Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

[IbnAbdulHakim]

:peace: Peace ! :peace:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9&q=zakir+naik



I hope this will at-least slightly make the atheist realise that the Quran has scientific proof and if they deny it... well... wouldnt you call me arrogant if i didnt accept that 2+2 = 4?


:salamext:

[Trumble]

Nope. He's a good lecturer, but its just the usual stretched interpretations of verses that could mean anything, and almost certainly didn't mean what those who believe them 'proofs' say they do. As usual, they convince only those who already believe.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Nope. He's a good lecturer, but its just the usual stretched interpretations of verses that could mean anything, and almost certainly didn't mean what those who believe them 'proofs' say they do. As usual, they convince only those who already believe.

so how do you interpret the verses? Seriously, how? Im very interested to know please :)

[Pygoscelis]

That WAS pretty funny though when he said that when trying to convert an atheist his job is already half done because the atheist already says "there is no god" and he just has to get them to add the 2nd part, "except for Allah".

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

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ Glad you enjoyed it. So, what reasoning to you put forward sir? :)

[Pygoscelis]

I'm with Trumble on this one. The man was entertaining but when it came down to it he was just speaking as any other Nostradamus fan or pop culture psychic would. Take something that has come to pass and then interpret old writings to fit it. Note that it always done in this way.

Never do they show unambiguous detailed claims in their "prophetic" writings that are not contradicted elsewhere in the same text.

It would be amazing if they did, but even then it wouldn't accomplish what they seem to want to accomplish.

As even if they did, by chance, find such a writing, it would only show that the writer was either lucky or somehow knew something that we can not explain why they knew it.

It would say nothing as to their honesty or intentions in their writing, nothing of the accuracy of the remainder of their writings (even a broken clock is right twice a day), nothing of how they gained the knowledge, etc.

[Pygoscelis]

Completely off topic and just out of curiousity, why to you use a bloody sword as your avatar? Seems a bit disturbing.

[mohammed farah]

i find his lectures very good

[IbnAbdulHakim]

ITake something that has come to pass and then interpret old writings to fit it. Note that it always done in this way.

in this case i ask you exactly what i asked trumble, in what other way can you fit these old writings? I think they are all actually quite clear for example:

Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;
025.061

"'And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp?
071.016

^^ clearly those verses refer to the sun as a lamp (it produces light) and a moon as something which gives out light but not of its own, why else was it not called another lamp?

Never do they show unambiguous detailed claims in their "prophetic" writings that are not contradicted elsewhere in the same text.

all controdictions of the quran have been baseless and out of context. For example the bible has countless mathematic controdictions, but can you even find ONE in the quran?

As even if they did, by chance, find such a writing, it would only show that the writer was either lucky or somehow knew something that we can not explain why they knew it.

but how could the writer be so lucky as to guess a 1000 ayyat of scientific knowledge? its impossible, you sound intelligent so you should know such chances are extremely negligible !

It would say nothing as to their honesty or intentions in their writing, nothing of the accuracy of the remainder of their writings (even a broken clock is right twice a day), nothing of how they gained the knowledge, etc.

but he was illitterate (forgive me for the spelling), how could he guess this much? A man of the desert who never saw the oceans knew all this? its impossible because he also knew that everything was made of water, and that salt and suger dont mix, and that well, you heard the lecture !


:peace: Its nice discussing with you :)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Completely off topic and just out of curiousity, why to you use a bloody sword as your avatar? Seems a bit disturbing.

its actually a darkly tinted golden sword, lol and its because images are not allowed and i think the sword looks how they say "neat" ;D

[Trumble]

in this case i ask you exactly what i asked trumble, in what other way can you fit these old writings? I think they are all actually quite clear for example:

Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;
025.061

"'And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp?
071.016

^^ clearly those verses refer to the sun as a lamp (it produces light) and a moon as something which gives out light but not of its own, why else was it not called another lamp?

A great example to illustrate my point. Those verses are not remotely 'clear', let alone 'proof' of anything, unless your interpretation is determined in advance.

What do they actually say (I'll grant that is in translation)?;

made the moon a light

a moon giving light

So where's the reflected light from the sun (a.k.a 'lamp') bit? Where's the "not of its own" bit? Simply, it just isn't there.. unless you are desperate to see it. Why doesn't it actually say "the moon reflecting the light of the sun" or words to that effect? That I would have found rather more interesting. There isn't even a hint of that, indeed both suggest to me the moon is a light source itself.

Why was it not called "another lamp"? Because the sun is much brighter (bright = 'lamp', less bright= 'light')? Artistic style? ('placed therein a lamp and a lamp'?, 'placed therein two lamps'?) Who knows? But that's no excuse for reading in what simply isn't there. It's exactly the same with all the 'scientific proofs' regarding the Qur'an; I've looked at a couple in other threads.

To answer your precise question, my interpretation is that "He placed two lights in the sky". Maybe the use of "lamp" distinguishes the two - the sun and moon are clearly not identical - but no more. Sorry, but as I said this stuff convinces nobody who isn't already convinced.

There really isn't much point in bringing the Bible into it if you are addressing atheists, or at least non-theists! I could pick up just about any volume of my shelves and there wouldn't be any mathematical contradictions in that either!

[Rou]

A great example to illustrate my point. Those verses are not remotely 'clear', let alone 'proof' of anything, unless your interpretation is determined in advance.

What do they actually say (I'll grant that is in translation)?;





So where's the reflected light from the sun (a.k.a 'lamp') bit? Where's the "not of its own" bit? Simply, it just isn't there.. unless you are desperate to see it. Why doesn't it say "the moon reflecting the light of the sun" or words to that effect - that I would have found rather more interesting.

Why was it not called "another lamp"? Because the sun is much brighter (bright = 'lamp', less bright= 'light')? Artistic style? ('placed therein a lamp and a lamp'?, 'placed therein two lamps'?) Who knows? But that's no excuse for reading in what simply isn't there. It's exactly the same with all the 'scientific proofs' regarding the Qur'an; I've looked at a couple in other threads.

To answer your precise question, my interpretation is that "He placed two lights in the sky". Maybe the use of "lamp" distinguishes the two - the sun and moon are clearly not identical - but no more. Sorry, but as I said this stuff convinces nobody who isn't already convinced.

There really isn't much point in bringing the Bible into it if you are addressing atheists, or at least non-theists! I could pick up just about any volume of my shelves and there wouldn't be any mathematical contradictions in that either!

it states the moon and the sun in two diffrent lights as in there is one thing mentioned as a lamp and the moon that which gives light, therefore the moon is not the lamp it is merely that which uses the lamp to give light and in the second ayat it explains that the sun is what is the lamp...

heance what we know today the sun reflects off the moon to give light at night...indeed quite hard to hit so many things randomly and by mistake oh so long ago but hey your opinion so your choice..:)


sorry kind off subject but im just asking...as an atheist how do you beleive the universe came into existence?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

To answer your precise question, my interpretation is that "He placed two lights in the sky". Maybe the use of "lamp" distinguishes the two - the sun and moon are clearly not identical - but no more. Sorry, but as I said this stuff convinces nobody who isn't already convinced.

The use of lamp does indeed distinguish the two.
Your understanding of that shows you interpretted the verse as the scholars have.

Anyway, i guess if you dont agree with the countless scientific evidences of the Quran then its your choice :).

:peace: and nice discussing with you :)

[Trumble]

it states the moon and the sun in two diffrent lights as in there is one thing mentioned as a lamp and the moon that which gives light, therefore the moon is not the lamp it is merely that which uses the lamp to give light and in the second ayat it explains that the sun is what is the lamp...

There is no "therefore"! Just using that word doesn't mean it follows, and it doesn't. It just doesn't SAY that the moon "uses the lamp to give light", let alone that it reflects the sun's light. Nowhere is a connection between the two implied at all, that interpretation is added on top with absolutely nothing to justify it. As I keep saying, that might convince 'believers' but it will convince nobody else at all.

sorry kind off subject but im just asking...as an atheist how do you beleive the universe came into existence?

I'm not an atheist, just not a theist at least as you would understand that term. Let's just say I'm open minded, but find the God argument less than convincing - or to be precise I find the 'answer' to the "if God created the universe, what created God?" argument less than convincing.

[Rou]

There is no "therefore"! Just using that word doesn't mean it follows, and it doesn't. It just doesn't SAY that the moon "uses the lamp to give light", let alone that it reflects the sun's light. Nowhere is a connection between the two implied at all, that interpretation is added on top with absolutely nothing to justify it. As I keep saying, that might convince 'believers' but it will convince nobody else at all.



I'm not an atheist, just not a theist at least as you would understand that term. Let's just say I'm open minded, but find the God argument less than convincing - or to be precise I find the 'answer' to the "if God created the universe, what created God?" argument less than convincing.

uhmmm...ok?

looking at it through the eyes of science how did a person all the way back then get so lucky at guessing all these things (however NOT close you wish to state they are) not having one contradiction in the quran (the book he so called wrote) and convincing all the tribes in arabia to unite and have time to raise an army to take and make two holy cities? and also in that time as stated earlier claims that he had time to write this book and make sure he didnt make one mistake? and that he knew all these certain things that seem to be very close to what we know today by the help of science?

guess he was very very lucky?

try convincing one man that he should start praying five times day..thats all...not the rest like giving up pork,or stop drinking etc..

just praying five times a day...i would state probably a hard thing to do...

now try changing millions and writing a flawless book and raising an army and making two holy cities and creating a religon that lasts for thousands of years?

hmmm..indeed very very very lucky if ya could achive that in a lifetime...

oh well we each have our view and you are entitled to your own...

oh and you never answered my question how do you precive that the universe was created? i wasnt going to state the god this that im just intrested...:)

[Trumble]

looking at it through the eyes of science how did a person all the way back then get so lucky at guessing all these things

I'm not saying anybody got "lucky at guessing". There is nothing to guess - my point is that "these things" simply don't say what they are 'interpreted' as saying. Those interpretations are not justified, simply take far too many liberties to produce the result the interpreter, and their usual audience, wish to see.

oh and you never answered my question how do you precive that the universe was created? i wasnt going to state the god this that im just intrested...:)

I thought I had; I don't know. I also said that I don't find the God explanation satisfactory, and explained why, although I wouldn't rule it out for the same reason I wouldn't rule anything out. I guess I think, as with the fundamental nature of reality itself, we simply as a species don't have the intellectual capacity to even ask the right questions when it comes to the origin of the universe, let alone formulate and understand an answer.

now try changing millions and writing a flawless book and raising an army and making two holy cities and creating a religon that lasts for thousands of years?

Several people have created religions that have been around rather longer. And to be honest I would be far more impressed by a religious leader who had no need to 'raise an army'; who could achieve their objectives without violence.

[KAding]

Surely, anyone can see the weakness of his arguments about Islam as a source of science when he discusses the shape of our planet. That the earth is a sphere was known long before the Qu'ran 'revealed' any such thing. In fact, the Qu'ran even claims the earth is shaped like an egg, which is a dubious claim.

From wikipedia:

By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, however, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world. Around then Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude, longitude, and climes. His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages, although Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 3rd to 7th centuries) saw occasional arguments in favor of a flat Earth. The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century.

On his claims of the moon not being an independent source of light. It is quite likely the Greeks knew of this already, since the attempted to calculate the diameter of the moon based on the shadow cast onto it by the earth. Surely, anyone who sees half moon can figure out quite easily that it does not have it's own source of light? Even if the half-baked claim is true that the Qu'ran reveals this, it is clear that this was known long before it has been revealed by God through the angel gabriel and Mohammed.

From wikipedia:

Among the first in the Western world to offer a scientific explanation for the Moon was the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, who reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former.

His 'proof' of god consists of little more than the watchmakers analogy and these incorrect claims about Islam revealing stuff previously unknown. The watchmaker analogy alone is not convincing enough, since clearly we know things can evolve from simple too complex through a series of small steps.

And don't even get me started on his 'rape' and the Islamic 'solution' to it in the first three minutes of his lecture. Quite frankly, his 'solutions' sound draconian and totalitarian to me.

Sorry, he is not going to convince many atheist. If he can't even get some basic facts straight how am I supposed to believe him when he says 'there is no God, except Allah'?

Still an interesting lecture though, thanks ;).

[*Hana*]

As even if they did, by chance, find such a writing, it would only show that the writer was either lucky or somehow knew something that we can not explain why they knew it.

It would say nothing as to their honesty or intentions in their writing, nothing of the accuracy of the remainder of their writings (even a broken clock is right twice a day), nothing of how they gained the knowledge, etc.

Peace to you Pygoscelis:

My question to you is this: With all the scientific evidences found in the Qur'an, (far more than discussed by Dr. Naik in this lecture), how many would you need to read before you would admit no one can be THAT lucky THAT many times? What would be the chances that ONE person knew all of those scientific proofs long before the most respected scientists that came hundreds of years later, and some only recently being discovered. Many of these scientific proofs found in the Qur'an are accepted as factual by many, many, many non Muslims scientists today and yet they are at a loss as to how that knowledge could have been obtained 1400 years ago by an illiterate man.

So, you have to ask yourself, when does fluke stop being fluke to the point where you have to come up with a better explanation.

Peace to you,
Hana

[Trumble]

Many of these scientific proofs found in the Qur'an are accepted as factual by many, many, many non Muslims scientists today

What is "accepted" are the scientific facts themselves, not that the Qur'an included them long before they was discovered elsewhere. There is no need to explain one man (or group of men) having excess luck or flukes as he/they didn't need it - because there are no 'proofs' in the Qur'an that need to explained by luck or fluke. The so-called proofs are just interpretations (with little foundation) by muslims that give themselves and their muslim audience what they want to see... which is, of course, why it is also so difficult to understand why others don't see them that way, particularly those rather less casual with the word 'proof'. KAding's excellent post also shows that even if there is some foundation for some of those interpretations, the knowledge concerned did not originate with the Qur'an in any event.

[*Hana*]

What is "accepted" are the scientific facts themselves, not that the Qur'an included them long before they was discovered elsewhere. There is no need to explain one man (or group of men) having excess luck or flukes as he/they didn't need it - because there are no 'proofs' in the Qur'an that need to explained by luck or fluke. The so-called proofs are just interpretations (with little foundation) by muslims that give themselves and their muslim audience what they want to see... which is, of course, why it is also so difficult to understand why others don't see them that way, particularly those rather less casual with the word 'proof'. KAding's excellent post also shows that even if there is some foundation for some of those interpretations, the knowledge concerned did not originate with the Qur'an in any event.

Considering the Qur'an was revealed over 1400 years ago, where exactly did they come from. The scientific proofs in the Qur'an are very clear, Trumble. What do you mean the Qur'an didn't include them before they were discovered?? Obviously if it's in the Qur'an, but modern science didn't discover something until say 200 years ago...then it WAS included in the Qur'an before it was discovered. You're contradicting yourself here. Did you ever consider it is you that is not seeing the obvious? I wasn't always a Muslim and I saw it long before I reverted. So, no you don't have to be a Muslim to see the scientific proofs in the Qur'an at all. LOL "even if there is some foundation for some of those interpretations, the knowledge concerned did not originate with the Qur'an..."????? Where did all this knowledge originate and who kept it a massive secret for hundreds of years after the revelation of the Qur'an? And why was it only given to ONE man so thousands more could commit it to memory and wait for science to discover it much, much later when they wouldn't even be around to appreciate it or point their fingers and say, 'told ya!!'?

No offense, but what you're saying makes no sense....you're talking in circles.

The proofs are there. Whether or not you choose to accept them is up to you. You can dismiss it any way you want, but if you think you can be that lucky that many times, I strongly urge you to start playing the lottery. :p

Peace to you,
Hana

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Greetings,
Please check out our discussion on the qur'anic verses concerning ocean waves:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post376442 (steve initiates discussion)
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post380736 (my post, currently the last in the discussion)

Regards

[Pygoscelis]

You quoted this of my text, and then asked when it is too much accurate prediction to be called a fluke

It would say nothing as to their honesty or intentions in their writing, nothing of the accuracy of the remainder of their writings (even a broken clock is right twice a day), nothing of how they gained the knowledge, etc.

First of all, I'm with Trumble that it isn't a fluke. The Quran simply doesn't make all of these wonderfuly accurate and specific claims that you seem to believe it does.

Second, how does that relate to the text you quoted? I wrote that even if they got it right we still don't know why they got it right. Maybe somebody knew it before they did, as with the sun and moon example reference above. It is a MASSIVE leap to go from "they got it right" to "so God must exist as we claim him and our religion is flawless" etc.

[Joe98]

Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp......

So, Muslims believe there is a lamp in the sun!

:peace: Its nice discussing with you :)

[------]

So, Muslims believe there is a lamp in the sun!

Erm no thats just a metaphor :rollseyes

[Trumble]

Erm no thats just a metaphor :rollseyes

Referring to sun as a 'lamp' is indeed a metaphor, and not one unique to the Qur'an! But that raises another question, how can the same phrase be an admitted metaphor one minute and then claimed to be a scientific fact 'proving' that the Qur'an is the Word of God the next?

Perhaps all these 'proofs' that, according to Ansar, we need to examine with such linguistic care are 'metaphors' as well? Not only is it unclear what they may mean, but they may indeed be a metaphor for something totally different! Are they? ... well, that's all down to 'interpretation' again, presumably. And who does it, and who their intended audience is.

[Pygoscelis]

Erm no thats just a metaphor :rollseyes

Can you prove that? How do you know there isn't a giant lamp hiding inside the sun as the Quran claims? Its not like we've ever been close enough to look. Maybe all that fire is just hiding the lamp? ;D

[Rou]

I'm not saying anybody got "lucky at guessing". There is nothing to guess - my point is that "these things" simply don't say what they are 'interpreted' as saying. Those interpretations are not justified, simply take far too many liberties to produce the result the interpreter, and their usual audience, wish to see.




I thought I had; I don't know. I also said that I don't find the God explanation satisfactory, and explained why, although I wouldn't rule it out for the same reason I wouldn't rule anything out. I guess I think, as with the fundamental nature of reality itself, we simply as a species don't have the intellectual capacity to even ask the right questions when it comes to the origin of the universe, let alone formulate and understand an answer.



Several people have created religions that have been around rather longer. And to be honest I would be far more impressed by a religious leader who had no need to 'raise an army'; who could achieve their objectives without violence.

so you have no answer? so therefore you too are beleiving in something you do not understand? fair enough...

you dont like the fact that there were armies involved? well if it makes you feel better they were raised in defense not offence..

but i guess to you this matters not?

as stated your opinion is yours i was only intrested..

but the fact of life that some people need to realise is that when we are all living happily all fine and dandy then raising an army indeed would be pointless and violent..

on the other hand when your living in fear and under attack its called defence and if you dont defend yourself you end up dead...

but each to there own...

you state the verses have been interprted so that they make sense in this way? as i stated these are the meanings in araboc aswell thats where they have been understood first and even after looking at difrrent types of translations you will see that they still say the same..

to truly deny something you must first understand it fully so all the facts have been looked at i doubt you know the other verses or information that has been proved in the quran so you are going upon one verse that probably isnt the best form of finding truth but as stated your opinion is yours as is your fate...

[Trumble]

so you have no answer? so therefore you too are beleiving in something you do not understand? fair enough...

I neither claim to have an answer, nor indeed that yours is necessarily wrong. All I have been disputing is the idea that there are 'scientific facts' in the Qur'an that prove yours is right.

you state the verses have been interprted so that they make sense in this way? as i stated these are the meanings in araboc aswell thats where they have been understood first and even after looking at difrrent types of translations you will see that they still say the same

All words are interpreted in some form or other, and these are no different. I doubt very much the original understanding in Arabic included anything about thermoclines and solitons. There is no 'one' meaning, those versus could be interpreted in any number of ways. They were not interpreted as has been presented here until the associated scientific discoveries were made so talking about any long-term fixed meaning is nonsense.

to truly deny something you must first understand it fully so all the facts have been looked at i doubt you know the other verses or information that has been proved in the quran so you are going upon one verse that probably isnt the best form of finding truth but as stated your opinion is yours as is your fate...

Indeed. Except that I am aware of most of what is supposed to have been 'proved' in the Qur'an. Needless to say, I don't believe it 'proves' anything unless you want it to. You could take a scientific historian's 'snapshot' of what was believed at any point in time over the last thousand years, whether we still believe it or not. The same sort of 'interpretation' would come up with the same 'proofs' in relation to that knowledge if you looked hard enough.

It's all a matter of faith, not 'proof'. I have faith too, just in something else. In my opinion recent work in cosmology and quantum physics provides far more support that Buddhism is 'right' than these so called Qur'anic facts provide support Islam is 'right'. That said, I would never claim those developments prove Buddhism is right, they most certainly don't.

[Rou]

I neither claim to have an answer, nor indeed that yours is necessarily wrong. All I have been disputing is the idea that there are 'scientific facts' in the Qur'an that prove yours is right.



All words are interpreted in some form or other, and these are no different. I doubt very much the original understanding in Arabic included anything about thermoclines and solitons. There is no 'one' meaning, those versus could be interpreted in any number of ways. They were not interpreted as has been presented here until the associated scientific discoveries were made so talking about any long-term fixed meaning is nonsense.



Indeed. Except that I am aware of most of what is supposed to have been 'proved' in the Qur'an. Needless to say, I don't believe it 'proves' anything unless you want it to. You could take a scientific historian's 'snapshot' of what was believed at any point in time over the last thousand years, whether we still believe it or not. The same sort of 'interpretation' would come up with the same 'proofs' in relation to that knowledge if you looked hard enough.

It's all a matter of faith, not 'proof'. I have faith too, just in something else. In my opinion recent work in cosmology and quantum physics provides far more support that Buddhism is 'right' than these so called Qur'anic facts provide support Islam is 'right'. That said, I would never claim those developments prove Buddhism is right, they most certainly don't.

We each have our opinion and indeed faith does have a lot to do with it but after having read the quran and seeing the many things that are stated i do see them as a message from the divine and proof of that which is within nature allahs creations that show me that indeed there is certain statments within the quran that prove its divinity and just as you stated that faith gives you belif and disbelif gives you that edge not to beleive...

overall i have read the forms of verses in the quran and it leads be to beleive that that which is mentioned is by no mistake...

guess all we can do is wait for that day to come when we will realise the truth...

:w:

[muslim786]

:sl:

(Al-Baqara [The Cow]) 002.210 Will they wait until Allah comes to them in canopies of clouds, with angels (in His train) and the question is (thus) settled? but to Allah do all questions go back (for decision).

[Pygoscelis]

to truly deny something you must first understand it fully so all the facts have been looked at i doubt you know the other verses or information that has been proved in the quran so you are going upon one verse that probably isnt the best form of finding truth but as stated your opinion is yours as is your fate...

Well this seems the perfect opportunity for you to enlighten us as to these other so called proofs. What are they?

[Rou]

Well this seems the perfect opportunity for you to enlighten us as to these other so called proofs. What are they?

have you watched the clip at the start of the thread yet?

i suggest you do it will help..

some are of why mountains are important and how they help keep the earth stable the other is how the universe was created with the big bang another states how the fetus stages are in the womb of a mother there are many how about you do research on miracles of the quran that will show you all the proof to go through each one would take some time...

quite easy to find the miracles i refer to just do research...

[IbnAbdulHakim]

A very good discussion has taken place, but all i keep thinking is how can a man who existed 1400 years ago have such knowledge. Ok, even if you want to say that scholars only interpret it to fit modern science then we say that it still fits does it not? Therefore how can we find almost every scientific verse and fit it in with modern science? Do you realise thats over a 1000 verses ! Isnt that a little impossible?




Please interpret the following verse for me so i can see how you go about doing it:

"The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."

The word "samaa" has been translated into heaven and is exactly the extra-terrestrial world that is meant. Samaa can also mean sky's.


How can a man from 1400 years ago even think that the universe is forever expanding?

:peace: Nice discussing with you :)

[Pygoscelis]

Please interpret the following verse for me so i can see how you go about doing it:

"The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."

How can a man from 1400 years ago even think that the universe is forever expanding?

It could mean SO MANY things.

Why MUST we equate "The Heaven" to the whole Universe? Isn't heavan supposed to be some spiritual higher realm, not including where we're currently at? I think interpreting "Heaven" as the whole universe is just one interpretation and an unlikely one at that.

Furthermore, it says "We are expanding it", not "We shall always be expanding it" or "We've always been expanding it". Maybe they were just exapnding it at the time and only for a couple of days.



Somewhat beside the point, who is this "we" it refers to? Isn't Islam monotheistic?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I could answer that for u but not sure how to go about it. Like u know how Kings claimed in the past that they had the divine right to rule, meaning permission by God. They used to refer to themselves as "We" because they considered themselves royalty or divine. Also how we use He for God. As we know, English doesn't completely support the Arabic language. Using the word "We" isnt being literal just like we aren't literal in using "He." I'm still unable to get my point across, maybe someone else can tell you better, InshAllah. I hope u get the idea a bit.

Peace

[IbnAbdulHakim]

"We" is just a majestic form of addressing a member as a third party.

Tayyaba has done a good job of explaining already.

:peace: :)

[lolwatever]

Why MUST we equate "The Heaven" to the whole Universe? Isn't heavan supposed to be some spiritual higher realm, not including where we're currently at? I think interpreting "Heaven" as the whole universe is just one interpretation and an unlikely one at that.

No heaven isn't nothign to do with spirtual realms or whatever you call it... Muslims aren't mystics. the Heaven is referrign to what some would like to think as "universe boundary".... it's different to sky (that's called sahaab, heaven is called samaa)

The heaven is defined clearly to be the univesre from the hadith which describes the magnitude of this universe compared to the heavens above it (as a ring thrown in a vast expanse, and the heaven above it compared to the one above it as a ring thrown in a vast desert etc..)

So there's no room for other interpretations.. if you have another one, you need to provide proof for it. That's one consistant problem with your "interpretations" of the quran.... they don't have any proof and they're not even in teh context of the chapter where the verse is located.

Furthermore, it says "We are expanding it", not "We shall always be expanding it" or "We've always been expanding it". Maybe they were just exapnding it at the time and only for a couple of days.

:lol: ddue If that's not stubborness i dont know what is.

We are expanding it, how more explicit can that get? knowing that it is being expanded at the moment, as well as the fact that Allah will bring this universe to an end. So why should he say 'we'll shall always be expadning it' :?

Somewhat beside the point, who is this "we" it refers to? Isn't Islam monotheistic?

In arabic (and english too i guess) 'we' is used as a term of pride... like when you say 'give it to us' even tho ur referring to itself... u kno wat i mean? Yusuf estes gave a really good explanation of it... gave an analogy from english.

[lolwatever]

ps: pygo im not sure where the greek aztec thing is.. maybe im missing it here? can u giv me the post number ill find it myself? (its written on the top corner of the post)

[Les_Nubian]

Nope. He's a good lecturer, but its just the usual stretched interpretations of verses that could mean anything, and almost certainly didn't mean what those who believe them 'proofs' say they do. As usual, they convince only those who already believe.

And your response is just the usual rebuttal. We can go on all day with this. :)

[Les_Nubian]

I'm not saying anybody got "lucky at guessing". There is nothing to guess - my point is that "these things" simply don't say what they are 'interpreted' as saying. Those interpretations are not justified, simply take far too many liberties to produce the result the interpreter, and their usual audience, wish to see.




I thought I had; I don't know. I also said that I don't find the God explanation satisfactory, and explained why, although I wouldn't rule it out for the same reason I wouldn't rule anything out. I guess I think, as with the fundamental nature of reality itself, we simply as a species don't have the intellectual capacity to even ask the right questions when it comes to the origin of the universe, let alone formulate and understand an answer.



Several people have created religions that have been around rather longer. And to be honest I would be far more impressed by a religious leader who had no need to 'raise an army'; who could achieve their objectives without violence.

And about that last line, "achieve their objectives without violence", that's very easy for you to say with you sitting behind your computer screen and all.

Different situations call for different measures. You have no right to sit here and judge the actions of someone long, long ago before or during a war or a battle. Surely there have been peaople who have been more passive, peaceful "activists" (kind of a contradiction, but nevertheless...). But not everyone is in the same situation. Not everyone is in the same mindset, and not everyone has the same resources. It's very easy to say, but it's time to be a little realistic here. This is not a world filled with unicorns and lollypops, seriously. Oh, if only it were that way, but it isn't. If someone were to get away with slaughtering someone very close to you, like a family member, would you knock on their door and offer them chocolate and flowers?

When YOU'RE in a situation like that yourself, everything suddenly isn't so zen.

[Pygoscelis]

Pygo no offense but i think trying to handle these issues is a bit above your level at the moment....

Um ok, I'll just sit quietly over here in the corner while you elightened ones speak your great wisdom. :giggling:

first you need to get your head aroudn the concept of god and what god before trying to explain the quran to us.

What an odd thing to post under what I'd written. I wasn't "explaining the Quran" to anybody. I was merely stating agreement that these so-called prophecies will only convince those who already believe. That is evidenced in this very thread merely by who is posting what.

the verse with the lamp is clearly imagery, referring to oil as enlighting even though fire doesnt touch it... and the verse about waves is definately literal becaue its specifically talking about Allah's advanced creation.

Are you saying Allah didn't create the spiritual and that there are not layers of enlightenment that may be seen as waves upon waves? Another muslim in another time may disagree. Oh, and as I posted above, I bet if we amazingly found a giant lamp hidden in the sun, you'd say you knew it was there all along because the verse in the Quran told you so (literal).

It wont' convince anyone who's got a mind that can't deduce or contemplate... that's for sure.

You are implying that people who reject your religion can't deduce or contemplate? :rollseyes

[Pygoscelis]

ps: pygo im not sure where the greek aztec thing is.. maybe im missing it here? can u giv me the post number ill find it myself? (its written on the top corner of the post)

I'm not aware of any reference to Aztecs in this thread. That was an example in another. THe reference to the greeks was by KAdling a few pages back.

[Pygoscelis]

And about that last line, "achieve their objectives without violence", that's very easy for you to say with you sitting behind your computer screen and all.

If they have devine power backing them up, why is this so difficult?

If someone were to get away with slaughtering someone very close to you, like a family member, would you knock on their door and offer them chocolate and flowers?

When YOU'RE in a situation like that yourself, everything suddenly isn't so zen.

Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. On rare occasions use of force is required for self preservation, but violence for the sake of vengeance is counter productive. And violence coupled with religious fervor is the most destructive force ever witnessed by man.

I believe that only a few wars are started because of religion, but almost all wars are amplified and clouded by it.

Anyway, i think we've gone off topic. *slaps own hand*

[lolwatever]

again... pygo tearing bits of replies out of context to dodge what he wants and put on a show of ability to reply with scholarly wisdom to drips and draps of posts...... that method is becoming too outdated pygo, i advise you look at things fully or just keep out.

how about I'll offer you a chance to edit your post(s) abvoe and try replying with a little more concentration this time.

[Les_Nubian]

If they have devine power backing them up, why is this so difficult?



Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. On rare occasions use of force is required for self preservation, but violence for the sake of vengeance is counter productive. And violence coupled with religious fervor is the most destructive force ever witnessed by man.

I believe that only a few wars are started because of religion, but almost all wars are amplified and clouded by it.

Anyway, i think we've gone off topic. *slaps own hand*

Why is it so difficult? Because we're human beings. Hello? Am I the only one conscious today? I'll reiterate that. We are human beings. We are not Gods. Life is a STRUGGLE. Life is MEANT to be a struggle. Life is not perfect for everyone, nor will it ever be. Even the prophet Muhammad himself (saw) was a mere HUMAN. A noble, respectable prophet yes, but he was not God, as none of us are. No one is going to make all of the perfect decisions at all of the perfect times. Not even a prophet of God Himself.

How can someone who has never had any struggles or problems in life be an example for the rest of us? If the prophets were squaky clean, how could any of us look up to them? You can only look up to someone (as a clear example for all humanity) when they have had struggles and have conquered those struggles, as an example of how you should be, and how you should overcome certain things in your life.

Now I could go on to say that white people because of white supremacy have a great history of oppressing people for centuries and centuries (and are still doing it today), but it wouldn't be fair for me to say that all white people are inherently evil, now would it? Just as it seems like you are implying that religion must be the cause of all of the world's problems today. At least that's the underlying vibe I'm getting. Tell me if I'm wrong...

Religion is something that people desperately hold on to in times of war, and to serve their own political agendas. It's not religion itself. Religion itself is doing NOTHING. It's just sitting there, waiting for people to do with it what they wish. It's PEOPLE that are destructive. Religion itself has done nothing. People have done what people will do--exactly what they want to do.

[Pygoscelis]

again... pygo tearing bits of replies out of context to dodge what he wants

Nothing was taken out of context. Some stuff was ignored because it was meaningless.

how about I'll offer you a chance to edit your post(s) abvoe and try replying with a little more concentration this time.

:rollseyes
How about you speak with a little more civility. lol.

[lolwatever]

Nothing was taken out of context. Some stuff was ignored because it was meaningless.



:rollseyes
How about you speak with a little more civility. lol.

^ :lol: ur givin every debator in this forum some great ideas, we should all just ignore everyones post with the pretense that everything everyone else says is meaningless :D

n where was i being uncivil :D ... you sure do love avoiding points in exchange for trying to drag ur opponents into petty personal attacks :giggling:

perhaps you could try again... and show some relevence. Your behaviour when you first came seemed much more agreeable, where did all that go :rollseyes:

[Pygoscelis]

Why is it so difficult? Because we're human beings.

Yes, but the humans claim to be guided by a perfect God.

Either there is no such God guiding them, they lack a clear connection to the God (failure to communicate how to resolve the situation without bloodshed), or they refuse to follow the instructions of the God. Either way, a religious group that didn't have these problems would be more impressive. Thats all I think was being said in the post you were replying to.

Hello?

Greetings! And Salutations too!

Am I the only one conscious today?

Actually you are dreaming all of this.

How can someone who has never had any struggles or problems in life be an example for the rest of us?

Now that is an interesting point and I think it says something about religion in general.

You can only look up to someone (as a clear example for all humanity) when they have had struggles and have conquered those struggles, as an example of how you should be, and how you should overcome certain things in your life.

Ok. I get what you are saying.

Just as it seems like you are implying that religion must be the cause of all of the world's problems today. At least that's the underlying vibe I'm getting. Tell me if I'm wrong...

You're wrong. Religion is certainly the cause of many of the world's problems, but its also been a strong force for social cohesion and stability. It has brought comfort and kinship to millions. That is good. It only goes bad when people take it too hardcore and start telling others how to think and live or use it to justify bad things they've done.

As I posted above, religion isn't the cause of most of the world's wars, but it IS a great amplifier of conflict and it is divisionary (especially when monotheistic). It is a way for believers to justify and rationalize anything. That includes charity and that includes attrocity.

Religion is something that people desperately hold on to in times of war, and to serve their own political agendas.

Yes, I agree.

It's not religion itself. Religion itself is doing NOTHING. It's just sitting there, waiting for people to do with it what they wish.

Well religion only exists in the minds of believers, and it becomes whatever the blelievers decide it will be. If it has a holy book, then that will also guide what it inspires. Most modern religions still have some nasty parts that if read in a particular way (which I hope is the wrong way) can inspire some terrible things.

people will do--exactly what they want to do.

Yes, there is usually some underlying motive apart from the religious belief, but religion is often used as an excuse, sometimes used as an inspiration, and always used as a rationalization and justification for the actions taken.

Now that said, religion has also inspired a lot of good.

And that said, we are now officially completely off topic :D

[Les_Nubian]

Yes, but the humans claim to be guided by a perfect God.

Either there is no such God guiding them, they lack a clear connection to the God (failure to communicate how to resolve the situation without bloodshed), or they refuse to follow the instructions of the God. Either way, a religious group that didn't have these problems would be more impressive. Thats all I think was being said in the post you were replying to.



Greetings! And Salutations too!



Actually you are dreaming all of this.



Now that is an interesting point and I think it says something about religion in general.



Ok. I get what you are saying.



You're wrong. Religion is certainly the cause of many of the world's problems, but its also been a strong force for social cohesion and stability. It has brought comfort and kinship to millions. That is good. It only goes bad when people take it too hardcore and start telling others how to think and live or use it to justify bad things they've done.

As I posted above, religion isn't the cause of most of the world's wars, but it IS a great amplifier of conflict and it is divisionary (especially when monotheistic). It is a way for believers to justify and rationalize anything. That includes charity and that includes attrocity.



Yes, I agree.



Well religion only exists in the minds of believers, and it becomes whatever the blelievers decide it will be. If it has a holy book, then that will also guide what it inspires. Most modern religions still have some nasty parts that if read in a particular way (which I hope is the wrong way) can inspire some terrible things.



Yes, there is usually some underlying motive apart from the religious belief, but religion is often used as an excuse, sometimes used as an inspiration, and always used as a rationalization and justification for the actions taken.

Now that said, religion has also inspired a lot of good.

And that said, we are now officially completely off topic :D

I guess you still don't understand.

Being guided by God does not mean that you are perfect. God doesn't grant us perfection. Being "guided" by God does not mean being granted some magic wand of perfection. Obviously you have the wrong idea about what divine guidance is to begin with.

We have complete free will. Divine guidence is not some spirirt that just sweeps us away and takes over someone's body, forcing them to do all good things. It just doesn't work like that.

But, about some of the other things you have said, I agree. At least we agree on a lot of points. And yes maybe this is a little off-topic, but who cares. Everyone's off topic in this thread at this point. :okay:

[maroon1]

I have read the Quran and what Zakir Naik is doing is he interprets the Quran for his purpose, the Quran like most religious scriptures doesn't give detailed, concrete answers on many issues but so enough room to bend it in any direction.


Just read this verse

وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ دَحَاهَا

The word "da7aha" doesn't mean an egg-shaped, it means that means "Madda" or in English it means to spread like a carpet. In other words, the Quran mentions that the Earth is flat. However, many Muslims claim that "Da7aha" is a derivative form of duhiya which means egg-shaped. But the Earth shape is not similar to the Egg, anyway !! (Thats if we accept that the meaning of the word "Da7aha" is an egg shape)

[syilla]

Posted by akhee Qatada

THE SPHERICAL SHAPE OF THE EARTH



In early times, people believed that the earth is flat. For centuries, men were afraid to venture out too far, lest they should fall off the edge. Sir Francis Drake was the first person who proved that the earth is spherical when he sailed around it in 1597. Consider the following Qur’aanic verse regarding the alternation of day and night: “Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day And He merges Day into Night?” [Al-Qur’aan 31:29]

Merging here means that the night slowly and gradually changes to day and vice versa. This phenomenon can only take place if the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat, there would have been a sudden change from night to day and from day to night.



The following verse also alludes to the spherical shape of the earth: “He created the heavens And the earth In true (proportions):

He makes the Night Overlap the Day, and the Day Overlap the Night.” [Al-Qur’aan 39:5]



The Arabic word used here is Kawwara meaning ‘to overlap’ or ‘to coil’– the way a turban is wound around the head. The overlapping or coiling of the day and night can only take place if the earth is spherical. The earth is not exactly round like a ball, but geo-spherical i.e. it is flattened at the poles. The following verse contains a description of the earth’s shape:



The Qur’aan and Modern Science: Compatible or Incompatible?
11 Distributed by AHYA Multi-Media http://www.ahya.org


“And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped.” 2 [Al-Qur’aan 79:30]




The Arabic word for egg here is dahaha, which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’aan correctly describes the shape of the earth, though the prevalent notion when the Qur’aan was revealed was that the earth is flat.



Ostrich Egg:

If you need more info. please don't hesitate to ask. You can download the whole book from here:

http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/quran/qms.pdf



You need adobe reader to view it, which you can download from here insha'Allah (God willing):

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html



Or you can watch the authors vids:

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=zakir+naik

Posted by akhee skillganon

Your quite right the Word daha is use for the flatten depression where the ostrich lay's it's egg.

I will post the article:

Answered by the Scientific Research Committee - IslamToday.net

The word in question is the verb (dahâ) comes from the triliteral root d-h-w and it appears in the Qur’ân in relation to the Earth in the following verse: “And the Earth, after that, He spread out (dahâhâ).” [Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât: 30]

This word conveys one concept in the Arabic language: that of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”. Allah mentions this to us in the verse to show us something of his providence to us. He explains what he means by stretching the Earth out and smoothing it out in the following verses: “He brought forth from it its water and its pasturage, and He made the mountains firmly fixed.” [Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât : 31-32]

Therefore, Allah smoothed out the Earth for us by making it a stable and suitable place for habitation, providing its inhabitants with water, pasture, and keeping its mountains firmly-fixed.

With respect to this word’s association with eggs, it is as follows:

Due to the fact that the word conveys the meaning of “spreading, leveling, flattening, and smoothing out”, the Arabs named the place where an ostrich incubates and hatches its egg udhiyy. This is a hollow pit in the ground around 30 to 60 centimeters deep. The Arabic word for this shallow depression is derived from the triliteral root d-h-w. The reason for this is that the ostrich spreads out and flattens this area with its legs before laying its egg in it. The ostrich uses neither a nest nor a burrow for its eggs.

From this, we must understand that the word is not used for the egg itself but rather for the flattened depresion where the ostrich deposits its egg.

Whoever uses the word to refer to the egg or to the shape of the egg is being inexact in his linguistic usage. However, without doubt we can say that such an error does not detract from the person’s reputation or scholarship as a whole, and it does not warrant a harsh repremand.

In any case, verse 30 of Sûrah al-Nâzi`ât – that mentions the verb dahâ in reference to the Earth – is not discussing the shape of the Earth at all. It cannot be used as proof that the Earth is flat or round or egg-shaped. The verse is silent on the matter. And Allah knows best.

The exact shape of the Earth is best known from empirical observations, and not from seeking to deduce its exact shape from the Qur’ân.

The Earth is practically a perfect sphere, though due to its rotation, it bulges ever so slightly at the equator. Because of this, it is referred to as an oblate speroid. We must keep in mind that this equatorial bulge is extremely slight. The Earth’s equatorial diameter is only 43 kilometers greater than its polar diameter.

To get an idea of how insignificant this difference is, we can compare the spericity to the Earth to that of a billiard ball. A billiard ball must be very spherical. The tolerance allowed for a billiard ball is only 0.22%. (Tolerance, in engineering, refers to the permissible limit of variation in a dimension of a manufactured object.) The Earth, by comparison, has a tolerance of about one part in 584, or 0.17%. This means the Earth is more perfectly spherical than what is allowed for a billiard ball.

And Allah knows best.

From thread http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...tml#post599621

It was also answered in this thread

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...html#post65059