Here are the three translation of the verse 49 of Surah 51.
YUSUFALI: And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction.
PICKTHAL: And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.
SHAKIR: And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful.
Does "everything" here, also include biological organisms?
Because there are a number of organisms that can reproduce asexually such as bacterial cells.
At first glance, some may consider it a blunder in the Holy Quran. How does one counter such arguments and explain this verse?
Last edited by Nerd; 06-15-2008 at 04:04 AM. Reason: correction
creating in pairs doesnt mean each living being has another one to have sex with and reproduce. rather creating things in pairs means heaven-hell, life-death, heavens-earth, belief-disbelief, asexual-sexual, man-woman, happy-sad, etc etcformat_quote Originally Posted by Nerd
another explanation is the existence of anti matter
for example every particle of hydrogen has an anti hydrogen for it
keep in mind, some parts of the Quran are still being proven by science today such as the existence of antimatter
Why is that we take into account "anti-matter" when we exclude asexually reproducing species?
No, Allah created EVERYTHING in pairs. The asexuala rgument comes into play when we say Allah created all animals in pairs which implies sexual relations which leads to the asexual questionformat_quote Originally Posted by Nerd
The proper translation is that Allah created EVERYthing in pairs though some people translate it into " all animals". Everthing in pairs could refer to what the other brother posted before me or the fact taht all matter or "everything" has an assigned antiparticle which makes it a pair. Keep in mind most of these so called " mistakes" stem from the disbelivers willfully translating the Quran in ways that dont make sense.
If i tell you I love french fries but hate rotten food, you say " oh but there are rotten fries too so you are contradicting yourself". The whole thing is retarded, I like french fries but obviously not rotten ones
My example is poor really but it kinda captures waht I mean. Science provides us insight intot he meanings of the Quran in the ways that for ambiguous terms such as "all things", it clariefies it and shows us which translation is the proper one out of all of them if it is unclear.
Any other brothers or sisters like to comment? I gave my opinion but I'm sure there are better ones out there!
No it doesn't. You might want to get the physics right before conjouring up Qur'anic 'references' to it.format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Meh I admit I am not good at physics, but from what I read at sites, the existence of antiparticles was an explaination, Ill admit I dont remember the details, you can look that up yourself.format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
وَقَوْمَ نُوحٍ مِّن قَبْلُ إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَوْمًا فَاسِقِينَ {46}[Pickthal 51:46] And the folk of Noah aforetime. Lo! they were licentious folk.
for starters this is what sura 51 verse 46 states...
it is important to check your sources if you wish to sustain a debate in a particular topic better yet pick up the Quran and question directly rather than the circuitous route....
Last edited by جوري; 06-15-2008 at 03:57 AM.
I believe this is what you were looking for?format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/relgsci/pairs.htm
Everything Created in Pairs
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
The Qur’an says: And all things We made in pairs, so that you may give thought. (51:49)
Everything is in accordance with this law of nature. Nothing is complete without its pair. So this world must also have a pair, for only then will it be complete. It is this pair of the present world that is called the hereafter.
It was known in ancient times that there were pairs in the human and animal worlds. Later on man learnt of pairs in trees and plants. In 1928, however, it was discovered that solid matter also had a pair. In that year the British physicist Paul Dirac demonstrated the possibility of other, invisible particles existing alongside those of matter. Then, in 1932, K. Anderson discovered, while studying cosmic rays, that with electrons there were other particles with an opposite electric charge. These particles were called anti-electrons. This research was pursued further and finally it was learnt that all particles in the universe existed in the form of pair-particles: particle and anti-particle, atom and anti-atom, matter and anti-matter; there was even, as Dirac showed in 1933, an anti-world.
Many present-day scientists are of the opinion that this anti-world is an entity apart from us, having a parallel existence of its own. This world is made up of matter; according to the law of opposites there should be another world made up of anti-matter. It is estimated that 20 million years ago, when the Big Bang explosion occurred, photon-matter and anti-matter came together in two separate forms. The two then started to form the world and the anti-world.
The first people to work on this theory were a Swedish pair, physicist Osker Klein and astrophysicist Hannes Alven. The results of their research were published in 1963. The Soviet mathematician, Dr Gustav Naan, further consolidated the theory. According to him, the anti-world cannot be fully explained by known theories and laws of physics, yet he is convinced that the anti-world exists, even now. It is, however, independent of us, existing on its own, parallel to this world. In the present world all anti-particles are in an unstable condition; but in the anti-world they will all be stable, for the nuclei of atoms have a negative electric charge, while electrons are positively charged.Since this world is ephemeral, it follows that the anti-world, or to use its religious term, the hereafter, must be an eternal world. The discoveries of modern science, then, have given us a picture of the next world which accords with that of the Qur’an.
[components/artnhome.htm]
Thank you so much for pointing that out, I apologize. I was referring to verse 49 of surah 51.format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérineوَقَوْمَ نُوحٍ مِّن قَبْلُ إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَوْمًا فَاسِقِينَ {46}[Pickthal 51:46] And the folk of Noah aforetime. Lo! they were licentious folk.
for starters this is what sura 51 verse 46 states...
it is important to check your sources if you wish to sustain a debate in a particular topic better yet pick up the Quran and question directly rather than the circuitous route....
Here is where I got the translation from USC
Last edited by Nerd; 06-15-2008 at 04:07 AM. Reason: typo
It isn't a prob.. I thought you got it from an anti-Islamic website? If it were the case, I feel the least they could do is grant you the courtesy of quoting verses in an accurate manner....
I'll have to ask a scholar on this one.. I can't simply carry out an exegesis out of whimsey...
I have a couple of very probable explanations but I think it best to seek the judgement of larned scholars first..
peace and g'night
The photon does not have an anti-particle.
Also the Big Bang is not believed to have happened 20 million years ago as stated in that text.
format_quote Originally Posted by Azyhttp://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath246.htmPhotons, Neutrinos, And Their Anti-Particles
In his popular book "QED" Richard Feynman wrote
"Every particle in nature has an amplitude to move backwards
in time, and therefore has an anti-particle... Photons look
exactly the same in all respects when they travel backwards
in time...so they are their own anti-particles."
Now the question is, what does it mean to "look exactly the same"?
Should we consider extrinsic as well as intrinsic properties? Usually
when thinking about the identity of a particle we restrict ourselves
to the intrinsic properties. For a trivial example, a Volkswagon in
Miami is considered to be "the same" as a Volkswagon in Baltimore,
even though they occupy very different positions relative to the rest
of the material world. Thus we "abstract away" spatial translations
to help classify and identify objects. Similarly we tend to "abstract
away" differences in orientation as well as differences in velocity
(both translational and angular).
But what about a relation between an object's angular velocity and
it's translational velocity? Suppose every basketball we see is both
translating and spinning, with the spin oriented parallel to its
velocity. We might then say that there are two kinds of basketballs,
those that spin clockwise (when viewed from "the front") and those
that spin counter-clockwise. On the other hand (so to speak), if we
wished, we could easily abstract this difference away. It's really
only an extrinsic distinction. Of course, on some level, every
distinction is "only extrinsic", e.g., it isn't clear how charge or
mass could even be defined without reference to some extrinsic
interactions.
This shows that the usefulness of abstractions depends not so much on
the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy as it does on the _immutability_ of
properties. A Volkswagon can be moved from Miami to Baltimore, and we
can take any given basketball and spin it any way we like, so we are
inclined to abstract away these differences. In contrast, it's not so
easy to change the mass of an electron, so mass is a useful parameter
for classifying (and distinguishing between) particles.
Now consider what Eisberg and Resnick say on the subject of particles
and anti-particles:
"There is an obvious distinction between a particle and and its
anti-particle if they are charged, because their charges are of
opposite sign. The distinction is more subtle if the particle
and antiparticle are neutral, like the neutrino and antineutrino.
Nevertheless, there really is a distinction... the component of
intrinsic spin angular momentum along the direction of motion is
always -hbar/2 for a neutrino and +hbar/2 for an antineutrino."
It's not unreasonable to ask if it's useful to make this distinction
between neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. Is this percieved difference
in the direction of spin really an invariant, immutable, property?
Notice that it depends on the "direction of motion" of the particle.
But is this "direction" an inherent property of the particle, or
simply a circumstance of the particle? As Feynman observes with
regard to a photon, emitted at point A and absorbed at point B, we
can just as well regard the transaction as an emission from B and
absorption at A.
"As far as calculating (and Nature) is concerned, it's all
the same (and it's all possible), so we simply say a photon
is 'exchanged'..."
Thus, the "direction of travel" of a photon is, in a sense, ambiguous.
This might be seen as just another way of saying that a photon happens
to be its own anti-particle, but this is related to the fact that
photons "travel" along null spacetime intervals, and it has possible
implications for neutrinos.
Eisberg and Resnick describe the Wu experiment which showed that
parity is not conserved in beta decay. They go on to say that this
fact is due to the helicity of the antineutrino. By "helicity" they
mean the "handedness" of the intrinsic spin angular momentum along
the direction of motion, which is always -hbar/2 for a neutrino and
+hbar/2 for an antineutrino. Moreover, they continue,
"...it is not possible for an antineutrino, or a neutrino,
to have a definite helicity...unless its rest mass is zero.
If it had a non-zero rest mass, it would travel with velocity
less than c, and we could always find a moving frame of
reference in which its linear momentum would be reversed
in direction... But the Goldhaber experiment shows that
antineutrinos and neutrinos do have definite helicities...
so we can conclude that their rest masses are zero..."
How can this be reconciled with the idea that neutrinos may actually
have non-zero rest mass? If neutrinos have mass, must we then
conclude that they do not have definite helicity after all?
Of course, any assertion of empirical results should be qualified
by the phrase "within experimental accuracy". Some people have
suggested that there is something "weird" about Eisberg and Resnik's
line of reasoning (quoted from the 2nd Edition of "Quantum Physics"),
but compare their comments with the following remarks taken from
"Subatomic Physics" by Frauenfelder and Henley:
"Is the assignment of a lepton number meaningful and correct?
We first notice that a positive answer defies intuition.
Altogether four neutrinos exist, electron and muon neutrino
and their two anti-particles. Neutrinos have no charge or
mass; they possess only spin and momentum. How can such a
simple particle appear in four versions? If, on the other
hand, it turns out that the neutrino and anti-neutrino are
identical, then the assignment of a lepton number is wrong...
The results from the neutrino reactions are corroborated
by other experiments, and the fact has to be faced that
neutrino and anti-neutrino are different. The neutrino
always has its spin opposite to its direction of motion,
while the anti-neutrino has parallel spin and momentum.
In other words, the neutrino is a left-handed and the
anti-neutrino a right-handed particle. Such a situation
is compatible with lepton conservation only if the
neutrinos have no mass. Massless particles move with
the velocity of light, and a right-handed particle remains
right-handed in any coordinate system. For a massive
particle, a Lorentz transformation along the momentum
can be performed in such a way that the [direction of]
momentum is reversed in the new coordinate system. The
[direction of the] spin, however,...is not changed...
A massive anti-neutrino would change into a neutrino, and
the lepton number would not be conserved."
This seems quite consistent with Eisberg and Resnick.
So, should we regard the lepton number as a meaningful and conserved
quantity? If the only distinction between the neutrino (L=+1) and
the anti-neutrino (L=-1) is their helicity, and if this is not
Lorentz-invariant, then it seems to follow that lepton number is
not conserved, and the absolute distinction between neutrino
and anti-neutrino disappears. Is this a necessary conclusion
if it should turn out that neutrinos have mass?
Georg Kreyerhoff says that if neutrinos are massive, we can't
assign lepton numbers according to their helicities, and in this
case helicity is not the only distinction between neutrinos and
anti-neutrinos. He goes on to outline two possiblities for
massive neutrinos:
1) The neutrino is a Dirac fermion, which means a fermion described
by the Dirac equation. It would be on the same footing as the
electron or the muon, which also are Dirac fermions, which have
a mass and lepton number, two possible helicities and an anti-
particle, which also has two possible helicities, but opposite
charge and lepton number. Lepton number is conserved in this
scenario.
2) The neutrino is a Majorana fermion. For such a fermion the charge
conjugate state ( the antiparticle ) is (up to a possible phase
factor) equal to the parity transformed state, so the neutrino can
be considered to be its own antiparticle. Such a neutrino would
indeed violate lepton number conservation and the search for
lepton number violating processes is actually a matter of current
experiments. The process searched for is the neutrinoless double
beta decay ( N(Z) -> N(Z+2) + e^- + e^- ) which violates lepton
number by two and involves a massive Majorana-neutrino as an
intermediate virtual particle. [N(Z) means a nucleus of charge Z.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to MathPages Main Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are as qualified as the next blogger to make a guesstimate at the age of such or the age of such.. your opinion is also as pedestrian as the next blogger.. Until I see your thesis in a scientific journal that is peer reviewed.. I'd refrain from speaking with such authority on any topic.. it just makes you look so foolish.. Anyone can google and come up with evidence for or against .. as I have just done in the Quote above...
cheers
Why do I get the feeling we are side stepping the topic?
Anyhow, does that verse: when it says "everything" was created in pairs include organisms that reproduce asexually (as I understand they do not require a mate) or are we misinterpreting the verse here?
Last edited by Nerd; 06-15-2008 at 05:47 PM.
You are not misrepresenting the verse, and I can get into various modes of asexual reproduction that would require either fission, conjugation, budding, parthogenesis, or spore formation and what it entails in terms of 'pairs' or I could simply include this verse also from the Quran that I believe is very concise and pertains to asexual reproduction from suret yaseen...format_quote Originally Posted by Nerd
سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَزْوَاجَ كُلَّهَا مِمَّا تُنبِتُ الْأَرْضُ وَمِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمِمَّا لَا يَعْلَمُونَ {36}[Pickthal 36:36] Glory be to Him Who created all the sexual pairs, of that which the earth groweth, and of themselves, and of that which they know not!
Again, this means you need to read the Quran as a whole and not in fragments!
peace
I would really appreciate if you would explain how these various modes of asexual reproduction entails the term "pairs".format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Allah Akbar! Thats one verse I haven't come across yet. Thank you so much for brining it up.format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
And please, I am not trying to say Quran was wrong. But rather am looking for a valid explanation of the verse I referred in my original post.
I totally agree with you that the Holy Quran need to be read as a whole and not in fragments.
Here is Yusuf Ali's translation of the verse you referred to:
036.036
YUSUFALI: Glory to Allah, Who created in pairs all things that the earth produces, as well as their own (human) kind and (other) things of which they have no knowledge.
Maybe we are missing something in the translation?
Thank you.. I don't mean to come across as abrasive.. my experience is/was, so few non-muslims come here to actually learn... not being able to see tone of voice, or body language..I rely on the context of what is written, which can be quite an innocent question and I sometimes I understand it as an accusation than a simple query...format_quote Originally Posted by Nerd
I was still in the process of looking for a scholarly reply to you, and have found one, but it is in Arabic.. I unfortunately don't have the time to translate it.. I can leave it here for one of the other Arabic memebrs to take a stab at it if they have the time
http://www.elforkan.com/7ewar/showthread.php?t=4381
the gist however is, in the verse above that I have quoted you..
peace
and
I don't even know how many times I've read that aya, and this is the first time I really understand what is being meant. Subhan Allah, thank you sis.format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks