religion as if they are somehow competing articles rather than only differing sides of objective truth rendered imperfect in our human understanding and translation. Apple is an apple. And an orange is an orange. The fruits are not competing with one another except in the minds of people who conflate their own personal leaning or understanding with objective reality. The apple and orange, however, have no such grandstanding notions, as they have no free will or ability to exercise any mind of their own. In the end, they are both what you or anyone else will make of it.

As a Muslim, we believe certain things like angels, hell, heaven, judgment day, all of which we only know through spiritual conveyances of past prophets (peace be upon them all) and not science. Therefore, it should not be hard for you or anyone InshaAllah (God-willing), on the heels of that truth, to accept that science has yet to discover or may never discover or break any grounds in spiritual horizons because science is ultimately exploration of discoverable truths and not meant to be utilized as any kind of recipe for answering life's religious questions.

:wa:
Reply

AabiruSabeel
10-05-2017, 04:17 AM
:salam:

These days there, and since the inception of the internet and social media, fake news and fake articles have become a huge problem. The news articles regarding the Zamzam water were not true. Please see these threads for previous discussion:

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...r-warning.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...zam-water.html


Every year, almost 3 million pilgrims perform Hajj. They all drink Zamzam throughout their stay in Makkah and Madinah, which is nearly 30-40 days.

Hundreds of thousands on Umrah visitors are daily drinking Zamzam in Masjid Al-Haraam and Masjid An-Nabawi. Umrah visitors stay for at least 15 days.

Then there are people and families who live in and around Makkah and they do not drink any other water except Zamzam, daily, whenever they are thirsty.

Can you imagine what would have happened to all of them if the contamination reports were true?



As a Muslim, I firmly believe in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and I always view scientific theories and results with skepticism. Why? Because science is not perfect. It is an ongoing effort by human beings, like you and me, who are trying their best to use their available resources to explain things. While on the other hand, Islam is perfect. Allah :swt: says, This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. [Al-Ma'idah: 3]

Also, please see this thread: How science fails to explain complete truth


2. Regarding Halal slaughter, please see this thread: Is halal way of slaughtering an animal less painful?

I remember there was an infographic posted by either @Scimitar or @Abz2000 that explained how slaughter with knife is more efficient than any other method. I am unable to find it at the moment.
Reply

AabiruSabeel
10-05-2017, 04:43 AM
3. Marriage at a young age was considered normal in those days. Just two generations ago, it wasn't a problem to get married as a teen. My own grandmother was married when she was around 13.

My neighbour's grandfather passed away few months ago. He used to say he was married at 13 and used to jokingly encourage us to get married early.

While I was a kid learning Quran, I had a classmate who was married and he was just 17. This was in the 90s, not too long ago.

So marriage at 9 few hundred years ago doesn't look far fetched. The problem is, we are trying to judge based on our own present culture, not based on what was prevalent at that time.
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
talibilm
10-05-2017, 06:32 AM
:sl:

We better use Islam as a yardstick to say what is correct and not since science keeps changing UNLIKE Islam and the Glorious Quran and authentic hadith standing the test of time of more than 1400 years.

Like I believed and was made to believe about Cholesterol all these 3 decades controlling every bit of it till now but now The doctors say a different story by the new findings and similarly Tea good or not coffee etc etc Man on the Moon etc . IMO anti islamists are trying to turn every stone to disprove Islam and the scientific compatible facts of Islam .

Culling Animals in Islamic way is the least cruel way IMO , though stunning them by shock is more cruel and unhealthy because of the blood clot it would create .

So we better Stick Islam the way of the Creator , The All Wise.


more info in post # 5,11 deserve a good read

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...t=#post7473003
Reply

AbdurRahman.
10-05-2017, 03:02 PM
Sister, you have to believe in the sunnah wholeheartedly as even believing reluctantly while believing that science has proven it to be bad/harmful is damaging to faith

Zamzam water is pure but things may sometimes contaminate it such as if a person's metal ring fell into it and the chemicals in the metal mixed with it, in that case the water needs to be purified but otherwise zamzam is pure and good

Even if halal slaughter is painful than so what?, if God has willed for animals to undergo some pain than who are we to think other methods of slaughter will be better?. Look how God feeds tigers for example ... tiger chases it's prey, putting the animal in fear and distress and then bites it's neck to death. The death takes a lot longer than slicing through the neck with sharp knife so are we going to say God is in anyway wrong or cruel to have created nature like this?

The way I see it is those animals undergo a sacrifice for God and sacrifice involves pain just like a Muslim can be chopped up on the battlefield for Allah
Reply

Abz2000
10-06-2017, 05:18 AM
Salaam to all Muslims, pls pray for me, going thru much confusion and uncertainty in life.




Born to Gokuladas and Vrajkunwerba Kapadia of Porbandar, little is known of her early life. In May 1883, 14-year old Kasturba was married to 13-year old Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in an arranged marriage, according to the custom of the region.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasturba_Gandhi


Elizabeth and Philip are actually related. They are second cousins once removed, as well as third cousins.

Elizabeth met Prince Philip for the first time in 1934 at Philip’s cousin’s wedding (Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark to Prince George, Duke of Kent). They wouldn’t meet again until 1937, but that’s when a relationship started to develop.

After that, Philip and Elizabeth met a third time at Royal Naval College in Dartmouth in July 1939. Elizabeth was only 13-years old at the time, and Philip was 18. Regardless of the difference in ages, Elizabeth fell madly in love with Philip.

In a letter that was up for auction in 2016, she wrote about the time they met in 1939 at the college and how hard it was with him being in the military.

I was 13 years of age and he was 18 and a cadet just due to leave. He joined the Navy at the outbreak of war, and I only saw him very occasionally when he was on leave — I suppose about twice in three years. Then when his uncle and aunt, Lord and Lady Mountbatten, were away he spent various weekends away with us at Windsor. Then he went to the Pacific and Far East for two years.

Soon enough, the two started seeing each other more often and got secretly engaged in 1946. Philip had asked King George VI for permission to marry Elizabeth, and he approved of it. But their engagement wasn’t officially announced until July 9, 1947 with the King giving his formal consent to the marriage.

An article in The New York Herald from July 10, 1947 told the story of how the two became engaged. It said that Philip gave her a “three-stone diamond engagement ring” that she didn’t wear in public.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/prince...family-photos/



Estimated Time of Death from Various Execution Methods
Lethal Injection 5 min to 2 hours
Gas Chamber 10 to 18 minutes
Hanging 4 to 11 minutes
Electric Chair 2 to 15 plus minutes
Firing Squad Less than a minute
Guillotine Less than a minute

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view....ourceID=001623

@AabiruSabeel i think it was on this thread my brother:

Morality & Obedience




Utah brought back the firing squad this week as a backup execution method, with some proponents saying it’s the fastest and most humane way of killing condemned inmates in an era when lethal injections have dragged on as long as two hours.

“It’s the only method we have in this country for which people are trained to kill,” said Fordham Law Professor Deborah Denno, an expert on capital punishment. “It appears the death is the quickest.”

Last summer, a federal judge wrote in an opinion that firing squad should probably replace the needle as the U.S. execution method — even though he thought another was more foolproof.

“The guillotine is probably best, but seems inconsistent with our national ethos,” Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote.

With states considering alternatives from the electric chair to the gas chamber, here’s a look at how long it takes to kill a condemned inmate with each method:

Guillotine: Less than a minute
Popularized during the French Revolution as a humane alternative to ax beheadings, the guillotine was last used in France in 1977, when convicted murderer Hamida Djandoubi was executed in Marseilles.

Death is not instantaneous but it may be as close as executioners get. A Dutch study on lab rats found the animals lost consciousness within four seconds and brain death occurred in a minute. A doctor’s 1905 account of a French execution, however, asserted that the prisoner’s eyes opened in response to his name for nearly 30 seconds after the blade came down.


The execution chamber at the Utah State Prison after Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad in Drape, Utah, USA, on 18 June 2010. TRENT NELSON / EPA
Firing squad: Less than a minute
Just three prisoners have been executed by firing squad since capital punishment was brought back in 1976. In 2010, Utah murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner, who chose the method over lethal injection, was pronounced dead two minutes after four bullets pierced the target over his heart.

Denno, the Fordham professor, says a 1938 execution in which doctors attached a monitor to the inmate showed that the heart’s electrical activity stopped within 30 seconds, with brain death following soon after.

She said that historically, there are accounts of people slowly bleeding to death when the bullets didn’t hit the heart but “those appear to be revenge killings” unlikely to happen in the modern age of executions.


The electric chair at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, Tenn. Mark Humphrey / AP file
Electric chair: 2 minutes to 15-plus minutes
The last electrocution was in Virginia in 2013 when Robert Gleason Jr. was pronounced dead after two 90-second cycles of 1,800-volt current. In 2007, child killer Daryl Holton was pronounced dead in Tennessee after two 20-second jolts with 15-second pause in between.

But there have been a string of botched electrocutions that have lasted far longer. In Indiana in 1985, it took 17 minutes — and five cycles of current — to kill William Vandiver, who murdered and dismembered his father-in-law. In 1946, Louisiana teenager Willie Francis survived his first electrocution only to be put to death a year later.


Hanging: 4 to 11 minutes
Three inmates have died by hanging since the U.S. Supreme Court brought back the death penalty. The last, Delaware double murderer Billy Bailey, chose the gallows over lethal injection in 1996 and was pronounced dead 11 minutes after he plunged through a trapdoor with a noose around his neck. Westley Dodd was confirmed dead four minutes after his hanging in Washington state in 1993, and Charles Campbell’s heart stopped six minutes after his 1994 hanging in the state.

In a dissenting opinion in Campbell’s appeal, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun noted that under ideal circumstances, when a man is hanged “his vertebrae are dislocated and his spinal cord crushed; unconsciousness is immediate and death follows a short time later.” But he added that hanging....“is a crude and imprecise practice, which always includes a risk that the inmate will slowly strangulate or asphyxiate, if the rope is too elastic or too short, or will be decapitated, if the rope is too taut or too long.”


The gas chamber still on site at the former Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City on May 13, 2011. ASSOCIATED PRESS file


Gas chamber: 10-18 minutes


The gas chamber was used in only 11 executions between 1979 and 1999, largely because the deaths by cynanide were protracted and in some cases disturbing to watch. The last inmate to go this way, Walter LaGrand, chose it over lethal injection and choked and gagged for several minutes until he was pronounced dead 18 minutes after the poison pellets were dropped into acid, according to media witnesses in the Arizona prison.

In 1983, Mississippi officials claimed child rapist and killer Jimmy Lee Gray died two minutes after the gas started, but witnesses said he was still alive — moaning and banging his head against a pipe — when the viewing room was cleared eight minutes into the execution.

Lethal injection: 5 minutes to 2 hours
The length of lethal injections can vary widely due to the chemicals used, the physiology of the inmate and other complications. In cases where a short-acting barbiturate is followed by a paralytic and a heart-stopper, inmates have been rendered unconscious in seconds and pronounced dead in as little as five minutes. Due to drug shortages and bans, however, many states are using substitute chemicals that have led to protracted executions.

In April 2014, Oklahoma officials halted Clayton Lockett’s botched lethal injection after he regained consciousness, but he died anyway — 43 minutes after the procedure began. Three months later, Joseph Wood remained alive – gasping hundreds of times — for nearly two hours after Arizona injected him with a drug it had never used before.

A poll conducted for NBC News last May found that Americans support a range of execution methods if lethal injections are no longer viable.

While one in three said the needle is the only acceptable form of capital punishment, others were open to more primitive methods: 20 percent for the gas chamber, 18 percent for the electric chair, 12 percent for firing squad and 8 percent for hanging.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...s-take-n329371
Reply

Mustafa16
10-06-2017, 06:26 AM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
Salaam to all Muslims, pls pray for me, going thru much confusion and uncertainty in life.




Born to Gokuladas and Vrajkunwerba Kapadia of Porbandar, little is known of her early life. In May 1883, 14-year old Kasturba was married to 13-year old Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in an arranged marriage, according to the custom of the region.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasturba_Gandhi


Elizabeth and Philip are actually related. They are second cousins once removed, as well as third cousins.

Elizabeth met Prince Philip for the first time in 1934 at Philip’s cousin’s wedding (Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark to Prince George, Duke of Kent). They wouldn’t meet again until 1937, but that’s when a relationship started to develop.

After that, Philip and Elizabeth met a third time at Royal Naval College in Dartmouth in July 1939. Elizabeth was only 13-years old at the time, and Philip was 18. Regardless of the difference in ages, Elizabeth fell madly in love with Philip.

In a letter that was up for auction in 2016, she wrote about the time they met in 1939 at the college and how hard it was with him being in the military.

I was 13 years of age and he was 18 and a cadet just due to leave. He joined the Navy at the outbreak of war, and I only saw him very occasionally when he was on leave — I suppose about twice in three years. Then when his uncle and aunt, Lord and Lady Mountbatten, were away he spent various weekends away with us at Windsor. Then he went to the Pacific and Far East for two years.

Soon enough, the two started seeing each other more often and got secretly engaged in 1946. Philip had asked King George VI for permission to marry Elizabeth, and he approved of it. But their engagement wasn’t officially announced until July 9, 1947 with the King giving his formal consent to the marriage.

An article in The New York Herald from July 10, 1947 told the story of how the two became engaged. It said that Philip gave her a “three-stone diamond engagement ring” that she didn’t wear in public.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/prince...family-photos/



Estimated Time of Death from Various Execution Methods
Lethal Injection 5 min to 2 hours
Gas Chamber 10 to 18 minutes
Hanging 4 to 11 minutes
Electric Chair 2 to 15 plus minutes
Firing Squad Less than a minute
Guillotine Less than a minute

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view....ourceID=001623

@AabiruSabeel i think it was on this thread my brother:

Morality & Obedience




Utah brought back the firing squad this week as a backup execution method, with some proponents saying it’s the fastest and most humane way of killing condemned inmates in an era when lethal injections have dragged on as long as two hours.

“It’s the only method we have in this country for which people are trained to kill,” said Fordham Law Professor Deborah Denno, an expert on capital punishment. “It appears the death is the quickest.”

Last summer, a federal judge wrote in an opinion that firing squad should probably replace the needle as the U.S. execution method — even though he thought another was more foolproof.

“The guillotine is probably best, but seems inconsistent with our national ethos,” Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote.

With states considering alternatives from the electric chair to the gas chamber, here’s a look at how long it takes to kill a condemned inmate with each method:

Guillotine: Less than a minute
Popularized during the French Revolution as a humane alternative to ax beheadings, the guillotine was last used in France in 1977, when convicted murderer Hamida Djandoubi was executed in Marseilles.

Death is not instantaneous but it may be as close as executioners get. A Dutch study on lab rats found the animals lost consciousness within four seconds and brain death occurred in a minute. A doctor’s 1905 account of a French execution, however, asserted that the prisoner’s eyes opened in response to his name for nearly 30 seconds after the blade came down.


The execution chamber at the Utah State Prison after Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad in Drape, Utah, USA, on 18 June 2010. TRENT NELSON / EPA
Firing squad: Less than a minute
Just three prisoners have been executed by firing squad since capital punishment was brought back in 1976. In 2010, Utah murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner, who chose the method over lethal injection, was pronounced dead two minutes after four bullets pierced the target over his heart.

Denno, the Fordham professor, says a 1938 execution in which doctors attached a monitor to the inmate showed that the heart’s electrical activity stopped within 30 seconds, with brain death following soon after.

She said that historically, there are accounts of people slowly bleeding to death when the bullets didn’t hit the heart but “those appear to be revenge killings” unlikely to happen in the modern age of executions.


The electric chair at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, Tenn. Mark Humphrey / AP file
Electric chair: 2 minutes to 15-plus minutes
The last electrocution was in Virginia in 2013 when Robert Gleason Jr. was pronounced dead after two 90-second cycles of 1,800-volt current. In 2007, child killer Daryl Holton was pronounced dead in Tennessee after two 20-second jolts with 15-second pause in between.

But there have been a string of botched electrocutions that have lasted far longer. In Indiana in 1985, it took 17 minutes — and five cycles of current — to kill William Vandiver, who murdered and dismembered his father-in-law. In 1946, Louisiana teenager Willie Francis survived his first electrocution only to be put to death a year later.


Hanging: 4 to 11 minutes
Three inmates have died by hanging since the U.S. Supreme Court brought back the death penalty. The last, Delaware double murderer Billy Bailey, chose the gallows over lethal injection in 1996 and was pronounced dead 11 minutes after he plunged through a trapdoor with a noose around his neck. Westley Dodd was confirmed dead four minutes after his hanging in Washington state in 1993, and Charles Campbell’s heart stopped six minutes after his 1994 hanging in the state.

In a dissenting opinion in Campbell’s appeal, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun noted that under ideal circumstances, when a man is hanged “his vertebrae are dislocated and his spinal cord crushed; unconsciousness is immediate and death follows a short time later.” But he added that hanging....“is a crude and imprecise practice, which always includes a risk that the inmate will slowly strangulate or asphyxiate, if the rope is too elastic or too short, or will be decapitated, if the rope is too taut or too long.”


The gas chamber still on site at the former Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City on May 13, 2011. ASSOCIATED PRESS file


Gas chamber: 10-18 minutes


The gas chamber was used in only 11 executions between 1979 and 1999, largely because the deaths by cynanide were protracted and in some cases disturbing to watch. The last inmate to go this way, Walter LaGrand, chose it over lethal injection and choked and gagged for several minutes until he was pronounced dead 18 minutes after the poison pellets were dropped into acid, according to media witnesses in the Arizona prison.

In 1983, Mississippi officials claimed child rapist and killer Jimmy Lee Gray died two minutes after the gas started, but witnesses said he was still alive — moaning and banging his head against a pipe — when the viewing room was cleared eight minutes into the execution.

Lethal injection: 5 minutes to 2 hours
The length of lethal injections can vary widely due to the chemicals used, the physiology of the inmate and other complications. In cases where a short-acting barbiturate is followed by a paralytic and a heart-stopper, inmates have been rendered unconscious in seconds and pronounced dead in as little as five minutes. Due to drug shortages and bans, however, many states are using substitute chemicals that have led to protracted executions.

In April 2014, Oklahoma officials halted Clayton Lockett’s botched lethal injection after he regained consciousness, but he died anyway — 43 minutes after the procedure began. Three months later, Joseph Wood remained alive – gasping hundreds of times — for nearly two hours after Arizona injected him with a drug it had never used before.

A poll conducted for NBC News last May found that Americans support a range of execution methods if lethal injections are no longer viable.

While one in three said the needle is the only acceptable form of capital punishment, others were open to more primitive methods: 20 percent for the gas chamber, 18 percent for the electric chair, 12 percent for firing squad and 8 percent for hanging.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...s-take-n329371
what's wrong, bro?
Reply

M.I.A.
10-06-2017, 11:33 AM
A competant Lethal injection is probably the least painful way.. Although i dont know how they measure suffering.
Reply

Abz2000
10-07-2017, 04:48 AM
Originally Posted by M.I.A.
A competant Lethal injection is probably the least painful way.. Although i dont know how they measure suffering.
I believe lethal injections and cremations are harmful since all that clean biological material would be attacked and chemically shapeshift before hitting the soil and air, probably best to go clean cut where lawful and necessary and then allow the soil to absorb and utilize good, clean organic compounds rather than chemically attacked and destroyed cells that can possibly do more damage to flora and fauna and rhe creatures who absorb food directly from the soil.



Originally Posted by Mustafa16
what's wrong, bro?
Allah knows best.

Satanic Mind Control
Reply

M.I.A.
10-07-2017, 09:41 AM
Neil de degrasse tyson agrees with you..
Almost to the word lol.

https://youtu.be/Ndj5KjKyr3E
Reply

crimsontide06
10-07-2017, 05:13 PM
Thanks for the replies; though my main question was not about debating those things I brought up but rather..

Is it ok to be unsure or feel that logic/science has conflict with something in Islam, BUT follow/believe it anyway.

And thanks for clarifying that halal slaughter is not meant to specifically be about lessening the harm to the animal. True, any way you kill an animal is going to cause it stress/pain. The logic behind stunning or clubbing is that the animal will not feel the slaughter as much.
Reply

AabiruSabeel
10-07-2017, 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by crimsontide06
Is it ok to be unsure or feel that logic/science has conflict with something in Islam, BUT follow/believe it anyway.
This might be relevant to your question,

Allah :swt: says:
And [mention] when Abraham said, "My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead." [ Allah ] said, "Have you not believed?" He said, "Yes, but [I ask] only that my heart may be satisfied." [ Allah ] said, "Take four birds and commit them to yourself. Then [after slaughtering them] put on each hill a portion of them; then call them - they will come [flying] to you in haste. And know that Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." [Al-Baqarah: 260]

Sometimes our hearts do not fully understand the wisdom behind some of the Islamic teachings, but it is ok and we should still believe. The main aim is not to find logic behind every teaching, but to believe and follow.

A famous statement attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib :ra: is: "If everything in Islam made logical sense, masaah (wiping over your socks instead of washing over them) would be on the bottom of the sock, not the top." Because that's where the dirt is.

In essence, we have to have 100% faith in whatever Allah :swt: has revealed and whatever the Messenger of Allah :saws: has taught us. The quality of a Muslim is to say, "we hear and we obey". Allah :swt: says,

The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination." [Al-Baqarah: 285]
Reply

Scimitar
10-08-2017, 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by crimsontide06

Is it ok to be unsure or feel that logic/science has conflict with something in Islam, BUT follow/believe it anyway.
Logic can only take you so far. Put Aristotle, Socrates and Plato - three great arguers of logic - in the same room and they are at each others throats. Logic can fail at the highest levels, which is why you need faith!

Also - Science is a process - it is not truth. The scientific method of empiricism and assumption is highly presumptious, and with many conflicting models all vying for popularity to promote theory, you have to ask - do scientists believe in fairy tales?

Take for example how different atheists will claim the following:

The universe is steady state and had no beginning (observation problem)
the universe is one of many, there are multiverses (assumption problem)
the universe had a beginning but it must have been created by a cause which had a cause which had a cause ad infinitum (infinite regress problem)
the universe is a fractal, it created itself (theoretical + paradoxical problem)


And you see that atheists themselves have no idea about the origins of the universe! And they like to claim they have "scientific" minds... my left buttock has more sense than that hogwash,

Originally Posted by crimsontide06
And thanks for clarifying that halal slaughter is not meant to specifically be about lessening the harm to the animal. True, any way you kill an animal is going to cause it stress/pain. The logic behind stunning or clubbing is that the animal will not feel the slaughter as much.
False.

Who told you this nonsense?





Have your mind blown.

Zabeeha method is the best for both, animal and human! The animal does not suffer compared to other methods, and the human does not eat meat which has congealed blood in it!

Don't fall for the nonsense the kuffar spout bro! Sharpen that mind, and keep the heart light!
Reply

anatolian
10-08-2017, 08:33 AM
Make the difference between science and scientists and Islam and Muslims. Science doesnt make error by default since it is, must be, purely based on logic but scientists make errors since they are human beings. Newton's laws of mecanics were considered undeniable facts until Einstein proved that they are not fully truth. This applies to Islam too. Islam is , must be, purely based on what Allah says but we Muslims may misinterprete it for a while and another Muslim may correct it later. Just dont confuse science and Islam
Reply

Supernova
10-08-2017, 10:51 AM
Asalaamualaykum, Dear brother:

There are 2 principal issues that you need to understand to have a balance between Islam and Science.
1. In Islam, whatever Allah SWT (having unlimited knowledge) decrees, encourages, discourages or commands directly is never contested by a believer. (whom has limited knowledge)
2. From the science aspect – All scientific proof is subjective to many variables: I will mention a few.
a) The era that the science investigation was carried out.
b) The resources that were available.
c) The technology of that time and place.
d) The qualifications of the scientists.
e) The conditions that the experiment was held under.
If you look at point number 2 above, you will realise that Science itself is subjective.
Something to think about:

Allah SWT has clearly prohibited the eating of pig/swine/pork etc.
The fact of the matter is that as a Muslim you do not require nor need to prove the reason of this command. It is a faith issue that Allah SWT expects you and I to obey. We don’t obey a commandment based on science – we obey it based on faith.

Many Muslims today go around trying to give scientific evidence as to why we don’t eat pork. The question is, have they investigated the scientific evidence in its totality or are they not eating pork based on faith. The next issue is what if the very science that is proving the harm of pork today, in 20 years times turns on its head and proves that eating pork is good? What would that Muslim do then?
So the bottom line is the very science people base their “proof/evidence” on is in itself subjective.
Reply

soheil1
10-14-2017, 05:39 PM
Originally Posted by crimsontide06
Is it ok to say "I believe in something from the Sunnah" even though I believe that Science has disproved it? Or to go along with something even though you feel it is wrong?
Hello.
Yes.
Many centuries have passed and different ages witnessed different customs and 'scientific findings'.
We can live scientifically, but it doesn't interfere with our beliefs. These decrees are for living and NOT for laboratory conditions.
1. Many things, including Zam Zam water, are not hygiene by today standards, but it is NOT a must to drink it.
In the past, people that survived the childhood illnesses would be almost insurmountable by illnesses of the time. Not people are more susceptible
2.I'm unsure that anything is wrong by halal slaughtering. I cannot eat a carcass: when you knock the head of an animal or shock it, it is basically dead and turned into a carcass.
Ancient people thought that the soul will get ill-disposed towards those who had done wrong to him during his life on earth, but I'm unsure about that. Anyway it will be angered if it is being killed.
3. Why should I be concerned with the marriage of two other people? There are pros and cons to marriage at a young age. Benefits include shorter generation gap & better understanding with your to-be child(ren) and saving yourself from dangers of delayed marriage. disadvantages may include less experience and knowledge, especially as today's world & people are more complex and people spend less time in the natural world shepherding, etc, and less money, esp. as institutions are created today which didn't exist at the time of the prophet (PBUH).
Reply

crimsontide06
10-15-2017, 05:46 PM
Originally Posted by soheil1
Hello.
Yes.
Many centuries have passed and different ages witnessed different customs and 'scientific findings'.
We can live scientifically, but it doesn't interfere with our beliefs. These decrees are for living and NOT for laboratory conditions.
1. Many things, including Zam Zam water, are not hygiene by today standards, but it is NOT a must to drink it.
In the past, people that survived the childhood illnesses would be almost insurmountable by illnesses of the time. Not people are more susceptible
2.I'm unsure that anything is wrong by halal slaughtering. I cannot eat a carcass: when you knock the head of an animal or shock it, it is basically dead and turned into a carcass.
Ancient people thought that the soul will get ill-disposed towards those who had done wrong to him during his life on earth, but I'm unsure about that. Anyway it will be angered if it is being killed.
3. Why should I be concerned with the marriage of two other people? There are pros and cons to marriage at a young age. Benefits include shorter generation gap & better understanding with your to-be child(ren) and saving yourself from dangers of delayed marriage. disadvantages may include less experience and knowledge, especially as today's world & people are more complex and people spend less time in the natural world shepherding, etc, and less money, esp. as institutions are created today which didn't exist at the time of the prophet (PBUH).
I understand, and maybe I was just thinking about things too much at the time of making the thread...though...no one has really answered the question, instead everyone keeps focusing on the examples and trying to explain them....when explaining the examples was not the question :P
Reply

Supernova
10-15-2017, 08:21 PM
Originally Posted by crimsontide06
I understand, and maybe I was just thinking about things too much at the time of making the thread...though...no one has really answered the question, instead everyone keeps focusing on the examples and trying to explain them....when explaining the examples was not the question :P
Asalaamualaykum
So what is your real question then ? In case you never realize, but your "question" itself was rather lengthy yet you saying the answers you getting is unsatisfactory - so what is your real question?
Reply

Abz2000
10-15-2017, 10:33 PM
A human being is born in a state of submission not with imaan but with God's gift of using logic to interpret information presented to him/her (observe any baby if uncertain), it is this use of logic which - if built soundly and based on sound information - will lead them to success, it is a person's logic which leads them to have faith in their parents' commands and advice at their limited ability stage, it is the use of either sound or flawed logic which will later cause them to have faith in other things, if a person uses their gift of logic to accept the inevitable truth of their existence without allowing other flawed and falsely tilted/upside down/biased illogical rationalizations to get in the way, they may research more and if they accept that God knows better and believe that He is honest, they will then come to have faith in Him, it then becomes a case of accepting Him as being at the top of the chain of command (not something that American presidents or pharaohs or other mafia type criminals like - they usually prefer fake polls and superimposing the threat of facing the majority, or engineering opinion (see rick and monty's ebay sause news) when it comes to controlling people's allegiance as they legislate corrupt and greedy crap which could only wash in a fake democracy where absolutely anything goes as long as enough mass appeal has been built to overwhelm dissent). The only way a person can go astray after having truthful faith is if he/she is justifying actions with flawed logic and ignoring what is obvious even to oneself - through willfull self-deceit - or if there's confusion in the brain's processing department.
The brain uses logic - faith is not blind - sometimes an explanation is more logical than another, and acceptance of God's existence, sovereignty, sanity, wisdom, truthfullness, and authority to legislate is the higher logic in this case - more so than acceptance of one's manager's command to come in by 9 am even if one disagrees.

Btw, science is not a person and does not say anything, it is the opinions or conclusions of people in the scientific and political communties that are usually labelled as "science says" but science is not simon (and simon from simon says is not real either - he's imaginary). Genuine science is continual truthful study and revision without hiding or disregarding simple yet essential and fundamental facts.
Reply

Reminder
10-15-2017, 11:52 PM
Originally Posted by crimsontide06
Is it ok to say "I believe in something from the Sunnah" even though I believe that Science has disproved it? Or to go along with something even though you feel it is wrong?

Let's take three issues to give you an example of what I mean.

1. Zam Zam water; in the Quran or sunnah..I am not sure which..it says to drink it, that it is pure..etc. I believe the sunnah says that you must have good intentions about the water when you drink it. You must not think "this water will harm me".

Now, science has proven that the water has been contaminated by lead..etc BUT... if a believer still drinks it and has belief in what God says, that it will NOT harm them...then it will be safe for them.

2. Halal slaughter; Science has proven that Halal slaughter gives great pain and suffering to animals(animals here in America are stunned/knocked out so they do not feel the pain), but I must believe in Halal slaughtering. I would not kill an animal myself, I'd buy if I ever had the resources. Currently, there is no halal food around here.

3. The hardest part about the seerah,for me, is the marriage of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to Aisha. I understand that culture, times..etc are different, people were different 1400 years ago, they matured differently..etc. it's just hard to overlook it because of how I see kids of the same age, today. Especially when in the sunnah Aisha herself talks about playing with dolls and other kids.

Is it ok to say "Ok...this is a child BUT because it is the prophet (peace be upon him) it is OK". Basically, he gets a pass.

I am not disputing any of these things or saying any of it is wrong. I am asking, is it ok to say "Ok, science/nature says this is wrong but I am Muslim so I am going to go with it/believe it anyway."

I am looking for advice, so forgive me if you think I have said something wrong.
Eating animals gives them a chance to be reborn as Humans.
Reply

ardianto
10-16-2017, 03:17 AM
Originally Posted by Reminder
Eating animals gives them a chance to be reborn as Humans.
Since when Islam recognize reincarnation?. :?
Reply

Abz2000
10-16-2017, 07:42 AM
Originally Posted by Reminder
Eating animals gives them a chance to be reborn as Humans.
I'm sure you wouldn't be thinking like that if trump had you on his dinner plate and was claiming that you get to be reborn as an evil billionaire a-hole.
Reply

Reminder
10-16-2017, 12:50 PM
Originally Posted by ardianto
Since when Islam recognize reincarnation?. :?
Originally Posted by Abz2000
I'm sure you wouldn't be thinking like that if trump had you on his dinner plate and was claiming that you get to be reborn as an evil billionaire a-hole.
What I mean is animals can't do good deeds, but transforming into a Human is its best deed (provide life to us).
Reply

Abz2000
10-16-2017, 01:09 PM
Originally Posted by Reminder
What I mean is animals can't do good deeds, but transforming into a Human is its best deed (provide life to us).
Sounds like an unislamic justification which doesn't make much rational sense to me. That argument is so ambiguous that it can be used for almost anything, and is not the real reason why people eat animals that are halal for them to eat and therefore does not hold any weight in legal or moral terms.
Reply

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

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 01:43 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 12:33 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-23-2006, 10:54 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-27-2006, 02:02 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-27-2006, 02:02 PM
HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | International Institute of Entrepreneurship and Professional Development - IIEPD | Truly Halal Humour

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!