How do we know that the Koran is true?

[Trumble]

Between the rib cage, and the tail-end of the spine, is a fairly broad region isn't it?

It is, but if you think of any imaginary line 'drawn' between any part of the spine and any part of any rib-bone none would pass anywhere near the testicles. Perhaps 'ridiculous' was too strong, for which I apologise. I don't really think the point is worth debating as I'm not anyone knows exactly how the Arabic words should be interpreted. As I said before, in the absence a Quran'ic Arabic scholar, the best interpretation seems to be that the description in the Qur'an doesn't mean much; it is not an 'error' but neither can it be viewed as imparting a scientific 'fact'.

 

[Qingu]

Now, you and I can argue on the moral issues raised by each and every point until Hell itself freezes over (or until the cows come home if you don't believe in hell) so there's no point in doing that (you can call this a cop-out of you want, I don't care - I'm not interested in debating with someone who clearly believes Islam is false - been there, done that, no point in doing it again.).

Oh, do not worry, I agree with you here. Both of our moral views stem from our worldviews and our experiences, and yours are different from mine. I don't think it's a cop-out to shelve this discussion.

The points I were making should have indicated to you or anyone reading that there had to be at least some truth in the Qur'an. If it was a book of falsehoods, would it still be around 1400 years from its creation with approximately 1.5 billion (and increasing) following it, even with all the criticism it has received before, during and after its inception?

Absolutely. And as I've said, I think the Quran was actually quite progressive for it's day, especially with regard to slavery, violent retribution, and the whole "tribal mentality." I think Islam was actually a great organizing force in its day, which probably raised a lot of people from poverty and ignorance.

Now here's my beef. I think there is also some truth in the Enuma Elish, and the Code of Hammurabi. These texts were written thousands of years ago, long before the Quran, and in their day they, too, were probably important in helping organize a barbaric society. I think there is some truth in the Mahabharata and the other Hindu texts—these, too, were important to the progress of their respective societies. (Earlier I qouted the creation hymn from the Rg Veda, which is, I think, one of the most beautiful religious texts I've read.)

But just because a book has some truths doesn't mean it's worth dedicating your entire life to following it. I don't believe any book is sacred. I don't believe any book has all the answers. So I think it's better to look at these books historically, see what morals worked out for society, and also see what morals no longer really fit with where we're going as humans.

 

[Mustapha@]

I think you may have misunderstood me. Also, you may not be familiar with the verse from the Quran that explicitly allows you to have sex with your slave-girls. 23:1—

Successful indeed are the believers who are humble in their prayers, and who shun vain conversation, and who are payers of the poor-due; And who guard their modesty - save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy.

wait wait, where did you bring this verse from? is it the FBA translation or what? show me the exact chapter because I could not find this verse in my Qur'an....you have to give me the chapter and the number of the verse...the number that you have given me...did not direct me to any like the verse that you make out....

Again, we are talking about a world where women work. Not in the Islamic world of yesteryear where all women were expected to sit at home with the kids and cook all day.

again i'm talking about a world where women do not work...and do not be deceived by the idea that work of women will bring a benifit for a society...I'm not against the work of women...but there are many problems that steem from this.....

There are many verses in the QUran that allow you to have slaves.

could show me one verse that say nthis? :blind:

The fact that the Quran encourages you to free your slaves on occasion does not mean "there is no slavery in Islam."

again I tell you that you should differentiate between relegion and people, you should differentiate between what Islam commands and the extent of people's committment to that command...Islam prohibt thieft...so If i stole you should not judge Islam because of me...modern law command you to respect traffic laws....if you did not do so, shall i blame the traffic laws or blame you...by the way do you have a car? :bump1: lol just kidding

Show me where the Quran prohibits slavery. I understand that the Quran encourages you to free your slaves for penance. But do you see how that is entirely different from prohibition?

Allah says:

Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. if that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful(Qur'an, 005:089)


"But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered,- (It is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: Thus are ye admonished to perform: and Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do"(Qur'an, 058:003)

so many Muslim in the past used to atone their sins by setting slaves free...and gradually the slavery demolished in that times...for example one of those slaves was Bilal(May Allah be plaised with him), he was a colored person and he was the first to make the Call Prayer in Islam...and he is one of the most beloved people in Islam...I hope this answered you question...

 

[Mustapha@]

I don't recall anybody suggesting anybody was insane. However, as you chose to mention Francis Collins, it might be worth having a little look at his book, which have read and indeed have my copy beside me as I type. I'd thoroughly recommend it, by the way, whichever side of the 'belief' fence you happen to sit on.

the article mentioned that Collins was Atheist 30 years...it might be the book that you have dates back when he was Atheist...

That is complete rubbish, regardless of the twaddle the likes of Harun Yahya like to peddle to the gullible.

Harun Yahya did not invent something by himself...but he uses many scientific prrofs, including modern scientists proofs in biology....and many others

loook at what Qingue said...he said that "Collins didn't decipher the DNA code. You're thinking of Watson and Crick."

 

[Trumble]

the article mentioned that Collins was Atheist 30 years...it might be the book that you have dates back when he was Atheist...

Please have the courtesy to actually read my posts before commenting on them. It is the book referred to in the article you quoted, 'The Language of God', first published in 2007. I made quite clear that in it Collins rejects atheism, creationism and intelligent design in favour of what he calls 'theistic evolution'.

loook at what Qingue said...he said that "Collins didn't decipher the DNA code. You're thinking of Watson and Crick."

He is quite right, of course, but I fail to see how that has any relevance at all. We are talking about the views of Francis Collins (the head of the human genome project), not Watson or Crick. Both of whom are atheists, incidently.

 

[muslimapoclyptc]

It is, but if you think of any imaginary line 'drawn' between any part of the spine and any part of any rib-bone none would pass anywhere near the testicles.

This is true. But, if you were to draw 1 imaginary line going vertically down from the ribs, and one imaginary line going horizontally from the end of the spine, they would intersect quite close to them.

Perhaps 'ridiculous' was too strong, for which I apologise. I don't really think the point is worth debating as I'm not anyone knows exactly how the Arabic words should be interpreted. As I said before, in the absence a Quran'ic Arabic scholar, the best interpretation seems to be that the description in the Qur'an doesn't mean much; it is not an 'error' but neither can it be viewed as imparting a scientific 'fact'.

Indeed. It also comes down to interpretation it would seem. The literal wording of it doesn't actually say that it is produced there, only that it "gushes forth" from there. Plus, the testicles alone are not the sole source of its production, nor are they where it is stored, and they are certainly not where it "gushes forth" from. It is stored in the seminal vesicles, and gushes forth from the ejaculatory duct, both of which are more accurately described as being "between the ribs and the backbone".

However, the Qur'an doesn't go into all this scientific detail, as the Qur'an is not a book of science, it is a book of divine guidance for mankind. If someone wants scientific information, they should consult with scientific sources.

The scientific proofs in the Qur'an are not science in themselves, just statements that are consistent with modern science, which may, or may not, also be consistent with outdated beliefs from the time-period of revelation.

 

[Imam]

These verses clearly portray a universe where the sun revolves around the earth,

That is not true and the proof .... me being Arabic speaker and studied it academically ....I never understood the verse either to portray a universe where the sun revolves around the earth nor the sun sets into "a body of water"

I was surprised when I first read that such verse is included in the so called Quranic errors.......

you ask why?


cause as a reader of the Quran ,I know well the difference between the Quran as telling me a story where I may read what people seen and what people done, and the Quran giving me direct statement while in the context of portraying the universe ...


The verse is obviously from the first category...it is part of a story which has time lines and locations


The verse under discussion is a scene from the story.....which has Its timing; at sunset and things Dhul-Qarnain have seen and done in the location where he saw the image of the sun setting in a dark body of water...


The verse means simply without employing a metaphor

that Dhul-Qarnain once had a contact with some people at the time of sunset and the location by a body of water where he saw the image of the sun setting ...

the verse clearly describe how Dhul-Qarnain viewed the scene....

That is why Not a single Muslim scholar interpreted this Noble Verse as the SUN SETTING INSIDE THE Murky spring water.


When Zul-Qarnain reached the furthest west and no populated land was left, he found the sun as if it sets in a dark spring, but it is not in reality. The same when sea traveler sees the sun as if it sets in the sea if he cannot see the shore while in reality it sets behind the sea.
(Ar-Razi, At-Tafsir-ul-Kabir, Volume 21, page 166)

He probably reached shore of the ocean and saw it like that because there was but water at the furthest of his sight that’s why He says “he found it set” and does not say “it sets”.
(Al-Baidawi, Anwar-ut-Tanzil wa Asrar-ut-Taw’il, Volume 3, page 394. Published by Dar-ul-Ashraf, Cairo, Egypt)


one doesn't need to go to such story to know the existence of orbits and rotation for all celestial bodies, as it is clearly described in the Quran:

Quran 21:33 " "It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: ALL (the celestial bodies) rotate , each in their orbit/celestial sphere ."


To be continued(Inshallah)

 

[Mustapha@]

In one chapter Collins attacks atheism - specifically the view of it presented by Richard Dawkins.

I think that this message is more adressed to Qingu

In the chapter after that he does much the same regarding 'intelligent design'. Yes, you read that correctly.

well this is why we advocate that there must be a disigner...you call him a designer I call him Creator...and this Creator is Allah.

The view Collins actually advocates is one he calls 'theistic evolution', about which he says;


"Yet theistic evolution is the dominant position of serious biologists who are also serious believers. That includes Asa Gray, Darwin's chief advocate in the United States, and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the twentieth-century architect of evolutionary thinking. It is the view espoused by many Hindus, muslims, Jews and Christians, including Pope John Paul II."

I appreciate this, since Collins advocate the idea of creation....and thank you for this quote

That is complete rubbish, regardless of the twaddle the likes of Harun Yahya like to peddle to the gullible.

I think it's better to read harun yahya's book istead of misjudging him...because he does not invent things from vain, but he depends on scientifics proofs...and the proofs of other scientists....

 

[YusufNoor]

for Quingu,

http://www.slideshare.net/speed2kx/the-miracle-of-the-quran-presentation

it goes with these few lectures:

http://www.pleasantviewschool.com/media/default.asp?q=f&f=/Al-Qur'an

 

[Qingu]

That is not true and the proof .... me being Arabic speaker and studied it academically ....I never understood the verse either to portray a universe where the sun revolves around the earth nor the sun sets into "a body of water"

Very well.

Can you show me a single Muslim sccholar who thought the earth revolved around the sun, before the year, oh, 1550?

Surely if the Quran clearly avoids portraying a geocentric universe, the generations of Muslim scholars who studied the Quran and science would never think the sun revolved around the earth. Or at the very least, you'd think at least a few of them wouldn't (before Copernicus).[/QUOTE]

 

[Qingu]

wait wait, where did you bring this verse from? is it the FBA translation or what? show me the exact chapter because I could not find this verse in my Qur'an....you have to give me the chapter and the number of the verse...the number that you have given me...did not direct me to any like the verse that you make out....

It's the beginning of surah 23.

again i'm talking about a world where women do not work...

Then you are not responding to the hypothetical situation in my question.

could show me one verse that say nthis? :blind:

Surah 23, verse 6. "those who are rightfully theirs" refers to your slaves. I believe this is also translated sometimes as "those who are in your right hand." The phrase turns up lots of places in the Quran too (4:36, 24:31, 33:50).

Also, aren't you arguing that the Quran says you should try and release your slaves sometimes? Such commands presume you have slaves to release in the first place.

If the Quran said "o believers, if you sin, give out some of the beer and wine you have," obviously this would mean the Quran allows you to have beer and wine. Obviously it doesn't say anything like this about beer and wine because it blanket prohibits these things.

again I tell you that you should differentiate between relegion and people,

I'm mostly just going on what the Quran says. However, you'd think that Muslims would have gotten around to outlawing slavery a lot sooner than they did if the "religion" really prohibits slavery.

Allah says:

Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. if that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful(Qur'an, 005:089)


"But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered,- (It is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: Thus are ye admonished to perform: and Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do"(Qur'an, 058:003)

so many Muslim in the past used to atone their sins by setting slaves free...and gradually the slavery demolished in that times...

But slavery was allowed.

You could always get new slaves. Yes, the Quran encourages you to free these slaves on occasion. But it doesn't say you can't buy new ones. It doesn't say slavery is haram.

 

[Zamtsa]

That was supposed to be the funny part.


But it leaves out other prophets I don't believe in, including Zoroaster, Joseph Smith, and of course, the great and omnipotent Space Emperor Zargon.

The fact that the Quran is syncretistic with respect to other religions I don't believe in is not going to convince me that the Quran is true.


Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest scientist of all time, was a heretical Christian. Hindus have made amazing accomplishments in mathematics over history. Albert Einstein was a Jewish/secularist.

Unless you can show how these scientists' beliefs about religion actually interacted with their scientific accomplishments, this seems rather irrelevant. I mean, you certainly wouldn't argue that Monistic Christianity is true because Isaac Newton was such a great scientist, would you?


What on earth are you talking about? How did the Quran help Europeans get out of the Dark Ages?

Now, I'm certainly willing to concede that Muslim scientists and philosophers helped the Europeans get out of the Dark Ages—not least because Muslims preserved the writings of ancient Greek philosophers and spread them to the Europeans. But again, this isn't a reflection of Islam, it's a reflection on the usefulness and value of scientific thought. (Incidentally, you could argue that the reason Islamic culture has been in a slump for the past 500 years is related to the fact that it hasn't produced much scientific thought during that time—whereas "The West" has.)


As I said, all were good moral advances (it also was quite progressive in terms of slavery) ... for 7th century Arabia.

I happen to think morality has continued to progress since the time the Quran was written. (So does my girlfriend, especially with respect to women's status—she's not a fan of the passages that treat women as half-witnesses and half-inheritors, or the passage that compares women to fields that husbands can go into whenever they like.)

Muslims disagree. But then that's the whole point of religion, isn't it—to freeze moral norms to whatever time period your holy book was written. I prefer the morals of modern Western culture over the morals of the Quran. Though it's worth noting there is some overlap. Enjoy your doritos.

Process of human embryo as told by Galen was different then in Al Qur'an:


Hajj (22):5 O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection (consider) that We created you out of dust then out of sperm then out of a leech-like clot then out a morsel of flesh partly formed and partly unformed in order that We may manifest (Our Power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term then do We bring you out as babes then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die and some are sent back to the feeblest old age so that they know nothing after having known (much). And (further) thou seest the earth barren and lifeless but when We pour down rain on it it is stirred (to life) it swells and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs).

Al Mu'minun (23):14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot (leech like), then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!


Al Mu'min (40):67 It is He Who has created you from dust then from a sperm-drop then from a leech-like clot; then does He get you out (into the light) as a child: then lets you (grow and) reach your age of full strength; then lets you become old though of you there are some who die before; and lets you reach a Term appointed: in order that ye may learn wisdom.


Al Qiyamah (75):37 Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
38 Then did he become a leech-like clot; then did (Allah) make and fashion (him) in due proportion.
39 And of him He made two sexes male and female.


Al Alaq (96):2 Created man out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

 

[Imam]

Surely if the Quran clearly avoids portraying a geocentric universe, the generations of Muslim scholars who studied the Quran and science would never think the sun revolved around the earth. Or at the very least, you'd think at least a few of them wouldn't (before Copernicus).[/
.

Qingu : Claim: the Quran clearly portraying a geocentric universe


Imam :Verses ?

and don't forget ,we discuss what the Quran says compared with what modern science says.....

 

[Qingu]

Imam:

I'm not sure where you're quoting me from.

Did you see my last post? I'd appreciate a response.

 

[Imam]

my point is clear now?


I need internal evidence from the Quran that portraying a geocentric universe

 

[Zamtsa]

It's the beginning of surah 23.


Then you are not responding to the hypothetical situation in my question.


Surah 23, verse 6. "those who are rightfully theirs" refers to your slaves. I believe this is also translated sometimes as "those who are in your right hand." The phrase turns up lots of places in the Quran too (4:36, 24:31, 33:50).

Also, aren't you arguing that the Quran says you should try and release your slaves sometimes? Such commands presume you have slaves to release in the first place.

If the Quran said "o believers, if you sin, give out some of the beer and wine you have," obviously this would mean the Quran allows you to have beer and wine. Obviously it doesn't say anything like this about beer and wine because it blanket prohibits these things.


I'm mostly just going on what the Quran says. However, you'd think that Muslims would have gotten around to outlawing slavery a lot sooner than they did if the "religion" really prohibits slavery.


But slavery was allowed.

You could always get new slaves. Yes, the Quran encourages you to free these slaves on occasion. But it doesn't say you can't buy new ones. It doesn't say slavery is haram.

Turn out that antum do not know much about Islam. The religion of all Prophets. M. Pickthall Quran TranslationSurah Al-Balad Surah 90Mecca (35) 20 Ayahs


1 Nay, I swear by this city
2 And thou art an indweller of this city
3 And the begetter and that which he begat,
4 We verily have created man in an atmosphere:
5 Thinketh he that none hath power over him?
6 And he saith: I have destroyed vast wealth:
7 Thinketh he that none beholdeth him?
8 Did We not assign unto him two eyes
9 And a tongue and two lips,
10 And guide him to the parting of the mountain ways?
11 But he hath not attempted the Ascent
12 Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is!
13 (It is) to free a slave,
14 And to feed in the day of hunger
15 An orphan near of kin,
16 Or some poor wretch in misery,
17 And to be of those who believe and exhort one another to perseverance and export one another to pity.
18 Their place will be on the right hand.
19 But those who disbelieve Our revelations, their place will be on the left hand.
20 Fire will be an awning over them.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace, development and safe from guile be upon who follow the guidance).

 

[Qingu]

Process of human embryo as told by Galen was different then in Al Qur'an:

First of all, the Quran doesn't go into much detail at all. It simply (and correctly) says the embryo changes shape over time.

So does Galen:

Genesis is not a simple activity of Nature, but is compounded of alteration and of shaping. That is to say, in order that bone, nerve, veins and all other tissues may come into existence, the underlying substance from which the animal springs must be altered; and in order that the substance so altered may acquire its appropriate shape and position, its cavities, outgrowths, and attachments, and so forth, it has to undergo a shaping or formative process. One would be justified in calling this substance which undergoes alteration the material of an animal, just as wood is the material of a ship and wax of an image.
(quote taken from a pro-Islam site)

Obviously Galen's statements about embryology are different than what the Quran says. This is because Galen supplies about 100 times more information about embryology than the Quran's two short lines about the subject do.

Now, much of Galen's information is wrong. But the point is, everything the Quran "gets right" about embryology—that the embryo changes shape over time, and that blood was involved—was known to Galen (and others before Galen).

So I'm failing to see how the Quran is special here.

 

[Qingu]

my point is clear now?


I need internal evidence from the Quran that portraying a geocentric universe

No, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Allow me to restate my point/question.

You are arguing that the language of the Quran does not portray a geocentric universe.

If you are correct, and the Quran does not portray a geocentric universe, then surely there must be some Muslim scholar (before Copernicus) who thought that the earth revolved around the sun.

So here is my question to you: Can you find any Muslim scholar, before Copernicus, who thought the earth revolved around the sun?

And if you can't—why did none of them realize the earth revolves around the sun, if the Quran is so clear in not portraying geocentrism?

Don't you think it's odd that, for almost a thousand years after this supposedly non-geocentric Quran was written, no Muslims realized the earth revolves around the sun—that is, until a European dude proved it? Why did so many great Muslim scholars misinterpret the Quran for so long?

 

[Zamtsa]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Rahiim.


Yasin (36):38 And the Sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him) the exalted in Might the All-Knowing.

This is not about Geocentris, but it is the newest found Theory, which said that the Sun, the Sun revolute to the Galaxy.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace, development and safe from guile be upon who follow the guidance).

 

[Mustapha@]

Also, aren't you arguing that the Quran says you should try and release your slaves sometimes? Such commands presume you have slaves to release in the first place.

not sometimes but always, because when islame came found that slavery was still existing. that's why came with this wise solution, which is freeing slaves as an atonement of sins....

But slavery was allowed.

yes slavery was allowed before islam, but with the advent of Islam it demolished gradually through sins atonement

You could always get new slaves. Yes, the Quran encourages you to free these slaves on occasion. But it doesn't say you can't buy new ones. It doesn't say slavery is haram.

It's not on occasion but always did. Iislam abolished slavery gradually. freeing slaves entails that you should not buy them. Islam does not say buy slaves. if so show it to me with evidence....